M
measekite
Frank said:
WOW 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. SINCE 1957. WOW THAT PREDATES THE IBM 360
WOW 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. SINCE 1957. WOW THAT PREDATES THE IBM 360
Z
zakezuke
No, it probally won't. I can say i've used about 2oz of ink per tank
No I don't. You see your arguement is you don't save any money if 3rd
party ink ruins your printer. We know it's a Canon so a ruined print
head is less than the cost of a new printer by a small amount, typicaly
33% for the base models. Given I've done two black 4 refills of each
color, a OEM value of about $150ish and I paid $50ish for. Even
shopping at costco I saved $100. Given that the ink alone costs $40ish
from the same source I expect so save $120ish next time around.
In the most simple terms possible "I saved money even if I ruin my
whole printer".
Will my printhead eventually fail? Certainly as it would using OEM ink
according to Canon. I'm not worried about it since I bought the $65
printer and i've already saved enough to justify buying another printer
"today" without loss.
Look i'm sorry your feelings were hurt last year and you feel the need
to lash out at anyone just to get back at those who might have treated
you unfairly. But facts are facts. I'm all for someone who's willing
to point out key advantages to OEM ink:
1. Less hassle
2. Typicaly more light fast
Just like there is an advantage to buying 3rd party ink
1. It's cheaper from the get-go. As in less than a full set of OEM
inks
2. It's cheaper in the long run.
Once more... In the most simple terms possible "I saved money even if I
ruin my whole printer". That's a fact.
No I don't. You see your arguement is you don't save any money if 3rd
party ink ruins your printer. We know it's a Canon so a ruined print
head is less than the cost of a new printer by a small amount, typicaly
33% for the base models. Given I've done two black 4 refills of each
color, a OEM value of about $150ish and I paid $50ish for. Even
shopping at costco I saved $100. Given that the ink alone costs $40ish
from the same source I expect so save $120ish next time around.
In the most simple terms possible "I saved money even if I ruin my
whole printer".
Will my printhead eventually fail? Certainly as it would using OEM ink
according to Canon. I'm not worried about it since I bought the $65
printer and i've already saved enough to justify buying another printer
"today" without loss.
Look i'm sorry your feelings were hurt last year and you feel the need
to lash out at anyone just to get back at those who might have treated
you unfairly. But facts are facts. I'm all for someone who's willing
to point out key advantages to OEM ink:
1. Less hassle
2. Typicaly more light fast
Just like there is an advantage to buying 3rd party ink
1. It's cheaper from the get-go. As in less than a full set of OEM
inks
2. It's cheaper in the long run.
Once more... In the most simple terms possible "I saved money even if I
ruin my whole printer". That's a fact.
F
Frank
zakezuke said:
Oh geeze zz...meashershithead head must be spinning with confusion over
that detailed explanation.
Bet he's fumbling for the cap lock key right about now.
Frank
M
measekite
LONG SERMAN. PREACHING TO THE CHOIR
M
measekite
Frank said:Oh geeze zz...my head must be spinning with confusion over that
detailed explanation.
I am fumbling for the cap lock key right about now.
Frank
U R SPINNING A STOREE
Z
zakezuke
preaching to the chior
No sir, presenting you with a logical argument. You say the economics
don't make sense because your printer gets ruined. I can say for a
fact i've saved enough money if that happens, it still costs less than
OEM ink.
If you want to preach the wonders of OEM ink economics doesn't even
enter into the picture. Not by a long shot.
No sir, presenting you with a logical argument. You say the economics
don't make sense because your printer gets ruined. I can say for a
fact i've saved enough money if that happens, it still costs less than
OEM ink.
If you want to preach the wonders of OEM ink economics doesn't even
enter into the picture. Not by a long shot.
M
measekite
THERE IS MORE THAN MONEYzakezuke said:
Z
zakezuke
there is more than money
Well if there is you should have said so. You said, "if it ruins your
printer you did not save anything. This is not true. If my printer
blows up today I saved over $100. If my printerhead fails after 10
replacements that is the expected life of the printer in the first
place. I could buy a new printhead or a new printer and I still would
have dollars in the tripple digit range.
Well if there is you should have said so. You said, "if it ruins your
printer you did not save anything. This is not true. If my printer
blows up today I saved over $100. If my printerhead fails after 10
replacements that is the expected life of the printer in the first
place. I could buy a new printhead or a new printer and I still would
have dollars in the tripple digit range.
M
Mike Berger
You didn't actually read the post you were answering, did you?
I can't imagine anybody arguing that $ 5 is less than $ 125.
But thanks for illustrating that in case there are idiots
around here.
What I said was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain
about the cost of the expendables relative to the initial cost
of the product. And your response -- $ 125 is more than $ 5.
Well, thanks for the insight, but it doesn't really address the
issue, does it?
I even gave an analogy using a DVD player. I suppose your
response will be that DVD's are cheaper at Wal Mart.
I can't imagine anybody arguing that $ 5 is less than $ 125.
But thanks for illustrating that in case there are idiots
around here.
What I said was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain
about the cost of the expendables relative to the initial cost
of the product. And your response -- $ 125 is more than $ 5.
Well, thanks for the insight, but it doesn't really address the
issue, does it?
I even gave an analogy using a DVD player. I suppose your
response will be that DVD's are cheaper at Wal Mart.
M
Mike Berger
Of course you're basing that solely on your own recollection of
the postings you've seen. Although I rarely speak up about it,
when I provided computer support for many departments at the
University of Illinois, we had terrible problems with third party
ink cartridges and toner cartridges. The dealers were willing
to swap the defective ones, but it wasn't worth out trouble
or excessive printer maintenance.
It seems like every lab had a grad student who insisted that
THEY used third party inks and toner without any problems, and
would order it for the lab, but my group was stuck fixing
the problems.
It doesn't make much sense to post that in this newsgroup because
it seems like the real proponents of third-party supplies are
convinced that their individual experience applies to everybody,
and my experiences with literally hundreds of printers don't
matter.
I also can't say with any certainty that there AREN'T good third
party ink and toner supplies. I never found them. I do know that
ink chemistry is critical. Even on impact type printers (tele-
typewriters) the wrong ink on the ribbon could really gum things up.
Those machines were a lot more rugged than the modern printers.
It's also been my experience that most people are willing to replace
their hardware more frequently than I am. I don't want to throw
a two year old printer away just because it's cheaper to replace
than to fix. I'd like to keep it from breaking in the first place.
the postings you've seen. Although I rarely speak up about it,
when I provided computer support for many departments at the
University of Illinois, we had terrible problems with third party
ink cartridges and toner cartridges. The dealers were willing
to swap the defective ones, but it wasn't worth out trouble
or excessive printer maintenance.
It seems like every lab had a grad student who insisted that
THEY used third party inks and toner without any problems, and
would order it for the lab, but my group was stuck fixing
the problems.
It doesn't make much sense to post that in this newsgroup because
it seems like the real proponents of third-party supplies are
convinced that their individual experience applies to everybody,
and my experiences with literally hundreds of printers don't
matter.
I also can't say with any certainty that there AREN'T good third
party ink and toner supplies. I never found them. I do know that
ink chemistry is critical. Even on impact type printers (tele-
typewriters) the wrong ink on the ribbon could really gum things up.
Those machines were a lot more rugged than the modern printers.
It's also been my experience that most people are willing to replace
their hardware more frequently than I am. I don't want to throw
a two year old printer away just because it's cheaper to replace
than to fix. I'd like to keep it from breaking in the first place.
M
Mike Berger
Well, of course I do. If I want to see "Batman Begins" but "Napoleon
Dynamite" is cheaper, I'll buy Napoleon Dynamite, knowing that I'm
saving money.
No, wait, that would be stupid. The price and content aren't related.
Likewise, I might be able to shop around and find the one I actually
want slightly cheaper, and it would be wise to buy it there -- but I
know it will be absolutely identical to the more expensive one, with
absolutely no difference at all. It won't be on a cheaper material,
printed on cheaper paper, or stored in a crappy box.
So would assuming that all bread is exactly alike, regardless of the
price.
And I *know* that the ink chemistry differs.
People who shop exclusively for price get cat food instead of tuna.
Dynamite" is cheaper, I'll buy Napoleon Dynamite, knowing that I'm
saving money.
No, wait, that would be stupid. The price and content aren't related.
Likewise, I might be able to shop around and find the one I actually
want slightly cheaper, and it would be wise to buy it there -- but I
know it will be absolutely identical to the more expensive one, with
absolutely no difference at all. It won't be on a cheaper material,
printed on cheaper paper, or stored in a crappy box.
So would assuming that all bread is exactly alike, regardless of the
price.
And I *know* that the ink chemistry differs.
People who shop exclusively for price get cat food instead of tuna.
M
Mike Berger
I know *I* would, but I don't deign to speak for "most of us". A quick
survey of my friends illustrates that most of them would rather NOT pay
much higher prices for their printers. When printers were $ 1500 and
up, they weren't very common outside of offices. Your "most of us"
excludes most of the people I know.
survey of my friends illustrates that most of them would rather NOT pay
much higher prices for their printers. When printers were $ 1500 and
up, they weren't very common outside of offices. Your "most of us"
excludes most of the people I know.
M
Mike Berger
When we talk about DVD's (identical title), there is no difference
from one to another. They are made identically. If you can get the
same DVD for $ 2 that others pay $ 20 for, it's a bargain. In reality
the DVD's in the $ 2 section are NEVER the same as the $ 20 ones.
It's a lot like ink cartridges. You are buying a less expensive
product, and an entirely different one.
from one to another. They are made identically. If you can get the
same DVD for $ 2 that others pay $ 20 for, it's a bargain. In reality
the DVD's in the $ 2 section are NEVER the same as the $ 20 ones.
It's a lot like ink cartridges. You are buying a less expensive
product, and an entirely different one.
Z
zakezuke
Although I rarely speak up about it, when I provided
This is at the very least a logical reason to go with OEM. Mission
critical enviroment where downtime costs you money.
But I am suspecting the cartridges you are talking about are refills,
remanufactored ones with a printhead onboard... where most of the
proponents of 3rd party ink are Canon and Epson users, or printers with
a seperate printhead. The failure rate on the foam type i'm sure isn't
0 but is certainly less than the head onboard type. The vacuum
labyrinth type probally less so, though 3rd party cartridges i've
noticed can be not so spiffy at times.
The stuff I typicaly see reccomended are not remanufactored but are
simple foam type ink tanks. Cheap to produce, no complex mechanics
that degrade and affect the print quality, and generally work.
This is at the very least a logical reason to go with OEM. Mission
critical enviroment where downtime costs you money.
But I am suspecting the cartridges you are talking about are refills,
remanufactored ones with a printhead onboard... where most of the
proponents of 3rd party ink are Canon and Epson users, or printers with
a seperate printhead. The failure rate on the foam type i'm sure isn't
0 but is certainly less than the head onboard type. The vacuum
labyrinth type probally less so, though 3rd party cartridges i've
noticed can be not so spiffy at times.
The stuff I typicaly see reccomended are not remanufactored but are
simple foam type ink tanks. Cheap to produce, no complex mechanics
that degrade and affect the print quality, and generally work.
Z
zakezuke
When we talk about DVD's (identical title), there is no difference
I don't know about that. I will say that there are differences with
DVD's under the same title. For example one might be dual layer HQ and
a cheaper edition might be single layer SP. This is typicaly labled.
For example a friend for my b-day bought me Monk season 1 a 4 disc
DVD-9. But eventually your average DVD hits the bargin bins which were
at one time $20 movies just priced less.
But I agree in some ways it's just like DVDs. A DVD-5 SP is lesser
quality than a DVD-9 HQ. But the SP version will still be totally
watchable. Some people might want the HQ edition, others don't care.
Still others can't tell the difference.
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/inktest.html
For the *most part* oem inks are going to be better. Typicaly they are
going to be more light fast and the software will be color calibrated
to them. There are exceptions but not in the bargin hunter department.
It's a question of whether, in the case of canon inks, whether it's
worth it to spend $3000+/gal on the OEM ink which is lightfast for
about 25/30 years according to their internal tests under glass on
their premium paper [sub 10 years if exposed to air] or $300/gal for
something that looks pretty good that might not be *as* lightfast.
And in the case with the canon, it doesn't ruin the printer. I imagine
the stuff I use "could" ruin the printhead, a $60 to $80 item, but
considering the service manual says the max life is about 10 cartridge
changes, i'm not too worried about it. The stuff i'm using works well,
doesn't clog, and is cheap enough so I can produce as many large prints
as I want without it costing hundreds of dollars.
But I understand where you are comming from. You feel the OEM product
will extend the life of your product. For all I know you could be
right. But you asked about the "Ecconomic justification", and thus far
if my printhead failed today and I had to shell out $60 to $80 for a
new one... I still would have saved money. Ecconomicly i'm 100%
justified with my choice.
I don't know about that. I will say that there are differences with
DVD's under the same title. For example one might be dual layer HQ and
a cheaper edition might be single layer SP. This is typicaly labled.
For example a friend for my b-day bought me Monk season 1 a 4 disc
DVD-9. But eventually your average DVD hits the bargin bins which were
at one time $20 movies just priced less.
But I agree in some ways it's just like DVDs. A DVD-5 SP is lesser
quality than a DVD-9 HQ. But the SP version will still be totally
watchable. Some people might want the HQ edition, others don't care.
Still others can't tell the difference.
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/inktest.html
For the *most part* oem inks are going to be better. Typicaly they are
going to be more light fast and the software will be color calibrated
to them. There are exceptions but not in the bargin hunter department.
It's a question of whether, in the case of canon inks, whether it's
worth it to spend $3000+/gal on the OEM ink which is lightfast for
about 25/30 years according to their internal tests under glass on
their premium paper [sub 10 years if exposed to air] or $300/gal for
something that looks pretty good that might not be *as* lightfast.
And in the case with the canon, it doesn't ruin the printer. I imagine
the stuff I use "could" ruin the printhead, a $60 to $80 item, but
considering the service manual says the max life is about 10 cartridge
changes, i'm not too worried about it. The stuff i'm using works well,
doesn't clog, and is cheap enough so I can produce as many large prints
as I want without it costing hundreds of dollars.
But I understand where you are comming from. You feel the OEM product
will extend the life of your product. For all I know you could be
right. But you asked about the "Ecconomic justification", and thus far
if my printhead failed today and I had to shell out $60 to $80 for a
new one... I still would have saved money. Ecconomicly i'm 100%
justified with my choice.
T
Taliesyn
Mike said:
I still don't know what the heck bizarro world point you're trying to
make in a simple case about the cost of Canon inks!
So it doesn't make a lot of sense to you to complain about the cost of
the expendables relative to the initial cost of the product? Well, how
much one earns and how much we print are sometimes important variables
to think about.
Try looking at it from MY perspective and maybe you will come away a
more understanding man. I (and million like me) very much take into
consideration the cost of expendables. For example, last year I printed
ten large 90-page booklets at high resolution with over a hundred large
photos. One booklet used up a set of cartridges, I kid you not! If I had
bought Canon cartridges my cost would have been over a $1000 in ink for
the project! Instead, I used bulk and my cost was about $50. Now THAT I
can manage. Some of us simply cannot afford to run our printers using
Canon inks. (should we be forced to use typewriters?)
To add insult to injury, they were recently selling the iP4000 in
Canada, with a set of cartridges included, for $100. At the same time
they were selling just the cartridges, with no printer, for about $125.
This is totally absurd!!!! What that means is the printer is really
free, you only pay exaggerated prices for the cartridges. Absurd,
absurd, absurd. Why buy refills, just get a new printer (comes with new
cartridges).
And if my explanation still doesn't satisfy you, so be it. The original
poster seemed to be very satisfied with my reply and that's all that
really matters to me.
-Taliesyn
G
George E. Cawthon
Mike said:
I heard that argument about single-sided and
double-sided floppys also. Turned out after a
short introductory period for double sided
floppies, that all floppies were double sided. So
a lot of us just punched the hole needed after
buying single sided floppies.
Of course, lots of people also bought gold or
silver or some such designation for higher quality
floppies also. Never seemed to matter, since all
were pretty much the same.
Same thing with VHS tape. At least after a period
of manufacture, there was no significant
difference among any of the VHS tape although the
costs varied by a huge amount.
CD and DVD are similar, buy the expensive ones if
you want, they probably came off the same
manufacturing line as the cheap one.
All of which has nothing to do with picking a
device that uses expendables. My purchase of an
automobile has nothing to do with the brand of gas
I put in it or the brand of tires, or the brand of
any expendable. Same is true for the VCR machine,
the floppy disk machine, the CDR machine, the DVD
machine. Hell, I don't even think about brands of
paint I will use in the future when I consider
buying a house.
Enough of the sarcasm. Your argument is
fallacious and irrelevant. Actually is just plain
silly since you know the person was talking about
a recordable DVD blank, not a DVD of a movie.
Z
zakezuke
Enough of the sarcasm. Your argument is
Actually it's plain silly because he's talking economic
justification... or at least that's what he asked in the first place.
"Without getting into a debate over the wisdom of using third party
ink, I'm curious as to the purely economic justification. "
Easy to justify economicly, it is cheaper. Anything else is another
topic all together.
Actually it's plain silly because he's talking economic
justification... or at least that's what he asked in the first place.
"Without getting into a debate over the wisdom of using third party
ink, I'm curious as to the purely economic justification. "
Easy to justify economicly, it is cheaper. Anything else is another
topic all together.
Z
zakezuke
What I said was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain
It makes perfect sense. For example on my epson r200 it would cost me
about USD$70.00 for the OEM inks or USD$65 for a new printer, the
IP3000 with inks. In my case it was cheaper to get another printer than
buy ink for mine that broke.
What Taliesyn is trying to say is according to him the cost a printer
with ink costs CDN$125 (wow) where one can buy the same printer with
the same amount of inks for CDN$129.36. His price seems a tad high
to me, I would "think" one could get the inks for CDN$90 plus GST & PST
of about 7% each in Vancouver IIRC for a grand total of $102. But I
imagine it's possible where he shops for whatever reason the inks are
CDN$4.00 higher each than Vancouver. But clearly it's only CDN$5.00
to $30.00 more for a printer with ink than just ink.
To use your DVD analogy... it's as if it about cost about the same for
a DVD as a DVD player with a DVD, leaving you with the choice of buying
a DVD, buying a player with a DVD, or finding some bargin bin somewhere
where you're not overcharged for DVDs.
It makes perfect sense. For example on my epson r200 it would cost me
about USD$70.00 for the OEM inks or USD$65 for a new printer, the
IP3000 with inks. In my case it was cheaper to get another printer than
buy ink for mine that broke.
What Taliesyn is trying to say is according to him the cost a printer
with ink costs CDN$125 (wow) where one can buy the same printer with
the same amount of inks for CDN$129.36. His price seems a tad high
to me, I would "think" one could get the inks for CDN$90 plus GST & PST
of about 7% each in Vancouver IIRC for a grand total of $102. But I
imagine it's possible where he shops for whatever reason the inks are
CDN$4.00 higher each than Vancouver. But clearly it's only CDN$5.00
to $30.00 more for a printer with ink than just ink.
To use your DVD analogy... it's as if it about cost about the same for
a DVD as a DVD player with a DVD, leaving you with the choice of buying
a DVD, buying a player with a DVD, or finding some bargin bin somewhere
where you're not overcharged for DVDs.
M
much smarter
(e-mail address removed) says...
predictable.
It appears to be a true story, and ... he's found the caps lock key! So
predictable.