HP vs Epson: Share Your Experiences

[Toby]

My experience with updated drivers for a HP 5100C scanner several years ago
were a nightmare of epic proportions. I followed the instructions carefully
and they crashed my system. I got on the NGs and found literally dozens of
people with the same kind of problem. One guy had spent hours on the phone
paying major money to HP support in Australia and never did get the problem
solved. He was told by them that driver updates were assigned to junior
engineers and never fully tested. It was certainly my experience. I finally,
after much improvising, got the scanner to work with partial functionality,
after following the instructions exactly many times with no success.
Although the scanner was less than two years old, it was not eligible for
e-mail support. I will never again buy an HP product.

It may be that the 9600 has driver compatibility back to the stone age; the
thing to watch out for is the *next* operating system...

The 9600 has a wider color gamut than the 2200, but the print quality of the
2200 is better in all the tests I have seen.

Toby

 

[Bob Headrick]

There is one major difference between these two printers, which should weigh
heavily in your choice: the Epson uses pigment-based inks whereas the HP
uses dye-based. If you are looking for longevity then there is no real
contest--you have to go with the Epson. I am not familiar with the HP;

[snip]

Since you are not familiar with the HP you should do some homework before
making statements such as those above. Henry Wilhelm is a noted authority in
the area of fade testing and has a number of interesting articles at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/. In particular, the HP DeskJet 5550 and Epson
2200 are compared in an article available at:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf. (The
DeskJet 5550 fade performance would be comparable to the 9600 series as they
use the same inks.)

The Epson had a fade rating of 50 years with glossy paper, compared to 73 years
for the HP. For watercolor paper the Epson was rated at 90 years, edging out
the HP. In either case both have lightfastness that surpasses Kodak photo
prints at 22 years or Fujicolor Crystal Archive at 60 years. The lightfastness
of both printers is likely to be sufficient to make it a non-issue in selecting
one of these printers.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
MS MVP Printing/Imaging

 

[Bob Headrick]

The Epson will also make full bleeds.

As will the HP, in various sizes up to 13"x19" on photo paper.

- Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

There is one major difference between these two printers, which should weigh
heavily in your choice: the Epson uses pigment-based inks whereas the HP
uses dye-based. If you are looking for longevity then there is no real
contest--you have to go with the Epson. I am not familiar with the HP;

[snip]

Since you are not familiar with the HP you should do some homework before
making statements such as those above. Henry Wilhelm is a noted authority in
the area of fade testing and has a number of interesting articles at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/.

Oh yes, Henry Wilhelm the well known authority that estimated the life
of Epson dye inks at 27years against light fading, when they lasted only
a few days in normal atmosphere due to gas fading! Yes, we would
certainly trust everything the inventor of the term "lightfast" says

In particular, the HP DeskJet 5550 and Epson
2200 are compared in an article available at:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf. (The
DeskJet 5550 fade performance would be comparable to the 9600 series as they
use the same inks.)

The Epson had a fade rating of 50 years with glossy paper, compared to 73 years
for the HP. For watercolor paper the Epson was rated at 90 years, edging out
the HP. In either case both have lightfastness that surpasses Kodak photo
prints at 22 years or Fujicolor Crystal Archive at 60 years. The lightfastness
of both printers is likely to be sufficient to make it a non-issue in selecting
one of these printers.

Lightfastness is only *one* aspect of ink durability, and dye inks
simply cannot compete against pigment inks when all factors are
considered.

 

[Toby]

Hi Bob,

Thanks, I did not realize that the HP had those longevity ratings;
everything I ever read said that dye inks were good for about 25 years
maximum.

However based on my past experiences with HP products I would never buy
another until they rethink their after-sales service policies.

Toby

There is one major difference between these two printers, which should weigh
heavily in your choice: the Epson uses pigment-based inks whereas the HP
uses dye-based. If you are looking for longevity then there is no real
contest--you have to go with the Epson. I am not familiar with the HP;

[snip]

Since you are not familiar with the HP you should do some homework before
making statements such as those above. Henry Wilhelm is a noted authority in
the area of fade testing and has a number of interesting articles at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/. In particular, the HP DeskJet 5550 and Epson
2200 are compared in an article available at:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf. (The
DeskJet 5550 fade performance would be comparable to the 9600 series as they
use the same inks.)

The Epson had a fade rating of 50 years with glossy paper, compared to 73 years
for the HP. For watercolor paper the Epson was rated at 90 years, edging out
the HP. In either case both have lightfastness that surpasses Kodak photo
prints at 22 years or Fujicolor Crystal Archive at 60 years. The lightfastness
of both printers is likely to be sufficient to make it a non-issue in selecting
one of these printers.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
MS MVP Printing/Imaging

 

[HarryS]

Ditto your thoughts, I'll never buy HP again.
I years I supported HP products, printers etc, until I bought their CD
Burner.
When Win2K came out they wanted $$ for updated drivers just to make it
work.

I'm about to replace my 2 aging HP printers (yep being HP they work
great still (with M$ drivers BTW),
but I want better quality that 300dpi) and HP wasn't on the shopping
list.
I thought I'd check out this NG & see if their after sales attitude has
changed any.
Seems not. Great products, crap after sales support. I'll not buy 'em
again.

Just my $0.02

Hi Bob,

Thanks, I did not realize that the HP had those longevity ratings;
everything I ever read said that dye inks were good for about 25 years
maximum.

However based on my past experiences with HP products I would never buy
another until they rethink their after-sales service policies.

Toby

There is one major difference between these two printers, which should weigh
heavily in your choice: the Epson uses pigment-based inks whereas the HP
uses dye-based. If you are looking for longevity then there is no real
contest--you have to go with the Epson. I am not familiar with the HP;

[snip]

Since you are not familiar with the HP you should do some homework before
making statements such as those above. Henry Wilhelm is a noted

authority

in
the area of fade testing and has a number of interesting articles at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/. In particular, the HP DeskJet 5550

and

Epson
2200 are compared in an article available at:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf. (The
DeskJet 5550 fade performance would be comparable to the 9600 series as they
use the same inks.)

The Epson had a fade rating of 50 years with glossy paper, compared to

73

years
for the HP. For watercolor paper the Epson was rated at 90 years,

edging

out
the HP. In either case both have lightfastness that surpasses Kodak photo
prints at 22 years or Fujicolor Crystal Archive at 60 years. The lightfastness
of both printers is likely to be sufficient to make it a non-issue in selecting
one of these printers.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
MS MVP Printing/Imaging