f



Epson R200 Vs Canon Pixma iP3000

I want to buy a basic photo printer.

R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.

Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?

Thanks in advance. 


0
Jeff
6/13/2005 11:23:05 PM
comp.periphs.printers 18139 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

57 Replies
601 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 7

> R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and
> one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.

I own both.

The r200 has extra light cyan and light magenta
The r300 is the same but has the fancy screen and pictbridge
The ip3000 has the usual black cyan magenta yellow, smaller drop size
The ip4000 has two blacks and the usual inks 2pl
The ip5000 has the same but smaller 1pl ink drop size.
The ip6000 has a larger 2pl but offers the light cyan/magenta inks

I leaned tward the r200 for out of the box print accuracy.  It worked
fine for 6 months before it clogged and overflowed with ink.  Your
experence could be better, but in the past the epsons clogged easily.
I'm told this one is better.  But if you really like the Epson r200,
and you buy OEM ink, it's only typicaly $25 extra to get the printer
with ink than just ink.

For trouble free i'm taking a chance on the Canon.  I bought the ip3000
cause the r200 was in the shop, and it was cheeper for the printer than
the ink for the r200.  I've not owned it as long so I can't report any
trouble, but it at least has a detachable head and a diaper I can
replace unlike the epson.   I bought mine in the hopes of enabling the
CD tray option so I bought the cheapest model.  Otherwise i'd go with
an ip4000 mininium, likely the ip5000.

0
zakezuke
6/14/2005 12:41:38 AM
IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.

Jeff wrote:

>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>
>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>
>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>
>Thanks in advance. 
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/14/2005 3:41:38 AM
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
news:Slsre.719$NU5.243@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.

I don't know why Measekite adds the last sentence as it is just an 
invitation for someone to tell you that there are also some good aftermarket 
cartridges and inks. He just can't leave well enough alone!  If Measekite 
only gave you advice about the printer and didn't add the ink advice I 
wouldn't bother to respond.  You need to know, if you were at all interested 
in inks other than Canon, that Measekite is the last person on the face of 
the earth to listen to regarding inks as he has never used aftermarket inks 
or bought from any of the aftermarket ink vendors.  It appears that his 
mission in life is to deny what several of us have found out from using 
them - that there are some good reliable non-Canon inks available from 
selected internet vendors.  He does own the IP4000 and advises everyone to 
buy that printer.  On that issue he does speak from his own experience.

I refill cartridges for my Canon i960 with MIS inks and some of the 
participants in this newsgroup use cartridges filled with Formulabs inks or 
refill with Formulabs inks from Alotofthings.  Postings from Ron Cohen and 
Taliesyn on this Newsgroup have some information about their personal 
experience with aftermarket inks and you can also go to the following 
forum -  http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for some interesting information 
about inks, printer maintenance, etc. You can also follow the link to Neil's 
ink and printer information that you will find at the top of the Nifty-stuff 
forum home page.  Most of this forum is about Canon printers.


>
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>
>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>
>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>> 


0
Burt
6/14/2005 4:16:58 AM
measekite wrote:

> IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.

It seems you only post here to get your daily dose of attention.
Beyond that your experience is limited to one printer and the use of 
very overpriced OEM ink carts.
If you have had any other experience we would certainly like to hear 
about the outcome but to keep repeating the same thing over and over 
again is extremely boring and marks you as a self-indulgent troll.
Is that a fair description of you?
Frank
0
Frank
6/14/2005 4:40:51 AM
Your royalty cheque from Canon is in the mai!!
Tony

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>
>Jeff wrote:
>
>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>
>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>
>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>
>>Thanks in advance. 
>>
>>
>>  
>>

0
Tony
6/14/2005 6:19:22 AM
Ah, Frankie Crankie the cockroach comes out of the woodwork.

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>
>
> It seems you only post here to get your daily dose of attention.
> Beyond that your experience is limited to one printer and the use of 
> very overpriced OEM ink carts.
> If you have had any other experience we would certainly like to hear 
> about the outcome but to keep repeating the same thing over and over 
> again is extremely boring and marks you as a self-indulgent troll.
> Is that a fair description of you?
> Frank
0
measekite
6/14/2005 5:17:02 PM

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>news:Slsre.719$NU5.243@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>  
>
>>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know why Measekite adds the last sentence as it is just an 
>invitation for someone to tell you that there are also some good aftermarket 
>cartridges and inks. He just can't leave well enough alone!  If Measekite 
>only gave you advice about the printer and didn't add the ink advice I 
>wouldn't bother to respond.  You need to know, if you were at all interested 
>in inks other than Canon, that Measekite is the last person on the face of 
>the earth to listen to regarding inks as he has never used aftermarket inks 
>or bought from any of the aftermarket ink vendors.  It appears that his 
>mission in life is to deny what several of us have found out from using 
>them - 
>

READ ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE POST ON THIS NG.  U B DA JUDGE.

>that there are some good reliable non-Canon inks available from 
>selected internet vendors.  He does own the IP4000 and advises everyone to 
>buy that printer.  On that issue he does speak from his own experience.
>
>I refill cartridges for my Canon i960 with MIS inks and some of the 
>participants in this newsgroup use cartridges filled with Formulabs inks or 
>refill with Formulabs inks from Alotofthings.  Postings from Ron Cohen and 
>Taliesyn on this Newsgroup have some information about their personal 
>experience with aftermarket inks and you can also go to the following 
>forum -  http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for some interesting information 
>about inks, printer maintenance, etc. You can also follow the link to Neil's 
>ink and printer information that you will find at the top of the Nifty-stuff 
>forum home page.  Most of this forum is about Canon printers.
>
>
>  
>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>>
>>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>>
>>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/14/2005 5:35:46 PM

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>news:Slsre.719$NU5.243@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>  
>
>>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know why Measekite adds the last sentence as it is just an 
>invitation for someone to tell you that there are also some good aftermarket 
>cartridges and inks. He just can't leave well enough alone!  If Measekite 
>only gave you advice about the printer and didn't add the ink advice I 
>wouldn't bother to respond.  You need to know, if you were at all interested 
>in inks other than Canon, that Measekite is the last person on the face of 
>the earth to listen to regarding inks as he has never used aftermarket inks 
>or bought from any of the aftermarket ink vendors.  It appears that his 
>mission in life is to deny what several of us have found out from using 
>them - that there are some good reliable non-Canon inks available from 
>selected internet vendors.  He does own the IP4000 and advises everyone to 
>buy that printer.  
>

Not true.  IT is generally the best but I have advised many to buy the 
HP with integrated printheads in the carts if their printload is light 
and very infrequents.

>On that issue he does speak from his own experience.
>
>I refill cartridges for my Canon i960 with inks and some of the 
>participants in this newsgroup use cartridges filled with Formulabs inks I think.  Postings from Ron Cohen and Taliesyn on this Newsgroup have some information about their personal 
>experience with aftermarket inks and you can also go to the following 
>forum -  http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for some interesting information 
>about inks, printer maintenance, etc. You can also follow the link to Neil's 
>ink and printer information that you will find at the top of the Nifty-stuff 
>forum home page.  Most of this forum is about Canon printers.
>  
>

These are all congregants and offshoots of the Church of AfterMarket 
Latter Day Inks of which I am Pope Burtie Furtie the 1st.

HAIL MEASEKITE!  HAIL MEASEKITE!  HAIL MEASEKITE!  :-D :-D :-D

>
>  
>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>>
>>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>>
>>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/14/2005 5:40:42 PM
measekite wrote:

> Ah, Frankie Crankie the cockroach comes out of the woodwork.
> 
> Frank wrote:
> 
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems you only post here to get your daily dose of attention.
>> Beyond that your experience is limited to one printer and the use of 
>> very overpriced OEM ink carts.
>> If you have had any other experience we would certainly like to hear 
>> about the outcome but to keep repeating the same thing over and over 
>> again is extremely boring and marks you as a self-indulgent troll.
>> Is that a fair description of you?
>> Frank

Give it up creep. We've all got your number.
Frank
0
Frank
6/14/2005 7:23:39 PM

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> Ah, Frankie Crankie the cockroach comes out of the woodwork.
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>> IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems you only post here to get your daily dose of attention.
>>> Beyond that your experience is limited to one printer and the use of 
>>> very overpriced OEM ink carts.
>>> If you have had any other experience we would certainly like to hear 
>>> about the outcome but to keep repeating the same thing over and over 
>>> again is extremely boring and marks you as a self-indulgent troll.
>>> Is that a fair description of you?
>>> Frank
>>
>
> Give it up creep. We've all got your number.
> Frank


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1093&e=2&u=/pcworld/20050614/tc_pcworld/121377
0
measekite
6/14/2005 8:11:16 PM
Frank wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>> IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>
> It seems you only post here to get your daily dose of attention.

And you are indulging it. What holds good for a toddler having a tantrum in 
the middle of a supermarket (or anywhere else for that matter) holds good 
for Usenet trolls - ignore it and it eventually shuts up. I had it killfiled 
at one point but it must have changed its address again, because it doesn't 
appear to be in the bozo bin any longer. Well, MK, consider yourself a 
*PLONK*er.

For the American audience 'plonker' is chiefly British slang, popularised by 
the character Del Boy in the long running hit sitcom /Only Fools and 
Horses/. It means "an idiot or half-wit". Sums up MK rather well...



0
Miss
6/14/2005 10:40:46 PM
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030901010301010305040908
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

>Frank wrote:
>  
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>>      
>>>
>>It seems you only post here to get your daily dose of attention.
>>    
>>
>
>And you are indulging it. 
>
Yeh, Frankie Crankie Spankie Cockroach

>What holds good for a toddler having a tantrum in 
>the middle of a supermarket (or anywhere else for that matter) holds good 
>for Usenet trolls - 
>

So Sorry!  Are you on the *rag *again?

>ignore it and it eventually shuts up. I had it killfiled 
>at one point but it must have changed its address again, because it doesn't 
>appear to be in the bozo bin any longer. Well, MK, consider yourself a 
>*PLONK*er.
>
>For the American audience 'plonker' is chiefly British slang, popularised by 
>the character Del Boy in the long running hit sitcom /Only Fools and 
>Horses/. It means "an idiot or half-wit". Sums up MK rather well...
>
>
>
>  
>

--------------030901010301010305040908
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="midS1Jre.9557$Kt2.7597@fe07.highwinds-media.phx"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Frank wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">measekite wrote:

    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">It seems you only post here to get your daily dose of attention.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
And you are indulging it. </pre>
</blockquote>
Yeh, Frankie Crankie Spankie Cockroach<br>
<blockquote cite="midS1Jre.9557$Kt2.7597@fe07.highwinds-media.phx"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">What holds good for a toddler having a tantrum in 
the middle of a supermarket (or anywhere else for that matter) holds good 
for Usenet trolls - </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
So Sorry!&nbsp; Are you on the <big><big><big><b>rag </b></big></big></big>again?<br>
<blockquote cite="midS1Jre.9557$Kt2.7597@fe07.highwinds-media.phx"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">ignore it and it eventually shuts up. I had it killfiled 
at one point but it must have changed its address again, because it doesn't 
appear to be in the bozo bin any longer. Well, MK, consider yourself a 
*PLONK*er.

For the American audience 'plonker' is chiefly British slang, popularised by 
the character Del Boy in the long running hit sitcom /Only Fools and 
Horses/. It means "an idiot or half-wit". Sums up MK rather well...



  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------030901010301010305040908--
0
measekite
6/14/2005 10:54:09 PM
> And you are indulging it. What holds good for a toddler having a tantrum in
> the middle of a supermarket (or anywhere else for that matter) holds good
> for Usenet trolls - ignore it and it eventually shuts up. I had it killfiled
> at one point but it must have changed its address again, because it doesn't
> appear to be in the bozo bin any longer. Well, MK, consider yourself a
> *PLONK*er.

The logic that seems to be employed is a rational rebuttal that would
chalange what one might consider disputable facts which results in a
pejorative responce containing dyslogisms or other derogatory
belittling comments.   While on the one hand it makes this group
undesirable to be used by anyone seeking useful formation.  On the
other it makes the disputed source look far less credible and easier to
forward to the ISP for general usenet abuse.

Use of the vernacular "plonker" I doubt is lost on the audience this
side of the pond.  Sir David Jason's (David John White) work has made
it over here from time to time and I have seen it's use on usenet for
years.

0
zakezuke
6/15/2005 12:33:22 AM
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:35:46 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:

>
>
>Burt wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>>news:Slsre.719$NU5.243@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>  
>>
>>>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>I don't know why Measekite adds the last sentence as it is just an 
>>invitation for someone to tell you that there are also some good aftermarket 
>>cartridges and inks. He just can't leave well enough alone!  If Measekite 
>>only gave you advice about the printer and didn't add the ink advice I 
>>wouldn't bother to respond.  You need to know, if you were at all interested 
>>in inks other than Canon, that Measekite is the last person on the face of 
>>the earth to listen to regarding inks as he has never used aftermarket inks 
>>or bought from any of the aftermarket ink vendors.  It appears that his 
>>mission in life is to deny what several of us have found out from using 
>>them - 
>>
>
>READ ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE POST ON THIS NG.  U B DA JUDGE.
>
>>that there are some good reliable non-Canon inks available from 
>>selected internet vendors.  He does own the IP4000 and advises everyone to 
>>buy that printer.  On that issue he does speak from his own experience.
>>
>>I refill cartridges for my Canon i960 with MIS inks and some of the 
>>participants in this newsgroup use cartridges filled with Formulabs inks or 
>>refill with Formulabs inks from Alotofthings.  Postings from Ron Cohen and 
>>Taliesyn on this Newsgroup have some information about their personal 
>>experience with aftermarket inks and you can also go to the following 
>>forum -  http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for some interesting information 
>>about inks, printer maintenance, etc. You can also follow the link to Neil's 
>>ink and printer information that you will find at the top of the Nifty-stuff 
>>forum home page.  Most of this forum is about Canon printers.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>>>
>>>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>>>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>>>
>>>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>



The R200   by a Mile..


0
Tony
6/16/2005 4:17:26 AM

Tony wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:35:46 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:Slsre.719$NU5.243@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I don't know why Measekite adds the last sentence as it is just an 
>>>invitation for someone to tell you that there are also some good aftermarket 
>>>cartridges and inks. He just can't leave well enough alone!  If Measekite 
>>>only gave you advice about the printer and didn't add the ink advice I 
>>>wouldn't bother to respond.  You need to know, if you were at all interested 
>>>in inks other than Canon, that Measekite is the last person on the face of 
>>>the earth to listen to regarding inks as he has never used aftermarket inks 
>>>or bought from any of the aftermarket ink vendors.  It appears that his 
>>>mission in life is to deny what several of us have found out from using 
>>>them - 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>READ ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE POST ON THIS NG.  U B DA JUDGE.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>that there are some good reliable non-Canon inks available from 
>>>selected internet vendors.  He does own the IP4000 and advises everyone to 
>>>buy that printer.  On that issue he does speak from his own experience.
>>>
>>>I refill cartridges for my Canon i960 with MIS inks and some of the 
>>>participants in this newsgroup use cartridges filled with Formulabs inks or 
>>>refill with Formulabs inks from Alotofthings.  Postings from Ron Cohen and 
>>>Taliesyn on this Newsgroup have some information about their personal 
>>>experience with aftermarket inks and you can also go to the following 
>>>forum -  http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for some interesting information 
>>>about inks, printer maintenance, etc. You can also follow the link to Neil's 
>>>ink and printer information that you will find at the top of the Nifty-stuff 
>>>forum home page.  Most of this forum is about Canon printers.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>>>>
>>>>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>>>>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>
>The R200   by a Mile..
>  
>

The IP3000 by 5 Miles

>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/16/2005 5:01:24 AM
measekite wrote:

> The IP3000 by 5 Miles
> 
>>
>>  
>>
Unbelievable how childish you are. Even an idiot like you should know 
that the R200 at the same price as the ip3000 is the one to go with.
It should be a no brainer. That means even a person without a brain, 
like you, should know the R200 is the one.
Frank
0
Frank
6/16/2005 5:28:05 AM

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> The IP3000 by 5 Miles
>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
> Unbelievable how childish you are. 

Unbelievable what an ASSHOLE you are.

> Even an idiot like me should know that the R200 at the same price as 
> the ip3000 is the one to go with.
> It should be a no brainer. That means even a person without a brain, 
> like me, should know the R200 is the one.
> Frank Crankie

No it is Frankie Crankie Spankie LowLife CockRoach.
0
measekite
6/16/2005 6:23:40 AM
> Unbelievable how childish you are. Even an idiot like you should know
> that the R200 at the same price as the ip3000 is the one to go with.
> It should be a no brainer. That means even a person without a brain,
> like you, should know the R200 is the one.

Respectfully, and the ip3000 tends to be cheaper mail order even when
you don't take canon's $20 rebate into account.  Taking the rebate into
account it's almost 1/2 the price from one mail order company.  In
fact, the ip3000 was cheaper this way than the OEM epson ink.  That was
the main reason I picked mine up while the epson was in the shop.

In the local store they seem to be about the same.


-R200-  $92.70 shipped
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=Go&DEPA=0&type=&description=r200&Category=0&minPrice=&maxPrice=&Go.x=0&Go.y=0
-ip3000- $66.90 shipped
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16828102153

0
zakezuke
6/16/2005 7:59:13 AM
zakezuke wrote:
>>And you are indulging it. What holds good for a toddler having a tantrum in
>>the middle of a supermarket (or anywhere else for that matter) holds good
>>for Usenet trolls - ignore it and it eventually shuts up. I had it killfiled
>>at one point but it must have changed its address again, because it doesn't
>>appear to be in the bozo bin any longer. Well, MK, consider yourself a
>>*PLONK*er.
> 
> 
> The logic that seems to be employed is a rational rebuttal that would
> chalange what one might consider disputable facts which results in a
> pejorative responce containing dyslogisms or other derogatory
> belittling comments.   While on the one hand it makes this group
> undesirable to be used by anyone seeking useful formation.  On the
> other it makes the disputed source look far less credible and easier to
> forward to the ISP for general usenet abuse.
> 
> Use of the vernacular "plonker" I doubt is lost on the audience this
> side of the pond.  Sir David Jason's (David John White) work has made
> it over here from time to time and I have seen it's use on usenet for
> years.
> 

X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com 1118789649 ST000 69.232.106.26 (Tue, 
14 Jun 2005 18:54:09 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:54:09 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: 
Q[R_PJSCOPTYB_@[WBHFO[P@GBY@QUDO@HTHOCULF@^PGDTFOG[]FEK[WDXJHVKHGFFIZHBL@FX\NIOC@FWYNV\DMNS[HTLIXX\^BUGBXLR@PB@\FKCLXSWAIDFOKG^MFT[GZN^NWY_GVLSRGDYY^AW_MS_RW][KBYZMADO@Y[ABPSPE_TA@LTLFXVTC@RJM
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:54:09 GMT
Xref: cox.net comp.periphs.printers:356086
X-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:55:02 EDT

0
Tim
6/16/2005 4:42:59 PM
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:01:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:

>
>
>Tony wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:35:46 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Burt wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>>>>news:Slsre.719$NU5.243@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>I don't know why Measekite adds the last sentence as it is just an 
>>>>invitation for someone to tell you that there are also some good aftermarket 
>>>>cartridges and inks. He just can't leave well enough alone!  If Measekite 
>>>>only gave you advice about the printer and didn't add the ink advice I 
>>>>wouldn't bother to respond.  You need to know, if you were at all interested 
>>>>in inks other than Canon, that Measekite is the last person on the face of 
>>>>the earth to listen to regarding inks as he has never used aftermarket inks 
>>>>or bought from any of the aftermarket ink vendors.  It appears that his 
>>>>mission in life is to deny what several of us have found out from using 
>>>>them - 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>READ ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE POST ON THIS NG.  U B DA JUDGE.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>that there are some good reliable non-Canon inks available from 
>>>>selected internet vendors.  He does own the IP4000 and advises everyone to 
>>>>buy that printer.  On that issue he does speak from his own experience.
>>>>
>>>>I refill cartridges for my Canon i960 with MIS inks and some of the 
>>>>participants in this newsgroup use cartridges filled with Formulabs inks or 
>>>>refill with Formulabs inks from Alotofthings.  Postings from Ron Cohen and 
>>>>Taliesyn on this Newsgroup have some information about their personal 
>>>>experience with aftermarket inks and you can also go to the following 
>>>>forum -  http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for some interesting information 
>>>>about inks, printer maintenance, etc. You can also follow the link to Neil's 
>>>>ink and printer information that you will find at the top of the Nifty-stuff 
>>>>forum home page.  Most of this forum is about Canon printers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>>>>>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The R200   by a Mile..
>>  
>>
>
>The IP3000 by 5 Miles
>
>>
>>  
>>



You are Joking..?

Print heads tht only last 1 1/2 years and Prints that only last 5 years  and
only 3+1   Colours..


0
Tony
6/17/2005 9:18:16 AM

Tony wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:01:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Tony wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:35:46 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Burt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>>>>>news:Slsre.719$NU5.243@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know why Measekite adds the last sentence as it is just an 
>>>>>invitation for someone to tell you that there are also some good aftermarket 
>>>>>cartridges and inks. He just can't leave well enough alone!  If Measekite 
>>>>>only gave you advice about the printer and didn't add the ink advice I 
>>>>>wouldn't bother to respond.  You need to know, if you were at all interested 
>>>>>in inks other than Canon, that Measekite is the last person on the face of 
>>>>>the earth to listen to regarding inks as he has never used aftermarket inks 
>>>>>or bought from any of the aftermarket ink vendors.  It appears that his 
>>>>>mission in life is to deny what several of us have found out from using 
>>>>>them - 
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>READ ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE POST ON THIS NG.  U B DA JUDGE.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>that there are some good reliable non-Canon inks available from 
>>>>>selected internet vendors.  He does own the IP4000 and advises everyone to 
>>>>>buy that printer.  On that issue he does speak from his own experience.
>>>>>
>>>>>I refill cartridges for my Canon i960 with MIS inks and some of the 
>>>>>participants in this newsgroup use cartridges filled with Formulabs inks or 
>>>>>refill with Formulabs inks from Alotofthings.  Postings from Ron Cohen and 
>>>>>Taliesyn on this Newsgroup have some information about their personal 
>>>>>experience with aftermarket inks and you can also go to the following 
>>>>>forum -  http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for some interesting information 
>>>>>about inks, printer maintenance, etc. You can also follow the link to Neil's 
>>>>>ink and printer information that you will find at the top of the Nifty-stuff 
>>>>>forum home page.  Most of this forum is about Canon printers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  and 
>>>>>>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>
>>>The R200   by a Mile..
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The IP3000 by 5 Miles
>>
>>    
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>
>You are Joking..?
>
>Print heads tht only last 1 1/2 years and Prints that only last 5 years  and
>only 3+1   Colours..
>  
>

That is Bullshit.  The new line of Canon Printers and even the one 
before it has not been out for 5 years.  And everyone who has an i860 
did not replace the printhead.  Is Tony Da Tiger drumming up business?

>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/17/2005 3:45:44 PM
> You are Joking..?

> Print heads tht only last 1 1/2 years and Prints that only last 5 years  and
> only 3+1   Colours..

Printheads that only last 1 1/2 years?    Where do you get this number
from?  The service manual says 5.  Prints well I don't have an estimate
on the prints but this is at least close to fair comment.  Still plenty
of 3rd party solutions, but I presently don't have a resource for canon
archival ink.

I have to admit, the R200 was my first choice.  But the printheads clog
very easily dispite the fact that they have a larger drop size than the
ip3000 / ip4000.  Mine lasted 6 months printing on average 1 5*5 print
a day.  Color output is nice, but tends to break down very easily.
The ip3000 was my choice as the epson was in the shop.

I also must agree that the ip3000 isn't exactly as spiffy as the R200.
The ip4000 is closer to a fair contest.    The ip5000/ip6000 at least
are on the same level if not costing a little bit more.  Rather your
choice between having the light inks and larger drop size, or smaller
drop size and the usual 3+1.

0
zakezuke
6/17/2005 3:54:45 PM

zakezuke wrote:

>>You are Joking..?
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Print heads tht only last 1 1/2 years and Prints that only last 5 years  and
>>only 3+1   Colours..
>>    
>>
>
>Printheads that only last 1 1/2 years?    Where do you get this number
>from?  The service manual says 5.  
>

Tony Da Tiger is drumming up business.

>Prints well I don't have an estimate
>on the prints but this is at least close to fair comment.  Still plenty
>of 3rd party solutions, but I presently don't have a resource for canon
>archival ink.
>
>I have to admit, the R200 was my first choice.  But the printheads clog
>very easily dispite the fact that they have a larger drop size than the
>ip3000 / ip4000.  Mine lasted 6 months printing on average 1 5*5 print
>a day.  Color output is nice, but tends to break down very easily.
>The ip3000 was my choice as the epson was in the shop.
>
>I also must agree that the ip3000 isn't exactly as spiffy as the R200.
>The ip4000 is closer to a fair contest.    The ip5000/ip6000 at least
>are on the same level if not costing a little bit more.  
>

Thats funny since the IP4000 produces marginally better photos, 
substantially better business documents, is much faster than the 
IP6000.  The only advantage, if you want to call it that, is to edit 
without a computer and most serious amateur photographers would not use 
that feature.

>Rather your
>choice between having the light inks and larger drop size, or smaller
>drop size and the usual 3+1.
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/17/2005 4:03:05 PM
> Thats funny since the IP4000 produces marginally better photos,
> substantially better business documents, is much faster than the
> IP6000. The only advantage, if you want to call it that, is to edit
> without a computer and most serious amateur photographers would not use
> that feature.

The IP6000 has no BCI-3e cart.  It's clearly not designed at all for
"business" documents at all.  It is a photo printer, not a general
purpose one and very much slower for text.  But the IP6000 at the very
least has light inks, which are useful for filling between the dots
making the end result less grainy.  But this PCless printing put it in
the same class as the epson r300/r320.  Even an amateur photographers
enjoy proofsheets, and the index print feature is less clicks than
using the "photo print" software.  Not to speak of cases where you need
to print from your camera but don't want to invest in a dedicated
computer.  Editing without a PC, well that's fair comment.  I don't
have a pictbridge camera so I can't see if index/proof sheets are
available.

But needless to say i'm considering ditching my r200 in favor of either
the ip5000 or ip6000, at present leaning tward the ip5000. I like the
r200's photo output much better but can't stand a head that's dependent
on a gasket which gets knocked out of place if you look at it funny.

0
zakezuke
6/17/2005 6:20:11 PM

zakezuke wrote:

>>Thats funny since the IP4000 produces marginally better photos,
>>substantially better business documents, is much faster than the
>>IP6000. The only advantage, if you want to call it that, is to edit
>>without a computer and most serious amateur photographers would not use
>>that feature.
>>    
>>
>
>The IP6000 has no BCI-3e cart.  It's clearly not designed at all for
>"business" documents at all.  It is a photo printer, not a general
>purpose one and very much slower for text.  
>

Yeh but it still does duplex and that is not intended for photos.  The 
Epson R300 does not have a pigment black either but that too is used for 
business documents as is the Canon i960.  And the drivers still offer 
plain paper.

>But the IP6000 at the very
>least has light inks, which are useful for filling between the dots
>making the end result less grainy.  
>

But, unfortunately, they have a greater tendency to fade.  We can hope 
that Canon reformulates and improves THEIR ink.

>But this PCless printing put it in
>the same class as the epson r300/r320.  Even an amateur photographers
>enjoy proofsheets, and the index print feature is less clicks than
>using the "photo print" software.  
>

When you do a lot of bracketing you want to review online before you 
print a proof sheet.

>Not to speak of cases where you need
>to print from your camera but don't want to invest in a dedicated
>computer.  
>

The word is want not need.

>Editing without a PC, well that's fair comment.  I don't
>have a pictbridge camera so I can't see if index/proof sheets are
>available.
>
>But needless to say i'm considering ditching my r200 in favor of either
>the ip5000 or ip6000, at present leaning tward the ip5000. 
>

At least that is a good choice.  If you do not print a lot of business 
documents then the IP4000 is a better choice.

>I like the
>r200's photo output much better 
>

My friend who owns and likes his R300 admits that the Canon IP4000 does 
indeed produce better looking prints.

>but can't stand a head that's dependent
>on a gasket which gets knocked out of place if you look at it funny.
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/17/2005 7:57:42 PM
Give me strength - different Tony - I thought you had managed to learn to read 
short words but obviously I was wrong.
Tony


measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>Tony wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:01:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:35:46 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>Burt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>>>>>>news:Slsre.719$NU5.243@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>IP4000 for a few bucks more.  Be sure to use Canon inks.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know why Measekite adds the last sentence as it is just an 
>>>>>>invitation for someone to tell you that there are also some good 
>>>>>>aftermarket 
>>>>>>cartridges and inks. He just can't leave well enough alone!  If Measekite 
>>>>>>only gave you advice about the printer and didn't add the ink advice I 
>>>>>>wouldn't bother to respond.  You need to know, if you were at all 
>>>>>>interested 
>>>>>>in inks other than Canon, that Measekite is the last person on the face 
>>>>>>of 
>>>>>>the earth to listen to regarding inks as he has never used aftermarket 
>>>>>>inks 
>>>>>>or bought from any of the aftermarket ink vendors.  It appears that his 
>>>>>>mission in life is to deny what several of us have found out from using 
>>>>>>them - 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>>>READ ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE POST ON THIS NG.  U B DA JUDGE.
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>>>that there are some good reliable non-Canon inks available from 
>>>>>>selected internet vendors.  He does own the IP4000 and advises everyone 
>>>>>>to 
>>>>>>buy that printer.  On that issue he does speak from his own experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I refill cartridges for my Canon i960 with MIS inks and some of the 
>>>>>>participants in this newsgroup use cartridges filled with Formulabs inks 
>>>>>>or 
>>>>>>refill with Formulabs inks from Alotofthings.  Postings from Ron Cohen 
>>>>>>and 
>>>>>>Taliesyn on this Newsgroup have some information about their personal 
>>>>>>experience with aftermarket inks and you can also go to the following 
>>>>>>forum -  http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for some interesting 
>>>>>>information 
>>>>>>about inks, printer maintenance, etc. You can also follow the link to 
>>>>>>Neil's 
>>>>>>ink and printer information that you will find at the top of the 
>>>>>>Nifty-stuff 
>>>>>>forum home page.  Most of this forum is about Canon printers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I want to buy a basic photo printer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>R200 and iP3000 seem to have same price. I think R200 has five color  
>>>>>>>>and 
>>>>>>>>one black ink tanks whereas iP3000 has three color and one black tanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Which one is better for quality of prints  and trouble free operations?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The R200   by a Mile..
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>The IP3000 by 5 Miles
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>You are Joking..?
>>
>>Print heads tht only last 1 1/2 years and Prints that only last 5 years  and
>>only 3+1   Colours..
>>  
>>
>
>That is Bullshit.  The new line of Canon Printers and even the one 
>before it has not been out for 5 years.  And everyone who has an i860 
>did not replace the printhead.  Is Tony Da Tiger drumming up business?
>
>>
>>  
>>

0
Tony
6/17/2005 9:17:58 PM
Zakazuke  - If you are in the US you might consider going on to the Tiger 
Direct web site to see if they still have NEW canon i960 printers available 
for about $80 after rebate.  They have refurbs available for $10 less, but I 
would be leary of them, especially if  you can buy a new one for $10 more. 
After shipping and getting the rebate you will have spent a little over $100 
for an excellent six color photo printer.  Text is very decent as well, but 
I have only used mine for photos and graphics.  No duplex (don't need it) 
and no cassette paper tray (don't need that either)  It does have a 
"piggy-back" device that will keep 4x6 photo paper loaded while you have 
letter size paper on the feed deck, but I don't find that a great benefit 
either.  Keep it simple is my approach.

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119032411.402180.129790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Thats funny since the IP4000 produces marginally better photos,
>> substantially better business documents, is much faster than the
>> IP6000. The only advantage, if you want to call it that, is to edit
>> without a computer and most serious amateur photographers would not use
>> that feature.
>
> The IP6000 has no BCI-3e cart.  It's clearly not designed at all for
> "business" documents at all.  It is a photo printer, not a general
> purpose one and very much slower for text.  But the IP6000 at the very
> least has light inks, which are useful for filling between the dots
> making the end result less grainy.  But this PCless printing put it in
> the same class as the epson r300/r320.  Even an amateur photographers
> enjoy proofsheets, and the index print feature is less clicks than
> using the "photo print" software.  Not to speak of cases where you need
> to print from your camera but don't want to invest in a dedicated
> computer.  Editing without a PC, well that's fair comment.  I don't
> have a pictbridge camera so I can't see if index/proof sheets are
> available.
>
> But needless to say i'm considering ditching my r200 in favor of either
> the ip5000 or ip6000, at present leaning tward the ip5000. I like the
> r200's photo output much better but can't stand a head that's dependent
> on a gasket which gets knocked out of place if you look at it funny.
> 


0
Burt
6/17/2005 11:27:25 PM

Burt wrote:

>Zakazuke  - If you are in the US you might consider going on to the Tiger 
>Direct web site to see if they still have NEW canon i960 printers available 
>for about $80 after rebate.  
>

That is not Tony Da Tiger.

>They have refurbs available for $10 less, 
>

Big Deal

>but I 
>would be leary of them, especially if  you can buy a new one for $10 more.
>

You should be leary of  AfterMarket ink vendors who do not tell you what 
they are selling.

> 
>After shipping and getting the rebate you will have spent a little over $100 
>for an excellent six color photo printer.  
>

And for the same money you can get an up to date full featured IP4000.  
I doubt that you could tell the difference and there are no light load 
dye inks that have a tendancy to fade.

>Text is very decent as well, but 
>I have only used mine for photos and graphics.  No duplex (don't need it) 
>and no cassette paper tray (don't need that either)  It does have a 
>"piggy-back" device that will keep 4x6 photo paper loaded while you have 
>letter size paper on the feed deck, but I don't find that a great benefit 
>either.  Keep it simple is my approach.
>
>"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:1119032411.402180.129790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>  
>
>>>Thats funny since the IP4000 produces marginally better photos,
>>>substantially better business documents, is much faster than the
>>>IP6000. The only advantage, if you want to call it that, is to edit
>>>without a computer and most serious amateur photographers would not use
>>>that feature.
>>>      
>>>
>>The IP6000 has no BCI-3e cart.  It's clearly not designed at all for
>>"business" documents at all.  It is a photo printer, not a general
>>purpose one and very much slower for text.  But the IP6000 at the very
>>least has light inks, which are useful for filling between the dots
>>making the end result less grainy.  But this PCless printing put it in
>>the same class as the epson r300/r320.  Even an amateur photographers
>>enjoy proofsheets, and the index print feature is less clicks than
>>using the "photo print" software.  Not to speak of cases where you need
>>to print from your camera but don't want to invest in a dedicated
>>computer.  Editing without a PC, well that's fair comment.  I don't
>>have a pictbridge camera so I can't see if index/proof sheets are
>>available.
>>
>>But needless to say i'm considering ditching my r200 in favor of either
>>the ip5000 or ip6000, at present leaning tward the ip5000. I like the
>>r200's photo output much better but can't stand a head that's dependent
>>on a gasket which gets knocked out of place if you look at it funny.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/18/2005 12:10:29 AM
> If you are in the US you might consider going on to the Tiger
> Direct web site to see if they still have NEW canon i960 printers available
> for about $80 after rebate.

Thanks Burt, useful as i'm in the US, but unless I can enable CD
printing on my mp760 that is a feature I require.  That limits my
options.  Near as i'm aware that's not an option on the i960.
Otherwise it's an excelent choice.

0
zakezuke
6/18/2005 12:16:08 AM
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
news:VDJse.3634$NU5.2997@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>Zakazuke  - If you are in the US you might consider going on to the Tiger 
>>Direct web site to see if they still have NEW canon i960 printers 
>>available for about $80 after rebate.
>
> That is not Tony Da Tiger.
>
>>They have refurbs available for $10 less,
>
> Big Deal
>
>>but I would be leary of them, especially if  you can buy a new one for $10 
>>more.
>>
>
> You should be leary of  AfterMarket ink vendors who do not tell you what 
> they are selling.
>
>> After shipping and getting the rebate you will have spent a little over 
>> $100 for an excellent six color photo printer.
>
> And for the same money you can get an up to date full featured IP4000.  I 
> doubt that you could tell the difference and there are no light load dye 
> inks that have a tendancy to fade.
>
Back to the original post - looking for the best quality print (photo print, 
I presume.)  No need for dual paper feed or duplexing as neither of these is 
useful for dedicated photo printers.  The six color printers do tend to 
print closer to the appearance of continuous tones in areas like the sky. 
No need for the pigmented cart that is used solely for text with plain 
paper.  So, what is the big deal with "full featured" for someone who wants 
a photo printer?  Except for the 1 picoliter model and the addition of 
printers with red and green inks the rest of the Pixma line is basically 
repackaged I series printers with the addition of the duplexing and paper 
feed feature.  The IP4000 print head is the same as its predecessor in the I 
series.  Same ink carts.  The 1 picoliter and eight ink color models may be 
considered "up to date" or new  technology, but hardly the IP4000.  Get 
real.  For those who want a multipurpose printer with duplexing capability 
it would be desireable, but the duplexing is so slow that it competes, 
speedwise, with the proverbial boredom of "watching the grass grow."  The 
i960 is a great deal for someone who wants an inexpensive dedicated photo 
printer as long as archival quality prints are not the primary requirement. 
If it is, all the canon line, with dye based inks, should be avoided.

(snip) 


0
Burt
6/18/2005 12:38:59 AM
Right - not an option.  I do print cd labels that I can apply to cd's with 
the cd stomper, but direct printing is cerainly more desireable.

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119053768.808676.268660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> If you are in the US you might consider going on to the Tiger
>> Direct web site to see if they still have NEW canon i960 printers 
>> available
>> for about $80 after rebate.
>
> Thanks Burt, useful as i'm in the US, but unless I can enable CD
> printing on my mp760 that is a feature I require.  That limits my
> options.  Near as i'm aware that's not an option on the i960.
> Otherwise it's an excelent choice.
> 


0
Burt
6/18/2005 12:42:05 AM
> Right - not an option.  I do print cd labels that I can apply to cd's with
> the cd stomper, but direct printing is cerainly more desireable

I have a Memorex label set.  It says right on the pack "Warning: Using
a Standard for Full-Face label on DVDs may result in the disc becoming
unreadable".  Used one full faced label for a Car CD player.  It liked
the label so much it kept it.

I tried the spine label on a DVD.  My DVD didn't like it and spat it
out.

Still others, come summer time, tended to lift off the CD-Rs, with bits
of data as well.

I have enoyed better luck attaching the full faced labels to printable
media, but for the most part I avoid them.

0
zakezuke
6/18/2005 1:00:50 AM
On 17 Jun 2005 08:54:45 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> You are Joking..?
>
>> Print heads tht only last 1 1/2 years and Prints that only last 5 years  and
>> only 3+1   Colours..
>
>Printheads that only last 1 1/2 years?    Where do you get this number
>from?  The service manual says 5.  Prints well I don't have an estimate
>on the prints but this is at least close to fair comment.  Still plenty
>of 3rd party solutions, but I presently don't have a resource for canon
>archival ink.
>
>I have to admit, the R200 was my first choice.  But the printheads clog
>very easily dispite the fact that they have a larger drop size than the
>ip3000 / ip4000.  Mine lasted 6 months printing on average 1 5*5 print
>a day.  Color output is nice, but tends to break down very easily.
>The ip3000 was my choice as the epson was in the shop.
>
>I also must agree that the ip3000 isn't exactly as spiffy as the R200.
>The ip4000 is closer to a fair contest.    The ip5000/ip6000 at least
>are on the same level if not costing a little bit more.  Rather your
>choice between having the light inks and larger drop size, or smaller
>drop size and the usual 3+1.



I have a R210  the OZZY  version of the R200  no clogging at all, I would say
most users that have clogging problems do not know how to use the printer..

The 18 month print head thing has been reported here many times, I have been
told here Canon only warrantee there heads for 3 months..


0
Tony
6/18/2005 1:27:57 AM
> I would say most users that have clogging problems do not know
> how to use the printer..

I'd love to know what I did wrong, lol.   Generally speaking you put
paper in and print.  I've never had an issue of put paper ink ink
splash fest.

To be fair, I have to see how long the referb lasts.

> The 18 month print head thing has been reported here many times, I have been
> told here Canon only warrantee there heads for 3 months..

I'd be very interested in this, got links?

But hey, if I have to replace the printhead after 18 months i'd be
happy.  Cost vs peformance ratio still is looking good to me.   I have
no clue how long the warranty is on the head here.

0
zakezuke
6/18/2005 1:43:18 AM

Tony wrote:

>On 17 Jun 2005 08:54:45 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>You are Joking..?
>>>      
>>>
>>>Print heads tht only last 1 1/2 years and Prints that only last 5 years  and
>>>only 3+1   Colours..
>>>      
>>>
>>Printheads that only last 1 1/2 years?    Where do you get this number
>>from?  The service manual says 5.  Prints well I don't have an estimate
>>on the prints but this is at least close to fair comment.  Still plenty
>>of 3rd party solutions, but I presently don't have a resource for canon
>>archival ink.
>>
>>I have to admit, the R200 was my first choice.  But the printheads clog
>>very easily dispite the fact that they have a larger drop size than the
>>ip3000 / ip4000.  Mine lasted 6 months printing on average 1 5*5 print
>>a day.  Color output is nice, but tends to break down very easily.
>>The ip3000 was my choice as the epson was in the shop.
>>
>>I also must agree that the ip3000 isn't exactly as spiffy as the R200.
>>The ip4000 is closer to a fair contest.    The ip5000/ip6000 at least
>>are on the same level if not costing a little bit more.  Rather your
>>choice between having the light inks and larger drop size, or smaller
>>drop size and the usual 3+1.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>I have a R210  the OZZY  version of the R200  no clogging at all, I would say
>most users that have clogging problems do not know how to use the printer..
>  
>

You are probably right if they use 3rd party ink.

>The 18 month print head thing has been reported here many times, I have been
>told here Canon only warrantee there heads for 3 months..
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/18/2005 2:06:47 AM

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>news:VDJse.3634$NU5.2997@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>  
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Zakazuke  - If you are in the US you might consider going on to the Tiger 
>>>Direct web site to see if they still have NEW canon i960 printers 
>>>available for about $80 after rebate.
>>>      
>>>
>>That is not Tony Da Tiger.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>They have refurbs available for $10 less,
>>>      
>>>
>>Big Deal
>>
>>    
>>
>>>but I would be leary of them, especially if  you can buy a new one for $10 
>>>more.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>You should be leary of  AfterMarket ink vendors who do not tell you what 
>>they are selling.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>After shipping and getting the rebate you will have spent a little over 
>>>$100 for an excellent six color photo printer.
>>>      
>>>
>>And for the same money you can get an up to date full featured IP4000.  I 
>>doubt that you could tell the difference and there are no light load dye 
>>inks that have a tendancy to fade.
>>
>>    
>>
>Back to the original post - looking for the best quality print (photo print, 
>I ASSume.)  No need for dual paper feed or duplexing as neither of these is 
>useful for dedicated photo printers.  
>

Bullshit.  It is always nice to have.

>The six color printers do tend to 
>print closer to the appearance of continuous tones in areas like the sky. 
>No need for the pigmented cart that is used solely for text with plain 
>paper.  
>

Nice to be able to do all functions using one printer.

>So, what is the big deal with "full featured" for someone who wants 
>a photo printer?  
>

Not true.  Nice to be able to have both.  The Ip4000 give you both.

>Except for the 1 picoliter model and the addition of 
>printers with red and green inks the rest of the Pixma line is basically 
>repackaged I series printers with the addition of the duplexing and paper 
>feed feature.  
>

Also faster and different drivers.  Stop the Bullshit.

>The IP4000 print head is the same as its predecessor in the I 
>series.  Same ink carts.  The 1 picoliter and eight ink color models may be 
>considered "up to date" or new  technology, but hardly the IP4000.  
>

You are full of shit.

>Get 
>real.  For those who want a multipurpose printer with duplexing capability 
>it would be desireable, but the duplexing is so slow that it competes, 
>speedwise, with the proverbial boredom of "watching the grass grow."  
>

Hey by the time you get done with a 100 page duplexed document you can 
get your Dick up.  That is after you viagra.

>The 
>i960 is a great deal for someone who wants an inexpensive dedicated photo 
>printer as long as archival quality prints are not the primary requirement. 
>If it is, all the canon line, with dye based inks, should be avoided.
>  
>

More Bullshit.  The Canon i9900 is fantastic.

>(snip) 
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/18/2005 2:23:39 AM
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
news:LALse.4128$Pa5.2771@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
(snip)

>>Back to the original post - looking for the best quality print (photo 
>>print, I ASSume.)  No need for dual paper feed or duplexing as neither of 
>>these is useful for dedicated photo printers.
>
> Bullshit.  It is always nice to have.

You can not use the duplexing feature for glossy photo paper designed to 
print on one side only.  Why is it "nice" to have if you don't need it and 
never intend to use it?  It is nice to have a swimming pool, even though you 
never intend to use it.  It is "nice" to have a pair of shoes, even though 
you had one leg amputated.  Why is is "nice" to have something you 
absolutely don't want, don't need, and will never use?
>
>>The six color printers do tend to print closer to the appearance of 
>>continuous tones in areas like the sky. No need for the pigmented cart 
>>that is used solely for text with plain paper.
>
> Nice to be able to do all functions using one printer.

Measekite is the same fool who continually tells people not to buy 
multifunction devices.  Business documents and text printing in any 
appreciable volume are cheapest and best done on laser printers.  The i960, 
a six color printer, does produce somewhat better photo prints than the 
IP4000.  As you have often advised, Measekite, buy the individual units that 
do each function best.
>
>>So, what is the big deal with "full featured" for someone who wants a 
>>photo printer?
>
> Not true.  Nice to be able to have both.  The Ip4000 give you both.

"nice" to have both if you are interested in using these features.  I 
clearly stated that someone that wants a multifunctional printer with these 
features should buy the IP4000.  You are so anxious to refute anything I 
write that you refuse to  fully comprehend what I wrote in its entirety.  Go 
back and read it again.  You just flunked the English comprehension part of 
the SAT.  Repeat your senior year of high school.
>
>>Except for the 1 picoliter model and the addition of printers with red and 
>>green inks the rest of the Pixma line is basically repackaged I series 
>>printers with the addition of the duplexing and paper feed feature.
>
> Also faster and different drivers.  Stop the Bullshit.

Same print heads, same inks.  Same technology with the addition of your much 
touted  Duplexing and dual paper feed.  Several reviewers have said what I 
have echoed here about Canon repackaging the "I" series technology in most 
of the Pixma printers.  That is not a condemnation of the Pixma line, but it 
certainly does not make them a technological breakthrough either.  Just 
becuase you bought your beloved IP4000, you don't have to blindly proclaim 
its superiority.  I don't care which one you like or which one I like - 
these things are simply very inexpensive tools to produce a desired result. 
Mine makes beautiful photo prints.  Just what I bought it for.  Yours prints 
black text with pigmented inks,  knows how to turn a piece of printer paper 
over in case you forgot how, stores two types of pape  although you only 
print on one type at a time,  and prints photos with four ink colors.  Big F 
deal.  Neil Slade's evaluation (certainly as valid as yours) indicates that 
the Pixma printers are slower than the comparable I series printers they 
replaced.  I don't care which one is five seconds faster or slower.
>
>>The IP4000 print head is the same as its predecessor in the I series. 
>>Same ink carts.  The 1 picoliter and eight ink color models may be 
>>considered "up to date" or new  technology, but hardly the IP4000.
>
> You are full of shit.

Boy, do you get testy when someone tells the truth about your true love, the 
IP4000.  It's just a printer!  The print head is the same stock number as 
the printer in the "I" series it replaced.  The inks are exactly the same. 
You really don't know what you are talking about.
>
>>Get real.  For those who want a multipurpose printer with duplexing 
>>capability it would be desireable, but the duplexing is so slow that it 
>>competes, speedwise, with the proverbial boredom of "watching the grass 
>>grow."
>
> Hey by the time you get done with a 100 page duplexed document you can get 
> your Dick up.  That is after you viagra.

Measekite, you have a problem with your short term memory.  I don't do any 
duplexing and I don't do 100 page documents on my inkjet printer.  All 
business documents are done on an HP laser printer.  My inkjet is used as a 
dedicated photo and graphics printer.  From the love songs you sing to your 
IP4000 on this NG it must be you that gets it up over a 100 page duplexed 
document.  Try women.  More fun that your printer.  And you might be able to 
throw away your viagra.
>
>>The i960 is a great deal for someone who wants an inexpensive dedicated 
>>photo printer as long as archival quality prints are not the primary 
>>requirement. If it is, all the canon line, with dye based inks, should be 
>>avoided.
>>
>
> More Bullshit.  The Canon i9900 is fantastic.

Still uses dye based inks and does not produce archival quality prints.  You 
really don't know what you are talking about.  I guess that owning an IP4000 
and not having the guts to try aftermarket inks makes you an expert in all 
aspects of  printers and inks.
>
>>(snip)
>>
>> 


0
Burt
6/18/2005 3:41:35 AM
measekite wrote:
> 

>>> Big Deal
>>>
>>>   

> Bullshit.  It is always nice to have.

> 

> 
> Also faster and different drivers.  Stop the Bullshit.
> 

> 
> You are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey by the time you get done with a 100 page duplexed document you can 
> get your Dick up.  That is after you viagra.
> 

>>
> 
> More Bullshit.  The Canon i9900 is fantastic.
> 

Do you ever read the outright lies and bullshit you try and pass off as 
legitimate replies? None of them make any sense at all. You've got to be 
one numb and dumb idiot to keep posting this ignorant, unintelligible 
horse shit.
WTF is wrong with you? Did your mommy drop you on your head or what?
Get a fucking life asshole.
Frank
0
Frank
6/18/2005 4:46:24 AM

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>news:LALse.4128$Pa5.2771@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>  
>
>(snip)
>
>  
>
>>>Back to the original post - looking for the best quality print (photo 
>>>print, I ASSume.)  No need for dual paper feed or duplexing as neither of 
>>>these is useful for dedicated photo printers.
>>>      
>>>
>>Bullshit.  It is always nice to have.
>>    
>>
>
>You can not use the duplexing feature for glossy photo paper designed to 
>print on one side only.  Why is it "nice" to have if you don't need it and 
>never intend to use it?  
>

I am sure you have toilet paper in your house even though you prefer 
your hand.

>It is nice to have a swimming pool, even though you 
>never intend to use it.  It is "nice" to have a pair of shoes, even though 
>you had one leg amputated.  Why is is "nice" to have something you 
>absolutely don't want, don't need, and will never use?
>  
>

Because you never know.  It sure saves space when you file papers you 
print.  It is also better for the environment.

>>>The six color printers do tend to print closer to the appearance of 
>>>continuous tones in areas like the sky. 
>>>

In certain types of photos you may see a difference.  However, my friend 
who favors the Epson R300 does admit that the photo results from my 4 
color IP4000 are better than the 6 color results of his Epson R300 and 
the business documents are substantially better.

>>>No need for the pigmented cart 
>>>that is used solely for text with plain paper.
>>>      
>>>
>>Nice to be able to do all functions using one printer.
>>    
>>
>I am the same fool who continually tells people to buy 
>multifunction devices.  Color business documents and text printing in any 
>appreciable volume are cheapest and best done on monochrome laser printers.  The i960, 
>a six color printer, does produce somewhat better photo prints than the 
>IP4000 in limited circumstances but they have a greater propensity to fade.  
>  
>
>>>So, what is the big deal with "full featured" for someone who wants a 
>>>photo printer?
>>>      
>>>
>>Not true.  Nice to be able to have both.  The Ip4000 give you both.
>>    
>>
>
>"nice" to have both if you are interested in using these features.  I 
>clearly stated that someone that wants a multifunctional printer with these 
>features should buy the IP4000.  You are so anxious to refute anything I 
>write that you refuse to  fully comprehend what I wrote in its entirety.  Go 
>back and read it again.  You just flunked the English comprehension part of 
>the SAT.  Repeat your senior year of high school.
>  
>

:-D

>>>Except for the 1 picoliter model and the addition of printers with red and 
>>>green inks the rest of the Pixma line is basically repackaged I series 
>>>printers with the addition of the duplexing and paper feed feature.
>>>      
>>>
>>Also faster and different drivers.  Stop the Bullshit.
>>    
>>
>
>Same print heads, same inks.  Same technology with the addition of your much 
>touted  Duplexing and dual paper feed.  Several reviewers have said what I 
>have echoed here about Canon repackaging the "I" series technology in most 
>of the Pixma printers.  That is not a condemnation of the Pixma line, but it 
>certainly does not make them a technological breakthrough either.  Just 
>becuase you bought your beloved IP4000, you don't have to blindly proclaim 
>its superiority.  I don't care which one you like or which one I like - 
>these things are simply very inexpensive tools to produce a desired result. 
>Mine makes beautiful photo prints.  Just what I bought it for.  Yours prints 
>black text with pigmented inks,  knows how to turn a piece of printer paper 
>over in case you forgot how, stores two types of pape  although you only 
>print on one type at a time,  and prints photos with four ink colors.  Big F 
>deal.  Reverend Neil Slade's evaluation (certainly as valid as yours) indicates that 
>the Pixma printers are slower than the comparable I series printers they 
>replaced.  
>

However Pastor Canon, the manufacturer claims otherwise.

>I don't care which one is five seconds faster or slower.
>  
>
>>>The IP4000 print head is the same as its predecessor in the I series. 
>>>Same ink carts.  The 1 picoliter and eight ink color models may be 
>>>considered "up to date" or new  technology, but hardly the IP4000.
>>>      
>>>
>>You are full of shit.
>>    
>>
>
>Boy, do you get testy when someone tells the truth about your true love, the 
>IP4000.  It's just a printer!  The print head is the same stock number as 
>the printer in the "I" series it replaced.  The inks are exactly the same. 
>  
>

The driver, that is responsible for the functioning of the printer and 
the results is different.  The firmware is also different.

>You really know what you are talking about.
>  
>
>>>Get real.  For those who want a multipurpose printer with duplexing 
>>>capability it would be desireable, but the duplexing is so slow that it 
>>>competes, speedwise, with the proverbial boredom of "watching the grass 
>>>grow."
>>>      
>>>
>>Hey by the time you get done with a 100 page duplexed document you can get 
>>your Dick up.  That is after you viagra.
>>    
>>
>
>Measekite, you have a problem with your short term memory.  I don't do any 
>duplexing and I don't do 100 page documents on my inkjet printer.  All 
>business documents are done on an HP laser printer.  My inkjet is used as a 
>dedicated photo and graphics printer.  From the love songs you sing to your 
>IP4000 on this NG it must be you that gets it up over a 100 page duplexed 
>document.  Try my wife.  More fun that your printer.  And I might be able to 
>throw away my viagra.
>  
>
>>>The i960 is a great deal for someone who wants an inexpensive dedicated 
>>>photo printer as long as archival quality prints are not the primary 
>>>requirement. If it is, all the canon line, with dye based inks, should be 
>>>avoided.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>More Bullshit.  The Canon i9900 is fantastic.
>>    
>>
>
>Still uses dye based inks and does not produce archival quality prints.  You 
>really don't know what you are talking about.  I guess that owning an IP4000 
>and not having the guts to try aftermarket inks makes you an expert in all 
>aspects of  printers and inks.
>  
>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/18/2005 5:45:43 PM

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>> Big Deal
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>
>
>> Bullshit.  It is always nice to have.
>
>
>>
>
>>
>> Also faster and different drivers.  Stop the Bullshit.
>>
>
>>
>> You are full of shit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey by the time you get done with a 100 page duplexed document you 
>> can get your Dick up.  That is after you viagra.
>>
>
>>>
>>
>> More Bullshit.  The Canon i9900 is fantastic.
>>
>
> Do you ever read the outright good advice  you try and pass off as 
> legitimate replies? All of them make sense. I have got to be one numb 
> and dumb idiot to keep posting this ignorant, unintelligible horse shit.
> WTF is wrong with me? Did my mommy drop you on your head or what?
>
> Frank


JUST CAUSE YOUR HEAD COMES TO A POINT DON'T THINK YOUR SHARP.
0
measekite
6/18/2005 6:01:10 PM
> Because you never know.  It sure saves space when you file papers you
> print.  It is also better for the environment.

I'm all for the environment, but the point is if you have a dedicated
photo printer and are using single sided paper for the soul purpose of
creating pictures for display the feature is pointless.

Now if you have a general purpose printer, the feature *somewhat*
useful, but people like my self an others find it faster to print odd
and even copys and just re-insert the paper.

But anyone interested in the environment who's goal is to reduce waste
should consider a laser.

0
zakezuke
6/18/2005 9:48:19 PM
zakezuke wrote:
>>Because you never know.  It sure saves space when you file papers you
>>print.  It is also better for the environment.
> 
> 
> I'm all for the environment, but the point is if you have a dedicated
> photo printer and are using single sided paper for the soul purpose of
> creating pictures for display the feature is pointless.
> 
> Now if you have a general purpose printer, the feature *somewhat*
> useful, but people like my self an others find it faster to print odd
> and even copys and just re-insert the paper.
> 
> But anyone interested in the environment who's goal is to reduce waste
> should consider a laser.
> 

Yeah there's nothing like destroying your printer and wasting your time 
by using mechanical duplex.
I print a lot of double sided business docs and use only software based 
duplex printing.
Frank
0
Frank
6/19/2005 12:31:03 AM

Frank wrote:

> zakezuke wrote:
>
>>> Because you never know.  It sure saves space when you file papers you
>>> print.  It is also better for the environment.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm all for the environment, but the point is if you have a dedicated
>> photo printer and are using single sided paper for the soul purpose of
>> creating pictures for display the feature is pointless.
>>
>> Now if you have a general purpose printer, the feature *somewhat*
>> useful, but people like my self an others find it faster to print odd
>> and even copys and just re-insert the paper.
>>
>> But anyone interested in the environment who's goal is to reduce waste
>> should consider a laser.
>>
>
> Yeah there's nothing like your time by using software based duplex 
> printing.
> I print a lot of double sided business docs and use only mechanical 
> duplex.
> Frank


Me Too =-O
0
measekite
6/19/2005 1:09:03 AM
measekite wrote:

> 
> Me Too =-O

You too what?
Frank
0
Frank
6/19/2005 2:04:51 AM
"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119131299.140671.177060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Because you never know.  It sure saves space when you file papers you
>> print.  It is also better for the environment.
>
> I'm all for the environment, but the point is if you have a dedicated
> photo printer and are using single sided paper for the soul purpose of
> creating pictures for display the feature is pointless.
>
> Now if you have a general purpose printer, the feature *somewhat*
> useful, but people like my self an others find it faster to print odd
> and even copys and just re-insert the paper.
>
> But anyone interested in the environment who's goal is to reduce waste
> should consider a laser.

Zake - anyone who is REALLY interested in the environment  and uses an 
inkjet printer would do anything possible to stop throwing away single-use 
inkjet cartridges.  I am using the same set of OEM carts that came with my 
Canon i960 printer after refilling them for the better part of a year.  I 
just retired one of them after 10 refills and replaced it with an empty 
cartridge that is designed for refilling - refilled with MIS inks.  As far 
as costs are concerned, a ream of plain copy paper costs $2 to $4 and an OEM 
cart costs $9 (costco) to $12 retail.  I can print a lot of single sided 
documents before I get up to the cost of throwing away a pefectly good OEM 
refillable cartridge. 


0
Burt
6/19/2005 2:56:56 AM
> anyone who is REALLY interested in the environment  and uses an
> inkjet printer would do anything possible to stop throwing away single-use
> inkjet cartridges.

Agreed.  I know inksupply very well just not on the canon yet.  More
ecopoints that way.  Haven't had a chance to see the results from other
suppliers.  While paper is  more renewable than plastic, its not
reached the point that tree farms are self sufficent enough to produce
all the paper we need.   Speaking in terms of volumes of waste... paper
is worse.  But speaking in terms of the ecosystem, I can only image
what waste plastic still with a few ml of ink are doing.

But either way less chemistry required than photography.

0
zakezuke
6/19/2005 3:45:07 AM

Burt wrote:

>"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:1119131299.140671.177060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>  
>
>>>Because you never know.  It sure saves space when you file papers you
>>>print.  It is also better for the environment.
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm all for the environment, but the point is if you have a dedicated
>>photo printer and are using single sided paper for the soul purpose of
>>creating pictures for display the feature is pointless.
>>
>>Now if you have a general purpose printer, the feature *somewhat*
>>useful, but people like my self an others find it faster to print odd
>>and even copys and just re-insert the paper.
>>
>>But anyone interested in the environment who's goal is to reduce waste
>>should consider a laser.
>>    
>>
>
>Zake - anyone who is REALLY interested in the environment  and uses an 
>inkjet printer would do anything possible to stop throwing away single-use 
>inkjet cartridges.  I am using the same set of OEM carts that came with my 
>Canon i960 printer after refilling them for the better part of a year.  I 
>just retired one of them after 10 refills and replaced it with an empty 
>cartridge that is designed for refilling - refilled with MIS inks.  
>

MIS is a vendor label for an UNBRANDED GENERIC INK.  HE IS THE ONLY ONE 
ON THIS NG THAT I READ THAT IS USING THIS LABEL IN AN I960 PRINTER.

>As far 
>as costs are concerned, a ream of plain copy paper costs $2 to $4 and an OEM 
>cart costs $9 (costco)
>
NOT

> to $12 retail.  I can print a lot of single sided 
>documents before I get up to the cost of throwing away a pefectly good OEM 
>refillable cartridge. 
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/19/2005 6:04:57 AM
measekite wrote:


> 
> MIS is a vendor label for an UNBRANDED GENERIC INK.  HE IS THE ONLY ONE 
> ON THIS NG THAT I READ THAT IS USING THIS LABEL IN AN I960 PRINTER.

So what's that got to do with anything? You don't use 3rd's so shut the 
fuck up, ok.
Nobody gives a shit what you say.
Get lost and go some where else.
Frank
0
Frank
6/19/2005 6:33:18 AM
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
news:dW7te.4460$NU5.2325@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>Zake - anyone who is REALLY interested in the environment  and uses an 
>>inkjet printer would do anything possible to stop throwing away single-use 
>>inkjet cartridges.  I am using the same set of OEM carts that came with my 
>>Canon i960 printer after refilling them for the better part of a year.  I 
>>just retired one of them after 10 refills and replaced it with an empty 
>>cartridge that is designed for refilling - refilled with MIS inks.
>
>  Measekite wrote:  MIS is a vendor label for an UNBRANDED GENERIC INK.  HE 
> IS THE ONLY ONE ON THIS NG THAT I READ THAT IS USING THIS LABEL IN AN I960 
> PRINTER.

I have been told that MIS ink is Image Specialist ink.  Frankly, I don't 
care who makes it as it is excellent quality, extremely close color match to 
OEM, and no clogs in nearly a year.  Anyone who is interested in more 
information can go to Neil Slade's web site and read all of his information 
which is primarily about Canon printers, inks, cartridges, and printer 
maintenance.  Good background information for anyone with a Canon printer. 
http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html
>
>>As far as costs are concerned, a ream of plain copy paper costs $2 to $4 
>>and an OEM cart costs $9 (costco)

Refilling cost is about $1 per cartridge and takes about 5 to 10 minutes 
when you get it organized.  My first set of 2 oz. bottles (six colors) of 
bulk ink saved me enough money to buy two printers if/when this one fails. 
I am now on my second set of 2 oz containers.  Still no problems with clogs, 
color match, or printer malfunction.  It is a no brainer.  AND you don't 
have to throw away a perfectly good OEM empty cart after one use.  Good for 
the planet and good for my wallet.
>>
> NOT

?????
>
>> to $12 retail.  I can print a lot of single sided documents before I get 
>> up to the cost of throwing away a pefectly good OEM refillable cartridge.
>>
>> 


0
Burt
6/19/2005 6:39:31 AM
> I have been told that MIS ink is Image Specialist ink.

If that's the case I believe the IS numbers would be (according to a
little bird)

WJ1010 Black pigment
WJ2032 Cyan
WJ6053 magenta
WJ797 Yellow
WJ2043 Light Cyan
WJ6061  Light Magenta
WJ1008 Black

---Archival---

WJ1019 Black pigment
WJ293 Cyan
WJ690 magenta
WJ759 Yellow
WJ2003 Light Cyan
WJ6003 Light Magenta
??????? black

0
zakezuke
6/19/2005 7:10:13 AM

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>
>>
>> MIS is a vendor label for an UNBRANDED GENERIC INK.  HE IS THE ONLY 
>> ONE ON THIS NG THAT I READ THAT IS USING THIS LABEL IN AN I960 PRINTER.
>
>
> So what's that got to do with anything? You don't use 3rd's so shut 
> the fuck up, ok.
> Nobody gives a shit what you say.
> Get lost and go some where else.
> Frank


EAT ME DICKHEAD
0
measekite
6/19/2005 7:31:22 AM

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>news:dW7te.4460$NU5.2325@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>  
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Zake - anyone who is REALLY interested in the environment  and uses an 
>>>inkjet printer would do anything possible to stop throwing away single-use 
>>>inkjet cartridges.  I am using the same set of OEM carts that came with my 
>>>Canon i960 printer after refilling them for the better part of a year.  I 
>>>just retired one of them after 10 refills and replaced it with an empty 
>>>cartridge that is designed for refilling - refilled with MIS inks.
>>>      
>>>
>> Measekite wrote:  MIS is a vendor label for an UNBRANDED GENERIC INK.  HE 
>>IS THE ONLY ONE ON THIS NG THAT I READ THAT IS USING THIS LABEL IN AN I960 
>>PRINTER.
>>    
>>
>
>I have been told that MIS ink is Image Specialist ink.  
>

WHO TOLD YOU.  WAS IT INKSUPPLY.  IF SO WHY IS THAT NOT ON THEIR WEBSITE.

>Frankly, I don't 
>care who makes it as it is excellent quality, extremely close color match to 
>OEM, and no clogs in nearly a year.  
>

You are only 1 person.

>Anyone who is interested in more 
>information can go to Neil Slade's church site and read all of his information 
>which is primarily about Canon printers, inks, cartridges, and printer 
>maintenance.  Good background information for anyone with a Canon printer. 
>http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html
>  
>
>>>As far as costs are concerned, a ream of plain copy paper costs $2 to $4 
>>>and an OEM cart costs $9 (costco)
>>>      
>>>
>
>Refilling cost is about $1 per cartridge and takes about 5 to 10 minutes 
>when you get it organized.  My first set of 2 oz. bottles (six colors) of 
>bulk ink saved me enough money to buy two printers if/when this one fails. 
>I am now on my second set of 2 oz containers.  Still no problems with clogs, 
>color match, or printer malfunction.  It is a no brainer.  
>

and you do not have one.

>AND you don't 
>have to throw away a perfectly good OEM empty cart after one use.  
>

They are not good.  They are empty.

>Good for 
>the planet and good for my wallet.
>  
>
>>NOT
>>    
>>
>
>?????
>  
>
>>>to $12 retail.  I can print a lot of single sided documents before I get 
>>>up to the cost of throwing away a pefectly good OEM refillable cartridge.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/19/2005 7:35:27 AM

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
>news:dW7te.4460$NU5.2325@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>  
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Zake - anyone who is REALLY interested in the environment  and uses an 
>>>inkjet printer would do anything possible to stop throwing away single-use 
>>>inkjet cartridges.  I am using the same set of OEM carts that came with my 
>>>Canon i960 printer after refilling them for the better part of a year.  I 
>>>just retired one of them after 10 refills and replaced it with an empty 
>>>cartridge that is designed for refilling - refilled with MIS inks.
>>>      
>>>
>> Measekite wrote:  MIS is a vendor label for an UNBRANDED GENERIC INK.  HE 
>>IS THE ONLY ONE ON THIS NG THAT I READ THAT IS USING THIS LABEL IN AN I960 
>>PRINTER.
>>    
>>
>
>I have been told that MIS ink is Image Specialist ink.  
>

WHO TOLD YOU.  WAS IT INKSUPPLY.  IF SO WHY IS THAT NOT ON THEIR WEBSITE.

>Frankly, I don't 
>care who makes it as it is excellent quality, extremely close color match to 
>OEM, and no clogs in nearly a year.  
>

You are only 1 person.

>Anyone who is interested in more 
>information can go to Neil Slade's church site and read all of his information 
>which is primarily about Canon printers, inks, cartridges, and printer 
>maintenance.  Good background information for anyone with a Canon printer. 
>http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html
>  
>
>>>As far as costs are concerned, a ream of plain copy paper costs $2 to $4 
>>>and an OEM cart costs $9 (costco)
>>>      
>>>
>
>Refilling cost is about $1 per cartridge and takes about 5 to 10 minutes 
>when you get it organized.  My first set of 2 oz. bottles (six colors) of 
>bulk ink saved me enough money to buy two printers if/when this one fails. 
>I am now on my second set of 2 oz containers.  Still no problems with clogs, 
>color match, or printer malfunction.  It is a no brainer.  
>

and you do not have one.

>AND you don't 
>have to throw away a perfectly good OEM empty cart after one use.  
>

They are not good.  They are empty.

>Good for 
>the planet and good for my wallet.
>  
>
>>NOT
>>    
>>
>
>?????
>  
>
>>>to $12 retail.  I can print a lot of single sided documents before I get 
>>>up to the cost of throwing away a pefectly good OEM refillable cartridge.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
6/19/2005 7:35:45 AM
measekite wrote:
>
> You are only 1 person.
> 
And how many does that make you, you idiot.
Frank
0
Frank
6/19/2005 4:02:55 PM
measekite wrote:


> 
> 
> They are not good.  They are empty.

I see that you really are that stupid.
Amazing!
Frank
0
Frank
6/19/2005 4:04:08 PM

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>> You are only 1 person.
>>
> And how many does that make me an idiot.
> Frank
0
measekite
6/19/2005 7:00:12 PM

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> They are not good.  They are empty.
>
>
> I see that you really I am really that stupid.
> Amazing!
> Frank
0
measekite
6/19/2005 7:00:48 PM
Reply: