Epson "ink is low" ripoff

[A. L. Meyers]

Now you all have got me scared!

So what printers do you recommend that are:

1. GNU/Linux compatible

2. robust, rugged, worry- and care-free

3. excellent in printing quality

4. low in running costs and consumables

5. reasonably priced?

Lux

 

[Trent©]

Now you all have got me scared!

So what printers do you recommend that are:

1. GNU/Linux compatible

2. robust, rugged, worry- and care-free

3. excellent in printing quality

4. low in running costs and consumables

5. reasonably priced?

Lux

Gutenberg!! lol


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Bill Unruh]

(e-mail address removed) (A. L. Meyers) writes:

]Now you all have got me scared!

]So what printers do you recommend that are:

]1. GNU/Linux compatible

]2. robust, rugged, worry- and care-free

]3. excellent in printing quality

]4. low in running costs and consumables

]5. reasonably priced?

Laser printer or inkjet? My HP 1300 works reasonably well.

 

[gothika]

Do you have a source for that? If it's true, I'll have to cross Canon off
my list entirely. But I suspect you are mistaken, as Epson and Canon are
direct competitors. Canon has been making their own bubble-jets so long, it
doesn't make sense that they would need to borrow inferior technology from
Epson. -Dave

I'm sure back about 4 years ago Canon contracted with Epson to make
the print engines for a line of their "photo-printers".
They were easy to spot, their specs matched the Epsons
exactly.(1440x1440, 1440x720 etc...)
Just stay away from those models.
I use a Canon bubble jet for text work(BJC1000) and have a BJC6000
that I use for some basic color work. Like it because it has seperate
ink tanks for each color eliminating waste.
They went with Epson's pezio engines because they did produce better
image results for photo work at the time.
Thermal inkjet technology has since caught up and even passed pezio
now so that may be a thing of the past.(I did notice that they Canon's
that used Epson engines didn't sell much.)
Didn't take long for word to get out about Epson's crap.

I have an Lexmark Z41 that does decent photo work for a low end inkjet
and it is reliable as well.( seldom have to do much more than run a
single cleanup sheet after long sits.)

 

[gothika]

Canon makes the engine for at least one other brand of laser printers
so I doubt they would outsource their bubble jet design. While I know
bubble jet != laser, but logically it doesn't make sense for them to
be doing that, would it?

Actually the bubble jet technology of the late 90's was inferior to
the pezio for dithering fine detail.
That's why Epson had the fine art and graphics market then.
Unless you wanted to breakout of the consumer market abd go with
something like Encad/Novajet plotters and some very expensive
dithering software.
Or go Dyesub, thermal ribbon or top end laser.
Canon was desperate to capture at least some of the photo-inkjet
market. Their color inkjets of that period did horrible photo
reproduction, kind of looked like very grainy film prints.
an Epson with just 720x720 in photo reproduction mode produced a very
passable image on good photopaper. Getting them to do it consistenly
was another issue altogether tho'.(I wasted as much paper and ink
trying to get mine to work right as the final production run.)
A sure killer if you're trying to make money with them.
If you look at the Canon lineup for 99 and I believe 2000 you'll see
alot of their top end inkjets matching specs with comparable Epsons.
A dead giveaway.
Pizeo is a different technology than standard thermal inkjet.
all other manufacturers used the thermal process for it's advantages
of being reliable and easy to produce.(bubble jet is just Canon's
trade mark name for their thermal ink jet.)

Epson patented the Pizeo process to lock all others out of producing
similar printers.
Canon had no choice but to contract for the Epson print engines.

 

[Never anonymous Bud]

I'm sure back about 4 years ago Canon contracted with Epson to make
the print engines for a line of their "photo-printers".
They were easy to spot, their specs matched the Epsons
exactly.(1440x1440, 1440x720 etc...)

Nope, all the Canon engines are based on multiples of 600.
Only Epson has multiples of 720.

The number of nozzles is also greater in the Epson,
though it really doesn't make the print any better.

Do you REALLY think Canon would produce something
for another vendor that would allow that other
vendor to claim better numbers than Canon could??

 

[Tony Hill]

Now you all have got me scared!

So what printers do you recommend that are:

1. GNU/Linux compatible

2. robust, rugged, worry- and care-free

3. excellent in printing quality

4. low in running costs and consumables

5. reasonably priced?

For inkjets, get an HP. They cost about $20 more, but you'll make up
that cost difference in the first cartridge. Well supported under
Linux (generally speaking, I'm sure there are some exceptions). I
don't know that I would describe them as "robust", "rugged" or
"worry-free", but at least they're a step up from the others.

The excellence in printing quality is the tough one in a sense since
it's somewhat subjective and very dependent on what you're printing
and just how much excellence you really need. Generally speaking all
have pretty good printing quality these days, but none of the low-end
models are at the photo-quality level.

 

[The little lost angel]

Nope, all the Canon engines are based on multiples of 600.
Only Epson has multiples of 720.

The number of nozzles is also greater in the Epson,
though it really doesn't make the print any better.

Do you REALLY think Canon would produce something
for another vendor that would allow that other
vendor to claim better numbers than Canon could??

Erm, I think you misread him? He was saying Canon got Epson to make
the stuff for them, so the 720 numbers were corect indications they
were Epson engines...

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[Stacey]

Actually the bubble jet technology of the late 90's was inferior to
the pezio for dithering fine detail.

Don't recall exactly when my canon BJC-8200 came out but it doesn't exibit
any of that grainy mess the earlier bubble jets had. It looks as good on
photo paper as the epson prints I've seen and I'm printing from 30MB down
sampled scans (the original scans are over 300MB) from 4X5 transparencies
so I'm pretty picky about the output.

 

[Stacey]

I'm sure back about 4 years ago Canon contracted with Epson to make
the print engines for a line of their "photo-printers".
They were easy to spot, their specs matched the Epsons
exactly.(1440x1440, 1440x720 etc...)
Just stay away from those models.

I looked at canon's site and none of their printers match epsons numbers,
they are now at 4800X1200 for most of their better (over $99) printers.
Maybe at one point they did this but I don't recall it and as I said my
BJC-8200 from just a few years ago makes really nice prints and isn't an
epson clone.

 

[George Macdonald]

Now you all have got me scared!

So what printers do you recommend that are:

What kind of printer?... laser or inkjet?... for photo work or not?

1. GNU/Linux compatible

2. robust, rugged, worry- and care-free

Spend a little extra and get a SOHO rather than a home consumer-grade. For
inkjets look for metal bars that the print heads slide on and separate
color and black cartridges.

3. excellent in printing quality

We've had an HP-890C in the office for >5years now and it prints pretty
good quality for text, labels, maps and illustrations, etc. It does photos
"OK" for say a brochure or newsletter but does not do "photo quality". The
ink is water-based anyway - something else to look out for if that'd be a
problem for your work.

The only maintenance it's seen is a general clean-up which involved
cleaning the whole case down, since the inkjet printhead actually creates a
mist of ink all around its immediate vicinity, cleaning off the cartridge
jet wipers, calibration band... and cleaning the err, "stalagmite" out of
the "ink spittoon"... no kidding, that's what HP calls it!

4. low in running costs and consumables

They're all high on consumables now - that's where the profit is for them.

5. reasonably priced?

Again, they're all reasonably priced now, apart from color lasers which are
coming down fast in price.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Matt]

Now you all have got me scared!

So what printers do you recommend that are:

1. GNU/Linux compatible

See www.linuxprinting.org

See the Samsung ML-1710 laser printer. Somewhat low resolution. I find
that the included cartridge is rated at 1000 pages. Replacement
cartridges include a new drum and are rated at 3000 pages and cost $71
shipped (2.4 cents/page toner cost). Has been as low as $80 after
rebates. See also the ML-1750.

HP LaserJet 1200 if you can still find one.
HP LJ 1300.

Brother 1440 or so laser printer.

Also www.newegg.com -> shop by category -> printers -> search (keywords:
laser linux)

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Personally, I think it's just crap to force us to buy new ink/toner.
I'm not running a publishing house at home and if I want to print
draft and misc stuff until I can barely see the print, it's MY
problem. The HP will happily allow me to do that. My next buy is
definitely going back to HP or Canon since it's basically the same
thing at mainstream consumer level.

Though my HP5150 also announces it's out of ink, and refuses to print
more. I have no idea how this is correlated with actual ink level (or
if it just counts pages....), nor am I aware of any way to override it.

 

[Gary L.]

See the Samsung ML-1710 laser printer. Somewhat low resolution. I find
that the included cartridge is rated at 1000 pages. Replacement
cartridges include a new drum and are rated at 3000 pages and cost $71
shipped (2.4 cents/page toner cost). Has been as low as $80 after
rebates.

This printer used "host-based" processing using the Windows GDI
interface.. Not the best choice for Linux (or anything else, IMHO).
Also, it has just a USB interface and lacks a parallel port (if that
is a factor). This model is discontinued and was replaced with the
1740 (which adds a parallel port but still uses GDI processing).

See also the ML-1750.

This has real PCL support so it's a better choice than the 1710.

HP LaserJet 1200 if you can still find one.

I have an HP 1100 and it has chronic paper feed problems. Finally,
after repeated phone calls to HP, they sent me a repair kit. That
repair kit was defective and I had to call for another one. That
helped with the paper feed but it was never the way it should have
been. I also have the copier/scanner attachment with similar paper
feed problems. Also, the copier/scanner software is truly awful. After
repeated calls to HP they acknowledged that they knew that the
software didn't work correctly under Windows 2000, but they were not
going to correct it.

There was a class-action lawsuit over the paper feed problems and my
settlement "payment" was a coupon for a $20 mail-in rebate if I bought
a new HP LaserJet. Not much of a deal. So I am not inclined to buy
another HP printer, especially since there are better deals from
other companies.

Watch out for the bottom-end LaserJets like the 1012. They use
host-based processing. The 1200 has a real processor and PCL support
(as I recall), but it was discontinued some time back.

HP LJ 1300.

At least this model has real PCL support. Ships with only 8 MB RAM,
and is much more expensive than my Lexmark. It does have true 1200 DPI
resolution though, if that is a factor.

Brother 1440 or so laser printer.

I haven't used a Brother printer.

I recently bought a Lexmark E232 laser printer for $200 at Staples.
It's faster than the Samsung (rated 21 ppm) and has real PCL 6
support. Having a real processor on the printer and PCL support makes
a huge difference with a slower system. The manufacturer supplies
Linux drivers (as well as Windows and Mac drivers), but it should work
with any PCL 5 or 6 drivers. The consumables are slightly more
expensive than the Samsung but still reasonable: $72 for a 2500 page
toner cartridge w/o drum. Comes with 16 MB RAM expandable to 80 MB. I
just ordered a 64 MB module from Crucial for $50.

I also have an old Okidata laser printer that I've used for nearly 10
years, and it still works well (if a bit slow). My wife has it in her
office at work for printing drafts. A solid and reliable product. Just
avoid the low-end model that uses GDI printing.

- -
Gary L.
Reply to the newsgroup only

 

[Scott Alfter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So what printers do you recommend that are:

1. [Linux] compatible

See the Samsung ML-1710 laser printer. Somewhat low resolution. I find
that the included cartridge is rated at 1000 pages. Replacement
cartridges include a new drum and are rated at 3000 pages and cost $71
shipped (2.4 cents/page toner cost). Has been as low as $80 after
rebates.

This printer used "host-based" processing using the Windows GDI
interface.. Not the best choice for Linux (or anything else, IMHO).

FWIW, many GDI printers work with Linux nowadays...at work, I have a Lexmark
Z22 and an HP DeskJet 720C that are both hooked to Linux boxen. Such
printers used to be a royal pain to get working under Linux, but they've
gotten better.

At least this model has real PCL support.

Not just PCL, but PostScript as well, which is even better. With a PCL
printer as well as with a GDI printer, you'd still have to feed all your
print jobs through Ghostscript. With a printer that handles PostScript by
itself, you let the printer worry about where to put the ink/toner/etc.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFA40wzVgTKos01OwkRAlQQAKC/kgkm3EL0CY0oN4A3Gt+a6hQdBACg2x3+
trigAyGuEU0/hlYaTZ+msL0=
=CXVL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Noozer]

Though my HP5150 also announces it's out of ink, and refuses to print
more. I have no idea how this is correlated with actual ink level (or
if it just counts pages....), nor am I aware of any way to override it.

You do realize that printing without ink will damage the printhead of most
printers. This is especially bad for Epsons because you can't replace the
printhead.

(Anyone know how to disassembly an Epson Photo 700?)

 

[Dave C.]

(Anyone know how to disassembly an Epson Photo 700?)

sledgehammer

 

[VWWall]

You do realize that printing without ink will damage the printhead of most
printers. This is especially bad for Epsons because you can't replace the
printhead.

(Anyone know how to disassembly an Epson Photo 700?)

Thor, in alt.computer, says he has disassembled an Epson Photo 740.
Go there and give him a shout. There's a thread there about Dell
Printers, where he mentioned it.

Virg Wall

 

[Stacey]

You do realize that printing without ink will damage the printhead of most
printers. This is especially bad for Epsons because you can't replace the
printhead.

So? A set of ink wells is as much as another printer!

 

[Noozer]

sledgehammer

Why? It's 5 years old and still works fine, except it needs a good cleaning.
Ink is still cheap too and no chips to worry about. I'd by an ink tank
system if they were still available.