epson printers

I have been reading the threads here about the epson printers
and it seems that everyone wants to give them a bad rep.I have the R200
that I bought just for printing on cds.and it does a fantastic job on
them.I also print 4x6 borderless photos that are perfect.For a low cost
printer you can't get any better.I have been printing with it for 1˝
years now.I did put a waste ink bottle on it so that takes care of the
wasted ink problem.One of you said that it is sloppy. I have not seen
anything like that from mine.And I use oem ink I get my carts on ebay.
I just bought 6 carts for 42.00 that is just 7.00 a piece.So that cuts
the cost of printing way down.
John.H.

Knowledeable users can get their money's worth out of an Epson, as you are
doing. Learning and realizing that one doesn't have to use OEM ink with an
Epson to get quality printing, and that cartridges can be refilled are
worthwhile positives.
However, Epson, several years ago, created ire and a huge waste of
consumer money and resources with some of their C- series printers that
prematurely clogged because of the Dura-brite ink they developed and that
they prescribed be used in them. The ink dried too fast and clogged the jet
orifices so badly that it was a rarity for them to ever unclog, despite
numerous cleanings. My estimation from my own experience with nine of these
printers, where eight of them clogged to the point of partial or no printing
is that thousands of them have been discarded within less than a year or
two of use because of this problem. They're still using Dura-brite but it's
a new formulation called Dura-brite Ultra, and it's not to be used in the
printers that continue to use the Dura-brite formulation.
Adding to bad PR was the recent out of court settlement over the issue
that Epson designed its printer software to leave as much as 25% of the ink
remaining in its cartridges and disallow further printing until a new
cartridge was exchanged for the old in the printer. There's good reason for
protecting the printer from running it dry and it would have been helpful
for Epson to have developed a more accurate way of determining how much ink
was actually left in the cartidge rather than by the way they were doing it.
If Epson simply had made see through cartridges and coupled that with the
option to continue to use the cartridge at one's own risk that would have
been a lot more acceptable to me than having to adhere to the software
limitations.
Additionally, Epson didn't win any awards from consumers when they
started putting chips on each cartridge to dissuade the ink refilling
process.
Epson still produces the best photo printing of any printer I've seen, but
it uses more ink than other printers to get those results. And as far as its
reputation- I'd say it's certainly earned some bad mouthing.

--
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
"John H." <gooddog@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wLlgg.128456$Fs1.38528@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I have been reading the threads here about the epson printers
> and it seems that everyone wants to give them a bad rep.I have the R200
> that I bought just for printing on cds.and it does a fantastic job on
> them.I also print 4x6 borderless photos that are perfect.For a low cost
> printer you can't get any better.I have been printing with it for 1˝ years
> now.I did put a waste ink bottle on it so that takes care of the wasted
> ink problem.One of you said that it is sloppy. I have not seen anything
> like that from mine.And I use oem ink I get my carts on ebay.
> I just bought 6 carts for 42.00 that is just 7.00 a piece.So that cuts the
> cost of printing way down.
> John.H.
>

John H. wrote:

> I have been reading the threads here about the epson printers
> and it seems that everyone wants to give them a bad rep.I have the R200
> that I bought just for printing on cds.and it does a fantastic job on
> them.

I am sure you are correct when using Epson ink

> I also print 4x6 borderless photos that are perfect.

In this case the Canon printers are marginally better on photos

> For a low cost printer you can't get any better.I have been printing
> with it for 1˝ years now.I did put a waste ink bottle on it so that
> takes care of the wasted ink problem.One of you said that it is
> sloppy. I have not seen anything like that from mine.


> And I use oem ink I get my carts on ebay.

OEM in is obviously the best and that is why you do not have the kind of
problems that many of the posters here have.

> I just bought 6 carts for 42.00 that is just 7.00 a piece.

That is a great price

> So that cuts the cost of printing way down.
> John.H.
>

Jan Alter wrote:

> Knowledeable users can get their money's worth out of an Epson, as you are
> doing. Learning and realizing that one doesn't have to use OEM ink with an
> Epson to get quality printing, and that cartridges can be refilled are
> worthwhile positives.
> However, Epson, several years ago, created ire and a huge waste of
> consumer money and resources with some of their C- series printers that
> prematurely clogged because of the Dura-brite ink they developed and that
> they prescribed be used in them. The ink dried too fast and clogged the jet
> orifices so badly that it was a rarity for them to ever unclog, despite
> numerous cleanings. My estimation from my own experience with nine of these
> printers, where eight of them clogged to the point of partial or no printing
> is that thousands of them have been discarded within less than a year or
> two of use because of this problem. They're still using Dura-brite but it's
> a new formulation called Dura-brite Ultra, and it's not to be used in the
> printers that continue to use the Dura-brite formulation.
> Adding to bad PR was the recent out of court settlement over the issue
> that Epson designed its printer software to leave as much as 25% of the ink
> remaining in its cartridges and disallow further printing until a new
> cartridge was exchanged for the old in the printer. There's good reason for
> protecting the printer from running it dry and it would have been helpful
> for Epson to have developed a more accurate way of determining how much ink
> was actually left in the cartidge rather than by the way they were doing it.
> If Epson simply had made see through cartridges and coupled that with the
> option to continue to use the cartridge at one's own risk that would have
> been a lot more acceptable to me than having to adhere to the software
> limitations.
> Additionally, Epson didn't win any awards from consumers when they
> started putting chips on each cartridge to dissuade the ink refilling
> process.
> Epson still produces the best photo printing of any printer I've seen, but
> it uses more ink than other printers to get those results. And as far as its
> reputation- I'd say it's certainly earned some bad mouthing.
>
> --
> Jan Alter
> bearpuf@verizon.net
> or
> jalter@phila.k12.pa.us

Jan

Your comments on the C series makes me wonder if a call to their legal
department might not get some reimbursement. They may even be gun-shy in view
of the earlier legal hassle.

Lou

A little over two years ago we bought sixteen C84 Epsons for our school.
Additionally, I bought two for my kids at home. In the time we've had these
machines I put 6 into service at school and 5 got clogged, partially or
completely. At home both succombed. I tried many cleanings, and cleaning
cartridges, and injections of alcohol/ammonia solution to not the slightest
change of unclogging.
At the end of January I went the route of filling spongeless cartridges
(from MIS) with dye-base ink and have put 3 out of the box C84 printers into
service with the dye-base ink. It's been 4 months and they are all going
well. The real test will be when they aren't run for ten weeks during the
summer and I start them up in September. My guess is that they've got a much
better chance of working than if I'd used the Dura-brite.
In March I wrote to Epson to complain about the clogging situation with
the C-84's, and at that point I still had seven brand new C84's left that I
hadn't put into service. Two weeks later I got a call from an Epson
representative while I was at school in response to the letter. She
suggested that if I wasn't printing with them daily that I make a point of
it. I explained that her suggestion was hardly realistic and asked her what
Epson suggested I do to keep those other new printers from becoming landfill
waste. She had no idea, but then offered the school 16 sets of black and
color cartridges of more Dura-brite "poison" for our unopened printers. I
took the offer. The ink arrived a week later. We're currently going to sell
the ink on ebay and use the proceeds to buy more dye-base ink.
One might think I have an ax to grind, but I don't think it's without
foundation. I'm still very satisfied with the R1800 I run at home, but Epson
has earned a boatload of badmouthing for rotten ink, and the other things I
mentioned.

--
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
<Lou@its.invalid> wrote in message news:4482CE62.DA54F180@yahoo.com...
> Jan Alter wrote:
>
>> Knowledeable users can get their money's worth out of an Epson, as you
>> are
>> doing. Learning and realizing that one doesn't have to use OEM ink with
>> an
>> Epson to get quality printing, and that cartridges can be refilled are
>> worthwhile positives.
>> However, Epson, several years ago, created ire and a huge waste of
>> consumer money and resources with some of their C- series printers that
>> prematurely clogged because of the Dura-brite ink they developed and that
>> they prescribed be used in them. The ink dried too fast and clogged the
>> jet
>> orifices so badly that it was a rarity for them to ever unclog, despite
>> numerous cleanings. My estimation from my own experience with nine of
>> these
>> printers, where eight of them clogged to the point of partial or no
>> printing
>> is that thousands of them have been discarded within less than a year or
>> two of use because of this problem. They're still using Dura-brite but
>> it's
>> a new formulation called Dura-brite Ultra, and it's not to be used in the
>> printers that continue to use the Dura-brite formulation.
>> Adding to bad PR was the recent out of court settlement over the issue
>> that Epson designed its printer software to leave as much as 25% of the
>> ink
>> remaining in its cartridges and disallow further printing until a new
>> cartridge was exchanged for the old in the printer. There's good reason
>> for
>> protecting the printer from running it dry and it would have been helpful
>> for Epson to have developed a more accurate way of determining how much
>> ink
>> was actually left in the cartidge rather than by the way they were doing
>> it.
>> If Epson simply had made see through cartridges and coupled that with the
>> option to continue to use the cartridge at one's own risk that would have
>> been a lot more acceptable to me than having to adhere to the software
>> limitations.
>> Additionally, Epson didn't win any awards from consumers when they
>> started putting chips on each cartridge to dissuade the ink refilling
>> process.
>> Epson still produces the best photo printing of any printer I've seen,
>> but
>> it uses more ink than other printers to get those results. And as far as
>> its
>> reputation- I'd say it's certainly earned some bad mouthing.
>>
>> --
>> Jan Alter
>> bearpuf@verizon.net
>> or
>> jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
>
> Jan
>
> Your comments on the C series makes me wonder if a call to their legal
> department might not get some reimbursement. They may even be gun-shy in
> view
> of the earlier legal hassle.
>
> Lou
>
>
>

Lou@its.invalid wrote:

>Jan Alter wrote:
>
>
>
>>Knowledeable users can get their money's worth out of an Epson, as you are
>>doing. Learning and realizing that one doesn't have to use OEM ink with an
>>Epson to get quality printing, and that cartridges can be refilled are
>>worthwhile positives.
>> However, Epson, several years ago, created ire and a huge waste of
>>consumer money and resources with some of their C- series printers that
>>prematurely clogged because of the Dura-brite ink they developed and that
>>they prescribed be used in them. The ink dried too fast and clogged the jet
>>orifices so badly that it was a rarity for them to ever unclog, despite
>>numerous cleanings. My estimation from my own experience with nine of these
>>printers, where eight of them clogged to the point of partial or no printing
>>is that thousands of them have been discarded within less than a year or
>>two of use because of this problem. They're still using Dura-brite but it's
>>a new formulation called Dura-brite Ultra, and it's not to be used in the
>>printers that continue to use the Dura-brite formulation.
>> Adding to bad PR was the recent out of court settlement over the issue
>>that Epson designed its printer software to leave as much as 25% of the ink
>>remaining in its cartridges and disallow further printing until a new
>>cartridge was exchanged for the old in the printer. There's good reason for
>>protecting the printer from running it dry and it would have been helpful
>>for Epson to have developed a more accurate way of determining how much ink
>>was actually left in the cartidge rather than by the way they were doing it.
>>If Epson simply had made see through cartridges and coupled that with the
>>option to continue to use the cartridge at one's own risk that would have
>>been a lot more acceptable to me than having to adhere to the software
>>limitations.
>> Additionally, Epson didn't win any awards from consumers when they
>>started putting chips on each cartridge to dissuade the ink refilling
>>process.
>> Epson still produces the best photo printing of any printer I've seen, but
>>it uses more ink than other printers to get those results. And as far as its
>>reputation- I'd say it's certainly earned some bad mouthing.
>>
>>--
>>Jan Alter
>>bearpuf@verizon.net
>>or
>>jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
>>
>>
>
>Jan
>
>Your comments on the C series makes me wonder if a call to their legal
>department might not get some reimbursement. They may even be gun-shy in view
>of the earlier legal hassle.
>
>
maybe you can get epson to send you some real ink and alleviate your
problems

>Lou
>
>
>
>
>

Jan Alter wrote:

> A little over two years ago we bought sixteen C84 Epsons for our school.
> Additionally, I bought two for my kids at home. In the time we've had these
> machines I put 6 into service at school and 5 got clogged, partially or
> completely. At home both succombed. I tried many cleanings, and cleaning
> cartridges, and injections of alcohol/ammonia solution to not the slightest
> change of unclogging.
> At the end of January I went the route of filling spongeless cartridges
> (from MIS) with dye-base ink and have put 3 out of the box C84 printers into
> service with the dye-base ink. It's been 4 months and they are all going
> well. The real test will be when they aren't run for ten weeks during the
> summer and I start them up in September. My guess is that they've got a much
> better chance of working than if I'd used the Dura-brite.
> In March I wrote to Epson to complain about the clogging situation with
> the C-84's, and at that point I still had seven brand new C84's left that I
> hadn't put into service. Two weeks later I got a call from an Epson
> representative while I was at school in response to the letter. She
> suggested that if I wasn't printing with them daily that I make a point of
> it. I explained that her suggestion was hardly realistic and asked her what
> Epson suggested I do to keep those other new printers from becoming landfill
> waste. She had no idea, but then offered the school 16 sets of black and
> color cartridges of more Dura-brite "poison" for our unopened printers. I
> took the offer. The ink arrived a week later. We're currently going to sell
> the ink on ebay and use the proceeds to buy more dye-base ink.
> One might think I have an ax to grind, but I don't think it's without
> foundation. I'm still very satisfied with the R1800 I run at home, but Epson
> has earned a boatload of badmouthing for rotten ink, and the other things I
> mentioned.
>
> --
> Jan Alter
> bearpuf@verizon.net
> or
> jalter@phila.k12.pa.us

Well the proper way to treat the old Adage that the "Squeaky wheel gets the
grease" is to remember that the Squeakiest wheel gets the most grease.

Lou