I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -

"Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product. Canon
bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is not a fault,
it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope this information is
of use to you."

OK, thought I, may be I am wrong (unlikely) I'll do some searching and see
what I can find. First stop, the manuals. This is what the manuals state: -

i9950
--------
Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
Speciality paper up to 270g/m²

iP8500
----------
Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
Speciality paper up to 273g/m²

OK, I'm all well and good there (the media I was using was 185g/m² and
210g/m² respectively). I then found the following brochures on the Canon
Europe site: -

i9950
--------
http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf

iP8500
---------
http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf

Again stating that both units are capable of printing on stock up to 270g/m²
(273g/m² for the iP8500). It would appear that Canon do not know the
specifications of their own printers! I have sent them a rather exasperated
reply back.


Here it is in full: -

Please refer to incident number 1925551. It would appear that you do not
know the technical specifications of your own printers! Let me spell them
out to you: -

i9950
--------
Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
Speciality paper up to 270g/m²

iP8500
----------
Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
Speciality paper up to 273g/m²

These specifications are taken from the manuals that accompanied both units.
The "cardstock" (as you call it) I am using is 185g/m² and 210g/m²
respectively. You claim that both units will print on media up to 270g/m².

I went into town today and I purchased some of your own brand Photo Paper
Plus Glossy which has a weight of 270g/m², much heavier than the media I was
using, but still usable in my units as the manuals (and brochures) state. I
printed the same project to each printer and got exactly the same results as
with the lighter media. In all I have attempted to print the project on the
following Canon brand media: -

LC-301
HR-101N
GP-401
PP-101


All with the same (predictable) result - slippage by between 1 and 2mm.

Suggest you educate yourself about the units in question before telling the
customer that they "cannot print on cardstock".

The more I converse with you, the more it becomes evident that you do not
know anything about your products. Both units are more than capable of
printing on stock up to 270g/m² as it states both ON YOUR WEBSITE and IN THE
MANUALS.
For your convenience, I have taken the liberty of including links to the
relevant product brochures.

i9950
--------
http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf

iP8500
---------
http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf

Suggest you read them and inwardly digest the contents. If what you say is
true, your website, the brochures and the product manuals are all lying. Is
that what you are claiming? If that is the case it would appear that you are
attempting to deliberately mislead the customer. Is that the case? It does
not, however, explain why the same projects printed on much lighter media
would give the same results. The fact that the driver and/or feed mechanism
is inherently faulty and has been for years is a much better explanation. I
will get you to admit liability if it kills me (and, at this rate, it
probably will!)

You're going to have to come up with a better explanation than that. I have
all the time in the world and I WILL persuade you to admit liability that
either the driver or feed mechanism in all your models, going back as far as
the 'S' series are faulty.

What do you have to say to that?

Maybe I shouldn't have accused them of lying but, right now I am just so
exasperated that they can even make such statement that the customer can
easily disprove and class as them being fobbed off.

It's a damned good thing that Canon 'support' rep wasn't in this room or I'd
probably have decked him!

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
> I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -
>
> "Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product. Canon
> bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is not a fault,
> it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope this information is
> of use to you."
>
> OK, thought I, may be I am wrong (unlikely) I'll do some searching and see
> what I can find. First stop, the manuals. This is what the manuals state: -
>
> i9950
> --------
> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>
> iP8500
> ----------
> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>
> OK, I'm all well and good there (the media I was using was 185g/m² and
> 210g/m² respectively). I then found the following brochures on the Canon
> Europe site: -
>
> i9950
> --------
> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>
> iP8500
> ---------
> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>
> Again stating that both units are capable of printing on stock up to 270g/m²
> (273g/m² for the iP8500). It would appear that Canon do not know the
> specifications of their own printers! I have sent them a rather exasperated
> reply back.
>
>
> Here it is in full: -
>
> Please refer to incident number 1925551. It would appear that you do not
> know the technical specifications of your own printers! Let me spell them
> out to you: -
>
> i9950
> --------
> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>
> iP8500
> ----------
> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>
> These specifications are taken from the manuals that accompanied both units.
> The "cardstock" (as you call it) I am using is 185g/m² and 210g/m²
> respectively. You claim that both units will print on media up to 270g/m².
>
> I went into town today and I purchased some of your own brand Photo Paper
> Plus Glossy which has a weight of 270g/m², much heavier than the media I was
> using, but still usable in my units as the manuals (and brochures) state. I
> printed the same project to each printer and got exactly the same results as
> with the lighter media. In all I have attempted to print the project on the
> following Canon brand media: -
>
> LC-301
> HR-101N
> GP-401
> PP-101
>
>
> All with the same (predictable) result - slippage by between 1 and 2mm.
>
> Suggest you educate yourself about the units in question before telling the
> customer that they "cannot print on cardstock".
>
> The more I converse with you, the more it becomes evident that you do not
> know anything about your products. Both units are more than capable of
> printing on stock up to 270g/m² as it states both ON YOUR WEBSITE and IN THE
> MANUALS.
> For your convenience, I have taken the liberty of including links to the
> relevant product brochures.
>
> i9950
> --------
> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>
> iP8500
> ---------
> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>
> Suggest you read them and inwardly digest the contents. If what you say is
> true, your website, the brochures and the product manuals are all lying. Is
> that what you are claiming? If that is the case it would appear that you are
> attempting to deliberately mislead the customer. Is that the case? It does
> not, however, explain why the same projects printed on much lighter media
> would give the same results. The fact that the driver and/or feed mechanism
> is inherently faulty and has been for years is a much better explanation. I
> will get you to admit liability if it kills me (and, at this rate, it
> probably will!)
>
> You're going to have to come up with a better explanation than that. I have
> all the time in the world and I WILL persuade you to admit liability that
> either the driver or feed mechanism in all your models, going back as far as
> the 'S' series are faulty.
>
> What do you have to say to that?
>
> Maybe I shouldn't have accused them of lying but, right now I am just so
> exasperated that they can even make such statement that the customer can
> easily disprove and class as them being fobbed off.
>
> It's a damned good thing that Canon 'support' rep wasn't in this room or I'd
> probably have decked him!
>
>

Way to go Miss P.!
You might also think about having that moron mesershit call canon as he
is their main suck-ass boy who intelligently represent them in this ng.
Not!
:-)
Frank

Frank wrote:

> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>
>> I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -
>>
>> "Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product.
>> Canon bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is
>> not a fault, it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope
>> this information is of use to you."
>>
>> OK, thought I, may be I am wrong (unlikely) I'll do some searching
>> and see what I can find. First stop, the manuals. This is what the
>> manuals state: -
>>
>> i9950
>> --------
>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>>
>> iP8500
>> ----------
>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>>
>> OK, I'm all well and good there (the media I was using was 185g/m²
>> and 210g/m² respectively). I then found the following brochures on
>> the Canon Europe site: -
>>
>> i9950
>> --------
>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>>
>>
>> iP8500
>> ---------
>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>>
>>
>> Again stating that both units are capable of printing on stock up to
>> 270g/m² (273g/m² for the iP8500). It would appear that Canon do not
>> know the specifications of their own printers! I have sent them a
>> rather exasperated reply back.
>>
>>
>> Here it is in full: -
>>
>> Please refer to incident number 1925551. It would appear that you do
>> not know the technical specifications of your own printers! Let me
>> spell them out to you: -
>>
>> i9950
>> --------
>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>>
>> iP8500
>> ----------
>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>>
>> These specifications are taken from the manuals that accompanied both
>> units. The "cardstock" (as you call it) I am using is 185g/m² and
>> 210g/m² respectively. You claim that both units will print on media
>> up to 270g/m².
>>
>> I went into town today and I purchased some of your own brand Photo
>> Paper Plus Glossy which has a weight of 270g/m², much heavier than
>> the media I was using, but still usable in my units as the manuals
>> (and brochures) state. I printed the same project to each printer and
>> got exactly the same results as with the lighter media. In all I have
>> attempted to print the project on the following Canon brand media: -
>>
>> LC-301
>> HR-101N
>> GP-401
>> PP-101
>>
>>
>> All with the same (predictable) result - slippage by between 1 and 2mm.
>>
>> Suggest you educate yourself about the units in question before
>> telling the customer that they "cannot print on cardstock".
>>
>> The more I converse with you, the more it becomes evident that you do
>> not know anything about your products. Both units are more than
>> capable of printing on stock up to 270g/m² as it states both ON YOUR
>> WEBSITE and IN THE MANUALS.
>> For your convenience, I have taken the liberty of including links to
>> the relevant product brochures.
>>
>> i9950
>> --------
>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>>
>>
>> iP8500
>> ---------
>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>>
>>
>> Suggest you read them and inwardly digest the contents. If what you
>> say is true, your website, the brochures and the product manuals are
>> all lying. Is that what you are claiming? If that is the case it
>> would appear that you are attempting to deliberately mislead the
>> customer. Is that the case? It does not, however, explain why the
>> same projects printed on much lighter media would give the same
>> results. The fact that the driver and/or feed mechanism is inherently
>> faulty and has been for years is a much better explanation. I will
>> get you to admit liability if it kills me (and, at this rate, it
>> probably will!)
>>
>> You're going to have to come up with a better explanation than that.
>> I have all the time in the world and I WILL persuade you to admit
>> liability that either the driver or feed mechanism in all your
>> models, going back as far as the 'S' series are faulty.
>>
>> What do you have to say to that?
>>
>> Maybe I shouldn't have accused them of lying but, right now I am just
>> so exasperated that they can even make such statement that the
>> customer can easily disprove and class as them being fobbed off.
>>
>> It's a damned good thing that Canon 'support' rep wasn't in this room
>> or I'd probably have decked him!
>>
>
> Way to go Miss P.!
> You might also think about having that moron that I am call canon as I
> is their main suck-ass boy who intelligently represent them in this ng.
> Not!
>
> Frankie Crankie

"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jZzwe.142$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -
>
> "Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product. Canon
> bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is not a
> fault, it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope this
> information is of use to you."

Miss Tick (Mystic?), Your question was apples and their reply was oranges.
You are concerned about the placement of the image on the page and they are
answering about cardstock weight and feed issues. They still don't get it!
Am I correct that you wish to create a print that was borderless on three
sides and the fourth side would be aligned exactly with the place you were
going to fold it? The difference between the Epson and the Canon image
placement may have something to do with how the drivers adjusts the image to
avoid leaving a white margin at any border when doing a borderless print.
I am not an apologist for Canon. I have used Epson and Canon printers. I
don't think it has to do with paper slippage in the feed mechanism. For the
particular project you originally wrote about, why not recognize the
idiosyncracy of the printer and move the image slightly toward the fold in
your image software prior to printing? As I mentioned, I use Photoshop
Elements 2. I first set up a letter sized blank page, set the grid and
ruler to on, copy the image to the blank page, adjust its size and position,
and print. Worked for me.

I don't blame you for being upset with customer or tech service reps who
don't know their product and give poor advice. In this case, although they
are wrong, you can certainly do a simple "work-around" and solve the
problem.


>
> OK, thought I, may be I am wrong (unlikely) I'll do some searching and see
> what I can find. First stop, the manuals. This is what the manuals
> state: -
>
> i9950
> --------
> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>
> iP8500
> ----------
> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>
> OK, I'm all well and good there (the media I was using was 185g/m² and
> 210g/m² respectively). I then found the following brochures on the Canon
> Europe site: -
>
> i9950
> --------
> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>
> iP8500
> ---------
> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>
> Again stating that both units are capable of printing on stock up to
> 270g/m² (273g/m² for the iP8500). It would appear that Canon do not know
> the specifications of their own printers! I have sent them a rather
> exasperated reply back.
>
>
> Here it is in full: -
>
> Please refer to incident number 1925551. It would appear that you do not
> know the technical specifications of your own printers! Let me spell them
> out to you: -
>
> i9950
> --------
> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>
> iP8500
> ----------
> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>
> These specifications are taken from the manuals that accompanied both
> units. The "cardstock" (as you call it) I am using is 185g/m² and 210g/m²
> respectively. You claim that both units will print on media up to 270g/m².
>
> I went into town today and I purchased some of your own brand Photo Paper
> Plus Glossy which has a weight of 270g/m², much heavier than the media I
> was using, but still usable in my units as the manuals (and brochures)
> state. I printed the same project to each printer and got exactly the same
> results as with the lighter media. In all I have attempted to print the
> project on the following Canon brand media: -
>
> LC-301
> HR-101N
> GP-401
> PP-101
>
>
> All with the same (predictable) result - slippage by between 1 and 2mm.
>
> Suggest you educate yourself about the units in question before telling
> the customer that they "cannot print on cardstock".
>
> The more I converse with you, the more it becomes evident that you do not
> know anything about your products. Both units are more than capable of
> printing on stock up to 270g/m² as it states both ON YOUR WEBSITE and IN
> THE MANUALS.
> For your convenience, I have taken the liberty of including links to the
> relevant product brochures.
>
> i9950
> --------
> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>
> iP8500
> ---------
> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>
> Suggest you read them and inwardly digest the contents. If what you say is
> true, your website, the brochures and the product manuals are all lying.
> Is that what you are claiming? If that is the case it would appear that
> you are attempting to deliberately mislead the customer. Is that the case?
> It does not, however, explain why the same projects printed on much
> lighter media would give the same results. The fact that the driver and/or
> feed mechanism is inherently faulty and has been for years is a much
> better explanation. I will get you to admit liability if it kills me
> (and, at this rate, it probably will!)
>
> You're going to have to come up with a better explanation than that. I
> have all the time in the world and I WILL persuade you to admit liability
> that either the driver or feed mechanism in all your models, going back as
> far as the 'S' series are faulty.
>
> What do you have to say to that?
>
> Maybe I shouldn't have accused them of lying but, right now I am just so
> exasperated that they can even make such statement that the customer can
> easily disprove and class as them being fobbed off.
>
> It's a damned good thing that Canon 'support' rep wasn't in this room or
> I'd probably have decked him!
>

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>>
>>> I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -
>>>
>>> "Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product.
>>> Canon bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is
>>> not a fault, it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope
>>> this information is of use to you."
>>>
>>> OK, thought I, may be I am wrong (unlikely) I'll do some searching
>>> and see what I can find. First stop, the manuals. This is what the
>>> manuals state: -
>>>
>>> i9950
>>> --------
>>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>>>
>>> iP8500
>>> ----------
>>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>>>
>>> OK, I'm all well and good there (the media I was using was 185g/m²
>>> and 210g/m² respectively). I then found the following brochures on
>>> the Canon Europe site: -
>>>
>>> i9950
>>> --------
>>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> iP8500
>>> ---------
>>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Again stating that both units are capable of printing on stock up to
>>> 270g/m² (273g/m² for the iP8500). It would appear that Canon do not
>>> know the specifications of their own printers! I have sent them a
>>> rather exasperated reply back.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here it is in full: -
>>>
>>> Please refer to incident number 1925551. It would appear that you do
>>> not know the technical specifications of your own printers! Let me
>>> spell them out to you: -
>>>
>>> i9950
>>> --------
>>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>>>
>>> iP8500
>>> ----------
>>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>>>
>>> These specifications are taken from the manuals that accompanied both
>>> units. The "cardstock" (as you call it) I am using is 185g/m² and
>>> 210g/m² respectively. You claim that both units will print on media
>>> up to 270g/m².
>>>
>>> I went into town today and I purchased some of your own brand Photo
>>> Paper Plus Glossy which has a weight of 270g/m², much heavier than
>>> the media I was using, but still usable in my units as the manuals
>>> (and brochures) state. I printed the same project to each printer and
>>> got exactly the same results as with the lighter media. In all I have
>>> attempted to print the project on the following Canon brand media: -
>>>
>>> LC-301
>>> HR-101N
>>> GP-401
>>> PP-101
>>>
>>>
>>> All with the same (predictable) result - slippage by between 1 and 2mm.
>>>
>>> Suggest you educate yourself about the units in question before
>>> telling the customer that they "cannot print on cardstock".
>>>
>>> The more I converse with you, the more it becomes evident that you do
>>> not know anything about your products. Both units are more than
>>> capable of printing on stock up to 270g/m² as it states both ON YOUR
>>> WEBSITE and IN THE MANUALS.
>>> For your convenience, I have taken the liberty of including links to
>>> the relevant product brochures.
>>>
>>> i9950
>>> --------
>>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> iP8500
>>> ---------
>>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Suggest you read them and inwardly digest the contents. If what you
>>> say is true, your website, the brochures and the product manuals are
>>> all lying. Is that what you are claiming? If that is the case it
>>> would appear that you are attempting to deliberately mislead the
>>> customer. Is that the case? It does not, however, explain why the
>>> same projects printed on much lighter media would give the same
>>> results. The fact that the driver and/or feed mechanism is inherently
>>> faulty and has been for years is a much better explanation. I will
>>> get you to admit liability if it kills me (and, at this rate, it
>>> probably will!)
>>>
>>> You're going to have to come up with a better explanation than that.
>>> I have all the time in the world and I WILL persuade you to admit
>>> liability that either the driver or feed mechanism in all your
>>> models, going back as far as the 'S' series are faulty.
>>>
>>> What do you have to say to that?
>>>
>>> Maybe I shouldn't have accused them of lying but, right now I am just
>>> so exasperated that they can even make such statement that the
>>> customer can easily disprove and class as them being fobbed off.
>>>
>>> It's a damned good thing that Canon 'support' rep wasn't in this room
>>> or I'd probably have decked him!
>>>
>>
>> Way to go Miss P.!
>> You might also think about having that moron that I am call canon as I
>> is their main suck-ass boy who intelligently represent them in this ng.
>> Not!
>>
>> Frankie Crankie

hehehehe...that's right mesershit, I'm not the main suck-ass for canon
in this ng.
You are you idiot.
Frank

Christ, learn to trim posts FFS.

Si.

Frank wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -
>>>>
>>>> "Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product.
>>>> Canon bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is
>>>> not a fault, it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope
>>>> this information is of use to you."
>>>>
>>>> OK, thought I, may be I am wrong (unlikely) I'll do some searching
>>>> and see what I can find. First stop, the manuals. This is what the
>>>> manuals state: -
>>>>
>>>> i9950
>>>> --------
>>>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>>> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>>>>
>>>> iP8500
>>>> ----------
>>>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>>> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>>>>
>>>> OK, I'm all well and good there (the media I was using was 185g/m²
>>>> and 210g/m² respectively). I then found the following brochures on
>>>> the Canon Europe site: -
>>>>
>>>> i9950
>>>> --------
>>>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> iP8500
>>>> ---------
>>>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again stating that both units are capable of printing on stock up to
>>>> 270g/m² (273g/m² for the iP8500). It would appear that Canon do not
>>>> know the specifications of their own printers! I have sent them a
>>>> rather exasperated reply back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here it is in full: -
>>>>
>>>> Please refer to incident number 1925551. It would appear that you do
>>>> not know the technical specifications of your own printers! Let me
>>>> spell them out to you: -
>>>>
>>>> i9950
>>>> --------
>>>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>>> Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>>>>
>>>> iP8500
>>>> ----------
>>>> Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>>> Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>>>>
>>>> These specifications are taken from the manuals that accompanied
>>>> both units. The "cardstock" (as you call it) I am using is 185g/m²
>>>> and 210g/m² respectively. You claim that both units will print on
>>>> media up to 270g/m².
>>>>
>>>> I went into town today and I purchased some of your own brand Photo
>>>> Paper Plus Glossy which has a weight of 270g/m², much heavier than
>>>> the media I was using, but still usable in my units as the manuals
>>>> (and brochures) state. I printed the same project to each printer
>>>> and got exactly the same results as with the lighter media. In all I
>>>> have attempted to print the project on the following Canon brand
>>>> media: -
>>>>
>>>> LC-301
>>>> HR-101N
>>>> GP-401
>>>> PP-101
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All with the same (predictable) result - slippage by between 1 and 2mm.
>>>>
>>>> Suggest you educate yourself about the units in question before
>>>> telling the customer that they "cannot print on cardstock".
>>>>
>>>> The more I converse with you, the more it becomes evident that you
>>>> do not know anything about your products. Both units are more than
>>>> capable of printing on stock up to 270g/m² as it states both ON YOUR
>>>> WEBSITE and IN THE MANUALS.
>>>> For your convenience, I have taken the liberty of including links to
>>>> the relevant product brochures.
>>>>
>>>> i9950
>>>> --------
>>>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> iP8500
>>>> ---------
>>>> http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suggest you read them and inwardly digest the contents. If what you
>>>> say is true, your website, the brochures and the product manuals are
>>>> all lying. Is that what you are claiming? If that is the case it
>>>> would appear that you are attempting to deliberately mislead the
>>>> customer. Is that the case? It does not, however, explain why the
>>>> same projects printed on much lighter media would give the same
>>>> results. The fact that the driver and/or feed mechanism is
>>>> inherently faulty and has been for years is a much better
>>>> explanation. I will get you to admit liability if it kills me (and,
>>>> at this rate, it probably will!)
>>>>
>>>> You're going to have to come up with a better explanation than that.
>>>> I have all the time in the world and I WILL persuade you to admit
>>>> liability that either the driver or feed mechanism in all your
>>>> models, going back as far as the 'S' series are faulty.
>>>>
>>>> What do you have to say to that?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I shouldn't have accused them of lying but, right now I am
>>>> just so exasperated that they can even make such statement that the
>>>> customer can easily disprove and class as them being fobbed off.
>>>>
>>>> It's a damned good thing that Canon 'support' rep wasn't in this
>>>> room or I'd probably have decked him!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Way to go Miss P.!
>>> You might also think about having that moron that I am call canon as
>>> I is their main suck-ass boy who intelligently represent them in this
>>> ng.
>>> Not!
>>>
>>> Frankie Crankie
>
>
> hehehehe...that's right mesershit, I'm not the main suck-ass for canon
> in this ng.
> You are you idiot.
> Frank
>

So what if I enjoy being the main suck-ass for canon. I love my little
ip. She makes me happy. Nothing like a swig of canon oem ink to get me
going.
Screw the rest of you.

measekite

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
> I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -
>
> "Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product. Canon
> bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is not a fault,
> it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope this information is
> of use to you."
>
> OK, thought I, may be I am wrong (unlikely) I'll do some searching and see
> what I can find. First stop, the manuals. This is what the manuals state: -


I'd like to reproduce your error... can you explain to me in step by
step detail including the software you are using to do the.. what I
assume is greeting cards?


I find it so amazing that a function that would seem to be within the
target market of the product be screwy.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:25:05 +0100, "Miss Perspicacia Tick"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -
>
>"Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product. Canon
>bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is not a fault,
>it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope this information is
>of use to you."
>
Yet more reasons why I never buy Canon printers. I have to be fair
and say I haven't had any such problem with the camera side of their
company, but the "consumer goods" side (which I see as everything
other than their Pro camera people) assumes that any inquiry is made
by an idiot; that as they are idiots any explanation will do as idiots
don't read manuals; and, anyway, the support staff have got better
things to do like gossip about Big Brother.

When I was in IT support we actually threw out working Canon printers
because the support was so appalling. (I say working, but even then
there were feeder problems and this was in the early 90's.).

I hope you're successful because someone needs to get their support
shaken up, and get their printers fit for the purpose for which they
are purchased.

And no, you probably shouldn't have called them liars because that
gives them the chance to say that you're abusive and refuse to deal
with you. However, suggesting they are committing terminological
inexactitudes will not only solve that problem as it's the same thing,
but make the support staff look for their dictionaries as the words
are more than two syllables long.

One more thing, if you really have problems, it's always worth
supplying the correspondence to the Head Office in Japan where they
tend to get rather more annoyed if Canon's name is being dragged
through the mud. It may not get you want you want, but it'll put a
rocket up the backsides of the GB staff.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(E-Mail Removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Burt wrote:

>"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:jZzwe.142$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>>I had another reply from the idiots at Canon about an hour ago: -
>>
>>"Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding your Canon product. Canon
>>bubblejet printers are not designed to print card stock. It is not a
>>fault, it is simply due to the design of the printers. We hope this
>>information is of use to you."
>>
>>
>
>Miss Tick (Mystic?), Your question was apples and their reply was oranges.
>
>

And you are a fruit.

>You are concerned about the placement of the image on the page and they are
>answering about cardstock weight and feed issues. They still don't get it!
>
>

Neither do you.

>Am I correct
>
No

>that you wish to create a print that was borderless on three
>sides and the fourth side would be aligned exactly with the place you were
>going to fold it? The difference between the Epson and the Canon image
>placement may have something to do with how the drivers
>
DUH

>adjusts the image to
>avoid leaving a white margin at any border when doing a borderless print.
>I am not an apologist for Canon. I have used Epson and Canon printers. I
>don't think it has to do with paper slippage in the feed mechanism. For the
>particular project you originally wrote about, why not recognize the
>idiosyncracy of the printer and move the image slightly toward the fold in
>your image software prior to printing? As I mentioned, I use Photoshop
>Elements 2. I first set up a letter sized blank page, set the grid and
>ruler to on, copy the image to the blank page, adjust its size and position,
>and print. Worked for me.
>
>
Bundabar

>I don't blame you for being upset with customer or tech service reps who
>don't know their product and give poor advice.
>

Yeh, you know more than they do.

>In this case, although they
>are wrong, you can certainly do a simple "work-around" and solve the
>problem.
>
>
> >
>
>
>>OK, thought I, may be I am wrong (unlikely) I'll do some searching and see
>>what I can find. First stop, the manuals. This is what the manuals
>>state: -
>>
>>i9950
>>--------
>>Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>>
>>iP8500
>>----------
>>Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>>
>>OK, I'm all well and good there (the media I was using was 185g/m² and
>>210g/m² respectively). I then found the following brochures on the Canon
>>Europe site: -
>>
>>i9950
>>--------
>>http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>>
>>iP8500
>>---------
>>http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>>
>>Again stating that both units are capable of printing on stock up to
>>270g/m² (273g/m² for the iP8500). It would appear that Canon do not know
>>the specifications of their own printers! I have sent them a rather
>>exasperated reply back.
>>
>>
>>Here it is in full: -
>>
>>Please refer to incident number 1925551. It would appear that you do not
>>know the technical specifications of your own printers! Let me spell them
>>out to you: -
>>
>>i9950
>>--------
>>Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>Speciality paper up to 270g/m²
>>
>>iP8500
>>----------
>>Plain paper from 64-105g/m²
>>Speciality paper up to 273g/m²
>>
>>These specifications are taken from the manuals that accompanied both
>>units. The "cardstock" (as you call it) I am using is 185g/m² and 210g/m²
>>respectively. You claim that both units will print on media up to 270g/m².
>>
>>I went into town today and I purchased some of your own brand Photo Paper
>>Plus Glossy which has a weight of 270g/m², much heavier than the media I
>>was using, but still usable in my units as the manuals (and brochures)
>>state. I printed the same project to each printer and got exactly the same
>>results as with the lighter media. In all I have attempted to print the
>>project on the following Canon brand media: -
>>
>>LC-301
>>HR-101N
>>GP-401
>>PP-101
>>
>>
>>All with the same (predictable) result - slippage by between 1 and 2mm.
>>
>>Suggest you educate yourself about the units in question before telling
>>the customer that they "cannot print on cardstock".
>>
>>The more I converse with you, the more it becomes evident that you do not
>>know anything about your products. Both units are more than capable of
>>printing on stock up to 270g/m² as it states both ON YOUR WEBSITE and IN
>>THE MANUALS.
>>For your convenience, I have taken the liberty of including links to the
>>relevant product brochures.
>>
>>i9950
>>--------
>>http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098100911.pdf
>>
>>iP8500
>>---------
>>http://www.brochures.canon-europe.co...1098101022.pdf
>>
>>Suggest you read them and inwardly digest the contents. If what you say is
>>true, your website, the brochures and the product manuals are all lying.
>>Is that what you are claiming? If that is the case it would appear that
>>you are attempting to deliberately mislead the customer. Is that the case?
>>It does not, however, explain why the same projects printed on much
>>lighter media would give the same results. The fact that the driver and/or
>>feed mechanism is inherently faulty and has been for years is a much
>>better explanation. I will get you to admit liability if it kills me
>>(and, at this rate, it probably will!)
>>
>>You're going to have to come up with a better explanation than that. I
>>have all the time in the world and I WILL persuade you to admit liability
>>that either the driver or feed mechanism in all your models, going back as
>>far as the 'S' series are faulty.
>>
>>What do you have to say to that?
>>
>>Maybe I shouldn't have accused them of lying but, right now I am just so
>>exasperated that they can even make such statement that the customer can
>>easily disprove and class as them being fobbed off.
>>
>>It's a damned good thing that Canon 'support' rep wasn't in this room or
>>I'd probably have decked him!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>