Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 12, 2005, 04:27 PM

"The new inkjet platform, which will initially be geared toward the high end of the market, will incorporate the print head in the printer itself rather than in the ink cartridge. Why does this matter? It means cheaper prints for consumers (about 24 cents per photo print) and faster output."

http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...de_0712hp.html

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/pr...5/050711a.html

Last time I checked this is how almost all other manufactures have always had things work. HP is known for having the highest cost per page because they charge you an arm and a leg each time you buy a new inkcart as it comes with a print head if you want it or not.

How HP is calling it "new technology breakthrough".

Glad I swear by Canon printers.

jokell82 · Jul 12, 2005, 04:36 PM

That's how my old Epson printer worked too. Odd...

turtle777 · Jul 12, 2005, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Glad I swear by Canon printers.

Yeah, that will be my next, if I ever buy an inkjet again.
I'm done with Epson and HP, those suckers...

-t

iMOTOR · Jul 12, 2005, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Glad I swear by Canon printers.

Old canon bubblejets had the print head with the cartridge. The trouble with print heads connected with the printer is that they dry up if you don't use them frequently. I have two worthless epsons under my desk because the print heads dried up.

Railroader · Jul 12, 2005, 05:33 PM

My Epson just gave up the ghost. I went to clean around it and noticed a pool of black ink under it. Ruined my desk.

I don't like HPs anyway because they seem to over-saturate the paper with ink.

I am in the market for a cheap printer. Probably try a Canon. I was burned by a Canon ink jet printer a long time ago ('96), but I think I'll give them another chance. Any recommendations?

Link · Jul 12, 2005, 08:44 PM

Every canon I ever used where the print head wasn't part of the ink tank had a removable print head, otherwise known by canon as a "cartridge" that you had to replace every so often.

It's a great idea, but still doesn't beat lasers for stuff other than pictures, OTOH you can usually refill the ink tanks by holding them upside down and pouring ink into them

VERY HANDY!

DeathToWindows · Jul 12, 2005, 09:12 PM

HP has done this for YEARS with their business inkjets... i;ve had one since 2002

X-Ray · Jul 12, 2005, 09:21 PM

It's new technology because, among other things, ink used in cleaning cycles will be pumped back into the cartridges and not wasted as in other printers. And, these printers are fast.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 13, 2005, 12:04 AM

Microsoft and intel have press releases much like this one. I remember 2 years ago Intel got tons of press because the new mobile chips could throttle down. Much like macs have done since 1992.

tooki · Jul 13, 2005, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Link

Every canon I ever used where the print head wasn't part of the ink tank had a removable print head, otherwise known by canon as a "cartridge" that you had to replace every so often.

Canon no longer considers the printhead a consumable: it's designed to last the life of the printer. (They used to be rated for about 6000 pages.) But the head is still easily replaceable.

tooki

Superchicken · Jul 13, 2005, 01:46 AM

How is it again that HP makes so much money?

Warung · Jul 13, 2005, 03:32 AM

That's exactly the reason I went with a Canon printer the last time. Having to buy expensive cartridges sucks.

Otoh, I'm not too impressed with my i560. Crashes a lot, and the printing quality isn't all that.

Eriamjh · Jul 13, 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

Canon no longer considers the printhead a consumable: it's designed to last the life of the printer. (They used to be rated for about 6000 pages.) But the head is still easily replaceable.

tooki

Yeah. Easily replaceable.

For about 80% of the price of the printer!

I had a Canon. It lasted 3 years when the print head failed. Cost was $65 for a new one. I bought a new Canon printer for $80 at Costco that used the same ink cartridges (so I didn't have to pitch the old ones).

I hope they last longer. I know I didn't get 6000 pages out of mine!

OldManMac · Jul 13, 2005, 08:35 AM

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that the new technology is centered around the way the print head is manufactured, with less processes involved and more nozzles, which allows for faster, and more accurate printing.

turtle777 · Jul 13, 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by KarlG

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that the new technology is centered around the way the print head is manufactured, with less processes involved and more nozzles, which allows for faster, and more accurate printing.

You mean we should read a linked article BEFORE posting and discussing ?
Wow, major paradigm shift here

-t

tooki · Jul 13, 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Warung

Otoh, I'm not too impressed with my i560. Crashes a lot, and the printing quality isn't all that.

What do you mean, "crashes"?!?

That's weird -- my i850 uses the same printhead as the i560, and I have been entirely thrilled with my prints (and I'm picky).

tooki

tooki · Jul 13, 2005, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by KarlG

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that the new technology is centered around the way the print head is manufactured, with less processes involved and more nozzles, which allows for faster, and more accurate printing.

Canon has printers on the market right now with about twice as many nozzles as these new HPs will have. I don't see that as a huge innovation.

tooki

Warung · Jul 13, 2005, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

What do you mean, "crashes"?!?

A lot of times it will print half a page and then just stop. That might be an issue though connected to the fact that it is hooked up to my airport station, rather than being directly pluged into my powerbook.

Originally Posted by tooki

That's weird -- my i850 uses the same printhead as the i560, and I have been entirely thrilled with my prints (and I'm picky).

I always get lines and smears, - even though i have cleaned and adjusted the printheads several times.

tooki · Jul 13, 2005, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Warung

1) A lot of times it will print half a page and then just stop. That might be an issue though connected to the fact that it is hooked up to my airport station, rather than being directly pluged into my powerbook.

2) I always get lines and smears, - even though i have cleaned and adjusted the printheads several times.

1) Yeah, that probably is the cause, but is weird nonetheless since Apple claims to support that model on Airport. My hunch is that it's not the printer's fault.

2) That could be lint that has intruded into the printer and gotten stuc to the printhead. This can be verified by pulling out the printhead and inspecting it. (If necessary, clean the head, but do not touch the nozzles with anything at all!!)

tooki

Warung · Jul 13, 2005, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

1) Yeah, that probably is the cause, but is weird nonetheless since Apple claims to support that model on Airport. My hunch is that it's not the printer's fault.

I know, it's atrocious. It takes about 15 seconds to prompt the printing dialogue (even after I re-installed the printer for Tiger)

Originally Posted by tooki

2) This can be verified by pulling out the printhead and inspecting it. (If necessary, clean the head, but do not touch the nozzles with anything at all!!)

Thanks, I'll try that.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 13, 2005, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by KarlG

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that the new technology is centered around the way the print head is manufactured, with less processes involved and more nozzles, which allows for faster, and more accurate printing.

No, it is around taking the print head out of the ink cart to save the consumer 24% and make printing faster. Last time I checked HP ink was at LEAST 24% more then the next guy and much slower at printing.

In other words they might be up to par with everyone else after using this new technology.

suvsr4terrorists · Jul 13, 2005, 12:29 PM

I'm really happy with my Epson Stylus Photo R200. It was only $90, and it prints out fantastic pictures, plus the ink is cheap when you get it from www.inkquik.com. I suggest everybody check out that site, it's fantastic.

All I know is that I'll never own another HP after HP screwed me over on the 7550 (not compatible with OSX even though it says it is).

X-Ray · Jul 13, 2005, 12:36 PM

In addition to recycling ink used in the head cleaning process, the new HP printers have a printing head that is separate from the cartridges (which don't move druring printing, reducing vibration during printing). Also, they have a system for expunging air during printing. All you naysayers might actually want to read up on the details before being so critical: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/July05/HP%208250-1.htm

Ps - All you Canon owners can go to Wilhelm research and see how long your prints will last - quick to print, quick to fade, no?

suvsr4terrorists · Jul 13, 2005, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by X-Ray

In addition to recycling ink used in the head cleaning process, the new HP printers have a printing head that is separate from the cartridges (which don't move druring printing, reducing vibration during printing). Also, they have a system for expunging air during printing. All you naysayers might actually want to read up on the details before being so critical: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/July05/HP%208250-1.htm

Ps - All you Canon owners can go to Wilhelm research and see how long your prints will last - quick to print, quick to fade, no?

Ha. Maybe this printer won't work with the next revision of OSX, and they'll never update their drivers. You'll be singing a different tune. HP is an awful company.

Railroader · Jul 13, 2005, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Superchicken

How is it again that HP makes so much money?

Corporate sales. A lot of the larger Businesses use then because they can deliver higher volume sales and they have a huge service dept. (which is necessary because they sell crap).

We have about 50 HP Laserjets on the factory floor and we get about 2-30 prints from them before they jam or start printing badly. We have a HP service guy on site and he is more then happy to come out and fix 'em. We used to have Brother printers that worked flawlessly. But I guess the HP salesman was a better entertainer to the purchasing dept.

On a side note: All of SWF's dissing of HP and raving about Canon has me worried. I have never agreed with him so much about a topic.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 13, 2005, 03:27 PM

Hp's inkjet drivers are crap for OSX. HP's have the highest cost per page. The 90 degree turn the paper takes isn't the smartest thing with thick paper. They are usually half the speed of canons.

Epson is also crap but for other reasons.

suvsr4terrorists · Jul 13, 2005, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Epson is also crap but for other reasons.

Cheap. Nice prints. Fast. Cheap ink. Nice drivers.

What else do you want?

Superchicken · Jul 13, 2005, 04:05 PM

My epson 740 crapped out on me some time between this year and last.... I just stopped using it and exprted all my stuff to PDF and printed off on the lab at school. I cleaned it, I did everything and still the print quality sucked. Granted it's an old printer. But I'm still not very impressed with it. I'll be getting a canon in the future.

Railroader · Jul 13, 2005, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Cheap. Nice prints. Fast. Cheap ink. Nice drivers.

What else do you want?

Reliability. Mine last two started leaking black ink out the back where I couldn't see it.

Last one ruined a handmade solid cherry table. Nice black puddle left a 4 inch black stain. Epson's clog like no other printer on the market.

Railroader · Jul 13, 2005, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Superchicken

My epson 740 crapped out on me some time between this year and last.... I just stopped using it and exprted all my stuff to PDF and printed off on the lab at school. I cleaned it, I did everything and still the print quality sucked. Granted it's an old printer. But I'm still not very impressed with it. I'll be getting a canon in the future.

Your 740 lasted a lot longer than the one I had.

I'll be buying a Canon this weekend probably. Or tonight. I have no plans for tonight.

loki74 · Jul 13, 2005, 04:54 PM

heh... wow I'm still running a deskjet 970Cse. I have no idea how old it is, but ive had it for a looong time.

I had my eye set on the designjet large format printer, but I dont think I have the coin for that right now, and from what i've read it doesnt to borderless printing. I think i'll go with either an Epson Stylus Photo R1800 or a Canon i9900 Bubblejet. They both got good reviews by photogrpahers at B&H, and the price is right. They dont do large format (tabliod only) but I dont plan on printing huge-ass posters anytime soon... once I make enough money from this purchase to pay it off, I'll go ahead and get a large format, and probably use this one for proofing. ... just cant decide which one to get.

suvsr4terrorists · Jul 13, 2005, 05:14 PM

My $90 Styles R200 does borderless printing.

I've dealt with epsons at work and they've always lasted longer than the HPs. We had this HP laserjet...jesus christ.. I wanted to hurt whoever designed it. When we finally threw it away I beat the CRAP out of it with a 2X4.

Zimphire · Jul 13, 2005, 05:15 PM

You really expect us to believe that?

Superchicken · Jul 13, 2005, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

jesus christ.. I wanted to hurt whoever designed it.

Are you SURE He wanted to hurt em? Or perhaps pain was required for them to learn?

suvsr4terrorists · Jul 13, 2005, 05:27 PM

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/news/digpop/376.html

"Borderless photo-lab results on 10 x 15cm up to A4"

Railroader · Jul 13, 2005, 05:31 PM

suvsr4terrorists · Jul 13, 2005, 06:13 PM

Oh. Well, I did. It was for my old job. I wanted to burn it too, but all that was in the dumpster was a handy 2X4.

tooki · Jul 13, 2005, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Cheap. Nice prints. Fast. Cheap ink. Nice drivers.

What else do you want?

This is what else:
Faster photo printing
Finer ink droplets
Cheaper ink
Much nicer drivers
Dual paper feed
Built-in duplexing
No clogging

Canon offers all those things on much cheaper models than Epson does, if Epson even offers it at all.

tooki

suvsr4terrorists · Jul 13, 2005, 06:17 PM

Hrm. How much is a decent canon? I remember their drivers being awful for macs, years ago. Especially the scanners. Jesus christ, they might as well have just said "NOT COMPATIBLE".

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 13, 2005, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Hrm. How much is a decent canon? I remember their drivers being awful for macs, years ago. Especially the scanners. Jesus christ, they might as well have just said "NOT COMPATIBLE".

You're right, but the printers seem rock solid for at least the past 2 years.

tooki · Jul 13, 2005, 06:25 PM

Ages ago, the drivers were awful. Canon's printer drivers now are superb. (Their scanner drivers are good, but nothing to write home about.)

I just picked up an iP3000 (similar specs to a C86, $99 list) for $40 new on craigslist (i've seen it at stores on sale for $65 or so), except that it has both top- and front-loading paper paths and built in duplexing.

tooki

suvsr4terrorists · Jul 13, 2005, 06:58 PM

Neat. How many inks does it use? Is it kinda like hexachrome? Or just CMYK?

tooki · Jul 13, 2005, 07:48 PM

The iP3000 is CMYK with 2pl drops. 6 and 8 color models exist, too, while the iP5000 uses CMYK with 1pl drops

in place of photo inks!

tooki

loki74 · Jul 13, 2005, 09:30 PM

heh sounds like the canon wins.

and, damn! ONE picoliter!!! thats insane!

Railroader · Jul 13, 2005, 11:33 PM

Canon has won my $$.

X-Ray · Jul 13, 2005, 11:37 PM

The only Canon printers worth buying, if you want prints to not fade, are the new Pixma IP1600 and IP4200 - new ink technology.

Railroader · Jul 14, 2005, 12:15 AM

If I want prints to not fade, I will take them to the nearest developer and pay 20¢ for a 4"x6".

It's certainly a lot cheaper than buying a printer, ink, and paper.

tooki · Jul 14, 2005, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by X-Ray

The only Canon printers worth buying, if you want prints to not fade, are the new Pixma IP1600 and IP4200 - new ink technology.

While I certainly am looking forward to seeing the new inks in action, I personally have had no fading problems with my Canons' prints.

But I agree that for anything I'd want to be an heirloom, I'd get a silver halide digital print. (Inkjet photos, IMHO, are for convenience and flexibility, not to save money.)

tooki