Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply

[Ron Baird]

Greetings Zake,

I am sure you have considerable references at hand Zake, and are aware of
the technologies that are common to many, as noted in your review. That is
the point. Kodak has new technology that is used and so will not be making
that public. Most of the tech world is aware of the way inkjet printers
work.

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included in
the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000
Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Just to clarify the above statement, which I now realize was poorly
constructed, what I meant was that the efficiency of the total ink usage
in the cartridge might be improved, since it uses a 4 color system,
where, in general, the inks get used pretty evenly (although yellow does
seem to often run low first). We still don't know if the ink volumes
are the same per color or not. It would also seem that the clear coat
volume should be higher than the colored inks, since it likely coats the
whole page, although, perhaps it only coats areas with either higher or
lower ink coverage, depending upon the gloss factor in the inks. Still
a lot of unanswered questions there.

I was rather surprised my self. Since it uses pigments I would have
also expected it to be CcMmYK. Also the setup would seem to be
similar to canon in the fact their general purpose models only use
small nozzles on Cyan and Magenta.




In all fairness the Pixma Pro 9500 only offers a 3pl min drop size,
the only other thermal based pigment printer I'm aware of, and even
that was delayed almost a year.

In the dye ink area, both Epson and Canon have 1 picolitre droplet sizes
for their some of their 4 color printers. Dot volume is more important
in 4 color printers than others, since they only use the full color load
inks, and a larger dot of ink in low density areas can be quite
noticeable. Black ink dots in the 3 PL size can show up in low density
areas as graininess. However, since I again don't know how Kodak is
accomplishing their results, they might use lower color load inks and
multiple passes or build up with several dots to avoid this problem.
Living in Canada, where the printers aren't even distributed, it is hard
to comment since I have yet to see any output samples.

Epson has a number of pigment 4 color printers. Their whole C and CX
line up of printers and all in one, all use CMYK pigment inks. These
are their low end product lines, and I cannot find any reference to the
dot sizes they are using. Unlike most thermal head designs which
require a different nozzle for each ink volume dot, the piezo head can
generate multiple sized dots by changing the vibration frequency and
length of the electronic pulse to the actuator. The 6 color Epson models
really don't require a dot smaller than 3 pl, but the four color
printers can benefit from a still smaller dot.

I can't say I am sorry that some of this information no longer makes
fascinating reading, because much of these specs (dot resolution and
density, dot size or volume, number of nozzles, numbers of colors,
number of passes, etc.) really have to be taken into context of the
specific technology involved. At the end of the day, the image quality
is what counts. However, for people who benefit from the more detailed
information, it would at least be nice for it to be available.

I'm not sure Epson offers 4 color printers other than their Stylus
series, which those are also 3pl. These printers however are not
marketed as lab quality photo printers. They have printers as low as
1.5pl but near as i'm aware they don't include their 4 color
printers.

The older Stylus (where they actually listed the picolitre volumes) did
indeed go down to 1 pl for the color versions, as did/do the 4 color
Canon models (dye inks).

Kodak is a very young player in this market. I think their first
volley of marketing simply didn't include technical specs to share, so
the natural response was "proprietary and efficient". Polite but 100%
useless.

I understand this is a very competitive market, but once the printer
gets into the hands of consumers, it is also in the hands of competitors
who probably know exactly how it works within hours. At that point, I'm
not sure what the point is of being unresponsive to questions, and
playing coy about this kind of information (such as how many colors it
uses). It also gives a false impression, since Kodak speaks of a black
cartridge and a 5 compartment color cartridge. Clear coat isn't a color,
and the use of two blacks, one photo and one text, might be helpful in
evaluating the printer as well.

I think that other than maintaining silence to protect against theft of
ideas, it is best to make other information as transparent as possible,
of those who are interested.

Art

 

[measekite]

This is not a Forum to promote Kodak as an employee.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Ron,

I don't feel that Zake has "a problem" with Kodak, per se. I think he
is feeling similarly to myself, that some information that should be
readily accessible to those who wish to learn more is not so.

For example, the number of ink colors and other components in the
cartridges doesn't need to be kept secret. As I stated in an earlier
posting, once the product is on the market, the competition knows it all
anyway, so there is no longer a secret to be held.

When I asked about the volume of the ink colors, assuming there were
light magenta and cyan inks involved, and the associated problem of
their being used up first in a ganged cartridge, why couldn't you have
posted that the Kodak inkjet models didn't use a light color load ink
set, but instead were using 4 colors, inclusive of a clear coat and two
blacks, one for text and one for photo use. That kind of omission is the
kind of thing that makes me distrustful. It couldn't have possibly been
NDA at that point.

You state that the head clogging issue has been resolved, but there was
no acknowledgment that I saw that it ever officially existed, other than
by people who complained about it here. There is no information on how
it was resolved, and if owners of earlier models were offered upgrades.
Was it a software issue requiring a new firmware download, a change of
ink formulation, or a hardware change? No one is asking for Kodak to
reveal the exact fix or design change, but a simple announcement that
stated "We have been made aware of some clogging problems with our early
release printers, and this have been addressed with <new ink
formulations>, <new firmware which resolves the issue> <a new head
design>, etc", and then supplied some instructions on what early
adopters needed to do to resolve the problem would be a great outreach.

Instead, I read of head clogs, and although the product isn't yet in
Canada, I was left thinking this was still a problem and as a result I
can't recommend the product line. Same with the cartridge issue. I was
left suggesting people be weary of the ganged color cartridge because it
probably contained multiple color load inks and that the low load inks
would likely run out early leaving a lot of wasted ink in the cartridge.
I know your comment was that what is important is the print yield, so
just "be happy", but many people have become more sensitive to waste
issues, having to dump ink, which is in many formulations is considered
toxic waste because of the glycols and other chemicals in it, and also
issues of basic design efficiencies are involved, will leave some people
wondering if the printers are a good purchase or not.

I support the idea of a new player in this market, and one which is
trying a different business model when it comes to ink supply and
consumables, and honestly, I wish you best of luck, because I would like
to see the competition given a run for their money to change their
business models as well. I appreciate having you on this newsgroup as a
source of Kodak information, and don't consider your answering questions
or putting rumors or incorrect assumptions to rest as "advertising", but
when the information is very selective and guarded unnecessarily, it
makes me nervous about what else I am not being told.

Best wishes,

Art

 

[zakezuke]

The older Stylus (where they actually listed the picolitre volumes) did
indeed go down to 1 pl for the color versions, as did/do the 4 color
Canon models (dye inks).

I'll take your word on this, your experience base with Epson is far
superior to mine. My info is based on the current generation C series
which doesn't seem to go below 3pl.

On the flipside, I'm not sure why I upgraded from the beast that is
the 1520 to the 1280.... with the exception of borderless mode and
ease of feeding the 1520 with a fixed 20pl drop size looked better in
my eyes.

But yes, Canon offers 1pl in 4 color printers.

 

[zakezuke]

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included in
the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000
Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

What colors are in the tanks can't be considered proprietary since
Kodak doesn't own a patent on the primary colors for print. This is
not their property. Now if they used another system of subtractive
primaries, that would be proprietary. But CMYK printing is rather the
standard, as is CcMmYK.

The information on 1000 Nerds would suggest some of the information we
are looking for is not protected by any NDA.

The part that some circles would consider rude is suggesting on a
person's field of business would affect how they would know what
information on a printer would be released or not.

As for issues with clogging, I have seen that complaint from some
users. It's an inkjet and more over it's a pigment thermal inkjet.
The real question is how long will it operate without the head drying
out and how much a replacement head will be. Given Kodak, based on
the info i've been able to gather, is using glass rather than resins
for the nozzle plate, this might push the value of the printhead
higher than canon or hp.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

The only real problem I have at present is Kodak's unwillingness to
share basic information on their printers. As you said some people
find it "interesting". People like me like to stay tuned in on
current products an options.

But in terms of raw cost per page, I lack data on the current
generation Kodaks in terms of color use, doubly so since there is some
debate whether you can use standard photo papers and get good
saturation or must go with their more expensive barcoded paper. In
terms of raw cost of ink per page for black in fax AIOs it would seem
to be in-between the Pixma mp830 (3.2c/page) and the HP Officejet pro
L7580 (88 2.5c/page 88xl 1.5c/page).
[http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel_druckansicht.php?ID=1969&ps11=1]
[http://reviews.cnet.com/multifunction-devices/hp-officejet-pro-
l7680/4864-3181_7-32331470.html?
ctype=msgid&messageSiteID=9&messageID=2445628&cval=2445628]

But in general I don't have a problem with Kodak. Even their attempt
to enter the 8mm market I welcomed with open arms. Kodak was ahead of
the curve in thought but the market just wasn't there. I welcome
another player on the inkjet front, esp anyone who will compete with
Epson on pigments. I don't quite buy into the marketing as far as the
cheapness of the ink, but wait more data on the color to make an
informed judgment. I do agree Kodak is at least addressing the issue
of the cost for the ink somewhat in using the same tanks for the $150
model as the $300 model.

I do have a problem with turn key technology, and having to dig though
a blog site to get technical info that should be somewhere.

 

[Frank]

This is not a Forum to promote Kodak as an employee.

STFU!!!
Frank

 

[Ron Baird]

Hi Art,

Thank you for the help. I see your point and will be more specific and
provide the detail available in a different way in the future. I apologize
to anyone reading this for the lack of accuracy and casual response. I
appreciate the feedback which will make my responses much more
informational.

The clogged head issue is something common to a lot of printers in the past
and my reference was to that fact.

About the technology used in the printers, we have lots of information and I
will sort through what is available and what may not be. If anything can be
shared I will be glad to share it. I do see how my response was not what
would have been best for the question posed, so thanks for enlightening me.

Let me send you to the Kodak Coporate site that offers some good information
on Inventions, in fact go to the Kodak home page, click on Corporate, then
on the Inventions tab. After a review of the content there you will have a
good idea of what is involved in these new printers. It will give you a lot
of detail that I am sure you will enjoy reviewing. It may answer some of the
questions you have about these new printers. If not, let me know
specifically what you want to know and I will provide an answer if it is
available.

Talk to you soon, always glad to help. If you use one of these printers,
which you likely already have, I am quite sure you will enjoy it.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

 

[Ron Baird]

Hi Zake,

Well I guess I got my foot stuck in the wrong place.

Sorry for the casual response Zake, I appreciate your very legitimate
interest and question. I should have known better considering I have done
this for so long. My apologies. I have posted a similar response to Art. You
may want to review the site I referred him to as well. It is quite good and
informational and may answer some of your questions. Of course, I also offer
you the same help and information I gave him, you certainly are entitled to
anything I have available to me.

Thanks for understanding, talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included
in
the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000
Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

What colors are in the tanks can't be considered proprietary since
Kodak doesn't own a patent on the primary colors for print. This is
not their property. Now if they used another system of subtractive
primaries, that would be proprietary. But CMYK printing is rather the
standard, as is CcMmYK.

The information on 1000 Nerds would suggest some of the information we
are looking for is not protected by any NDA.

The part that some circles would consider rude is suggesting on a
person's field of business would affect how they would know what
information on a printer would be released or not.

As for issues with clogging, I have seen that complaint from some
users. It's an inkjet and more over it's a pigment thermal inkjet.
The real question is how long will it operate without the head drying
out and how much a replacement head will be. Given Kodak, based on
the info i've been able to gather, is using glass rather than resins
for the nozzle plate, this might push the value of the printhead
higher than canon or hp.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

The only real problem I have at present is Kodak's unwillingness to
share basic information on their printers. As you said some people
find it "interesting". People like me like to stay tuned in on
current products an options.

But in terms of raw cost per page, I lack data on the current
generation Kodaks in terms of color use, doubly so since there is some
debate whether you can use standard photo papers and get good
saturation or must go with their more expensive barcoded paper. In
terms of raw cost of ink per page for black in fax AIOs it would seem
to be in-between the Pixma mp830 (3.2c/page) and the HP Officejet pro
L7580 (88 2.5c/page 88xl 1.5c/page).
[http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel_druckansicht.php?ID=1969&ps11=1]
[http://reviews.cnet.com/multifunction-devices/hp-officejet-pro-
l7680/4864-3181_7-32331470.html?
ctype=msgid&messageSiteID=9&messageID=2445628&cval=2445628]

But in general I don't have a problem with Kodak. Even their attempt
to enter the 8mm market I welcomed with open arms. Kodak was ahead of
the curve in thought but the market just wasn't there. I welcome
another player on the inkjet front, esp anyone who will compete with
Epson on pigments. I don't quite buy into the marketing as far as the
cheapness of the ink, but wait more data on the color to make an
informed judgment. I do agree Kodak is at least addressing the issue
of the cost for the ink somewhat in using the same tanks for the $150
model as the $300 model.

I do have a problem with turn key technology, and having to dig though
a blog site to get technical info that should be somewhere.

 

[measekite]

Ron Baird wrote:

Hi Zake, Well I guess I got my foot stuck in the wrong place.

That is true.&nbsp; This ng is not a forum for you.&nbsp; You should remove your foot as well as your post.&nbsp; This is not a place for Kodak, or any other business, reputable or not, to promote their business interests here.


Sorry for the casual response Zake, I appreciate your very legitimate interest and question. I should have known better considering I have done this for so long. My apologies. I have posted a similar response to Art. You may want to review the site I referred him to as well. It is quite good and informational and may answer some of your questions. Of course, I also offer you the same help and information I gave him, you certainly are entitled to anything I have available to me. Thanks for understanding, talk to you soon. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "zakezuke" &lt;[email protected]&gt; wrote in message news:[email protected]...



On Sep 17, 2:15 pm, "Ron Baird" &lt;[email protected]&gt; wrote:



Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included in the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000 Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released. Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that the information is proprietary.



What colors are in the tanks can't be considered proprietary since Kodak doesn't own a patent on the primary colors for print. This is not their property. Now if they used another system of subtractive primaries, that would be proprietary. But CMYK printing is rather the standard, as is CcMmYK. The information on 1000 Nerds would suggest some of the information we are looking for is not protected by any NDA. The part that some circles would consider rude is suggesting on a person's field of business would affect how they would know what information on a printer would be released or not. As for issues with clogging, I have seen that complaint from some users. It's an inkjet and more over it's a pigment thermal inkjet. The real question is how long will it operate without the head drying out and how much a replacement head will be. Given Kodak, based on the info i've been able to gather, is using glass rather than resins for the nozzle plate, this might push the value of the printhead higher than canon or hp.



You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.



The only real problem I have at present is Kodak's unwillingness to share basic information on their printers. As you said some people find it "interesting". People like me like to stay tuned in on current products an options. But in terms of raw cost per page, I lack data on the current generation Kodaks in terms of color use, doubly so since there is some debate whether you can use standard photo papers and get good saturation or must go with their more expensive barcoded paper. In terms of raw cost of ink per page for black in fax AIOs it would seem to be in-between the Pixma mp830 (3.2c/page) and the HP Officejet pro L7580 (88 2.5c/page 88xl 1.5c/page). [http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel_druckansicht.php?ID=1969&amp;ps11=1] [http://reviews.cnet.com/multifunction-devices/hp-officejet-pro- l7680/4864-3181_7-32331470.html? ctype=msgid&amp;messageSiteID=9&amp;messageID=2445628&amp;cval=2445628] But in general I don't have a problem with Kodak. Even their attempt to enter the 8mm market I welcomed with open arms. Kodak was ahead of the curve in thought but the market just wasn't there. I welcome another player on the inkjet front, esp anyone who will compete with Epson on pigments. I don't quite buy into the marketing as far as the cheapness of the ink, but wait more data on the color to make an informed judgment. I do agree Kodak is at least addressing the issue of the cost for the ink somewhat in using the same tanks for the $150 model as the $300 model. I do have a problem with turn key technology, and having to dig though a blog site to get technical info that should be somewhere.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Hi Ron,

Thank you you recognizing the issues, at least as I see it. I will
search the Kodak website more, and let you know if other questions
emerge. My interest is not to get into the inner secrets of Kodak's
patents and printer manufacturing processes, but to be able to
understand the printers relative to what is on the market in a similar
market sector, so I can explain and advise accurately.

I have become more agnostic to brands, as time goes on. Each has it's
place in the market based upon the features, cost, durability, speed,
output quality, etc, so the more I understand about the strengths and
weaknesses of a product, the more I can help others to make the best
choices for their needs.

I have not been able to see the output quality or the printers
themselves yet, as I am located in Canada where they are, to my
knowledge, not yet being distributed. I hope to see them around soon.

In regard to your comments about having resolved clogging problems, if
Kodak has successfully accomplished that, especially with the pigment
inks, that is no small feat. I have not seen any inkjet printer design
having fully conquered that matter. Some take longer before it becomes
chronic, some monitor each nozzle and test and try to unclog a nozzle,
some use redundant nozzles to replace ones that don't clear, but I don't
think any manufacturer has gone on record to say they have a clog-proof
inkjet printer, using pigmented inks, so I consider the clogging issue
still "alive and well" in the industry. If Kodak has done so, I think
they have a really major breakthough. As with most inkjet printers,
we'll have a better sense once the printers are out there in the market
for about a year. All the in house testing isn't likely to provide the
subject pool in terms of environmental issues like dust, and humidity
levels, and random use patterns. Time will tell ;-)

Thanks again.

Art

 

[Frank]

That is true. This ng is not a forum for you.

Wrong! This is the perfect forum for professional reps like Ron. We are
lucky to have him and any of his counterparts from other
printer/ink/paper companies who offer their professional knowledge
without promoting their products.
On the other hand, this forum is not for idiots like you who have always
been wrong and always promote everything canon. I said PROMOTE
everything canon! This ng is not for sale yet you continually sell all
things canon here. You are the main one who violates the spirit of help
and cooperation in this ng. You are a blight on this ng. You offer
nothing but lies, chaos and dissension.
You need to remove yourself form this ng and never again return.
LEAVE and don't ever come back!!!
Frank

 

[Radford B. Allen]

Last Thursday, Sept. 20, I bought a Kodak 5100, All-in-one printer. I
returned it Sat. Sept.22.
Problem. It would not print Word Perfect files. Tech support FedEx'd a new
print head.
It still would not print WP text files. Tech support suggested exchanging it
for a new one. I did that. Same results. Another consultation with tech
support. The tech said Kodak knew the printer would not work with Word
Perfect word processor. Each call was to a different techie.
Why would any company market a printer that would not print files from
how-many-million-computers running Word Pefect? Not everyone uses Microsoft
Word. Word Perfect came free with both my computers. My computer knowledge
is limited to using them or doing simple things like adding memory, etc. I
know nothing of writing programs, or operating systems, or designing
hardware such as printers.
The last tech I talked with said Kodak is trying to solve the WP problem. I
talked with different people every time I called. I politely told the last
one that I needed a printer that would print documents I made with the word
processor I use, that is, Word Perfect. He understood my problem and agreed
to pass my thoughts on "marketing semi-completed products" to his
management.
I returned the Kodak 5100 All-in-one to Best Buy and they very courteously
credited my AmEx card for my total cost. I still lost part of Thursday, all
of Friday, and most of Saturday trying to get a printer to do something for
which it was not designed to do.
I was attempting to replace a 13 months old HP Photosmart, C4180,
All-in-one, that does a very good job printing and copying. I sometimes have
trouble with the scan function and the ink cartridges are very expensive. I
have put the C4180, All-in-one, back in service. Only wasted 3 days with the
Kodak fiasco but got my money back.
I'll deal with the HP scan problem on the rare occasion it happens.
As usual, your mileage may vary.
Rad

 

[measekite]

Radford B. Allen wrote:

Last Thursday, Sept. 20, I bought a Kodak 5100, All-in-one printer. I returned it Sat. Sept.22. Problem. It would not print Word Perfect files. Tech support FedEx'd a new print head. It still would not print WP text files. Tech support suggested exchanging it for a new one. I did that. Same results. Another consultation with tech support. The tech said Kodak knew the printer would not work with Word Perfect word processor.


WOW, this undid all of the PR Ron Baird did for a year.


Each call was to a different techie. Why would any company market a printer that would not print files from how-many-million-computers running Word Pefect?

Why is GB president.


Not everyone uses Microsoft Word.

Not everyone uses Windows and Kodak printers.


Word Perfect came free with both my computers. My computer knowledge is limited to using them or doing simple things like adding memory, etc. I know nothing of writing programs, or operating systems, or designing hardware such as printers. The last tech I talked with said Kodak is trying to solve the WP problem. I talked with different people every time I called. I politely told the last one that I needed a printer that would print documents I made with the word processor I use, that is, Word Perfect.

Try a Canon IP4500


He understood my problem and agreed to pass my thoughts on "marketing semi-completed products" to his management. I returned the Kodak 5100 All-in-one to Best Buy and they very courteously credited my AmEx card for my total cost. I still lost part of Thursday, all of Friday, and most of Saturday trying to get a printer to do something for which it was not designed to do. I was attempting to replace a 13 months old HP Photosmart, C4180, All-in-one, that does a very good job printing and copying. I sometimes have trouble with the scan function and the ink cartridges are very expensive. I have put the C4180,

You should not buy an All In One unless you are severely limited on space.&nbsp; Epson makes the best scanner and Canon makes the best printer.&nbsp; You can get the best of breed.&nbsp; Also if one goes bad you do not have to junk a complete unit.&nbsp; Replace only the function that is bad.

And be sure you use ink from the mfg.


All-in-one, back in service. Only wasted 3 days with the Kodak fiasco but got my money back. I'll deal with the HP scan problem on the rare occasion it happens. As usual, your mileage may vary. Rad "zakezuke" &lt;[email protected]&gt; wrote in message news:[email protected]...



On Sep 15, 1:05 am, Arthur Entlich &lt;[email protected]&gt; wrote:



I have been assuming (incorrectly) that the two cartridges were Black, and color containing CcMmY inks. That is NOT correct, and it also explains somewhat why the ink usage may be more even than I had anticipated. The inks used in the Kodak inkjets are as follows: Black Cartridge: Text black ink only Color Cartridge: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Photo Black and Clear coat.



I was rather surprised my self. Since it uses pigments I would have also expected it to be CcMmYK. Also the setup would seem to be similar to canon in the fact their general purpose models only use small nozzles on Cyan and Magenta.



I was surprised to read how large the ink droplets were. There are two nozzle or drop sizes, one is 2.7 picolitres and the other is 6.5 picolitres. Those are rather substantial sizes for a high color load ink which is used in this setup. Canon and Epson 4 color printers use as small as 1 picolitre droplets.



In all fairness the Pixma Pro 9500 only offers a 3pl min drop size, the only other thermal based pigment printer I'm aware of, and even that was delayed almost a year. I'm not sure Epson offers 4 color printers other than their Stylus series, which those are also 3pl. These printers however are not marketed as lab quality photo printers. They have printers as low as 1.5pl but near as i'm aware they don't include their 4 color printers.



Anyway, this is all quite interesting, and I'm disappointed people who knew were unable or unwilling to correct my assumptions to set the record straight, since this stuff appears to not be under NDA.



Kodak is a very young player in this market. I think their first volley of marketing simply didn't include technical specs to share, so the natural response was "proprietary and efficient". Polite but 100% useless.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Very said to hear. It may explain why the printers are not being sold
in Canada currently, since Word Perfect is a Canadian owned and
distributed product from Corel (which I think is still located in
Canada, after being owned for a period by a venture capital company in
California) for quite a few years now.

Your story does not bode well for that printer, and I am quite surprised
Kodak has not fixed their driver to recognize Work Perfect.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

That first sentense was supposed to read "Very SAD to hear"...

 

[Newsnet]

Greetings Radford,

Sorry to hear about your experience.

Not sure of the issue, but I know that the current version of WordPerfect X3
works fine with our printers. In your experience, however, I wonder what
size paper you had chosen? The paper choice may have an impact?

As noted, Radford, Kodak is investigating this issue and it appears to only
be an issue with earlier versions of software. I do not have all details but
it does not seem to be happening with all paper sizes.

Talk to you soon.
Ron Baird