I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this statement!

Then I saw this and thought...how could he say anything more amusing....


Then you did it here! You smoke much crack before you posted this garbage?!


You of course realize the printhead is covered under the warranty, of course
you do.
So you're right, they don't want you to buy a new printhead. They are going
to give it to you free of charge!

"Mapanari" <whosthat@anonmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962AB1570E38Emapi@216.168.3.64...
That's odd, got my ip3000 for $15 less than anywhere else I checked AND
shipped to my door.

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:d2keo3$pv$2@news.service.uci.edu...
This may make sense if you are always buying the bottom of the line models.

"Mapanari" <whosthat@anonmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962DA3A7349D1mapi@216.168.3.64...
eyaup, then when the printhead clogs you run to the forum and slam the
printer manufacture because the printer you pumped 3rd party ink through
clogged.


Sure why not, after all if it dies you can just toss it away and buy another
printer for less than the ink right?

And that statement is why you should avoid giving advice here.

PC Medic wrote:

We may, if it's the printer's fault.

I use non OEM inks and do not observe this clogging phenomenon that you
keep scaring people with. My old Epson 740, yes. It would clog the
minute you turned your back. So we know it's not the ink, it's the
printer.

-Taliesyn

"Mapanari" <whosthat@anonmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962DA3A7349D1mapi@216.168.3.64...

snipped

This was answered by me a few days ago in one of your previous postings. The
answer to the above is NO!!!!
BJ6 blk cart (pigment)??? I think you mean BCI-6 and those are dye based
cartridges, not pigment. The iP3000 does not have a slot for a BCI-6BK. It
only has three slots for BCI-6 tanks and they are cyan, magenta and yellow.
Black is a composite of the three and in some instances the pigmented black
from the BCI-3eBK is also used. Notice the size difference between the
BCI-3eBK and a BCI-6 tank. The BCI-3 is almost double the width of the
BCI-6. To say the iP3000 is almost the exact same printer as the iP4000 is
true only in regards to the exterior case and the fact that both are labeled
Canon. Since the printhead is the heart of an inkjet, there is a
considerable difference between a four tank model and a five tank model.
Saying they are almost the exact same printer would be similar to saying a 4
cyl Honda Accord is the same as a V6 Accord. Both look the same on the
outside, both run great but the engines are totally different.
--
Ron Cohen

Mapanari wrote:

Some of what you say appears to be factual. However, many of the
problems with Epsons have to do with NoName 3rd party inks sold by
website hawkers. Maybe there are fewer problems from Epson users who
stick to OEM expensive inks.

Mapanari wrote:

But she is kind of cute.

Interesting...

I've owned a 880 since it came out. I have used both Epson and 3rd
party ink cartridges with it, though I never bothered to refill any
(yet). For someone who has no time, or patience, as you claim, I'm
amazed how you "wasted" all that time refilling cartridges. I have no
idea what type of ink you used, if you had a clue how to refill Epson
cartridges, how old the ink was you used, etc. I can tell you the
description you supply is typical of problems due to incorrectly filling
the cartridges (creating air pockets), or using cartridges that have
been refilled so many times that the sponges in them have become clogged
with dried ink.

Oh... the punch line... I have literally NEVER had to as much as run a
cleaning cycle on the 880 (other than the cycle it does on start up).
The 880 is one of, if not my best, Epson printer in terms of ease of use
and low ink usage.

It appears you had a printer that worked "fine" for about a year on 3rd
party refill inks. I'm guessing during that year, you went through
numerous refills, and probably never replaced the cartridges once.

BTW: does "about a year" mean more than a year, or less than one? The
manufacturer's warranty is typically one year. As to paying $35 to ship
it, you have expensive shipping in your part of the world, I guess, and,
you got the printer for less than the cost of the ink cartridges (or
apparently, the cost of shipping it once), so I'm amazed at how angry
you are about it.

LOL,

Art


Mapanari wrote:

Now, wait a minute here... How do we "know it's not the ink, it's the
printer."

Are you claiming you are using the same ink in your Canon printer as you
were using in your Epson 740?

Is so, then you are/were using a wrong formulation in one or both.
However, if you are stating you used 3rd party inks in both the Epson
740 and the Canon and only the Epson clogged, perhaps the problem was
that the 3rd party ink used in the Epson wasn't as compatible as the ink
used in the Canon ink? Is it even from the same source? Or maybe you
didn't refill the Epson cartridges properly and they developed air
pockets, or maybe...

I don't know how you can draw the conclusion you do, not to mention the
740 came out 7 years ago.

Art


Taliesyn wrote:

"PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message news:<V%_3e.13751$%d7.8712@lakeread03>...
C86 I bought six months ago is now my third C86. Yes, two printers
have failed within that timeframe, failing to print yellow and
magenta. Exact same fault with them both after only light use. (yes, I
did print every week, thanks, just to keep the heads ticking over!).
I'm also fifty guid (that's 100 USD) down in 'genuine Epson'
cartridges because all the head cleans and reservoir primes done to
try & fix the two printers consumed a full set of cartridges. I've
posted more about this on another thread. Meanwhile the Samsung laser
printer I bought (for 50 quid) is soldiering on nicely. A new toner
catridge for this is the price of the printer but I plan to refill it
- after all, what have I got to lose?.

I kinda wish Kyocera would go into the inkjet market since they
apparently have the lowest consumable cost for laser printers (so they
say).

As for Canon. Look, you made the printhead replaceable. It just clips
in. Then you cunningly decided not to make it available as an end-user
consumable after all, so that apart from having to order it specially
from Canon resellers, it costs a fortune. That's not terribly ethical,
ok?. I hope, when this damn planet starts to fry, you realise that in
your own small, mean-minded way,you helped destroy the environment.

In article <2b20cd9f.0504041309.4aef0ff3@posting.google.com>, ajmayo@my-
deja.com says...
They (CANON) made it replaceable so that any time during the warranty you
could call 'em up and they could send one to you.

I believe they are still warrantying for a year arent they???

If it quits after a year, go buy the replacement model.

Epson requires service to replace the print head, not a good idea as far as
Im concerned.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:11518g05omc9709@corp.supernews.com...
Not scaring (or even trying to scare) anyone about the use of 3rd party
inks.
It just amuses me how many I see come here and to other groups or forums
whining about printer manufactures and the lousy printers they make cause it
dies after only 6 months, has poor quality prints, etc. only to find they
are using 3rd party inks and papers.

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cbb7a7a343440fe98996f@news.comcast.gigan ews.com...
Yes they are and get the 2 year extended for another $49 as I did and it
also covers the printhead. So I have nothing to worry about but ink for 3
years.
And at a discount shipped to your door.

Epson isn't a good idea based on my experience. Though that was many years
back.

In article <8Kk4e.13846$%d7.5714@lakeread03>, NOT@home.net says...
I have an Epson (R200) as well as all my Canons, and I only got it because it
prints cds/dvds. If it werent for that, I wouldnt have bought it.. I do use
it for photo prints too, but only to keep the print head clear.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

PC Medic wrote:
It also amuses me to hear that automatically it must be the 3rd party
inks and papers which are to blame for all Canon printer/printhead
problems.

I have excellent quality photos with 3rd party inks and paper. I've
never had a clogging problem, I've forgotten what that feels like.
Paper from my Dollar Store actually produces a better photo than Canon
Photo Paper Pro in side by side tests.

I had a defective printhead that would pass the nozzle check yet printed
visible head pass lines on photos, or banding if you prefer. Originally
it printed OK.

Soon after that the paper feed mechanism began to bum out. It would
feed several sheets okay and then produce a very abnormal, loud clicking
sound and began to toy with the sheet, sending it in and out of the
printer several times until it usually finally jammed. And you're going
to somehow try to weasel me into believing that my use of 3rd party inks
"fucked up" the printhead and my 3rd party papers derailed the paper
feed mechanism? Not bloody likely!

-Taliesyn

In general you can clean a clogged Epson printhead at home,
inexpensively and easily.

The heads usually (although not always) outlast other parts of the printer.

Art


Larry wrote:

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1153snth2tn3u5a@corp.supernews.com...
You're the one that keeps implying that.

Well if the Nozzle Check printed OK then you didn't have a 'defective
printhead'


Well by your own admission here it wasn't Canon paper or ink that caused the
problem.
Whether it was the 3rd party products I am not sure, but based on your
statements I would lean towards user error and misdiagnosis.

PC Medic wrote:

Apparently, a change of printheads proved I did, even though the nozzle
checks didn't reveal anything suspicious.

There's a new one, blame the operator.

Can't be "user error" or "misdiagnosis", Dr. Phil, as it worked
correctly originally. The new replacement printhead works as it
should, with the same user settings and with the same user. Me.

-Taliesyn

PC Medic wrote:

Maybe and maybe not! There are a lot of people out there who buy ink
from many sources. It is quite possible that a few of the sources sell
ink from some manufacturer that will pose far less problems it at all.
The rest are sold by a bunch of hawkers and whores who just want to make
a buck at anyones expense. Even the few that cause little or no
problems may not be consistent from batch to batch. www.inksupply.com,
touted by neil slade, had problems with their yellow ink and ruined a
whole bunch of Canon Printheads.

So I would have to agree that in the vast majority of the cases we hear
about it is the ink.

Also, Canon ink may hold up a lot better when people use the printer
more infrequently.