Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsPC HardwareCPUMotherboardsVideo CardsStorageNetworkingPeripheralsBrand Name Systems
Related Topics
Video GamesWindowsMS Server ProductsMS OfficeMore Topics ...

Hardware Forum / Peripherals / Printers / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The real risk and reward of refilling ... long

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 02:18 GMT
Every time someone even mentions the topic of refilling cartridges on
this newsgroup, measekite has a conniption fit and starts posting
multiple responses screaming that (1) You don't know what you are
getting when you use third party ink; and (2) Using third party ink
will surely ruin your machine.  There is some truth in measekite's
rantings but, very little.  In truth, whether or not you choose to
refill should be decided, in my opinion, purely on economics.  Let's
examine :

First, if your printing load is light, replacing an empty cartridge
from time to time isn't going to break your bank account or cause you
to dip into you kid's college education fund.  When the thing runs out
of ink, go buy a new OEM cartridge and be done with it.

However, if you have a heavy printing load like me (I print
approximately 500 to 750 pages weekly with very dense coverage
comparable to newspaper print), refilling becomes an absolute economic
necessity unless you are Bill Gates. I go through the equivalent of an
11ml cartridge every printing day.  If I didn't refill, my monthly
cartridge costs would be many hundreds of dollars.  So, let's examine
the issues relevant to refilling from the perspective of those of us
who MUST refill if we are to use inkjet printing.

I have been refilling many models of all brands of printers for many
years with great success.  That doesn't mean that the path was always
smoothe and without frustration.  I clogged and ruined quite a few
printers before I learned that most of the ink vendors out there don't
know anything about their product and could care less.  In the
beginning, my success rate was low and the frustration level was high.
I was very close to giving up and turning to laser printing until I
met an experienced commercial printer who took me under his wing,

The first thing he taught me is that the quality of ink varies greatly
from vendor to vendor and not to shop for ink by price.  He put me on
the trail of a reliable vendor that he used in his business and, with
that, 95% of my problems disappeared.  I've been with that vendor for
about 10 years now and, no, I'm not going to publish the name of his
company.  If I did that, the flamers would be out in droves shouting
that I was nothing but a shill for that vendor.  So, you'll have to do
your own research.  Just take my word for it, there are very few good
vendors out there compared to a legion of turkeys.

The second major factor to contend with is the brand of your printer
and the configuration of the cartridges it uses.  Sooner or later,
after considerable use and whether or not you use OEM or aftermarket
ink, you printheads are going to clog and cease to function
satisfactority.  Moreover, aftermarket ink of questionable quality
will cause you heads to clog much more quickly than its OEM
counterpart.  This is the small scintilla of truth that I conceed to
measekite's rantings.  The real issue, however, boils down to whether
refilling results in signigicant savings so as to justify the
collateral damage.

It is also very important to choose your computer carefully in order
to minimize expense.  Currently, there are inkjet printers out there
that utilize two different configurations of cartridges.  For
instance, there are cartridges used in Canon and Epson printers that
snap into a holding receptacle.  The printheads are on the bottom of
the receptacle as are the electrical terminals that mate up with the
printer electronics.  These types of cartridges are little more than
ink tanks.  The other type of cartridge are of the type used in most
of the HP printers.  The printheads and electrical terminals are
actually part of the cartridge itself.  The significance between these
two designs is obvious.

If bad or marginal ink is going to damage anything, it will be by
clogging and ruining the printhead.  Now, let's examine the
significance of having to replace the printhead on, for instance, a
Canon IP4000.  Although, the printer can be bought for about $100, an
authorized repair station will quote you $120 for the printhead part
alone.  In other words, clog the printhead on this configuration and
you've bought a new printer.  Starting to get the message?  Now,
consider the HP 6540 which uses the other type of cartridge.  Ruin the
printhead on this printer and all you have to do is throw the
cartridge away get a new one.  Viola!  You have a brand new printhead.
Although, I much prefer Canon printers, this is the main reason that I
recently switched over to an HP.

What you need to do is to estimate you printing load, find out what
your costs would be in aftermarket ink, and determine if the economics
are sound.

Before I leave, allow me to put all this in a real world perspective.
I switched over to an HP 5940 three and one-half months ago.  With my
printing load, I have had to add ink to the HP 98 cartridge each day,
five days a week.  I'm still on the original 98 cartridge.  During
that period, I've refilled the equivalent of approximately 90 OEM
replacements and have used about one-third of a liter of black ink
from my vendor (costs $40 per liter).  Do the math for yourself and
ask yourself if my refilling had made economic sense for me.  That's
one-third of $40 opposed to the retail cost of all those OEM
replacements.

I know well that this post will probably generate an entire new
generation of flames and that there will be those out there that doubt
my veracity.  Are you listening, measekite? Frankly, I don't give a
rat's a.s.  I just wanted to try to set the record straight.
Frank - 28 Feb 2006 02:49 GMT
> I know well that this post will probably generate an entire new
> generation of flames and that there will be those out there that doubt
> my veracity.  Are you listening, measekite? Frankly, I don't give a
> rat's a.s.  I just wanted to try to set the record straight.

This is very useful information from a personal use experience. This is
the best type of testimonial concerning after market ink use we can
have. I believe there are literally thousands of success stories just
like yours. I know I am one of them.
The only questionable response (if you can call it a response) will
probably come from the only brain dead poster we have in this ng.
I’ll give you three guesses as to who that might be. :-)
Thanks.
Frank
Dan Wenz - 28 Feb 2006 02:55 GMT
> I know well that this post will probably generate an entire new
> generation of flames and that there will be those out there that doubt
> my veracity.  Are you listening, measekite? Frankly, I don't give a
> rat's a.s.  I just wanted to try to set the record straight.

Please add any comments about "lessons learned" concerning the archival
qualities of the ink you now use vs. as supplied by the printer
manufacturer if you can. Would you divulge, via email, the name of the
ink supplier you now use? I use an old HP DeskJet 722c with my old
computer and a Cannon ip4000 with a new Dell. I also just bought an
Epson R220 just for personal use to print on printable DVD's. The reason
I like the Canon is for it's ability to automatically print on both
sides of a page, a great convenience! The Epson was dirt cheap, with a
replacement cost for ink refill cost several $$ more than the cost of
the printer, no surprise I guess.
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 04:24 GMT
>> I know well that this post will probably generate an entire new
>> generation of flames and that there will be those out there that doubt
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>replacement cost for ink refill cost several $$ more than the cost of
>the printer, no surprise I guess.

Dan, Is this you real email address?
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 05:11 GMT
>> I know well that this post will probably generate an entire new
>> generation of flames and that there will be those out there that doubt
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>replacement cost for ink refill cost several $$ more than the cost of
>the printer, no surprise I guess.

"Lessons learned" ..... Jez, Dan, I could write volumes ... far more
than would try the patience of the regulars of this newsgroup.  It
shall suffice that, over the past 10 years or so, I have made every
stupid mistake and blunder possible.  Back when I was so naive as to
think that Lexmark printers were a good deal, I even learned how to
dismantle the Lexmark cartridges and recondition them.  I used to do
the same for Canon cartridges until I came to the realization that my
efforts just weren't worth the time and expense.

Bottom line ... in addition to using sound mechanics, there are three
rules that reign supreme:

1.  Find and use top quality ink
2.  Find and use top quality ink
3.  Find and use top quality ink

Good ink that doesn't promote clogging is 95% of the battle.
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 06:35 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>I like the Canon is for it's ability to automatically print on both
>>sides of a page, a great convenience!

YOUR COHORT IDIOTS IN THIS NG LIKE TALLYHO SHAME ON PEOPLE WHO USE THE
DUPLEX FEATURE.

>>The Epson was dirt cheap, with a
>>replacement cost for ink refill cost several $$ more than the cost of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>"Lessons learned" ..... Jez, Dan, I could write volumes ... far more
>than would try the patience of the regulars

MORONS

>of this newsgroup.  It
>shall suffice that, over the past 10 years or so, I have made every
>  

>stupid

>mistake and blunder possible.  Back when I was so naive as to
>think that Lexmark printers were a good deal,

THAT MEANS YOU STILL ARE AN IDIOT FOR EVEN HAVING GONE THERE

>I even learned how to
>dismantle the Lexmark cartridges and recondition them.  I used to do
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>1.  Find and use top quality ink
>  

OEM

>2.  Find and use top quality ink
>  

OEM

>3.  Find and use top quality ink
>  

OEM

>Good

OEM

>ink that doesn't promote clogging is 95% of the battle.
>  
budgie - 28 Feb 2006 03:05 GMT
(snip great wisdom)

Well said.

And the low-volume users need to consider how quickly printheads clog at their
rate of use.  BAsed on my own experience (far more limited than yourself -
having only used Epson and HP inkjets) I nowavoid Epsons like the plague.  Good
printing - as long as you keep up the throughput.  But if you are a ten pages a
week person, my experience of the HP (I run two 690 series still) is that they
will come up after a month of no printing and do a page as crisp as new.  Not
Epson quality, but very repeatable after a long break.  For the doubters, just
Google Epson clog and see how many hits you get.

As as you inferred for low volume users, I have found that using genuine carts
isn't sending me broke at my low rate of printing, so i haven't even bothered to
get into refilling.

Just my 2c worth.
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 04:18 GMT
>(snip great wisdom)
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>Just my 2c worth.

Your response reminded me of something I neglected to mention in my
original post for those of you who have a light printing load or who
print only occasional.  Your main enemy is the admosphere.  When the
printer isn't used for extended periods, the printheads are exposed to
the air.  This can cause the ink in the printhead to dry and form a
microscopic scab, for lack of a better term.  The "scabbing" can be
bad enough as to render the printhead useless.

There is a way to help prevent this.  When you are not using your
printer, remove the cartridges and place them in a ziplock food bag.
Fold up a paper towel and dampen it thoroughly with tap water.  Place
the damp towel in the bag with the cartridges and seal.  That way,
when not being used, the cartridges will "live" in a super-humid
environment that will retard the tendency of the printheads to dry out
from contact with the air.  A word of warning, be careful that the
moist towel is not in direct contact with the cartridge printhead.  If
it is, the paper towel will leech ink out of the cartridge.
Burt - 28 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
>>(snip great wisdom)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> moist towel is not in direct contact with the cartridge printhead.  If
> it is, the paper towel will leech ink out of the cartridge.

If you remove the carts and store them in a zip lock bag with damp paper
towel you are leaving your printhead at risk for clogging in an Epson or
Canon printer.  With a Canon you could possibly also store the printhead in
a similar fashion but not an Epson.  Your technique is probably suitable
with an HP as the print head is in the cart.
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 05:15 GMT
>>>(snip great wisdom)
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>a similar fashion but not an Epson.  Your technique is probably suitable
>with an HP as the print head is in the cart.

Quite correct.  That's one of the reasons that I mentioned recently
switching over to HP.  Admittedly, I am not "up" on the Epsons.  They
seem to be more prone to printhead clogging than either the Canons or
HPs so, I've distanced myself from that brand.  As for the Canons, the
entire cartridge and receptable component can be removed and bagged.
Arthur Entlich - 28 Feb 2006 05:18 GMT
You need to be careful about generalizing all inkjet printer types.

While you may be able to do what you state (remove cartridges and place
them in a bag when not in use for longer periods) with printers that
have an integrated print head, you absolutely should not do this with
printers that have either separate heads or permanent heads (current
Canon printers, ALL Epson printers, and even some HP printers).

Art

>>(snip great wisdom)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> moist towel is not in direct contact with the cartridge printhead.  If
> it is, the paper towel will leech ink out of the cartridge.
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 05:24 GMT
Using the Canon Pixma IP4000 as an example.  The cartridge receptacle
is little more than a plastic tray with printheads on the bottem and
the electrical contacts on the back.  What is to keep you from
detaching and bagging it.  I did precisely this with my ip4000 through
nearly two years of use until the printer was virtually worn out.  Of
course, as often as I print, I didn't bag it after every print job ...
only on those occasions when I knew I wouldn't be printing for a
period of days.

>You need to be careful about generalizing all inkjet printer types.
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>> moist towel is not in direct contact with the cartridge printhead.  If
>> it is, the paper towel will leech ink out of the cartridge.
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 06:32 GMT
>Using the Canon Pixma IP4000 as an example.  The cartridge receptacle
>is little more than a plastic tray with printheads on the bottem and
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>period of days.
>  

I HOPE NEW PEOPLE WILL NOT LISTEN TO THIS HORSESHIT.  MY IP4000 IS 18
MONTHS OLD AND PRINTS LIKE IT IS BRAND NEW.  I PRINT 3 TO 5 TIMES A WEEK
AND USE EXCLUSIVELY CANON OEM INK AND I DO NOT HAVE TO BAG ANYTHING.  IT
IS ALWAYS YOU WHO USE GENERIC INK THAT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
>  
Taliesyn - 28 Feb 2006 14:16 GMT
>> Using the Canon Pixma IP4000 as an example.  The cartridge receptacle
>> is little more than a plastic tray with printheads on the bottem and
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I HOPE NEW PEOPLE WILL NOT LISTEN TO THIS HORSESHIT.  MY IP4000 IS 18
> MONTHS OLD AND PRINTS LIKE IT IS BRAND NEW.

Of course it does, you never use it, can't afford the ink.

-Taliesyn
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 16:30 GMT
>>> Using the Canon Pixma IP4000 as an example.  The cartridge receptacle
>>> is little more than a plastic tray with printheads on the bottem and
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> -Taliesyn

TALLYHO DERE GOES DA KID
Arthur Entlich - 28 Feb 2006 10:46 GMT
Perhaps if you wash and dry the head (for Canon), but leaving ink in it
seems potentially damaging, by drying and clogging nozzles, or by
corroding or by contaminating the contacts.  If it is done carefully and
kept damp, as you suggest, it will probably work OK.  I'm not sure it
provides a great advantage over leaving it in the printer.

Art

> Using the Canon Pixma IP4000 as an example.  The cartridge receptacle
> is little more than a plastic tray with printheads on the bottem and
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>
>>Art
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 16:33 GMT
> Perhaps if you wash and dry the head (for Canon), but leaving ink in
> it seems potentially damaging, by drying and clogging nozzles, or by
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Art

YOU DO NOT REALLY KNOW THATS WHY YOU SAY PERHAPS

>> Using the Canon Pixma IP4000 as an example.  The cartridge receptacle
>> is little more than a plastic tray with printheads on the bottem and
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>>
>>> Art
Gary Tait - 28 Feb 2006 21:29 GMT
>   What is to keep you from
> detaching and bagging it.

Nothing really. But Arthur, the Epson guru he is, is specifically talking
of Epson printers, which should not be left without carts.
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 21:34 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>of Epson printers, which should not be left without carts.
>  

HA HA HA HA

A GOOOOO REW
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 06:37 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>original post for those of you who have a light printing load or who
>print only occasional.  Your main enemy is

AFTERMARKET INK

>the admosphere.  When the
>printer isn't used for extended periods, the printheads are exposed to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>printer, remove the cartridges and place them in a ziplock food bag.
>  

AND THEN EAT IT

>Fold up a paper towel and dampen it thoroughly with tap water.

SHRINK WRAP IT TOO

> Place
>the damp towel in the bag with the cartridges and seal.  That way,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>it is, the paper towel will leech ink out of the cartridge.
>  
Gary Tait - 28 Feb 2006 21:32 GMT
>>Your response reminded me of something I neglected to mention in my
>>original post for those of you who have a light printing load or who
>>print only occasional.  Your main enemy is
>>
> AFTERMARKET INK

Nope Atmosphere. Aftermarket ink is way down there as an enemy to printers,
just ahead of OEM ink.

>>the admosphere.
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 21:37 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>just ahead of OEM ink.
>  

I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF A TOOL ARE U

>  
>
>>>the admosphere.
>>>      
DK - 01 Mar 2006 05:00 GMT
>For the doubters, just
>Google Epson clog and see how many hits you get.

I am not fan of Epson and I own Canon but
here are Google results:

+Epson +clog - 85,200 hits
+Canon +clog  - 162,000 hits

DK
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 07:02 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>DK
>  

AFTERMARKET INK CLOGS HA HA HA
Gary Tait - 01 Mar 2006 21:08 GMT
measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:uGbNf.61817$PL5.33154
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> AFTERMARKET INK CLOGS HA HA HA

Who said aftermarket?
budgie - 01 Mar 2006 10:40 GMT
>>For the doubters, just
>>Google Epson clog and see how many hits you get.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>+Epson +clog - 85,200 hits
>+Canon +clog  - 162,000 hits

and HP?
Arthur Entlich - 06 Mar 2006 09:38 GMT
Don't be silly, HP +clog = replace cartridge for most people. ;-)

Art

>>>For the doubters, just
>>>Google Epson clog and see how many hits you get.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> and HP?
budgie - 06 Mar 2006 12:21 GMT
>Don't be silly, HP +clog = replace cartridge for most people. ;-)

Wouldn't know.  I have two 690C's that have been in *very* light service since
the model first appeared.  I think about three black and three coulour carts
each in that time.  Never a clog/clogg or a need to force a cleaning session.

But taking the converse view, if ever I did have a clogged cart I'd seriously
consider chucking it after a short cleaning attempt.  My extended efforts to
unclog a pair of Epson 800 Colour Stylus units have taught me the benefits of
quitting while I am behind.
Arthur Entlich - 06 Mar 2006 09:32 GMT
Maybe Epson owners spell 'clogg' differently ;-)

Art

>>For the doubters, just
>>Google Epson clog and see how many hits you get.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> DK
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 06:50 GMT
>Every time someone even mentions the topic of refilling cartridges on
>this newsgroup, measekite has a conniption fit and starts posting
>multiple responses screaming that

>(1) You don't know what you are
>getting when you use third party ink;

OH YEAH

> and (2) Using third party ink
>will surely ruin your machine.  

GOOD CHANCE OF IT

>There is some truth in measekite's
>  

>rantings but, very little.  In truth, whether or not you choose to
>refill should be decided, in my opinion, purely on economics.  

HA HA HA

>Let's
>examine :
>
>First, if your printing load is light, replacing an empty cartridge
>from time to time isn't going to break your bank account or cause you
>to dip into you kid's college education fund.  

OH YEAH

>When the thing runs out
>of ink, go buy a new OEM cartridge and be done with it.
>  

RIGHT ON

>However, if you have a heavy printing load like me (I print
>approximately 500 to 750 pages weekly with very dense coverage
>comparable to newspaper print), refilling becomes an absolute economic
>necessity

I HAVE ALWAYS AGREED WITH THAT BUT THE IDIOTS IN THIS NG ADMONISH ME FOR
IT.  THE PROBLEM IS IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GETTING
AND THERE IS ALWAYS THE PROBLEM OF GETTING A CONSISTENT PRODUCT FROM A
RELABELER

>unless you are Bill Gates. I go through the equivalent of an
>11ml cartridge every printing day.  If I didn't refill, my monthly
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>years with great success.  That doesn't mean that the path was always
>smoothe and without frustration.  

>I clogged and ruined quite a few
>printers

>before

>I learned that most of the ink vendors out there don't
>know anything about their product and could care less.  

MUSIC TO MY EARS

>In the
>beginning, my success rate was low and the frustration level was high.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>The first thing he taught me is that the quality of ink varies greatly
>from vendor to vendor and not to shop for ink by price.

SEE THAT IS WHAT I SAY

> He put me on
>the trail of a reliable vendor

I HAVE NEVER FOUND ONE AND I THINK I KNOW THEM ALL

>that he used in his business and, with
>that, 95% of my problems disappeared.  I've been with that vendor for
>about 10 years now and, no, I'm not going to publish the name of his
>company.  If I did that, the flamers would be out in droves shouting
>that I was nothing but a shill for that vendor.  So, you'll have to do
>your own research.  Just take my word for it,

>there are very few good
>vendors out there

>compared to a legion of turkeys.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>ink, you printheads are going to clog and cease to function
>satisfactority.  

>Moreover, aftermarket ink of questionable quality
>will cause you heads to clog much more quickly than its OEM
>counterpart.  

MY GOD THIS IS A SYMPHONY.  HEAR THAT FRANKIE CRANKIE AND BURTIE FURTIE
AND ZUKIE COOKIE AND TATER TOT AND TALLYHO

>This is the small scintilla of truth that I conceed to
>measekite's rantings.  

HEY MAN WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE EXCEPT FOR FINDING A VENDOR

>The real issue, however, boils down to whether
>refilling results in signigicant savings so as to justify the
>collateral damage.
>  

BUT I WOULD STILL RATHER FIND A BRANDED PREFILLED AFTGERMARKET CART BUT
HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO FIND ONE

>It is also very important to choose your computer carefully in order
>to minimize expense.  Currently, there are inkjet printers out there
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>recently switched over to an HP.
>  

I HAVE BOTH AND HP PRINTER WITH AN INTEGRATED PRINTHEAD AND A CANON
IP4000.  THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE CANON HAS BETTER PAPER HANDLING FOR
PRINTING INVITATIONS, BUSINESS CARDS ETC AND PRINTS SUPERIOR PHOTOS.  
THE HP HAS A BETTER DRAFT AND PRINTS BUSINESS DOCUMENTS BETTER.

>What you need to do is to estimate you printing load, find out what
>your costs would be in aftermarket ink, and determine if the economics
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>replacements and have used about one-third of a liter of black ink
>from my vendor (costs $40 per liter).

YOU SHOULD BUY DIRECT FROM SENSINENT

> Do the math for yourself and
>ask yourself if my refilling had made economic sense for me.  That's
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>generation of flames and that there will be those out there that doubt
>my veracity.  Are you listening, measekite?

YEP.  YOU ARE SAYING MOST OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR A YEAR

>Frankly, I don't give a
>rat's a.s.  I just wanted to try to set the record straight.
>  

MANY MORONS AND ALL OF THE IDIOTS IN THIS NG WILL NOT AGREE THAT LIGHT
USERS SHOULD USE OEM INK AND WILL NOT SAVE WHAT YOU ARE SAVING.  
ESPECIALLY TALLYHO
zakezuke - 01 Mar 2006 13:11 GMT
Measekite said: <snipped per request, too damned long anyway>

Here is the thing... users should use what ever they like without being
harrassed by others including "measekite".  Light users, heavy users,
whatever.  Light users can enjoy an economic benifit from many of the
fine brands of OEM ink on the market, and there are users in this group
who are happy to report their experence with good and bad brands of
aftermarket ink to help others make a choice.

Aftermarket ink isn't for everyone.  Most sub $3.00/ounce solutions
offer inferior life to their OEM counter parts.  Color adjustment may
be needed.  It does require more work than popping in a cartridge.
It's up to the user whether they would prefer these benifits or enjoy
75% to 90% cost savings.

It would be nice if Measekite would actually take his own advice and
only reccomend to light users to use OEM ink, those who would only
enjoy 10% to 50% savings in a year.  But to all users I must stress
"make a choice based on facts and use what ever you like".  You should
have the freedom to make your own choice without being harassed.
Made Man - 01 Mar 2006 15:32 GMT
>Measekite said: <snipped per request, too damned long anyway>
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>"make a choice based on facts and use what ever you like".  You should
>have the freedom to make your own choice without being harassed.

Well spoken.  Measekite refuses take note of the fact that using OEM
ink products are not an option for a lot of users and that inkjet use
for some would not be an option were it not for refilling.  To him,
there is no justification for refilling under ANY cirfcumstances,
economic or otherwise.  With my print load, what do I care if, in
fact, measekite is right and my $100 printer's life is shortened
through the use of aftermarket ink (and I don't agree that this is the
case) when my calculations tell me that refilling has saved me
$400-500 over the same period of time ... even with the cost of the
printer figured in?
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 16:53 GMT
>  
>
>>Measekite said: THEY DO NOT DISCLOSE WHAT THEY ARE SELLING.  ONLY VERY VERY HEAVY USERS SHOULD CONSIDER AFTERMARKET INK
>>    

>>SNIP TO LONG
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>only reccomend to light users to use OEM ink, those who would only
>>enjoy 10% to 50% savings in a year.  

SNIP TO LONG

>Well spoken.  

SNIP TO LONG
zakezuke - 01 Mar 2006 19:03 GMT
<snip>
> To him,
> there is no justification for refilling under ANY cirfcumstances,
> economic or otherwise.

Well, yesturday he was on his trip about heavy users, not like he
defines heavy users in anyway shape or form.  If he just didn't
reccomend OEM ink people who only print sub 1000p of text a year that
at least would be reasonable.  The exception I take is he in one post
claims that "only heavy users" enjoy a benifit and all others he
harasses, calls stupid, and claims their heads will clog.... which can
easily be avoided if one takes the time to read the reccomendations in
this group.
Jeff - 01 Mar 2006 20:07 GMT
"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1141239805.335707.237050
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

> <snip>
>> To him,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> easily be avoided if one takes the time to read the reccomendations in
> this group.

Measekite, or Francis, Frances, Francesca, or whatever this miserable
troll's name is, is trying to tell people who have been using compatible
inks for years and years that he knows more about aftermarket inks than
they do.  And he has no personal experience in the matter.  It would be
like telling a person who had been using OEM inks for years and years
that suddenly his inks are no good - only because 'he' thought so. Oh
really? Like, take a hike, a.shole!  The only clogging I've seen is
within his pea-sized brain.
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 21:07 GMT
>"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1141239805.335707.237050
>@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>inks for years and years that he knows more about aftermarket inks than
>they do.  

I KNOW THE RELABELERS ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL AND THEY DO NOT DISCLOSE WHAT
THEY ARE SELLING.  BY LOOKING AT THEIR WEBSITES THAT IS VERY OBVIOUS.

I DO KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE REFILLERS ARE HACKER TINKERER TYPES
AND USE THEIR PRINTER A GREAT DEAL AS THEY SAID.

>And he has no personal experience in the matter.  It would be
>like telling a person who had been using OEM inks for years and years
>that suddenly his inks are no good - only because 'he' thought so. Oh
>really? Like, take a hike, a.shole!  

DO YOU MEAN THAT YOU WANT YOUR MOTHER TO TAKE A HIKE.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND

>The only clogging I've seen is
>within his pea-sized brain.
>  

IF BRAINS WERE DYNAMITE
YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO BLOW YOUR NOSE
Gary Tait - 02 Mar 2006 04:13 GMT
>>"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:1141239805.335707.237050 @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> WHAT THEY ARE SELLING.  BY LOOKING AT THEIR WEBSITES THAT IS VERY
> OBVIOUS.

That's not the point. The point is you know nothing specifically about
aftermarket ink, as you haven't used it yourself, and you are blatantly
ignoring the testimonials to aftermarket ink. And how can you tell they
ar not professional? Sure, they might work out of their garage, and print
their labels on an inkjet, but that doesn't make them unprofessional.

> I DO KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE REFILLERS ARE HACKER TINKERER TYPES
> AND USE THEIR PRINTER A GREAT DEAL AS THEY SAID.

And you know this how?
measekite - 02 Mar 2006 16:00 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>That's not the point. The point is you know nothing specifically about
>aftermarket ink,

THE POINT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT
AFTERMARKET INK.  AND I DO KNOW THAT THE RELABELERS DO NOT DISCLOSE WHAT
THEY ARE SELLING.  SO IF A USER HAS TROUBLE WITH AFTERMARKET INK FROM A
SPECIFIC RELABLER HE STANDS THE CHANCE OF GETTING THE EXACT SAME INK
FROM ANOTEHR RELABLER BECAUSE OF THE NON DISCLOSURE.

>as you haven't used it yourself, and you are blatantly
>ignoring the testimonials

OF LAIRS AND IDIOTS.  THEY ARE THE PEOPLE THAT GAVE YUGO A TESTEMONIAL

>to aftermarket ink. And how can you tell they
>ar not professional? Sure, they might work out of their garage, and print
>their labels on an inkjet, but that doesn't make them unprofessional.
>  

HA HA HA

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>And you know this how?
>  

LOOK AT U
zakezuke - 02 Mar 2006 19:46 GMT
Measekite said:  <snipped per request>

The point is you buy OEM ink because it works.  If it didn't work you
wouldn't buy it.  I buy MIS ink because I *know* it works.  I've used
over 100ml in each of my cartridges and i'm still printing.  If I want
to extend my print life, I can spray my prints or use my other printer
with OEM ink.

Most of the people I see shopping for aftermarket ink are those 30
something soccer moms who want to do custom greeting cards who are
buying IMS from costco on their Canon printers.  They are hardly what I
would call the tinker types, just ordinary people who want to print in
full color who can not afford bucks a page otherwise they would be
buying Halmark(tm) cards.
drc023 - 01 Mar 2006 20:08 GMT
The members of this newsgroup have put up with blatant lies and deception
from Measekite far too long.

The following are some of obvious facts about Measekite:
MK is a troll with no interest in rational discussions of inkjet printing.
Any attempts by various users to engage him a productive dialog are
unanswered or met with infantile babble.
MK intentionally posts misleading, inaccurate information and makes absurd
claims about all non-OEM ink vendors. When MK is confronted with facts which
clearly expose his lies, he will either change the subject, fail to respond
or post a reply consisting of infantile nursery rhymes or sexual references.
MK is a spammer as evidenced by repetitive posting of the same messages.
MK is highly dishonest as evidenced by his past behavior of altering and
reposting other users remarks.
MK is a liar. In addition to the lies about refilling, he has claimed
educational and professional credentials which he clearly doesn't possess.
MK isn't a child chronologically, but functions as an infantile personality
when dealing with normal people, mostly adults. i.e. all other members of
this newsgroup.
MK is fully aware that there are many reputable online vendors of quality
inks and refilling products. As a troll, he ignores any facts which prove
him wrong.
MK is fully aware that refilling with any of the bulk inks recommended by
users of this newsgroup will not damage a printer or result is clogs.
MK does have multiple agendas. All are troll behaviors: i.e. disruption of
newsgroup discussions, intentional posting misleading and defamatory
comments, using inappropriate language and sexual references on a newsgroup
which is intended for users of all ages.
MK makes no positive contribution to this newsgroup. Of the thousands of
responses by him on this newsgroup, I have yet to see a single reply from
him that provides a helpful or accurate reply to a user seeking advice or
assistance.

The following are my suspicions about this character:
MK has a little bit of experience with printing and might know more than he
shows. While claiming that he never has refilled or used third party
products, I suspect the opposite is true. He probably has refilled and
continues to do so with Canon ink tanks and knows how easy and successful
refilling can be. As a troll, he posts information to the contrary as a way
of provoking others and disrupting the intended purpose of this newsgroup.
Because of his infantile personality, MK seeks attention in whatever way
possible. Because he is incapable of making a positive contribution either
in his personal life or to the newsgroup, he instead gets the attention he
so desperately seeks with his childish actions. He doesn't get positive
feedback or have a meaningful existence in daily life, so he comes to the
newsgroup seeking whatever attention he can get - positive or negative.
Measekite (not the troll, but the actual person) needs help to function as a
normal adult. He'll probably never be able to achieve any sort of meaningful
relationship in his personal life, but will continue to troll the internet
seeking whatever attention he can get behind the anononimity of a keyboard
(stuck in all caps). Pity the pathetic excuse for a human and pray that he
does get the help he needs.

Ron

> Measekite said: <snipped per request, too damned long anyway>
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> "make a choice based on facts and use what ever you like".  You should
> have the freedom to make your own choice without being harassed.
TJ - 03 Mar 2006 03:09 GMT
> The members of this newsgroup have put up with blatant lies and deception
> from Measekite far too long.

<snip>
I've been reading his rantings for a short while, and I've come to the
conclusion that it would be foolish to take the recommendation of
someone who is so obsessed and yet is incapable of finding the Caps Lock
key on his keyboard.

I'm a low- to medium-output printer, currently using an HP PSC 2110. In
two years of printing with this printer I have used just two sets of
cartridges and haven't yet finished with my second one. I have refilled
each many times over using aftermarket ink, with no problems. The first
set of carts did clog, eventually, but that was after some 25 or more
refills. The printer was NOT damaged by the aftermarket ink. Photo color
balance looks great to my admittedly untrained eye, even with ink of
unknown composition.

I, for one, don't care what's in my ink. I only care if it works. One
caveat, though: My livelihood doesn't depend on the quality of my printouts.

TJ
measekite - 03 Mar 2006 04:41 GMT
>> The members of this newsgroup have put up with blatant lies and
>> deception from Measekite far too long.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> someone who is so obsessed and yet is incapable of finding the Caps
> Lock key on his keyboard.

IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO TAKE MY ADVICE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE THE FONT I
REALLY DO NOT CARE.

> I'm a low- to medium-output printer, currently using an HP PSC 2110.
> In two years of printing with this printer I have used just two sets
> of cartridges and haven't yet finished with my second one. I have
> refilled each many times over using aftermarket ink, with no problems.

> The first set of carts did clog,

HA HA HA

> eventually, but that was after some 25 or more refills. The printer
> was NOT damaged by the aftermarket ink. Photo color balance looks
> great to my admittedly

> untrained eye,

> even with ink of unknown composition.
>
> I, for one, don't care what's in my ink.

PP

> I only care if it works. One caveat, though: My livelihood doesn't
> depend on the quality of my printouts.

OF COURSE NOT

> TJ
Prime - 03 Mar 2006 07:30 GMT
>> The members of this newsgroup have put up with blatant lies and
>> deception from Measekite far too long.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> TJ

YOURE RIGHT! I TRIED AFTERMARKET INK AND IT WORKED GREAT! I WAS WRONG ALL
ALONG.

BUY AFTERMARKET INK - I KNOW WHAT I AM GETTING!

THANKS TO TATER TOT, DA BEEFER, PECKINLOOMER FOR HELPING ME REALIZE IT
Frank - 03 Mar 2006 07:52 GMT
>>>The members of this newsgroup have put up with blatant lies and
>>>deception from Measekite far too long.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> THANKS TO TATER TOT, DA BEEFER, PECKINLOOMER FOR HELPING ME REALIZE IT

heheheh...good one!
Frank
Arthur Entlich - 06 Mar 2006 09:46 GMT
One of the most balanced posts I have read in regard to the OEM versus
3rd party ink debate in some time.

My only problem with it, is it pretty much sums up the whole issue, and
should have been stated before... in fact, it has been said in different
manners and newsgroups many times for many years, but even with this
current well worded version the  bickering on this matter will continue
indefinitely.

Art

> Measekite said: <snipped per request, too damned long anyway>
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> "make a choice based on facts and use what ever you like".  You should
> have the freedom to make your own choice without being harassed.
Paul Furman - 06 Mar 2006 17:03 GMT
I'm going to go with a continuous flow system, not just for cost but
it's annoying to be constantly changing in carts. There is always one
cart low so the low ink warnings are always blinking and each time you
replace one, they all do a head cleaning, then that drains the next low
cart & repeat making another one start the blinking again. I just don't
know which ink to choose for Epson R1800/800 pigment.

Here are the options I see:
-either WeInk which is a bit more expensive or the Niagra II from a
couple places...

WeInk system ($491 including $160/100ml ink set)
http://www.weink.com/ecom/products/epson.htm
They've changed recently, this is the complete kit with all options &
135ml ink set, also avail in 500ml or gallons (LOL)

Ink Jet Mall (Niagara II) ($464 including $135/100ml ink set)
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/ci/cis2.html
G7 bulk 4oz bottles for R800/R1800-SET8 $159.18
Niagara II pre-primed [CIS kit] with Generations G-Chrome (RB) Inks for
the Epson R800

Media Street (Niagara II) ($464 including $132/100ml ink set)
http://www.mediastreet.com/s.nl/sc.14/category.678/.f
Niagara II Pre-filled Continuous Ink Flow System for Epson R1800 with
G-Chrome RB Ink (bulk bottles of ink sold separately 4-oz $159, 8-oz
$305 and individual color bottle refills not available, 100ml is 3.4oz )

Ink Republic ($339 including $152/100ml ink set)
http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800
R800 Bulk Ink System + 8 * 100ml Pigment Inks

> One of the most balanced posts I have read in regard to the OEM versus
> 3rd party ink debate in some time.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>> "make a choice based on facts and use what ever you like".  You should
>> have the freedom to make your own choice without being harassed.
measekite - 06 Mar 2006 17:14 GMT
> I'm going to go with a continuous flow system, not just for cost but
> it's annoying to be constantly changing in carts. There is always one
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> WeInk system ($491 including $160/100ml ink set)

TERRIBLE OVERPRICED.  I WOULD NEVER DO BUSINESS WITH THEM.

> http://www.weink.com/ecom/products/epson.htm
> They've changed recently, this is the complete kit with all options &
> 135ml ink set, also avail in 500ml or gallons (LOL)
>
> Ink Jet Mall (Niagara II) ($464 including $135/100ml ink set)

> http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/ci/cis2.html
> G7 bulk 4oz bottles for R800/R1800-SET8 $159.18
> Niagara II pre-primed [CIS kit] with Generations G-Chrome (RB) Inks
> for the Epson R800
>
> Media Street (Niagara II) ($464 including $132/100ml ink set)

NIAGRA IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE CHOICE AND MEDIA STREET THE LEAST OF THE
EVILS BUT THEY STILL DO NOT DISCLOSE WHO FORMULATES THE INK.  SINCE YOU
ARE VERY HEAVEY USER YOU HAVE THE LEAST RISK OF A CLOG IN YOUR CLOG
PRONE EPSON

> http://www.mediastreet.com/s.nl/sc.14/category.678/.f
> Niagara II Pre-filled Continuous Ink Flow System for Epson R1800 with
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>> Here is the thing... users should use what ever they like without being
>>> harrassed by

MATT ZAKOWSKI

>>> others including "measekite".  Light users, heavy users,
>>> whatever.  Light users can enjoy an economic benifit from many of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>>
>>> Aftermarket ink isn't for everyone.  

MOSTLY FOR IDIOTS WHO WANT TO SAVE THE PRICE OF A BIG MAC

>>> Most sub SNIP
>>> offer inferior life to their OEM counter parts.  Color adjustment may
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>> "make a choice based on facts and use what ever you like".  You should
>>> have the freedom to make your own choice without being harassed.
Paul Furman - 06 Mar 2006 20:43 GMT
Anyone had experience with these?

- wrote:

>> ...I just
>> don't know which ink to choose for Epson R1800/800 pigment.
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>> http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800
>> R800 Bulk Ink System + 8 * 100ml Pigment Inks
zakezuke - 07 Mar 2006 00:37 GMT
> Measekite said: "niagra is suppose to be the choice and media street
> the least of the evils

Actually Measekite you've pointed to us out in the past that Media
Street's plug and play inks are not made under Media Street's roof.
They are made down the road at "Image Specalists"  And you've pointed
out in the past that Media Street formulates their own inks.
Paul Furman - 07 Mar 2006 16:27 GMT
>>- said: "niagra is suppose to be the choice and media street
>>the least of the evils
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> They are made down the road at "Image Specalists"  And you've pointed
> out in the past that Media Street formulates their own inks.

What?
measekite - 06 Mar 2006 17:15 GMT
> One of the most balanced posts I have read in regard to the OEM versus
> 3rd party ink debate in some time.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>> Measekite said: <snipped per request, too damned long anyway>

>> ZOOKIE COOKIES SAID <SNIPED PER REQUEST, TOO DAMMED LONG ANYWAY>
zakezuke - 28 Feb 2006 07:17 GMT
> If bad or marginal ink is going to damage anything, it will be by
> clogging and ruining the printhead.  Now, let's examine the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Although, I much prefer Canon printers, this is the main reason that I
> recently switched over to an HP.

My research has shown me that the cost of the printhead is 1/2 to 2/3
the cost of a replacement printer.  For example I can hit amazon.com
and find one for USD $55.00.  The last time I crunched the numbers the
offical rated life was equal to about 10 cartridge changes, but reality
can be higher or lower depending.  This works out to be about $1.10
extra if you replace the head after the reccomended period of time, but
most would consider a newer printer.

Some of the newer HPs use a seperate printhead.

But anyone on thirdparty ink spending about 2.50/ounce or so would save
so much after the 3rd refill that buying a new printer is cheaper.
Light users can enjoy savings from the get go with hobbicolors on
e-bay, other brands cost about the same for a 2oz kit as OEM ink making
the savings closer to 75% rather than being 90%.

But I agree, average users who don't print color photos might as well
buy OEM as they might not see much in the way of savings after a year
of use.
Blah - 28 Feb 2006 07:23 GMT
>> If bad or marginal ink is going to damage anything, it will be by
>> clogging and ruining the printhead.  Now, let's examine the
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>buy OEM as they might not see much in the way of savings after a year
>of use.

Try researching the printhead costs of Canons.  The prices they quote
will suck all the air out of the room.  The manufacturers don't intend
to make it easy to repair a printer.  They want you to buy a new one.
Anytime your inkjet is out of warranty and has a problem that requires
repair, you may as well toss it in the dumpster.  The manufacturers
have made sure that repair is never cost effective.
zakezuke - 28 Feb 2006 08:28 GMT
> Try researching the printhead costs of Canons.  The prices they quote
> will suck all the air out of the room.  The manufacturers don't intend
> to make it easy to repair a printer.  They want you to buy a new one.
> Anytime your inkjet is out of warranty and has a problem that requires
> repair, you may as well toss it in the dumpster.  The manufacturers
> have made sure that repair is never cost effective.

Ummm, I can buy most on amazon.com.  The prices quoted are $60ish for
the printhead for the ip3000/ip4000

QY6-0042-000 - $60ish
QY6-0049-000 - $60ish

http://www.printheadexpress.com

QY6-0042-000 - $65ish
QY6-0049-000 - $80ish

I had a link to a japanese site that was selling both for about 1/2,
damned if I could remember where.  But I found this other site

http://www.rakuten.co.jp
QY6-0042        3,937    or $35ish USD
QY6-0049-000  3,937 or $35ish USD
[unknown cost of shipping]

As I said before about 50% to 66% the cost of a new printer.  Most
would likely choose a new printer, but there is still penty of air in
the room.
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 16:36 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>have made sure that repair is never cost effective.
>  

I DO LIKE THE CHEAPER PRINTER PRICES BUT AT THE SAME TIME I AGREE THAT
THE USER REPLACEABLE PRINTER HEAD THAT CANON TOUTS IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE
BECAUSE IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY REPLACEABLE.  BUY A NEW HEAD AND BUY A
COMPLETE SET OF INK AND YOU HAVE MORE THAN THE PRICE OF A NEW PRINTER.

SO YOU GO OUT AND BUY A NEW PRINTER AND NOW THE NEW CARTS ARE MORE
EXPENSIVE.  THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE CHIP THE RELABELERS ARE FORCING THEM
TO PUT IN TO PROTECT THEIR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING FROM WHORES.
zakezuke - 28 Feb 2006 20:29 GMT
> i agree that the user replaceable printer head that canon touts is not an advantage
> because it is not economically replaceable

It seems to be 1/2 the price in Japan.  But I have to disagree.  You
see I had a bum head on my mp760 and canon shipped me a replacement
head next day air for free.  On an older canon that tends to sit for
months and the head drys out I can remove it and clean it.

Most of the impression of the high cost of the head comes from those of
us who saw the prices of canon printers when they are on sale.
Typicaly speaking the cost of the head is 1/2 to 2/3 the price of a
printer.  It does cost less to replace the head, just not very much
less esp considering that a new printer comes with new ink also for
base consumer models 1/2 the value of the printer.

Having a head that detaches with ease might rarely make ecconomic
sense, but the ease of cleaning is a huge benifit esp for light users
who might go months between printjobs.
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 22:42 GMT
>> i agree that the user replaceable printer head that canon touts is not an advantage
>> because it is not economically replaceable
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>sense, but the ease of cleaning is a huge benifit esp for light users
>who might go months between printjobs.

That's great but, I have to assume that the reason Canon gave you the
free printhead was because the unit was in warranty.  I don't that
they would have been so gracious if the unit was 18 months old and
beyond warranty.  Even so, there are those of us who depend on our
printers to make money to pay the bills and can't wait days for a new
part to arrive from the manufacturer ... even if the warrant still
applies.
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 00:09 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>>
>>It seems to be 1/2 the price in Japan.  

I THINK YOU OUGHT TO BUY A PLANE TICKEN TO JAPAN AND GO SAVE THE MONEY.

>>But I have to disagree.  You
>>see I had a bum head on my mp760 and canon shipped me a replacement
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>applies.
>  

YOU ARE RESPONDING TO MATT ZAKOWSKI.  HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT.  HA HA HA
ZOOKIE COOKIE IS A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH
Gary Tait - 01 Mar 2006 20:40 GMT
"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1141158573.265165.302840
@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Most of the impression of the high cost of the head comes from those of
> us who saw the prices of canon printers when they are on sale.
> Typicaly speaking the cost of the head is 1/2 to 2/3 the price of a
> printer.

FWIW, I paid full retail for my printer, $150 CDN or so. Special order at
my local computer botique.
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 21:03 GMT
>"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1141158573.265165.302840
>@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>my local computer botique.
>  

OH TATER TOT IS A CANUCK
Terry - 04 Mar 2006 21:05 GMT
>>FWIW, I paid full retail for my printer, $150 CDN ** or so. Special order
>>at my local computer boutique.
**Roughly equivalent to $127 US;
Canadian dollar worth less, than US dollar (about 0.85). But unfortunately
rising in value, in terms of US currency.
Or approximately 73 UK pounds. The pound being worth more than the US dollar
(1.75).
Approximately 105 EURO The euro being worth more than the US dollar (1.27).
More to the point! Because these are growing economies.
Approximately 1021 Chinese Yen and/or 5602 Indian Rupees. Or, 14,781
Japanese Yen!
Davy - 28 Feb 2006 11:34 GMT
Congradulations to Made Man on a well balanced scribe.

Trouble is with the ink market everyone is trying to jump on the band
wagon,    
it should be easy enough to weed the good suppliers out, guess it's
the swappers and changers what don't help either, that is those who
keep swapping ink brands, sure can't be helping the nozzles any.

Guess once you found a good ink brand and supplier is to stick to it.

Davy
measekite - 28 Feb 2006 16:32 GMT
>Congradulations to Made Man on a well balanced scribe.
>
>Trouble is with the ink market everyone is trying to jump on the band
>wagon,    
>  

DATS VAT I BENN TRYING TO SEY FOUR YEARS

>it should be easy enough to weed the good suppliers out,

NOPE IT IS VEWRY DIFFICULT CAUSE MOST DO NOT DISCLOSE.  LOOK AT THEIR
WEBSITES

> guess it's
>the swappers and changers what don't help either, that is those who
>keep swapping ink brands, sure can't be helping the nozzles any.
>  

THERE ARE NOT BRANDS AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM

>Guess once you found a good ink brand and supplier is to stick to it.
>
>Davy
>
>  
Gary Tait - 28 Feb 2006 21:45 GMT
measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:XW_Mf.38267$F_3.18271
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

>>it should be easy enough to weed the good suppliers out,
>>
> NOPE IT IS VEWRY DIFFICULT CAUSE MOST DO NOT DISCLOSE.  LOOK AT THEIR
> WEBSITES

Disclosure has nothing to do with anything. It has to do with quality,
consistancy, and reliablility.

> THERE ARE NOT BRANDS AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM

They are manufacturers, and that is no problem.
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 00:10 GMT
>measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:XW_Mf.38267$F_3.18271
>@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>consistancy, and reliablility.
>  

I AM DISCLOSING THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>They are manufacturers, and that is no problem.
>  

THERE ARE NO BRANDS POLLY
Gary Tait - 01 Mar 2006 20:47 GMT
measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:lE5Nf.26012$_S7.11706
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

>>They are manufacturers, and that is no problem.
>>  
>>
> THERE ARE NO BRANDS POLLY

I'm not saying there are brands. I am saying there are a manufacturers that
make a product, and vendors that sell it, either to retailers or directly
to customers.

"Brand" is just a label manufacturers and vendors use to distinguish their
product in the marketplace, and to allow a reputation to grow on, so in
that regard Canon isn't a brand either, but a manufacturer/vendor.
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 21:03 GMT
>measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:lE5Nf.26012$_S7.11706
>@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>I'm not saying there are brands.

GOOD

>I am saying there are a manufacturers that
>make a product, and vendors that sell it, either to retailers or directly
>to customers.
>  

RELABERS

>"Brand" is just a label manufacturers and vendors use to distinguish their
>product in the marketplace, and to allow a reputation to grow on, so in
>that regard Canon isn't a brand either, but a manufacturer/vendor.
>  

DUH
Gary Tait - 02 Mar 2006 03:56 GMT
>>measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:lE5Nf.26012$_S7.11706
>>@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>>
> RELABERS

No, Manufacturers and vendors. The fact they stick a lable on something
is beside the point. The point is they are recognizable companies that
haave earned a reputation selling a product.

>>"Brand" is just a label manufacturers and vendors use to distinguish
>>their product in the marketplace, and to allow a reputation to grow
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
> DUH
measekite - 02 Mar 2006 16:02 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>No, Manufacturers and vendors. The fact they stick a lable on something
>is beside the point.

HA HA HA

>The point is they are recognizable companies that
>haave earned a reputation selling a product.
>  

HA HA AAAAAH HA

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>  
Gordon Abbot - 28 Feb 2006 13:27 GMT
> If bad or marginal ink is going to damage anything, it will be by
> clogging and ruining the printhead.  Now, let's examine the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> alone.  In other words, clog the printhead on this configuration and
> you've bought a new printer.  Starting to get the message?

I shifted from HPs to the canon because of the tanks and the canon has
proved to be a better, more versatile printer.

You have answered a question I was going to post here, and that is
should I buy another printer for a spare. I am going to. For $100 I can
purchase another ip 4200. With it comes a print head as well as a set of
new carts. The best price I have seen on line for these carts is in the
$15 average range for all the carts, so that is $75. So for only $25 I
get a spare, new print head along with all the other spare parts I may
need to fix my printer. I try to make them last. I still have an HP 882
which works fine.

Both my HPs had problems that I was able to fix, but it would have been
nice to have had parts other than those I made myself (amazing what you
can do with a paper clip).

One other thing I would have added to your fine post, which is do not
try to extend the re-fill life of a cart beyond about a year to a year
and a half with normal printing. Then you are in danger of print head
problems, at least that was my experience with the hp's. May be
different with the canon. You did almost say this when you commented
about eventual print head problems.

GA

My address is spoofed.
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 16:11 GMT
>> If bad or marginal ink is going to damage anything, it will be by
>> clogging and ruining the printhead.  Now, let's examine the
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>My address is spoofed.

I agree with virtually everything you have said.  With my heavy
printing load, I can't afford to be down for any length of time.
Therefore, through the years, when I've found a printer that I
particularly like, I keep a spare in the closet.

Also, I believe I stated in my original post that I preferred the
performance of Canons over the HP I am using now.  Dollar for dollar,
Canons seem to be marginally faster and have far fewer paper feed
problems.  I remember an old Canon 6000 that I must have run 10,000
sheets through with hardly any feed problems.  I thought so much of
the 6000 that I bought two extras when I learned they were to be
discontinued.

Nevertheless, when the Canon printhead clogs beyond repair, you are
screwed.  You only have one through the life of the printer and the
replacement costs are prohibitive ... ruin a printhead ... buy a
printer.  That's why I switched to HP although I am convinced that the
HP is less reliable in the long run.  It's purely economics.  With the
HP, all I have to do to fix a bum printhead is to replace the
cartridge.  I only have to replace the printer if the actual mechanics
of the printer fail.  In the long run, I expect to come out far ahead
dollar wise with the HP.

The only real continuing annoyance with the HP is that the company
designs the thing so you no longer get the low ink warning if you
refill.  However, I got around that by buying a cheap postage meter
that measures in grams.  First, I weighed a new unused cartridge.
Then, I ran it dry and weighed it again, thereby, determining exactly
how many grams of ink it held.  I determined that each ml of ink
weighs one gram.  Now, before I start a print job, I weight the
cartridge to determine exactly how much ink I have left.  If the
cartridge weighs 7ml less than a new unused one, I simply measure out
that amount of ink and top it off.  If you HP refillers out there try
this system you will always know where you are with the ink level and
you'll never rist running the cartridge dry and burning out the
printhead.
Gordon Abbot - 01 Mar 2006 13:32 GMT
> The only real continuing annoyance with the HP is that the company
> designs the thing so you no longer get the low ink warning if you
> refill.  However, I got around that by buying a cheap postage meter
> that measures in grams.

With my hps I sort of estimated the time to refill and did end up with
clogged heads, some of which were recoverable.

I like the canon because you can see the ink level easily. Plus, they
refill much easier than the hps. But I could re-set the ink level on my
hps. There were directions on I got from this group on taping over
contacts. So there are trade offs in the re-fill area. I give canon the
edge here.

But as far as performance, there is no comparison. My 4200 outclasses
the hps (three in number). When I clicked on two sided printing on the
canon, I waited for it to tell me to reverse the paper, like the hps,
and when I saw it print on both sides without my involvement, that was
nirvana. Plus, I bought it for CD and DVD printing, which it does perfectly.

GA

Signature

My address  is spoofed, so do not reply directly.

measekite - 01 Mar 2006 16:55 GMT
>> The only real continuing annoyance with the HP is that the company
>> designs the thing so you no longer get the low ink warning if you
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> With my hps I sort of estimated the time to refill and did end up with
> clogged heads,

> SNIP.
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> GA
Gary Tait - 28 Feb 2006 21:48 GMT
> One other thing I would have added to your fine post, which is do not
> try to extend the re-fill life of a cart beyond about a year to a year
> and a half with normal printing. Then you are in danger of print head
> problems, at least that was my experience with the hp's. May be
> different with the canon.

It is , somewhat. After about 6-10 fills the Canon carts gum up a bit.
You can backflush them or trash them.
Made Man - 28 Feb 2006 22:47 GMT
>> One other thing I would have added to your fine post, which is do not
>> try to extend the re-fill life of a cart beyond about a year to a year
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>It is , somewhat. After about 6-10 fills the Canon carts gum up a bit.
>You can backflush them or trash them.

Gordon, if you Canon cartridges are gumming up after only 6-10
refills, I assure you that you need to find another ink source.  Until
3-4 monhs ago, I used Canons exclusively for years.  I could count on
going through nearly a full liter of back pigmented in before having
to dump the cartridge.  I will admit, however, when I was using
inferior ink, my results were very similar to yours.
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 00:07 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Gordon, if you Canon cartridges are gumming up after only 6-10
>refills, I assure you that you need to find another ink source.

OF COURSE HE DOES BUT ALMOST ALL VENDORS WILL NOT TELL HIM WHAT HE IS
BUYING.  THEREFORE IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT HE CAN CHANGE SOURCES MANY
TIMES AND STILL GET THE EXACT SAME INK FROM ALL OF THE RELABELERS.  YOU
KNOW THIS AND HAVE SAID IT IN SO MANY WORDS IN YOUR POST.

UNFORTUNATELY THE CHURCH MEMBERS OF THE LATTER DAY INKIE STINKIES WILL
STILL ARGUE THAT POINT.  TALLYHO

> Until
>3-4 monhs ago, I used Canons exclusively for years.  I could count on
>going through nearly a full liter of back pigmented in before having
>to dump the cartridge.  I will admit, however, when I was using
>inferior ink, my results were very similar to yours.
>  
Gary Tait - 01 Mar 2006 21:06 GMT
measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:kB5Nf.26006$_S7.22008
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> OF COURSE HE DOES BUT ALMOST ALL VENDORS WILL NOT TELL HIM WHAT HE IS
> BUYING.  THEREFORE IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT HE CAN CHANGE SOURCES MANY
> TIMES AND STILL GET THE EXACT SAME INK FROM ALL OF THE RELABELERS.  YOU
> KNOW THIS AND HAVE SAID IT IN SO MANY WORDS IN YOUR POST.

And that same ink might come from one of the quality vendors that make
tanks of ink, and have been for years before there was a home inkjet
industry.
The top vendors will sell you ink specifically formulated for your
printhead technology.

So what you say can be true, but it doesn't mean one is buying bad ink, it
equally applies to the good ink manufacturers and vendors.
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 21:17 GMT
>measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:kB5Nf.26006$_S7.22008
>@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>industry.
>  

YOU ARE SMOKIN AGAIN

>The top vendors will sell you ink specifically formulated for your
>printhead technology

THERER ARE NO TOP VENDORS JUST LITTLE AND BIG LIARS

>.
>
>So what you say can be true,

OF COURSE

>but it doesn't mean one is buying bad ink,

JUST CHEAPER FOR IT CANNOT GET MUCH WORSE

>it
>equally applies to the good

ONLY BAD

>ink manufacturers and vendors.
>  
Gary Tait - 02 Mar 2006 04:08 GMT
measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:NboNf.42778$H71.39006
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

>>measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:kB5Nf.26006$_S7.22008
>>@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
> THERER ARE NO TOP VENDORS JUST LITTLE AND BIG LIARS

>>.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
> JUST CHEAPER FOR IT CANNOT GET MUCH WORSE

Not cheaper, but better value.

>>it
>>equally applies to the good
>>
> ONLY BAD

Nope, All ink vendors

>>ink manufacturers and vendors.
>>  
measekite - 02 Mar 2006 16:01 GMT
>measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:NboNf.42778$H71.39006
>@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>Not cheaper, but better value.
>  

WRONGO BONGO

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Nope, All ink vendors
>  

ONLY BAD

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>  
Gary Tait - 01 Mar 2006 20:50 GMT
> Gordon, if you Canon cartridges are gumming up after only 6-10
> refills, I assure you that you need to find another ink source.  Until
> 3-4 monhs ago, I used Canons exclusively for years.  I could count on
> going through nearly a full liter of back pigmented in before having
> to dump the cartridge.  I will admit, however, when I was using
> inferior ink, my results were very similar to yours.

6-10 is I believe normal for even good ink vendors (that is my number,
pulled from te niftystuff forum). Gordon used HP, which typically use Head-
on-cart, which themselves tend to last around 6 refills.
measekite - 01 Mar 2006 21:02 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>6-10 is I believe normal for even good ink vendors (that is my number,
>pulled from te niftystuff forum).

OH MY GOD.  TATER TOT QUOTES FROM DA CHURCH

> Gordon used HP, which typically use Head-
>on-cart, which themselves tend to last around 6 refills.
>  

DA KNOW IT ALL  MUST BE ZUKIE KUKIE