Thinking of a New Printer/Scanner Read this.

[Arthur Entlich]

If indeed Epson stated what you seem to be claiming, they violated both
the law (at least in most industrial countries) and their warranty
requirements and you should have demanded they fix it for free under the
terms of their warranty.

I'm sorry to say, I tend to find your story specious, or at least
confusing to follow in terms of the timeline. In the literally thousands
and thousands of Epson owners I have dealt with over the last 10 or so
years, I have NEVER heard of such a circumstance.

Just to make sure I have this straight, you are claiming that within the
one year period from your purchase date, you attempted to have your
warranty honored due to a clog and they refused, and claimed you did not
use your printer often enough as their reason for refusing the warranty
repair, is that correct?

You also mentioned that you spent a good deal of money trying to repair
the clog yourself... was that before or after Epson refused the repair?
Again, this was during the warranty period, correct?

Or, are you saying that you used your printer so little that by the time
you needed to replace the cartridges once, it was already out of
warranty? I'm not saying you have any obligation to use the printer
often, you do not, but Epson warrants the unit for only one year after
purchase, regardless of if you use it or not, so if it was already out
of warranty, then, well, it was out of warranty. They used to offer a
two year warranty, but I think all the third party ink repairs made them
clamp down, and unfortunately, one year is pretty much industry standard
these days.

However, the impression you give is that Epson refused to honor their
warranty during the year period when the head clogged, and this I have
NEVER EVER heard from anyone, even from people who have used 3rd party
inks. So, please clarify.

Now, if you damaged the printer while trying to unclog the head, rather
than send it to Epson for exchange, that's again another issue.

I tend to suggest people go to Epson for clogs and other problems if the
printer is within warranty, but having assisted many thousands of people
to unclog the heads of their printer, there are nearly free and
effective ways of doing it successfully without damage.

I have no affiliation with Epson, but the products are superior for some
applications, and I think it is only fair that accurate information is
posted to the net regarding people's experiences, so I await
clarification on the circumstances regarding your printer. Which model,
what country, did you ever deal directly with Epson or with a licensee, etc.

I suppose there is a first time for everything, but you must be a very
unlucky person to have been the one.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I think you missed several of my points, and you are also incorrect
about a few things you state. All Epson printers can use pigment
colorant inks (either 3rd party or Epson inks used as refill in 3rd
party empties), and they are used that way by many people making work
for sale. THAT is what I mean by the head design. You cannot use
pigment inks interchangeably with most other printer head designs. If
you do switch over to pigment inks on an Epson that was not sold with
that in mind, you may need to pay more attention to issues like head
clogging, because the firmware and cleaning cycles may differ from the
dye ink printer programs, but the actual head technology can handle a
much wider mix of ink formulations than can other printer head designs.
That is why Epson printers have so many 3rd party inks available, and
also so many constant ink systems developed for them.

There is absolutely no question that the Epson and other pigment
colorant inks will outlast most dye inks, and especially Canon OEM dye inks.

I didn't say that HP was the best head design, I said it was the best
design for this particular user, because he appears to have difficulty
dealing with Epson printers and their warranty, and HP printers
eliminate the issue of head warranties.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Yeap, they must be the exception.

Art

Costco must be the exception. Some times Canon has the monopoly and
other times it is Epson. HP is usually their also because HP, in the
minds of many users, is associated with inkjet (deskjet).

The ink section appears to be evenly split between HP, Epson, and
Canon. I hear Costco takes the same % markup on all of their products
so they really do not make more on a specific item in any significant
percentage.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I'm glad to hear it. I just wish the manufacturers were forced to take
the units back after they failed to properly recycle or dispose of.
That way the companies making junk that only lasted as long as their
warranty would end up dealing with the garbage they produced.

I'd like to see a tax based upon the build quality of the product.
Developing a longer "average" lifespan, or a warranty period extension
period would reduce the tx, while a product with a short warranty or
high failure rate earlier would have a higher tax charged. Using that
design, the value of making junk for the public to buy would be reduced
by a tax raising the price making the cost differential between quality
product and poorly made items minimal, which would move more buyers to
buying the better quality longer lasting products.

The tax should be federal to avoid people using state borders as a get
around.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I don't know. I believe Epson USA is a wholly owned division of Epson
Japan, maybe in the UK it's a licensee situation? I know in some
places, a repair guy is sent to do at site repair even for the smaller
consumer models.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Lexmark GIVES away most of their printers for free through assorted
bundles. I don't know about mark up on their cartridges, but I do know
they are very costly. Their printers are basically containers to sell
ink out of ;-)

Art

^^^ that should have read Canon or Epson.

 

[Bill]

Yes, I think he did. I do think that the HP design with the built in
print head may be the best design but it just is too expensive to use
for photos if you print many.

All original printer inks are FAR too expensive for making your own
prints, including Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and HP.

The only way to keep costs competitive to having a lab make photos of
your digital images, is to use third-party inks such as refills.

I've done comparisons between several printers, and HP ink costs are on
par with the other major brands. Claiming that HP is too expensive,
while suggesting Canon or the others are not, is just feeding others
misinformation.

 

[Bill]

I do not like HP... I hate that I have to waste ink every time one color is
gone.

Unless your printing habits include mono-colour images, like photos of a
blue sky, the odds of wasting significant amounts of ink is very low.
Individual ink tanks rarely save you any money...it's just another
marketing scheme, little more.

I've read plenty of comparison reviews, and compared ink usage in
various printers, and HP is not as wasteful as many people are led to
believe. The misinformation about tri-colour cartridges is generally
pushed by the companies that sell individual ink carts.

If you want to do some simple comparisons, just look at the page yield
numbers provided by the printer companies for their ink cartridges.
You'll find that Canon, Epson, and HP, all have similar effective
yields.

And when you compare prices of ink cartridges, you have to remember that
an HP tri-colour cartridge is equivalent to buying THREE ink tanks for
Canon.

I would rather deal with print heads getting clogged.

I certainly wouldn't.

I owned HP
because every time you go to buy a printer the sales people (no matter what
store you go to) insist that HP is the way to go and always put down Canon
and Epson. I finally went and bought a Canon i9900 and I am amazed at the
print quality. Something HP has never done for me.

Then you haven't seen competitive printers. Canon, Epson, and HP all
make models that produce similar output from similar models.

I like that I am not
wasting ink and if the heads should clog I will either clean them or put new
ones in.(thinking that is possible)

Try to clean an Epson printhead...it's a day-long adventure requiring
disassembly of the printer.

While Canon may be easier to access, their printheads are of lesser
quality and do not last.

HP has the worst printheads for life cycles, but you get a new one with
every cartridge.

In the end, it all balances out, and the best printer is the one that
has the features and performance you want, at a price that meets your
budget.

 

[measekite]

I'm glad to hear it. I just wish the manufacturers were forced to
take the units back after they failed to properly recycle or dispose
of. That way the companies making junk that only lasted as long as
their warranty would end up dealing with the garbage they produced.

I'd like to see a tax based upon the build quality of the product.
Developing a longer "average" lifespan, or a warranty period extension
period would reduce the tx, while a product with a short warranty or
high failure rate earlier would have a higher tax charged.

Then the tax on Lexmark shit would be about 5 times what they charge for
the garbage.

 

[measekite]

They need to pay the customer to take them?

Lexmark GIVES away most of their printers for free through assorted
bundles. I don't know about mark up on their cartridges, but I do
know they are very costly. Their printers are basically containers to
sell ink out of ;-)

Art


^^^ that should have read Canon or Epson.

 

[Hecate]

All original printer inks are FAR too expensive for making your own
prints, including Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and HP.

Interesting you should say that. Actually, it depends on the size of
the print. Yes, for 6x4. Borderline for 7x5, not so for larger sizes
where inkjets are cheaper. At least in the UK anyway. (A survey of
inkjet print costs versus printers in PC Pro about 3/4 months ago).

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Arthur Entlich]

As the old saying goes, if you have to dismantle it, you are doing in
wrong ;-)

More seriously, it is rare that a clog in an Epson printer requires any
dismantling, in fact, it is often a sign that the person doesn't know
what they are doing, and they may be asking for trouble.

This is an area I can speak of with just a bit of authority, having
helped over 5000 people deal with assorted Epson print quality issues,
the majority being temporary head clogging.

Art


Bill wrote:

 

[measekite]

As the old saying goes, if you have to dismantle it, you are doing in
wrong ;-)

More seriously, it is rare that a clog in an Epson printer requires
any dismantling, in fact, it is often a sign that the person doesn't
know what they are doing, and they may be asking for trouble.

This is an area I can speak of with just a bit of authority, having
helped over 5000 people deal with assorted Epson print quality issues,
the majority being temporary head clogging.

I do believe you helped all these people but the question in my mind is
why don't you hear of all these issues with all of the Canon users out
their. Could it be that the design of the Canon printers is more forgiving?

 

[Hecate]

I do believe you helped all these people but the question in my mind is
why don't you hear of all these issues with all of the Canon users out
their. Could it be that the design of the Canon printers is more forgiving?

As pointed out to you before, the most common complaint from Canon (or
ex-Canon) users is the heads burning out. That's why you don't hear
about clogging issues with Canon printers. That and the dye ink of
course.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Bill]

Interesting you should say that. Actually, it depends on the size of
the print. Yes, for 6x4. Borderline for 7x5, not so for larger sizes
where inkjets are cheaper. At least in the UK anyway. (A survey of
inkjet print costs versus printers in PC Pro about 3/4 months ago).

I've said it before in this group...original ink costs are higher for
all print sizes here in Canada. Costs in the US are similar.

I don't believe it's practical to print your own photos at home unless
you only print a select few and don't mind the high cost of those few
prints.

If you intend to print dozens of photos, a lab is much cheaper, unless
you refill your ink cartridges.

 

[Bill]

As the old saying goes, if you have to dismantle it, you are doing in
wrong ;-)

More seriously, it is rare that a clog in an Epson printer requires any
dismantling, in fact, it is often a sign that the person doesn't know
what they are doing, and they may be asking for trouble.

That's what annoys me about Epson printers...since when does a USER need
to know anything special about printing?

You put in paper and click print. It should be that simple. Any clogs
are a fault of the printer design.

This is an area I can speak of with just a bit of authority, having
helped over 5000 people deal with assorted Epson print quality issues,
the majority being temporary head clogging.

I know of your background, and I have no problem with that aspect for
users who buy third-party inks.

But for typical users, it should be point and click. Clogging is a
problem with the printer, not the user.

 

[measekite]

Arthur Entlich wrote:




That's what annoys me about Epson printers...since when does a USER need
to know anything special about printing?

You put in paper and click print. It should be that simple. Any clogs
are a fault of the printer design.




I know of your background, and I have no problem with that aspect for
users who buy third-party inks.

But for typical users, it should be point and click. Clogging is a
problem with the printer and the ink, not the user.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

You'd be amazed how many Canon printer owners contact me privately
asking for the Epson manual hoping that it will fix their Canon
printers. Lucky for them, although I do not encourage it, since I have
no direct personal experience with the guts of the current Canon printer
lines, some aspects of the printers are similar enough to interpolate
the information to Canon printers. Also, luckily, the same "magic
cleaning fluid" works on Canon inks that works on Epson inks.

Someone from one of the Epson lists, without my knowledge, took one of
my Epson Cleaning Manual announcements and cut and pasted it into a
Canon list indicating that the basics might help Canon printer owners,
and my mailbox almost fell over dead for about a week after that.

As I have stated before, dye inks cause less clogs than pigment ones, so
I would expect less problems with Canon heads on that accord. Also, the
new Canon printers have hundreds if not thousands of nozzles per color,
while Epson printers have under a hundred nozzles per color, so if a
nozzle isn't firing, it shows up more readily and often on a print.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I don't disagree that Epson's design could probably be better to make
clogging less likely, but I also recognize, as do others, apparently,
that sometimes there are trade offs in going for one technology over
another.

It has been argued infinitum on this group why one printer is better
than another. Truth be told, better is a very subjective word. Cost of
running the printer, color accuracy, fade resistance, each of use, ease
of cartridge replacement, image resolution, paper choices, speed, noise
factor, and dozens of other things enter into the decision.

If every printer had similar specs across the board, chances are
eventually only one company would remain, which would be the one that
produced the cheapest costing, cheapest running and most reliable
printer made. However, it was Epson's introduction of a color printer
with 720 dpi that shook up the inkjet printer world. Until then,
150-300 dpi and large picolitre blobs of ink were what other
manufacturers were offering.

Epson, in spite of many flaws as a company as well as their products,
has often been the one to push the line in the sand forward, and they
have captured a specific market with their products. So have the other
manufacturers. I suspect that one will soon drop out of the running, as
people determine the quality isn't there, and the cost of the nearly
free printer is not worthwhile when the consumable costs come into the
equation.

For now, Epson's printers serve a valuable market niche. Personally, I
think if Epson were smart they would get out of the low end inkjet
printer market completely, and work on expanding the fine art and photo
image product market, but I can understand their reasons for remaining
with the low end stuff. It might be what allows them to support the
semi-pro and pro clientele.

Art

 

[Larry]

For now, Epson's printers serve a valuable market niche. Personally, I
think if Epson were smart they would get out of the low end inkjet
printer market completely, and work on expanding the fine art and photo
image product market, but I can understand their reasons for remaining
with the low end stuff. It might be what allows them to support the
semi-pro and pro clientele.

Art

I think they stay with the low end market just to keep their name on peoples
desks at home.

People will always gravitate toward a name they are familiar with (even
people in charge of buying for a company), all other things being equall.

(look at the Television Market... Even after RCA ceased to be a real TV
manufacturer, they held on to quite a chunk of the "Department Store" tv
sales, just through name recognition. OTOH a TV labeled Thompson would
probably sit on the shelf forever if "Joe sixpack" is TV shopping).