"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:13:53 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
wrote
I've never had satisfactory performance from cheapo cartridges,

I do, with the last of the Canon inkjets that doesn't have chipped
carts.

I do too. The cheapos that I use have four times the capacity of the
genuines. The print quality and colours are as good also. I doubt
that the
ink is quite as 'stable' on photo paper and exposed to sunlight, but
for
'regular' paper printing, it's just fine long term. I have printed
many
photos using these inks in situations where they are not exposed to
sunlight
all the time, and they have been perfectly ok at the time of
printing, and
have remained so.

Interesting. We printed some pix on our Canon iP4000 using Canon carts.
But after some years these have now got a golden-ish sheen on any dark
areas of the pic. And why bother when you can get pix printed on proper
photo paper commercially or even online for tuppence-ha'penny.

Exactly! You've nailed it! I only chose the iP4000 because of its
ability to print onto printable disc media, thinking that ink tank
replacement would be far cheaper than printhead plus integrated ink
tank as used by HP.

But not by all HPs. My one has the heads as part of the machine, not the
cartridge, so although the cartridges are still expensive compared to
clones, they are a lot cheaper than the ones with built in head.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Then read what exactly I was replying to ...

Arfa


All the Canon carts I've ever bought (for 3 printers, now) have heads as
part of the machine.

--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee