Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the
tip yesterday. I was dumping 3, and it looked like everyone else was
too. Pretty soon we'll have dedicated printer bins alongside the glass
and paper.
Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time. Maybe that's the only way
they can make money, but the environmental consequences must be
considerable.
I've given up on colour printing altogether. Kodak are better at it and
cheaper by far.
Rant over.

Stuart Noble wrote:
Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the
tip yesterday. I was dumping 3, and it looked like everyone else was
too. Pretty soon we'll have dedicated printer bins alongside the glass
and paper.
Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults

It's not.
They make very little profit on the printers.
Most of the profit comes out of ink.

Stuart Noble wrote:

Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the
tip yesterday. I was dumping 3, and it looked like everyone else was
too. Pretty soon we'll have dedicated printer bins alongside the glass
and paper.
Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time. Maybe that's the only way
they can make money, but the environmental consequences must be
considerable.
I've given up on colour printing altogether. Kodak are better at it and
cheaper by far.
Rant over.

Yes it's ********.

I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 890 for about 6 years. I've stripped it twice
and cleaned with isopropyl and it prints as good as the day I bought it.

Tim

Ian Stirling wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:

Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the tip yesterday. I
was dumping 3, and it looked like everyone else was too.

Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults

They make very little profit on the printers. Most of the profit comes out of ink.

Scandalous is it not? There really aught to be a law about the cartels
producing ink cartridges. When you think you can get 1nk3z c4rtr1dg3z
for buttons at any car boot sale...

Reminds me of the good old days when a set of disk pads for a Jap bike
cost a week's wages. Do they still, I wonder? And do the Japanese still
scrap all their cars every 2 or 3 years because of the cost of keeping
them up to the standards required by their laws?

In article ,
Ian Stirling writes:
Stuart Noble wrote:
Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the
tip yesterday. I was dumping 3, and it looked like everyone else was
too. Pretty soon we'll have dedicated printer bins alongside the glass
and paper.
Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults

It's not.
They make very little profit on the printers.
Most of the profit comes out of ink.

One of the larger manufacturers at least makes a loss on the
printers, using them only to get a lock-in on the ink supply.
Also, it's become common to supply especially low volume ink
cartridges with the printer, so they don't have to wait too
long before you have to become an ink consumer and start
generating a profit for them.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Tim S wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:


Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the
tip yesterday. I was dumping 3, and it looked like everyone else was
too. Pretty soon we'll have dedicated printer bins alongside the glass
and paper.
Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time. Maybe that's the only way
they can make money, but the environmental consequences must be
considerable.
I've given up on colour printing altogether. Kodak are better at it and
cheaper by far.
Rant over.


Yes it's ********.

I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 890 for about 6 years. I've stripped it twice
and cleaned with isopropyl and it prints as good as the day I bought it.

Tim

Lucky you, but Epson in particular have been heavily criticised for the
"smart chip" in their cartridges.

Stuart Noble wrote:

Tim S wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:


Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the
tip yesterday. I was dumping 3, and it looked like everyone else was
too. Pretty soon we'll have dedicated printer bins alongside the glass
and paper.
Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time. Maybe that's the only way
they can make money, but the environmental consequences must be
considerable.
I've given up on colour printing altogether. Kodak are better at it and
cheaper by far.
Rant over.


Yes it's ********.

I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 890 for about 6 years. I've stripped it
twice and cleaned with isopropyl and it prints as good as the day I
bought it.

Tim

Lucky you, but Epson in particular have been heavily criticised for the
"smart chip" in their cartridges.

That would admittedly be a different problem. I find the cartridges last
about 3-4 months and I don't do much printing.

I've had one of the cartridges apart - for it's relatively large size I
don't think they actually put much ink in.

Tim

Ian Stirling wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:

Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the
tip yesterday. I was dumping 3, and it looked like everyone else was
too. Pretty soon we'll have dedicated printer bins alongside the glass
and paper.
Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults


It's not.
They make very little profit on the printers.
Most of the profit comes out of ink.

They used to until people switched to refills/recycled cartridges. Now
they make their money by selling you new printers, you having just
thrown last year's model against the wall.

mutley wrote:
"Tim S" wrote in message Stuart Noble wrote:

[snip] Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so

blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time. Maybe that's the only way
they can make money, but the environmental consequences must be
considerable.

[snip]

Yes it's ********.

I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 890 for about 6 years. I've stripped it

twice

and cleaned with isopropyl and it prints as good as the day I bought it.


I still have an Epson Stylus Color which still prints fine in monochrome,

Well again, lucky you! Most won't print mono without the colour cartridge

Tim S wrote:

Lucky you, but Epson in particular have been heavily criticised for the
"smart chip" in their cartridges.


That would admittedly be a different problem. I find the cartridges last
about 3-4 months and I don't do much printing.

Sounds expensive.

I've had one of the cartridges apart - for it's relatively large size I
don't think they actually put much ink in.

Which is why they've been such easy prey for the refilling industry.
I suspect they are now hard wiring obsolescence into their products to
combat that aspect.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
mutley wrote:
"Tim S" wrote in message Stuart Noble wrote:

[snip] Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is
so

blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time. Maybe that's the only way
they can make money, but the environmental consequences must be
considerable.

[snip]

Yes it's ********.

I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 890 for about 6 years. I've stripped it

twice

and cleaned with isopropyl and it prints as good as the day I bought it.


I still have an Epson Stylus Color which still prints fine in monochrome,

Well again, lucky you! Most won't print mono without the colour cartridge

That's not true. Only the cheapest entry level machines make black out of
colour. I used to sell them in my very first job a million years ago.
Epson were always the best in terms on print quality. Why anybody would
bother to have one is more than I know, it's so cheap and easy to upload and
order photo prints online these days. Inkjet printing for business headers
etc looks crap. Stick to mono laser for that.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ian Stirling wrote:
....
They make very little profit on the printers. Most of the profit comes
out of ink.

Scandalous is it not? There really aught to be a law about the cartels
producing ink cartridges.

What cartels? China is full of factories producing replacement cartridges,
just one of which boasts over 100,000 square feet of manufacturing plant.

Colin Bignell

"Suz" wrote in message
...

... Why anybody would bother to have one is more than I know, it's so cheap
and easy to upload and order photo prints online these days.

OK, I suppose, for people who would have been happy with putting their film
into the chemists to be developed. Adobe Photoshop CS and something like my
Epson Stylus Photo 2100 are the modern day equivalent of having your own
darkroom.

Inkjet printing for business headers etc looks crap. Stick to mono laser
for that.

Colour laser looks even better.

Colin Bignell

"Tim S" wrote in message Stuart Noble wrote:

[snip] Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time. Maybe that's the only way
they can make money, but the environmental consequences must be
considerable.
[snip]
Yes it's ********.

I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 890 for about 6 years. I've stripped it
twice
and cleaned with isopropyl and it prints as good as the day I bought it.

I still have an Epson Stylus Color which still prints fine in monochrome,
but I gave up using it for colour due to the cost of 3-colour tanks.
Conversely my Canon S820 only lasted 4 years before jamming mechanically,
and DIY repair does not seem possible. Only manufacturer response is to
advise returning to service depot, which is going to cost more than a new
cheap printer. That's the real 'con' as far as I'm concerned. They are like
washing machines were about 15 years ago -- very clever but don't expect
them to last.
mutley

In article ,
Tim S wrote:
I've had one of the cartridges apart - for it's relatively large size I
don't think they actually put much ink in.

If you don't use the printer much most of the ink is wasted in cleaning.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Suz wrote:

That's not true. Only the cheapest entry level machines make black out of
colour. I used to sell them in my very first job a million years ago.

But the more recent ones, though having a black cartridge, will not
print without a colour cartridge.

--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

In article ,
mutley wrote:
I still have an Epson Stylus Color which still prints fine in monochrome,
but I gave up using it for colour due to the cost of 3-colour tanks.

But they're one of the easiest to re-fill. Costs about 1 quid per tank per
re-fill.

I loved my old Stylus Color 600. But I managed to break the head while
cleaning it. Anyone got a spare? I've got a 400 in the workshop, but it's
not as good.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Suz" wrote in message
...

... Why anybody would bother to have one is more than I know, it's so
cheap and easy to upload and order photo prints online these days.

OK, I suppose, for people who would have been happy with putting their
film into the chemists to be developed. Adobe Photoshop CS and something
like my Epson Stylus Photo 2100 are the modern day equivalent of having
your own darkroom.

My arse.


Inkjet printing for business headers etc looks crap. Stick to mono laser
for that.

Colour laser looks even better.

Well yes of course but they are still out of most people's personal budget.
Cheap colour lasers don't colour match well. Professionally printed headed
paper is the way to go if you have the budget.


Colin Bignell

"DJC" wrote in message
. uk...
Suz wrote:

That's not true. Only the cheapest entry level machines make black out
of colour. I used to sell them in my very first job a million years ago.

But the more recent ones, though having a black cartridge, will not print
without a colour cartridge.

It's still the same story as it always was. It varies from model to model.
The fun with cartridges was the first thing I used to explain to people. It
makes the apparently cheap model seem not so cheap in the long run.

DJC wrote:
Suz wrote:

That's not true. Only the cheapest entry level machines make black
out of colour. I used to sell them in my very first job a million
years ago.


But the more recent ones, though having a black cartridge, will not
print without a colour cartridge.


Exactly. Sharp practice or what.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim S wrote:
I've had one of the cartridges apart - for it's relatively large size I
don't think they actually put much ink in.

If you don't use the printer much most of the ink is wasted in cleaning.


That is true, the amount I have to clean out of the wiper sponge.

Tim

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

I've had one of the cartridges apart - for it's relatively large size I
don't think they actually put much ink in.


If you don't use the printer much most of the ink is wasted in cleaning.


And on Canons you may then get the famous "waste tank full" error,
rectified only by taking the machine to bits

That's not true. Only the cheapest entry level machines make black out of
colour.

I didn't mean that. See later post.

I used to sell them in my very first job a million years ago.
Epson were always the best in terms on print quality. Why anybody would
bother to have one is more than I know, it's so cheap and easy to upload and
order photo prints online these days. Inkjet printing for business headers
etc looks crap. Stick to mono laser for that.

I think a mono laser at £70, with supposedly 12,500 pages worth of toner
included, is the way to go for me. Kodak can handle the photos, or I'll
view them on screen where they look a damned sight better anyway.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:42:37 -0000, "Suz" wrote:

Well again, lucky you! Most won't print mono without the colour cartridge

That's not true. Only the cheapest entry level machines make black out of
colour

It's true, but not because black is made of 3 colours. Epsons (IMHE,
most at least) simply sulk with an "ink low" warning if you don't have a
usable colour cartridge installed, even if it's a purely black and white
print job.

The worst culprits for smart carts are HP though, not Epson. If you
want good refilling, go for a Canon. Nathan (of Noodler's fountain pen
inks) has been talking about moving into inkjet ink and he recommends
them. news:alt.collecting.pens-pencils would be the place to look for
more.

My two main printers are a HP LaserJet and an (old square) DeskJet, both
of which are something like 15 years old. The DJ has been refilled ever
since its first couple of cartridges. They've outlasted a number of
cheap colour inkjets since, just because of the ink costs,

Stuart Noble wrote:

But the more recent ones, though having a black cartridge, will not
print without a colour cartridge.


Exactly. Sharp practice or what.

Not necessarily. Some print heads would be damaged if run without ink.
And some of the better photo printers will use small amounts of colour
even when printing just black so as to get a better range of grayscales
and more luxurious blacks.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


Lucky you, but Epson in particular have been heavily criticised for the
"smart chip" in their cartridges.

The chip was there for a reason.
If you run an (older) Epson dry you risk knackering the printer.
If you don't mind knackering the occasional printer then just reset the
counter and use up the remaining ink.

The newer Epsons don't suffer from the same problem so you can use most of
the ink.

In article ,
wrote:
There's no hassle unblocking print heads and replacing them every other
time it's used, which seems to be the norm for inkjets.

IMHO they're usually ok if used every couple of days or so. It's the once
in a while use that blocks them. Like my use.

I don't need to print photos, but would like a reasonable colour laser.
What do they start at these days? Preferably one which takes an A4
envelope horizontally? It annoys me that my Cannon has to do this
vertically, while my ancient Epson doesn't.

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:59:12 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Tim S wrote:
Couldn't help noticing how many bubble jet printers there were at the
tip yesterday.
I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 890 for about 6 years. I've stripped it twice
and cleaned with isopropyl and it prints as good as the day I bought it.

I'll have had my IBM laser for 12 years in June. The print is now
getting a little blotchy despite agitating the toner (I'm on my second
cartridge). It cost almost £1k which I think has turned out to be quite
good value on a TCO basis. Hopefully (!) the replacement colour laser
will be as good.

Owain

I have a good old HPLJ4 (or two, one with a Jet Direct card) but they
need roller sets now.

After many years with HPDJ's I've gone onto a Canon ip4000 and so far
it's been brilliant. New (copy) carts cost me 3 quid each, it's prints
duplex, has a decent sized (covered) A4 paper hopper (at the front not
sticking up the back collecting dust and paper clips) and prints
directly onto CD's.

It's quiet (it goes to sleep if not used for 10 mins), prints quickly
and my daughter has set it as her default printer in spite of having
an Epson C44UX connected to her own PC ("because it's crap Dad" ..
sigh) ;-)

I'm not into printing 'photograps' as a photographer as such (just as
reference shots / interest etc) and when printed onto unbranded 'photo
paper' it's good enough for me (us). ;-)

I was given the C44 by a guy who owns a PC shop because a customer had
got it home brand new, (forgotten the shop had said they had 'set it
all up for him') and ripped the head ribbon cable out thinking it was
part of the 'packing' .... sigh ;-)

I managed to repair it by using the ribbon from another faulty machine
but it's not as good as my first inkjet (HPDJ 500C .. £350 as a staff
discount ditect from HP!gulp)

But the OP is right .. more and more of these things (along with CRT
TV / Monitors, HiFi, kitchen appliences, cars, bicycles, garden
furniture etc etc) are being thrown away rather than repaired or
re-cycled (www.freecycle.org).

Few fix their own stuff any more (and at the current money (not
environmental) cost why would they bother) and the current generation
wouldn't even think to try. ;-(

But "every cloud has a silver lining" and I have much that I wouldn't
have had in the first place had someone else not declaired it 'beyond
economical repair' or un-repairable (the last being a Dell Inspiron
8100 laptop with a faulty display (new CCFL, sorted g) ) or 'still
got' because I was able to fix it myself (the last of which was the
AEG washing machine tripping the RCD and that turned out to be carbon
dust in the motor) ;-)

I believe the newer stuff is probably more economical to run, but I
bet the difference in consumption between old and new (over the rest
of it's life) isn't as much as the energy / materials needed to make a
new one ... ? shrug

All the best ..

T i m

Tim S wrote:

Yes it's ********.

I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 890 for about 6 years. I've stripped it twice
and cleaned with isopropyl and it prints as good as the day I bought it.

I've cleaned up a few Epsons. Here, an Epson Photo 750 still going
strong, great photo prints and slightly more than peanuts to run. I've
got a 3 year old Panasonic KX-P7510 Laser printer as well just for mono
stuff - which would workout cheaper to run - but because it was a
network enabled model it had a bit of a cost premium on it! :-( For
multiple photo printing, I'd use an online printing service.

I recommend Windolene (the clear stuff - not the pink!!) as a great
cleaner for well blocked Epson jets. Remove the cartridge, a tiny drop
over the feed needles, then leave overnight.

Good utility here for general mucking about with Epson ink level
counters and cartridge chips for those printers.

http://www.ssclg.com/epsone.shtml

--
Adrian C

wrote in message ...

8

Colour laser looks even better.

Well yes of course but they are still out of most people's personal
budget.
Cheap colour lasers don't colour match well. Professionally printed
headed
paper is the way to go if you have the budget.


I got one recently, the colour is better than the previous two inkjets,
and
it was about the same price. Running costs are lower, but the tober does
cost
more than the printer but has 3 times the capacity of the original
cartridges. The original colour should last at least two years, the black
six
months, and then a full black one for eighteen months, slightly longer
than
my B&W laser.

There's no hassle unblocking print heads and replacing them every other
time
it's used, which seems to be the norm for inkjets.

Lasers are OK but have you seen the price of an A2 colour laser?
I run an old Epson 1520 Inkjet which will print on A2 paper and the carts
are dirt cheap.
I bought four of them for £10 but I had to break one for spares.

In message , Suz
writes

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Suz" wrote in message
...

... Why anybody would bother to have one is more than I know, it's so
cheap and easy to upload and order photo prints online these days.

OK, I suppose, for people who would have been happy with putting their
film into the chemists to be developed. Adobe Photoshop CS and something
like my Epson Stylus Photo 2100 are the modern day equivalent of having
your own darkroom.

My arse.


Inkjet printing for business headers etc looks crap. Stick to mono laser
for that.

Colour laser looks even better.

Well yes of course but they are still out of most people's personal budget.
Cheap colour lasers don't colour match well. Professionally printed headed
paper is the way to go if you have the budget.


But who, in this millennium has headed paper anymore ?



Colin Bignell




--
geoff

In message , writes
On 11 Feb,
"Suz" wrote:


"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...


Colour laser looks even better.

Well yes of course but they are still out of most people's personal budget.
Cheap colour lasers don't colour match well. Professionally printed headed
paper is the way to go if you have the budget.


I got one recently, the colour is better than the previous two inkjets, and
it was about the same price. Running costs are lower, but the tober does cost
more than the printer but has 3 times the capacity of the original
cartridges. The original colour should last at least two years, the black six
months, and then a full black one for eighteen months, slightly longer than
my B&W laser.

There's no hassle unblocking print heads and replacing them every other time
it's used, which seems to be the norm for inkjets.

I have an Epson C1000 colour laser

New cartridges cost about £65 each, refills cost £18 + the cost of an
80mA fuse

--
geoff

"Suz" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Suz" wrote in message
...

... Why anybody would bother to have one is more than I know, it's so
cheap and easy to upload and order photo prints online these days.

OK, I suppose, for people who would have been happy with putting their
film into the chemists to be developed. Adobe Photoshop CS and something
like my Epson Stylus Photo 2100 are the modern day equivalent of having
your own darkroom.

My arse.

Send me a photo of it and I'll do a far better print than you can buy online
:-)



Inkjet printing for business headers etc looks crap. Stick to mono
laser for that.

Colour laser looks even better.

Well yes of course but they are still out of most people's personal
budget.

You were speaking of business headers, not personal use.

Cheap colour lasers don't colour match well.

Cheap is relative. ISTR my colour laser was about £2,500, which I consider
cheap for the job it does.

Professionally printed headed paper is the way to go if you have the
budget.

Have you any idea how long it would take me to use up the minimum print run
on a four-colour printed headed paper? I moved address before I used up the
last lot I had printed.

Colin Bignell

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Suz
writes

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Suz" wrote in message
...

... Why anybody would bother to have one is more than I know, it's so
cheap and easy to upload and order photo prints online these days.

OK, I suppose, for people who would have been happy with putting their
film into the chemists to be developed. Adobe Photoshop CS and something
like my Epson Stylus Photo 2100 are the modern day equivalent of having
your own darkroom.

My arse.


Inkjet printing for business headers etc looks crap. Stick to mono
laser
for that.

Colour laser looks even better.

Well yes of course but they are still out of most people's personal
budget.
Cheap colour lasers don't colour match well. Professionally printed
headed
paper is the way to go if you have the budget.


But who, in this millennium has headed paper anymore ?

Just about every bill and business letter that comes through my door...

But obviously only a tit has personal printed headed paper.

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Suz" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Suz" wrote in message
...

... Why anybody would bother to have one is more than I know, it's so
cheap and easy to upload and order photo prints online these days.

OK, I suppose, for people who would have been happy with putting their
film into the chemists to be developed. Adobe Photoshop CS and something
like my Epson Stylus Photo 2100 are the modern day equivalent of having
your own darkroom.

My arse.

Send me a photo of it and I'll do a far better print than you can buy
online :-)

I'm nearly tempted...




Inkjet printing for business headers etc looks crap. Stick to mono
laser for that.

Colour laser looks even better.

Well yes of course but they are still out of most people's personal
budget.

You were speaking of business headers, not personal use.

Yes, that was confusing. I was thinking of a one-man-band business versus
personal. Big businesses all have headed paper.


Cheap colour lasers don't colour match well.

Cheap is relative. ISTR my colour laser was about £2,500, which I consider
cheap for the job it does.

Professionally printed headed paper is the way to go if you have the
budget.

Have you any idea how long it would take me to use up the minimum print
run on a four-colour printed headed paper? I moved address before I used
up the last lot I had printed.

I suppose it really depends on the work. Certain businesses don't need the
"image" of colour printing, and others definitely do but may not have the
turnover in paperwork. I would imagine the latter would be professional and
could afford to do the colour laser option properly.

In message , Suz
writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Suz
writes

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Suz" wrote in message
...

... Why anybody would bother to have one is more than I know, it's so
cheap and easy to upload and order photo prints online these days.

OK, I suppose, for people who would have been happy with putting their
film into the chemists to be developed. Adobe Photoshop CS and something
like my Epson Stylus Photo 2100 are the modern day equivalent of having
your own darkroom.

My arse.


Inkjet printing for business headers etc looks crap. Stick to mono
laser
for that.

Colour laser looks even better.

Well yes of course but they are still out of most people's personal
budget.
Cheap colour lasers don't colour match well. Professionally printed
headed
paper is the way to go if you have the budget.


But who, in this millennium has headed paper anymore ?

Just about every bill and business letter that comes through my door...

I received an invoice last week on Foolscap with the telephone number
0494 ...



--
geoff

Stuart Noble wrote:

Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time.

At least some of the Epson inkjets *DO* have a built-in fault code that
kicks in at a certain volume of printing. Basically the overspray of ink
(and the ink wasted during head cleaning) gets absorbed into a sponge
stuck inside the printer, after "n" cartridge changes the printer
knows/suspects the sponge will have soaked up it's fill so puts up a
fault code suggesting it is returned to factory for maintenance (when
for most users it'll be cheaper/easier to buy a new one)

You can find the correct sequence to reset it on the net, but if you
simply reset it without emptying/replacing the sponge you risk the
excess ink overflowing and gunking up your desk ...

Andy Burns wrote:

Stuart Noble wrote:

Is there any other area of manufacturing where obsolescence is so
blatantly built in? I'm sure these things are programmed to show faults
they don't really have after a certain time.

At least some of the Epson inkjets *DO* have a built-in fault code that
kicks in at a certain volume of printing. Basically the overspray of ink
(and the ink wasted during head cleaning) gets absorbed into a sponge
stuck inside the printer, after "n" cartridge changes the printer
knows/suspects the sponge will have soaked up it's fill so puts up a
fault code suggesting it is returned to factory for maintenance (when
for most users it'll be cheaper/easier to buy a new one)

You can find the correct sequence to reset it on the net, but if you
simply reset it without emptying/replacing the sponge you risk the
excess ink overflowing and gunking up your desk ...

It's at this point that I decide it's time to strip and clean. The SP890
doesn't have an actual error code for this condition, but the symptoms are
random muck and blobs appearing on the paper as they fall of the head.

The one thing I *do* like about the cheap Epsons is that they were open
about the print control codes early on, so the linux drivers (courtesy of
gimp-print) are of exceptionally high quality and functionality.

I heard the Canons were lacking in that respect, though I suspect the HPs
should have been Ok as HP were usually pretty open about their printer
standards and pro open source (at least a few years ago).

I've got some high end Canon lasers at work and they work well with Linux,
buty I had to extract various bits of knowledge from their developer
support dept to support them under lprNG. Even now, some of the info needs
a click-agree to an NDA before downloading. Easier if using CUPS these
days, just blag the MacOSX PPD and plug it in.

Tim

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

I don't need to print photos, but would like a reasonable colour laser.
What do they start at these days?

200 quid or so, but the cost per page is very high, and the makers are
now putting chips in things like the developer, the fuser, etc. (which
normally last years) so you're forced to replace them regularly. This
provides them with a nice income stream to compensate for the low
initial cost of the printer. It's razor-blade marketing, just as they do
with inkjets.

If you have the space, I'd suggest a good B&W laser (HP 4 and 5 are very
cheap secondhand, practically bombproof and spares are cheap) and a mid-
priced inkjet for the occasional use of colour. Canon inkjets are better
quality, don't seem to suffer as much from the drying-up-and-blocking
problem that the Epsons have, and they usually come with separate ink
tanks for each colour so you don't have to chuck a whole colour
cartridge when one colour runs out.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

Tim S wrote:

It's at this point that I decide it's time to strip and clean. The SP890
doesn't have an actual error code for this condition, but the symptoms are
random muck and blobs appearing on the paper as they fall of the head.

would be nice if they told you what the error meant so you could decide
to clean it if you wanted, rather than just saying, return to factory

The one thing I *do* like about the cheap Epsons is that they were open
about the print control codes early on, so the linux drivers (courtesy of
gimp-print) are of exceptionally high quality and functionality.

agreed, though I don't think gutenprint (nee gimp-print) uses the
lightcyan/lightmagenta of my 6ink printer, and it can't print to the CD
tray.

Easier if using CUPS these
days, just blag the MacOSX PPD and plug it in.

to the point that it literally is usb plug and print :-)