«

It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
price of a new printer.

I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even that is
obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to the
i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?

So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a print
head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new ip6000D.

The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
4800x2400. So my first question...

Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?

If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
4800x2400?

Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.

In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?

Regards
Keith

In article <dDf2e.200$>,
says...
> It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
> without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
> price of a new printer.
>
>
>

Is it a clogged print head or some other failure??

The printhead on an i950/i960 can be cleared this way:

Get some household Ammonia, and some distilled water.

Make a mix that is about 10% household ammonia and 90% distilled water.

Pour about a quarter cup of this mix into a paper or foam cup and warm it a
few seconds in a microwave (dont boil it, just heat it up to 100 or 120
degrees F

Fold up a soft paper napkin or paper towell into a small pad and place it on
a saucer and soak it with the Warm Ammonia/water.

Place the print head print side down on the wet pad and let it soak for a few
minutes.

Now load an eye dropper with the water/Ammonia and after the head has soaked
for a few minutes pick it up and put it back into the printer.

Now using the eye dropper place a drop or two of the liquid onto each intake
on the head, then quickly place the ink cartridges (with ink in them) into
place and run a few cleaning cycles, then do a print test.

If it doesn't work right away, do the whole thing twice more. If it hasnt
cleared by then, it probably wont clear.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Keith Sheppard wrote:

> The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
> sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
> 4800x2400. So my first question...
>
> Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
> the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?

I found an old spec sheet for the i950, and it lists as "4800x2400*"
with a footnote "*see specifications". I can't find the other specs to
which it's referring, but I expect this means the 2400 is "conditional",
interpolated, or in some other manner not a "true" physical spec.

> If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
> resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
> Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
> 4800x2400?

I doubt you'd notice the difference - newer printers have improved
technology (such as what Canon calls "FINE" - see http://tinyurl.com/66ojx

> Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
> Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.

Disgree how? It either does or it doesn't - I have the 6000D, there is
no feature on it that I can see for printing directly on CDs, nor is
there anything about it in the manual, so if a review says it does,
they're full of ****.

> In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
> observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?

Never having used an i950, I can't compare them directly, but I can tell
you the iP6000D is a damn nice machine; I particularly like the
direct-print-from-card with the built-in LCD.

In article <nWg2e.839077$Xk.747392@pd7tw3no>, says...
> Disgree how? It either does or it doesn't - I have the 6000D, there is
> no feature on it that I can see for printing directly on CDs, nor is
> there anything about it in the manual, so if a review says it does,
> they're full of ****.
>

It might be that the 6000D prints to disks in its European and Japanese
version but not in the US version.

The ip4000 is that way. You can read in some reviews how well it prints cd's,
but those are NOT reviews of the US version of the printer.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

You might try posting this to comp.periphs.printers.

Winston


Keith Sheppard wrote:
> It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at
least, not
> without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close
to the
> price of a new printer.
>
> I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even
that is
> obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to
the
> i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?
>
> So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a
print
> head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new
ip6000D.
>
> The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is
4800x1200. Some
> sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the
i950 was
> 4800x2400. So my first question...
>
> Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same
resolution as
> the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?
>
> If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a
lower
> resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually
notice?
> Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
> 4800x2400?
>
> Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels
on CDs?
> Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.
>
> In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or
general
> observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?
>
> Regards
> Keith

You may want to look into Epson printers. I have both Canon and Epson
printers and color management is distinctly more reliable with Epson's print
drivers.

Have a look at the epson r range , I have an r300 which is old hat now
almost , less than 100 quid now , prints on cd's extremely well and does a
damn fine job on decent paper , they probably do a better one now but have
always been impressed with them as a reseller and user of them.




"bmoag" <> wrote in message
news:THj2e.16706$ om...
> You may want to look into Epson printers. I have both Canon and Epson
> printers and color management is distinctly more reliable with Epson's
> print drivers.
>

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:14:43 GMT, Matt Ion <>
wrote:

>Keith Sheppard wrote:
>
>> The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
>> sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
>> 4800x2400. So my first question...
>>
>> Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
>> the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?
>
>I found an old spec sheet for the i950, and it lists as "4800x2400*"
>with a footnote "*see specifications". I can't find the other specs to
>which it's referring, but I expect this means the 2400 is "conditional",
>interpolated, or in some other manner not a "true" physical spec.
>
>> If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
>> resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
>> Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
>> 4800x2400?
>
>I doubt you'd notice the difference - newer printers have improved
>technology (such as what Canon calls "FINE" - see http://tinyurl.com/66ojx
>
>> Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
>> Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.
>
>Disgree how? It either does or it doesn't - I have the 6000D, there is
>no feature on it that I can see for printing directly on CDs, nor is
>there anything about it in the manual, so if a review says it does,
>they're full of ****.
>
>> In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
>> observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?
>
>Never having used an i950, I can't compare them directly, but I can tell
>you the iP6000D is a damn nice machine; I particularly like the
>direct-print-from-card with the built-in LCD.


The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.

Keith Sheppard wrote:

>It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
>without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
>price of a new printer.
>
>I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even that is
>obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to the
>i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?
>
>

You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
cheaper and costs around $40.00 less. The only people who should get the
IP6000 are those who want to or need to print without a computer using
the tiny LCD. Those people are a printer mgf dream.

I have an IP4000 and other than the i9900 or the IP8500 it is the best
and the best value in all regards.

>So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a print
>head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new ip6000D.
>
>The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
>sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
>4800x2400. So my first question...
>
>Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
>the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?
>
>If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
>resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
>Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
>4800x2400?
>
>Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
>Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.
>
>
The European version of the IP4000 prints directly on Cds.

>In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
>observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?
>
>Regards
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>

Matt Ion wrote:

> Keith Sheppard wrote:
>
>> The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is
>> 4800x1200. Some
>> sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the
>> i950 was
>> 4800x2400. So my first question...
>>
>> Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same
>> resolution as
>> the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?
>
>
> I found an old spec sheet for the i950, and it lists as "4800x2400*"
> with a footnote "*see specifications". I can't find the other specs
> to which it's referring, but I expect this means the 2400 is
> "conditional", interpolated, or in some other manner not a "true"
> physical spec.
>
>> If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a
>> lower
>> resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
>> Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
>> 4800x2400?
>
>
> I doubt you'd notice the difference - newer printers have improved
> technology (such as what Canon calls "FINE" - see
> http://tinyurl.com/66ojx
>
>> Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels
>> on CDs?
>> Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.
>
>
> Disgree how? It either does or it doesn't - I have the 6000D, there
> is no feature on it that I can see for printing directly on CDs, nor
> is there anything about it in the manual, so if a review says it does,
> they're full of ****.


No! They are full of knowledge. You see the European version of Canon
Printers can print directly on CDs. For some reason Epson and Canon are
duking it out in the US; therefore no of the Canons have this feature.

>
>
>> In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or
>> general
>> observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?
>
>
> Never having used an i950, I can't compare them directly, but I can
> tell you the iP6000D is a damn nice machine; I particularly like the
> direct-print-from-card with the built-in LCD.