Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Far be it from me to advise against buying used inkjet printers, but one
> major consideration beyond how well it prints (due to clogged heads, for
> instance) but shipping an inkjet printer can be tricky, because the
> waste ink is usually stored in some pads at the base of the printer and
> if the printer is not left in the proper position during shipping, teh
> ink can migrate and make a real mess, possibly even making it unrepairable.
>
> My suggestion with used inkjet printers is to try to acquire them
> locally, via thrift shops, local classifieds or swap and shop,
> Craigslist or even Freecycle.
>
True enough, but that's part of the risk assessment process that I was
talking about. And, I have to admit that all the used printers I've
purchased over the last 20 years except for the last one, an Officejet
6110, have been purchased locally. Garage sales and church rummage sales
are other good sources. The printer I use most right now, a Deskjet
5650, was picked up for something like a dollar at a church rummage
sale. The power supply was missing, but a new one was available on Ebay
for $15. The printer even had two half-full ink carts installed.
Obviously, the previous owner thought it was a better idea to buy a new
printer than replace the power supply, but I didn't know that when I
picked it up. I took a chance on it, and I won. The printer works
beautifully, it couldn't be easier to refill, and it uses the same carts
as the Officejet.
Had I found that a new power supply would cost $25 or $50, I would have
disposed of the printer, and chalked it up to experience. Had it not
worked with the power supply, I would have kept the supply, or possibly
sold it on Ebay, disposed of the printer, and again chalked it up to
experience. I risked $16, which I thought I could afford to lose if
things didn't work out, but I thought the risk of that happening was
rather low. That's how risk assessment works.
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
On Sep 27, 8:20 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
> > True enough, but that's part of the risk assessment process that I was
> > talking about. And, I have to admit that all the used printers I've
> > purchased over the last 20 years except for the last one, an Officejet
> > 6110, have been purchased locally. Garage sales and church rummage sales
> > are other good sources. The printer I use most right now, a Deskjet
> > 5650, was picked up for something like a dollar at a church rummage
> > sale. The power supply was missing, but a new one was available on Ebay
> > for $15. The printer even had two half-full ink carts installed.
> > Obviously, the previous owner thought it was a better idea to buy a new
> > printer than replace the power supply, but I didn't know that when I
> > picked it up. I took a chance on it, and I won. The printer works
>
> Sounds like you lost. You paid $16.00 for the junk that the owner did not
> want. You could get a brand new printer (lets say a Canon) if you opt for
> a cheaper model for around $70.00 with a full set of ink. The ink alone
> costs $75.00 and that means you got $5.00 and a free printer. No you did
> not win. You could have had the new technology and good photos.
While I have to agree in terms of raw purchase price a new printer
will almost always beat an old one, but we are encountering the great
cartridge shrink, in fact we always have had that.
For AIOs, I wouldn't consider buying a new one for under $100 and in
fact two years back $200-$300 was a good base price for a unit with
fax. I can totally see buying one used, esp HP which tends to have a
decent software suite which in all fairness is worth it to many
people.
While the deskjet 5650 and officejet 6610 are not the most cost
effective per page (3.8c/page black), they are not horrible and if I
already owned an Officejet 6610. HP head on the cartridge are
reasonably safe to buy on the used circuit. I'd totally consider a
used AIO with a document feeder.
Canon used, well, you do have to add the cost of the head and ink to
the purchase price. In fact I got a friend of mine a nice i850 for an
office printer. It takes the older bci-3e color ink which happens to
cost loss, but he didn't use color.
My epson 1520 and 1280 I both bought on the used circuit. I "could"
buy a new 1400 but I don't print 11x17 / 13x19 often enough to justify
it.
For text, only there are only minor improvements with newer models, or
if we're talking Canon NONE AT ALL with the exception of some models
being faster than others, which happen to be models like the
ip5200/4300 and the ip4500.
A new unit isn't always an improvement. I found my mp760 did better
on plain paper than the mp830. This is likely due to the fact that
the older unit used 5 & 2pl drops and the new unit used 5 & 1pl
drops. I suspect this is why the ip4500/4600 use 5 & 2 & 1pl drops,
to provide that medium resolution.
But regardless the main application for your average user is going to
be text, and if that's so, there really isn't isn't a good reason to
shell out anything extra for a new model even if that extra ends up
being only $20-$50. The main consideration with any printer is the
cost of consumables. For most people it simply is more cost effective
to use a printing service for photos. You should know this better
than anyone, your iP4000 is totally a passable photo printer, as was
the i860.
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> On Sep 27, 8:20 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>>> True enough, but that's part of the risk assessment process that I was
>>> talking about. And, I have to admit that all the used printers I've
>>> purchased over the last 20 years except for the last one, an Officejet
>>> 6110, have been purchased locally. Garage sales and church rummage sales
>>> are other good sources. The printer I use most right now, a Deskjet
>>> 5650, was picked up for something like a dollar at a church rummage
>>> sale. The power supply was missing, but a new one was available on Ebay
>>> for $15. The printer even had two half-full ink carts installed.
>>> Obviously, the previous owner thought it was a better idea to buy a new
>>> printer than replace the power supply, but I didn't know that when I
>>> picked it up. I took a chance on it, and I won. The printer works
>> Sounds like you lost. You paid $16.00 for the junk that the owner did not
>> want. You could get a brand new printer (lets say a Canon) if you opt for
>> a cheaper model for around $70.00 with a full set of ink. The ink alone
>> costs $75.00 and that means you got $5.00 and a free printer. No you did
>> not win. You could have had the new technology and good photos.
>
> While I have to agree in terms of raw purchase price a new printer
> will almost always beat an old one, but we are encountering the great
> cartridge shrink, in fact we always have had that.
>
> For AIOs, I wouldn't consider buying a new one for under $100 and in
> fact two years back $200-$300 was a good base price for a unit with
> fax. I can totally see buying one used, esp HP which tends to have a
> decent software suite which in all fairness is worth it to many
> people.
>
> While the deskjet 5650 and officejet 6610 are not the most cost
> effective per page (3.8c/page black), they are not horrible and if I
> already owned an Officejet 6610. HP head on the cartridge are
> reasonably safe to buy on the used circuit. I'd totally consider a
> used AIO with a document feeder.
>
> Canon used, well, you do have to add the cost of the head and ink to
> the purchase price. In fact I got a friend of mine a nice i850 for an
> office printer. It takes the older bci-3e color ink which happens to
> cost loss, but he didn't use color.
>
> My epson 1520 and 1280 I both bought on the used circuit. I "could"
> buy a new 1400 but I don't print 11x17 / 13x19 often enough to justify
> it.
>
> For text, only there are only minor improvements with newer models, or
> if we're talking Canon NONE AT ALL with the exception of some models
> being faster than others, which happen to be models like the
> ip5200/4300 and the ip4500.
>
> A new unit isn't always an improvement. I found my mp760 did better
> on plain paper than the mp830. This is likely due to the fact that
> the older unit used 5 & 2pl drops and the new unit used 5 & 1pl
> drops. I suspect this is why the ip4500/4600 use 5 & 2 & 1pl drops,
> to provide that medium resolution.
>
> But regardless the main application for your average user is going to
> be text, and if that's so, there really isn't isn't a good reason to
> shell out anything extra for a new model even if that extra ends up
> being only $20-$50. The main consideration with any printer is the
> cost of consumables. For most people it simply is more cost effective
> to use a printing service for photos. You should know this better
> than anyone, your iP4000 is totally a passable photo printer, as was
> the i860.
New technology is worthless if you don't have a use for it. My cost per
page is even lower than 3.8c, because I refill. It makes no difference
on text, which is indeed what I print most, and lowers the cost to less
than a penny a page. I don't have a burning desire to print photos that
will outlast me, and the few I've printed with refilled cartridges look
just fine to me. I'm still waiting for the first photo I printed with
aftermarket ink to fade, after hanging on my mother's bedroom wall for
nearly five years.
But there were other considerations when I purchased the 5650. My
printer at the time was a PSC 2110, which also uses the #56 and 57
carts. It had been showing signs of acting up(aging scanner bulb), and I
thought it a good idea to have a backup on hand in case it failed -
which it did, four months later. I had extra carts on hand which would
be thrown out if I switched to another brand, thus costing me more
money. Also, I need a printer that works with Linux, and no printer
manufacturer has better Linux support than HP.
Nope, I won. Buying a new Canon would have been the wrong way for me,
and I wouldn't be nearly as well off as I am now. But, maybe not wrong
for Measekite. He would need to do his own assessment, as would anybody
else.
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
TJ wrote:
> just fine to me. I'm still waiting for the first photo I printed with
> aftermarket ink to fade, after hanging on my mother's bedroom wall for
> nearly five years.
Entirely subjective. I too have prints made with dye based inkjets that
look very good, but there is no way to say if they have faded in a mere
few years. Our eyes are poor photometers.
By fading, in benign conditions, inkjet dyes will inexorably fade with
time. In 10 years you might notice it, and in 20 certainly. (And this
whether OEM or 'refill' inks though the it may be better with OEM by
some amount of time).
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
On Sep 28, 12:02 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
> All you care about is not spending money and accepting crap if you do not
> have to spend money. For you that is ok. If you are willing to accept
> what you want to pay for that is fine but do not spout off on how
> wonderful it is.
Oh cool, Measekite finally admits we should employ our own personal
choice. That's a first.
When I print off a google map to get from point a to point b, well,
odds are I don't care about longevity.
> Then admit that what you print is not very good and will fade more rapidly.
What you should admit is what you bought fades more rapidly.
Seriously. I like the quality of canon prints. The text is also
pretty good though it's certainly not as good as HP. But really Canon
is pretty much bottom of the heap as far as longevity of prints go.
Most aftermarket dye inks do fade more rapidly. I'd gladly pay more
for ink that lasts longer, but not Canon/HP/Epson prices, not when the
cost of lab prints is so cheap in contrast to house printing.
For text, I can't see paying 2.5c/3c/3.5c per page, not when the bulk
ink is about $2-$4/ounce, and for pigment ink there is very little
benefit to OEM.
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
On Sep 28, 5:53 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
> I do not care if your print it with do do.
Yes you do. You are obsessed with OEM ink. Not I'll agree that the
after market options typically don't offer the same printlife dye,
typically. But the cost is 90% less, perhaps as little as 75%
depending on how much you invest in cartridges and equipment.
Aftermarket cartridges are getting more expensive as they have to
include chips, so the savings varies from 75% to as little as 10%
typically speaking.
What you print is a serious factor in what ink you choose. For
pigmented text, there is little reason to go OEM in most cases so long
as you buy aftermarket pigmented ink.
> > What you should admit is what you bought fades more rapidly.
> > Seriously. I like the quality of canon prints. The text is also
> > pretty good though it's certainly not as good as HP. But really Canon
> > is pretty much bottom of the heap as far as longevity of prints go.
>
> True and False.
>
> True HP text looks better. False that Canon is near the bottom of the
> heap. When matched against any dye based printer it is about the same if
> not a little better.
>
> When compared against pigment ink it does not last as long. One needs to
> weight that against boldness and vividness of the photo and if they wish
> the ultimate in glossy and do not care much for printing on matte or
> artistic papers.
So I stand corrected. Lexmark is bottom if you go with their cheapest
ink. 16 years under glass, vs 78 years if you go with the everlast
ink according to Wihelm research.
So Canon doesn't offer the worst OEM solution in terms of longevity,
just close to worst, though printlife has been tested as being much
higher on swellable polymer papers, but the same test suggested that
aftermarket ink on swellable polymer outperforms OEM on microporous
paper
I have no idea how Brother stands. The last time they looked they had
an offering with a micropiezo head, where the head bought separately
cost twice as much as the printer.
So sorry, you don't buy Canon if you want long printlife. It's not
the worst, but it's pretty awful, and this is coming from a person who
owns a few canons.
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
On Sep 29, 12:28 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
> When using pigmented ink it is even more important to use OEM ink since
> pigmented ink in general carries a higher risk of clogging the printhead
> so you want to make sure that you use the highest quality and that is
> almost only made of OEMs. The only exception that I have discovered is
> Pantone and ink from them probably costs more than OEM.
That has not been my experience. You see, cheap aftermarket inks are
actually dye rather than pigment, so as such they are not more likely
to clog, they are LESS likely to clog, and actually might benefit
operation by helping to dissolve residue. Hobbicolors for example at
one point offered a dye ink for the pigmented canon black, but now
they don't.
So I'll agree you have to be really aware of the product that you are
buying, and get some advice from others who have tested it, but I've
not observed that Image Specalists ink. I've used over 12oz of their
pigmented black, roughly equal to 13.64 cartridges. I'm still
printing on my ip5200. OEM that would be $218 dollars plus tax. I
bought it before the price went up, so about $24, plus shipping along
with the color. This doesn't include the 4 oz of hobbicolor dye
black I pushed though the printer.
Let's presume the ink I use shortens the life of my printhead.
Printheads are only $50, printers start about about $100. If my
printer exploded today, it still would be cheaper and we're not even
talking about the color ink I put through the Canon.
Now Measkete, I can accept the longevity of dye is a serious
consideration, and I fully support your quixotic crusade to inform the
public that this is an issue with aftermarket dye inks. I can even
accept that using a different ink would affect the printhead life.
But Canons are only rated for 10,000 pages in the first place. Their
printheads due burn out using OEM ink. If you have to replace the
head after 3 cartridge changes of aftermarket ink, and the head is
$50, IT'S STILL CHEAPER!.
Keep in mind because of people like me, the manufacturers have an
incentive of keeping YOUR cost of consumables down.
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
> On Sep 27, 8:20 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>>> True enough, but that's part of the risk assessment process that I was
>>> talking about. And, I have to admit that all the used printers I've
>>> purchased over the last 20 years except for the last one, an Officejet
>>> 6110, have been purchased locally. Garage sales and church rummage sales
>>> are other good sources. The printer I use most right now, a Deskjet
>>> 5650, was picked up for something like a dollar at a church rummage
>>> sale. The power supply was missing, but a new one was available on Ebay
>>> for $15. The printer even had two half-full ink carts installed.
>>> Obviously, the previous owner thought it was a better idea to buy a new
>>> printer than replace the power supply, but I didn't know that when I
>>> picked it up. I took a chance on it, and I won. The printer works
>> Sounds like you lost. You paid $16.00 for the junk that the owner did not
>> want. You could get a brand new printer (lets say a Canon) if you opt for
>> a cheaper model for around $70.00 with a full set of ink. The ink alone
>> costs $75.00 and that means you got $5.00 and a free printer. No you did
>> not win. You could have had the new technology and good photos.
Sounds to me like you (Measekite) are lost, which isn't all that unusual.
There are a lot of advantages to used printers, and probably the number
one, is the ability to use 3rd party and refill cartridges more easily,
as older printers did not have the numerous booby-traps built into them
to make 3rd party cartridges nearly impossible to use. With ink
refilling at as little as under a dollar per fill,the savings can be
enormous. Then there is the added advantage that the printer remains
out of the landfill and a replacement isn't needed for another length of
time.
If you are foolish enough to value the ink cartridges at what the
companies claim them to be worth, then your math works, but if you add
in the few bucks an ink fill, sudden;y an older used printers can become
quite reasonable. Also, although some improvement in speed and print
quality have taken place in the Inkjet market, a 5-8 year old inkjet
printer can deliver 70-80% of the quality available on newer models.
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one?
On Sep 29, 3:51 am, Arthur Entlich <e-printerh...@mvps.org> wrote:
> Also, although some improvement in speed and print
> quality have taken place in the Inkjet market, a 5-8 year old inkjet
> printer can deliver 70-80% of the quality available on newer models.
Most of the time newer models supersede older models. This is not
always true.
Canon at one point in history offered, IIRC, a 7 tank photo printer
with a light load yellow.
Canon abandoned their ip8500, their 8 tank printer, and never released
another a4. You can tweak it to accept cli-8 inks and IMHO it out
performs the newer 1pl 4 color models.
Their 6 tank photo printer, the ip6600D, actually does pretty well on
microporous paper. having an even distribution of nozzles. They not
only abandoned it, but they will be abandoning light load cyan and
magenta in favor of a light load black. The i960 is another example,
the replacement model had a smaller head and did slightly more poorly
in rendering images, not to speak of speed.
And most recently Canon downgraded the ip4500 into the ip4600
decreasing the number of black nozzles from 512 to 320 IIRC.
HP Photosmart 8450, 8150 IMHO out performed the later model using the
#02 cartridges. I don't know how well it performs in contrast to the
latest model with 1,3pl&5.2pl nozzles.
I'm sure there are a ton of other examples, but newer isn't always
better. I submit 5 years is pushing it, but not by much.
Re: Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it orjust buy a new one? 
Linear Mode
