no such thing as a "generic" printer...

[Frank]

I see that our resident troll and oem spammer is trying to convince
someone (himself?) that there is such a thing as a "generic' printer.
Sorry bozo, but it don't exist. Also the use of "generic" inks by
persons in this ng is very, very limited. I, along with most others, use
only after market inks (cart & refills) specifically formulated for our
various printers (Canons, Epsons, HPs, etc) and we get outstanding,
color perfect results every time and never any clogs.
The lies our troll constantly spews forth are not to be believed.
The truth is that after market inks:
1) will not clog your printer.
2) will not void your warranty (at least here in the USA).
3) will work with your favorite paper(s).
4) will save you a ton of money even if you do very little printing.
Our troll/oem spammer has never, ever used after market inks. He is no
expert on this subject. No experience at all! He has a sickness about
him that is down right repugnant. He cannot accept the truth, the facts
or the testaments of all of us who use and have used after markets inks
be they carts or refills successfully for years. When ever anyone states
that they are having some kind of a printing problem, his only reply is
that their problem is after market ink. That's bullshit!
We have no idea why he has embarked on such a self-destructive path to
undermine the use of after market inks with his lies because he will
never be successful!
We all would like to know exactly what dog this jerk has in this fight?
Is he a paid shill, a plant, an employee of ome carts?
It sure seems that way.
I've kill filed him and only see his ridiculous lies and replies in
others postings. But each day is see dozens of what surely must be his
posting kill filed by my news reader.
I suggest everyone do the same, kill file him.
Frank

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

I see that our resident troll and oem spammer is trying to convince
someone (himself?) that there is such a thing as a "generic' printer.

A generic printer?

While there's probably no printer that is named or sold as such, almost any
printer with an onboard processor can be driven with a generic driver that
allows text-only printing.

I don't know if any modern printers still emulate Epson (FX-80) or IBM
Graphics printers, but those are also drivers that can treat a printer as
though it were a "generic" type.

William

 

[Burt]

Hi!


A generic printer?

While there's probably no printer that is named or sold as such, almost
any
printer with an onboard processor can be driven with a generic driver that
allows text-only printing.

I don't know if any modern printers still emulate Epson (FX-80) or IBM
Graphics printers, but those are also drivers that can treat a printer as
though it were a "generic" type.

William

Unfortunately, what we have to contend with here is a generic troll. When
he doesn't like the message he attacks the messenger. Anyone who reports
good results with aftermarket inks (NOT generic, but formulated for each
printer) is attacked as an "agent" for the aftermarket ink industry. No
one can figure out what motivates him to continue to misinform. My take on
the subject is that he simply enjoys being a shit disturber and annoying
people. It only took mr. "Stanford MBA" a year or so to realize that his
all caps, misspelled, baby-talk, sometimes-obscene posts lack credibility
regardless of their content. Or --- has his more civil but equally biased
twin brother taken over his misinformation mission.

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

Unfortunately, what we have to contend with here is a generic troll. When
he doesn't like the message he attacks the messenger.

True. I do, however, maintain the original statement. It has nothing to do
for or against measekite--it's just the truth about generic printer drivers.
They do exist, and they do give you a "generic" printer in a manner of
speaking.

Personally speaking, I've both bad and good results from refilling ink and
toner cartridges. In recent times it looks like the big name office stores
(at least in the US) are getting into the game of selling refilled
cartridges. I don't think they're going to be in the business of selling
junk that will ruin printers. It won't do well for the reputation they have
with their customer base.

Neither do I think that NCR or Pelikan/NuKote is going to be selling a
product of dubious quality. I've not yet been let down by their cartridges
in a DeskJet 560C. (The NCR DIY refill kit was another story, but they did
more than stand behind it when it didn't work out.)

One of the favorite arguments of the resident anti-refill/aftermarket ink
individual is that you don't know what you're getting. I doubt he's asked
and I don't believe that it's hard for any reasonably intelligent person to
examine a print cartridge, figure out what's in it and then mix it up and
sell it at a reduced cost. Look at thousands of other generic (yes, there's
that word again) products on the market today that do as well as their name
brand counterparts. (You do, however, have to allow for products that are
not as good as some...but that's true with anything.) Why is printer ink any
different?

Anyone who reports
good results with aftermarket inks (NOT generic, but formulated for each
printer) is attacked as an "agent" for the aftermarket ink industry.

Seen that, would agree that it's tiresome. However, I am *glad* that
measekite has stopped posting in all caps. In any case, his point could be
put across more tactfully. There is some small risk of damage to the printer
or at least a mess being made during the refill process.

Or --- has his more civil but equally biased
twin brother taken over his misinformation mission.

I wouldn't say that! :-0

I've just been at both ends of the spectrum here. I've had a Dataproducts
ink tank set make a huuuuuge mess in a DeskJet 660CSE. By the same token
(and this was most likely my fault) I tried an NCR "do it yourself" ink
refill kit for the HPDJ560 black cartridge and sprayed ink all over the
kitchen table. But on the other side, I refilled color cartridges for my 600
series DeskJets many a time and had great results, except for the times when
I forgot to refill before it ran out and smoked the print head. Today I'm
using an HP Photosmart 1215 with Office Depot ink in it. It works fine, and
even the ink life meter is running along nicely. I can't tell the difference
by look, feel or (yes, really) even smell from factory ink. It's run almost
12,000 copies so far and I have no reason to believe it will quit any time
soon.

So you win some and you lose some when it comes to refilling ink cartridges.
I'm not against refilling. It can work and do so quite nicely.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

William

 

[Otto Sykora]

well yes, there have been existing and I still own one of them, but
now you will have hard time to get an 'generic' behaving printer
anywhere except somehow secondhand in e-bay.

The present days printers have almost only USB connection or
alternatively firewire or ethernet. Then here the generic drivers we
used to have for printing text on a paralell port have no fuction any
more. This was simply transfering ascii chars to the printer and few
other chars for linefeed etc.
The sddressing of the paralell port could have been done by simple
setting the binary pattern of the particular address. In such case no
driver essential, it is just wires beeing connected and this could be
theoreticaly operated by a handfull switches.

I think such thing is not so simple if it is USB connection, since
there has to be a connection first and for that the devices driver has
to be installed. And if the driver is essential for the communication,
then it will process the printing of what ever as well.

 

[Hendo]

Hi,

He is entitled to his own opinion, and has the right to voice it.

At one time all non IBM PC's were called "IBM Compatible". IBM
"invented" the PC.

The drop-on-demand inkjet printer, "invented" by Siemens in 1977 was
the original inkjet printer, all others are compatible, relabelers.

He uses compatible everyday, and tries to convince others not too.
That's why you sould take someones opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Frank]

Hi!




A generic printer?

While there's probably no printer that is named or sold as such, almost any
printer with an onboard processor can be driven with a generic driver that
allows text-only printing.

I don't know if any modern printers still emulate Epson (FX-80) or IBM
Graphics printers, but those are also drivers that can treat a printer as
though it were a "generic" type.

William

Our troll is not talking about generic printer drivers making a printer
"generic". He states that if you use any ink other than the printer
makers oem ink, then you have a "generic" printer.
Bullshit!
Frank

 

[measekite]

Hi,

He is entitled to his own opinion, and has the right to voice it.

correct

At one time all non IBM PC's were called "IBM Compatible". IBM
"invented" the PC.

thats right and at that time there was no such thing as compatible. the
ibm had 4 eproms containing pc basic. the so called compatibles did
not. later on microsoft gave them gwbasic (gw meaning gee whiz) and
many programs did not run on the non ibm generic machines.

The drop-on-demand inkjet printer, "invented" by Siemens in 1977 was
the original inkjet printer, all others are compatible, relabelers.

that is incorrect for hp with the deskjet used a different set of
patents. and then epson used different patents and different technology
and then canon changed twice. each of these companies developed their
own ink that is part of the design and engenerring of the printer so
when reviews say that canon produces the best results they are tested
with canon ink for that is the canon printer they are talking about. if
you put generic ink in a canon printer you no longer have a pure canon
printer but a hybrid of sorts so they are generic printers.

He uses compatible everyday,

thats what you think

 

[measekite]

Hi!




True. I do, however, maintain the original statement. It has nothing to do
for or against measekite--it's just the truth about generic printer drivers.
They do exist, and they do give you a "generic" printer in a manner of
speaking.

socket to em. they cannot stand when someone else sees the light and
even remotely agrees with me. my god (if there is one) that is sacreligious.

Personally speaking, I've both bad and good results from refilling ink

the reason is obvious. the relabelers that sell the stuff will not tell
you what they are selling. since there is no brand to follow in the
marketplace it is impossible to tell what is better and what is worse.
topping that off what you may get from a relabeler in january may be
different from what you get in april. they change there supplier if
they get a better price or for other business reasons.

and
toner cartridges. In recent times it looks like the big name office stores
(at least in the US) are getting into the game of selling refilled
cartridges. I don't think they're going to be in the business of selling
junk that will ruin printers.

that is not really true. staples sells generic junk that people have
had problems with. even the simple generic stuff is not as good. i
bought a generic printer ribbon with a nukote label on it and the
quality was no where near as good as the oem. you ge what you pay for
but in this case the oems were not selling ribbons in staples.

It won't do well for the reputation they have
with their customer base.

Neither do I think that NCR or Pelikan/NuKote is going to be selling a
product of dubious quality.

they are of dubious quality. see my remark above and that was before i
got down here.

I've not yet been let down by their cartridges
in a DeskJet 560C.

in the case of a deskjet you only have to worry about a leaky cart of
poor results. you cannot clog a printhead since you get a different one
with each cart change.

(The NCR DIY refill kit was another story, but they did
more than stand behind it when it didn't work out.)

One of the favorite arguments of the resident anti-refill/aftermarket ink
individual is that you don't know what you're getting. I doubt he's asked
and I don't believe that it's hard for any reasonably intelligent person to
examine a print cartridge, figure out what's in it and then mix it up and
sell it at a reduced cost.

i asked all of the larger relabelers via phone who is the mfg/formulator
"brand" of ink they supply in their prefilled carts and bottles and they
refused to tell me. now that is telling me you do not know what you are
getting.

Look at thousands of other generic (yes, there's
that word again) products on the market today that do as well as their name
brand counterparts.

and most of the time the store brand of foods are not the same quality
as major brands. there are some exceptions but nowhere is a store brand
better accross the full line of products. as an example coscto kirkland
full sheet glossy is about as good as canon photo paper pro but the cut
4x6 sheet lacks the whiteness of the full sheet counter part. kirkland
toliet paper is much worse than great northern or charmin also sold in
costco for a few dolllars more.

(You do, however, have to allow for products that are
not as good as some...but that's true with anything.)

it is just that there a group of posters in this ng who will not admit
the truth like you just did and keep name calling and instulting posters
who disagree with them. they also support the spammers who push \their
cause and a few are plants working for the relabeler and there are two
that either work for are newly retired from major printer companiers

 

[Gary Tait]

Hi!


A generic printer?

That would be anything that supports Epson FX comatibility. I have
nearly literally a pile of them (one of them being an Epson, just like I
have at least one IBM brand PC, ans a stack of IBM clones).

For ink, how generic would the HP '26 cart be? I've seen numerous non-HP
printers that could probably accept a 26 cart (and I have one that does,
with slight modification to the cart).

While there's probably no printer that is named or sold as such,
almost any printer with an onboard processor can be driven with a
generic driver that allows text-only printing.

Provided it uses Paralell or RS-232 serial.

 

[Bob Headrick]

The drop-on-demand inkjet printer, "invented" by Siemens in 1977 was
the original inkjet printer, all others are compatible, relabelers.

Siemens design used peizo printheads. Most inkjet printers today use
thermal inkjet technology. See
http://www.imaging.org/resources/web_tutorials/inkjet.cfm for some
history. To suggest that modern printers are Siemens "relabelers" is
simply disingenuous.

- Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

 

[measekite]

Siemens design used peizo printheads. Most inkjet printers today use
thermal inkjet technology. See
http://www.imaging.org/resources/web_tutorials/inkjet.cfm for some
history. To suggest that modern printers are Siemens "relabelers" is
simply disingenuous.

but based on the narrow views of a small group of posters it is expected

 

[Hendo]

As I said

"The drop-on-demand inkjet printer, "invented" by Siemens in 1977 was
the original inkjet printer, all others are compatible, relabelers."

 

[Hendo]

and most of the time the store brand of foods are not the same quality
as major brands. there are some exceptions but nowhere is a store brand
better accross the full line of products. as an example coscto kirkland
full sheet glossy is about as good as canon photo paper pro but the cut
4x6 sheet lacks the whiteness of the full sheet counter part. kirkland
toliet paper is much worse than great northern or charmin also sold in
costco for a few dolllars more.

Is your ass a little tender....I only use OEM tolet paper...It clogs
less.

 

[Hendo]

thats what you think

Stop the lying...you don't have a IBM PC

 

[zakezuke]

thats right and at that time there was no such thing as compatible. the
ibm had 4 eproms containing pc basic. the so called compatibles did
not. later on microsoft gave them gwbasic (gw meaning gee whiz) and
many programs did not run on the non ibm generic machines.

It's good to know you are educating your self based on the links I
provided in a prior post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_BASICA_interpreter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_GW-BASIC_interpreter
http://www.emsps.com/oldtools/msdosv.htm#dos125
http://www.depts.drew.edu/cns/museum/

It's true about the clone market, though I think the marketing term was
"ms-dos compatable" as such machines ran MS dos perfectly well. I'm
sure there were programs that required basic/basica... in which case a
clone may not have cut it at the time. But compaqs were sold with
basica on disc... and you could get basica from IBM on disc. whether
this was good enough I have no idea.

It's sort of interesting that measekite brings this up, he is so far
from the point i'll take the liberty of making it for him. pre 1988
there were true blue IBMs and there were clones. Some software would
work best on a true blue IBM and not all clones. But after 1988 the
clone was king, as in if you wanted ms dos software, it ran best with
the clone and not the true blue IBM.

So what measekite is telling us is calling this ink compatable means
that one day it will become the standard and OEMs will just make
printers that will work with this ink.

 

[Frank]

It's good to know you are educating your self based on the links I
provided in a prior post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_BASICA_interpreter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_GW-BASIC_interpreter
http://www.emsps.com/oldtools/msdosv.htm#dos125
http://www.depts.drew.edu/cns/museum/

It's true about the clone market, though I think the marketing term was
"ms-dos compatable" as such machines ran MS dos perfectly well. I'm
sure there were programs that required basic/basica... in which case a
clone may not have cut it at the time. But compaqs were sold with
basica on disc... and you could get basica from IBM on disc. whether
this was good enough I have no idea.

It's sort of interesting that measekite brings this up, he is so far
from the point i'll take the liberty of making it for him. pre 1988
there were true blue IBMs and there were clones. Some software would
work best on a true blue IBM and not all clones. But after 1988 the
clone was king, as in if you wanted ms dos software, it ran best with
the clone and not the true blue IBM.

So what measekite is telling us is calling this ink compatable means
that one day it will become the standard and OEMs will just make
printers that will work with this ink.

You actually think this moron is telling us anything? I don't think so.
Not in my lifetime he hasn't.
Other than a pcworld-gloss-over-three-year-old article it's evident he
know nothing about after market inks.
The one and only thing he has been able to accomplish, and he couldn't
have done it without our consent and help, is to hijack this ng for his
own personal sicko bullshit lying crap!!!
Kill file his miserable lying ass and be done with him!
He's totally worthless!
Frank

 

[Gary Tait]

As I said

"The drop-on-demand inkjet printer, "invented" by Siemens in 1977 was
the original inkjet printer, all others are compatible, relabelers."

I'd have to look that up, but did Siemens develop Piezo, bubblejet, or
other?

 

[Gary Tait]

To suggest that modern printers are Siemens "relabelers" is
simply disingenuous.

OTOH, Canon produced a lot of the engines for many laser printers, HP and
Apple for two.

 

[Otto Sykora]

While there's probably no printer that is named or sold as such,

almost any printer with an onboard processor can be driven with a
generic driver that allows text-only printing.

Provided it uses Paralell or RS-232 serial.<


ecactly! the simple ascii text string operated printers did only work
on those hardware systems.
no way today on USB etc.

used to operate even one HP laser from the 6xxx series as far as I
remamber, paralell port and LAN, but it refused any kind of direct
commands on the LPT.