I was all set to buy the Canon i9900 photo printer until I saw the review in
PC World magazine. It gave the printer a rating of FAIR (68). However, it
did say that it was a very good photo printer. This was a little confusing.
How can it be two things. Any comments would be appreciated. The review is
on the web site listed below.
Ben


http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/sfcha...=12&pg=4&sort=
rating_date&vendor=0&subtype=0&att_filter1206=0&att_filter1207=0&hi_p=0

Ben wrote:
> I was all set to buy the Canon i9900 photo printer until I saw the review in
> PC World magazine. It gave the printer a rating of FAIR (68). However, it
> did say that it was a very good photo printer. This was a little confusing.
> How can it be two things. Any comments would be appreciated. The review is
> on the web site listed below.
> Ben
>
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/sfcha...=12&pg=4&sort=
> rating_date&vendor=0&subtype=0&att_filter1206=0&att_filter1207=0&hi_p=0
>
>

I have one and use it strictly for photos.
What did you think it was made to do? Or what was your intended use for it?
Frank

"Ben" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:-6OdnQoZo5r2AY3ZRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I was all set to buy the Canon i9900 photo printer until I saw the review
>in
> PC World magazine. It gave the printer a rating of FAIR (68). However, it
> did say that it was a very good photo printer. This was a little
> confusing.
> How can it be two things. Any comments would be appreciated. The review is
> on the web site listed below.
> Ben
>
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/sfcha...=12&pg=4&sort=
> rating_date&vendor=0&subtype=0&att_filter1206=0&att_filter1207=0&hi_p=0
>
>
Ben - Typically, PC World downgrades printers if they lack card slots, photo
screens, etc. The review indicated that text printing wasn't the greatest.
It did say that it was a fantastic photo printer. If you are looking for a
general purpose printer with heavy usage for text printing you could do as
well with several other printers. If, however, your main interest is photo
printing with some larger format print production, and if you don't need the
screen or card slot, and if this printer suits your budget, I would go for
it! It is the only remaining canon printer of its generation still in the
pipeline for purchase, and if you are interested in refilling your
cartridges you'd better grab one now. I saw them on sale as Staples last
week with a $50 mail in coupon.

> I was all set to buy the Canon i9900 photo printer until I saw the review in
> PC World magazine.

PC world is pretty worthless. If you really want an idea of what the
printer can do... go into your friendly shop with photo paper in hand,
your favorite or the OEM reccomended, and print something on the Canon,
Epson, and HP options. Most will agree so long as you leave the
prints there, those who do not can bugger off.

Bob Headrick in the past has offered to print user's samples from the
HP 8750
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....382f9a427e70a0

If you don't want to take the time, tomshardware did a ok review of the
Epson r800, Photosmart 8450, and the canon ip8500 (similar to the
i9900).

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/12/29/are_high/

It at least shows you the output rather than some vaguely worded
review.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/12/...igh/page6.html

That being said, you can have the i9900 for $400ish as the pro9000 and
pro9500 are comming out. Hard to say if the pro9000 will be better or
not as it is the same drop size and the same resolution, only newer
inks, newer software.

Many Canon printers labelled as new are really repackaged prior generation
printers: most of the Pixma printers are identical to the prior i9x
generation using the same ink cartridges, etc.
While Canon is the worst offender iu its new product cycle marketing
juggernaut it is not the only one, only the most blatant. Many generations
of many printer brands use exactly the same inks in incompatible cartridges.
Ergo one is buying the same printer as one would have bought in the prior
couple of marketing cycyles, just in a different box.
In my most humble opinion: if you do not understand why you would actually
NEED a printer like the 9900 and already know how to use it with color
management, and all that implies, DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY on any such printer
until you know what you are doing or are willing to learn.

bmoag wrote:

>Many Canon printers labelled as new are really repackaged prior generation
>printers: most of the Pixma printers are identical to the prior i9x
>generation using the same ink cartridges, etc.
>While Canon is the worst offender iu its new product cycle marketing
>juggernaut it is not the only one, only the most blatant. Many generations
>of many printer brands use exactly the same inks in incompatible cartridges.
>Ergo one is buying the same printer as one would have bought in the prior
>couple of marketing cycyles, just in a different box.
>In my most humble opinion: if you do not understand why you would actually
>NEED a printer like the 9900 and already know how to use it with color
>management, and all that implies, DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY on any such printer
>until you know what you are doing or are willing to learn.
>
>
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

>
>
>

Ben wrote:

>I was all set to buy the Canon i9900 photo printer until I saw the review in
>PC World magazine. It gave the printer a rating of FAIR (68). However, it
>did say that it was a very good photo printer. This was a little confusing.
>How can it be two things. Any comments would be appreciated. The review is
>on the web site listed below.
>Ben
>
>
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS BUT THE I9900 HAS BEEN THE EDITORS CHOICE OF PC
MAGAZINE. ONE THING ABOUT PC WORLD IS THAT THEIR RATINGS ARE NOT JUST
BASED ON THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT BUT UNFORTUNATELY THEY FACTOR PRICE
INTO. APPARENTLY THEY THINK THE PRICE IS TOO HIGH RELATIVE TO THE
NARROW CARRIAGE PRINTERS. SO WITH THEM YOU HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

THE CANON I9900 AND ITS NEW REPLACEMENT IS THE BEST CONSUMER WIDE
CARRIAGE PRINTER OUT THEIR. BE SURE YOU DO NOT RUIN IT AND USE ONLY
CANON OEM INK.

>
>http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/sfcha...=12&pg=4&sort=
>rating_date&vendor=0&subtype=0&att_filter1206=0&att_filter1207=0&hi_p=0
>
>
>
>