Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Inkjet printers to print CDs

Reply
Thread Tools

Inkjet printers to print CDs

 
 
thing2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2006
frederick wrote:
> thing2 wrote:
>
>> I got a Canon iP5000 because of the high quality output, and low use
>> and cost ink cartridges, HP could not compete IMHO. Now while people
>> may argue the Canon will not last as long....I consider HP's have gone
>> so far down hill in quality that I doubt that myself, plus over the
>> life the Canon the cartridges say so mach that in TOC terms I think I
>> will be ahead.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Thing
>>

> I reckon that you are partly right. IMO HP lost the plot a few years
> ago, and churned out some unreliable garbage at the cheap consumer end
> of things - IIRC the 3000(3820 etc?) series deskjets etc that had flimsy
> trouble-prone mechanisms that were not repairable, no parts available
> etc. Part of that may also have been international marketing and/or the
> local HP office's fault. I was attempting to repair one a few months
> ago, and my search for parts led me to find out that there weren't any
> parts available to repair an apparently very common fault (a broken
> nylon cog in the head maintenance tray mechanism). The other thing that
> google led me to was the fact that a printer that my client had paid
> $250 for in NZ was sold in supermarkets in the US for $29.95 and less.
> I think that HP may have seen the error of their ways lately - because
> the opinion you express is widespread and will have hurt their sales,
> and they are now making some quality and innovative consumer printers.



I think someone commented that a company can destroy its reputation in
one act and take 10 years to recover from it. I rate early HP printers,
but from the HP 5/6l era on (circa 199 they produced crap IMHO. I
think there is nothing that should be more jealiously guarded than a
company looking after its reputation.

regards

Thing










 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2006
thing2 wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>> thing2 wrote:
>>
>>> I got a Canon iP5000 because of the high quality output, and low use
>>> and cost ink cartridges, HP could not compete IMHO. Now while people
>>> may argue the Canon will not last as long....I consider HP's have
>>> gone so far down hill in quality that I doubt that myself, plus over
>>> the life the Canon the cartridges say so mach that in TOC terms I
>>> think I will be ahead.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Thing
>>>

>> I reckon that you are partly right. IMO HP lost the plot a few years
>> ago, and churned out some unreliable garbage at the cheap consumer end
>> of things - IIRC the 3000(3820 etc?) series deskjets etc that had
>> flimsy trouble-prone mechanisms that were not repairable, no parts
>> available etc. Part of that may also have been international
>> marketing and/or the local HP office's fault. I was attempting to
>> repair one a few months ago, and my search for parts led me to find
>> out that there weren't any parts available to repair an apparently
>> very common fault (a broken nylon cog in the head maintenance tray
>> mechanism). The other thing that google led me to was the fact that a
>> printer that my client had paid $250 for in NZ was sold in
>> supermarkets in the US for $29.95 and less.
>> I think that HP may have seen the error of their ways lately - because
>> the opinion you express is widespread and will have hurt their sales,
>> and they are now making some quality and innovative consumer printers.

>
>
>
> I think someone commented that a company can destroy its reputation in
> one act and take 10 years to recover from it. I rate early HP printers,
> but from the HP 5/6l era on (circa 199 they produced crap IMHO. I
> think there is nothing that should be more jealiously guarded than a
> company looking after its reputation.
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>

I agree.
What I'm not so sure about these days is that genuine advice on product
comparison can be relied upon in internet forums and usenet. One reason
is that companies like HP (deservedly?) still get crap because of the
error of their ways in the past. Another is that I strongly suspect
that some well known companies employ and pay shills to post to forums,
and that this has become a regular practice in competitive markets. I
also wouldn't trust any reviews in any "E-zine" or magazine that
prominantly feature product from that manufacturer in advertisements,
and particularly those that have competitions with prizes and giveaways
with product sponsored by that manufacturer. As they say, turkeys don't
vote for xmas.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jerry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2006
thing2 wrote:
> Fred Dagg wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:34:45 +1300, frederick <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> exclaimed:
>>
>>
>>> Fred Dagg wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:53:38 +1300, Geoff M
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am looking at getting a printer that will do CDs - some thing
>>>>> like the
>>>>> Canon Pixma 4200. The main use will be CDs, and the odd colour
>>>>> print - I
>>>>> have a laser for everyday work.
>>>>> Any suggestions or recommendations?
>>>>> Geoff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, it's not worth going past the Canon. They're miles ahead of
>>>> their competition in inkjet technologies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lol - tell HP and epson. Although canon do make some professional
>>> machines, HP and Epson dominate the pro market. I'm not saying that
>>> Canon are rubbish - but your comment is uninformed. As much as I
>>> dislike HP, for consumer inkjets, they are ahead in technology.
>>>
>>> If you really want to do only CDs and lots or them, then look here:
>>> http://www.primera.com/
>>>
>>> These are pro machines that have options to auto-load from a stack,
>>> and burn DVD/CD and print automatically. IIRC prices start at a few
>>> thousand dollars in NZ - not so expensive if you are doing a lot of
>>> CD/DVD printing/burning and your time is valuable.

>>
>>
>>
>> We were talking consumer-level, not pro.
>>
>> And a comparable Canon would laugh at an HP, in the consumer-level
>> inkjet market.

>
>
>
> I got a Canon iP5000 because of the high quality output, and low use and
> cost ink cartridges, HP could not compete IMHO. Now while people may
> argue the Canon will not last as long....I consider HP's have gone so
> far down hill in quality that I doubt that myself, plus over the life
> the Canon the cartridges say so mach that in TOC terms I think I will be
> ahead.


I will "me too" this one. I have a Canon iP4000r and I'm quite happy
with it. The ink carts don't cost too much and seem to last a long
time. The print quality is as good as my old eyes can discern, even
with glasses . I print CDs for my own use, and am happy with the
results. Certainly if I was printing hundreds of CDs a day I'd be
looking for a professional solution. A nice thing with the iP4000r is
that it is wireless and sits in a corner of the house all by itself,
available to my whole HAN (household area network).

I've had older HPs, and where I know that they have new technology, I'm
quite happy with this printer. Thing's iP5000 will have somewhat better
print quality than mine (smaller droplets) but that doesn't keep me from
being happy with my printer, or thing with his!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jerry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2006
frederick wrote:
> thing2 wrote:
>
>> frederick wrote:
>>
>>> thing2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got a Canon iP5000 because of the high quality output, and low use
>>>> and cost ink cartridges, HP could not compete IMHO. Now while people
>>>> may argue the Canon will not last as long....I consider HP's have
>>>> gone so far down hill in quality that I doubt that myself, plus over
>>>> the life the Canon the cartridges say so mach that in TOC terms I
>>>> think I will be ahead.
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Thing
>>>>
>>> I reckon that you are partly right. IMO HP lost the plot a few years
>>> ago, and churned out some unreliable garbage at the cheap consumer
>>> end of things - IIRC the 3000(3820 etc?) series deskjets etc that had
>>> flimsy trouble-prone mechanisms that were not repairable, no parts
>>> available etc. Part of that may also have been international
>>> marketing and/or the local HP office's fault. I was attempting to
>>> repair one a few months ago, and my search for parts led me to find
>>> out that there weren't any parts available to repair an apparently
>>> very common fault (a broken nylon cog in the head maintenance tray
>>> mechanism). The other thing that google led me to was the fact that
>>> a printer that my client had paid $250 for in NZ was sold in
>>> supermarkets in the US for $29.95 and less.
>>> I think that HP may have seen the error of their ways lately -
>>> because the opinion you express is widespread and will have hurt
>>> their sales, and they are now making some quality and innovative
>>> consumer printers.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think someone commented that a company can destroy its reputation in
>> one act and take 10 years to recover from it. I rate early HP
>> printers, but from the HP 5/6l era on (circa 199 they produced crap
>> IMHO. I think there is nothing that should be more jealiously guarded
>> than a company looking after its reputation.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Thing
>>

> I agree.
> What I'm not so sure about these days is that genuine advice on product
> comparison can be relied upon in internet forums and usenet. One reason
> is that companies like HP (deservedly?) still get crap because of the
> error of their ways in the past. Another is that I strongly suspect
> that some well known companies employ and pay shills to post to forums,
> and that this has become a regular practice in competitive markets. I
> also wouldn't trust any reviews in any "E-zine" or magazine that
> prominantly feature product from that manufacturer in advertisements,
> and particularly those that have competitions with prizes and giveaways
> with product sponsored by that manufacturer. As they say, turkeys don't
> vote for xmas.


It does take a long time to build a good reputation, and a short time to
destroy it. A newsgroup opinion that says my printer is great therefore
yours is crap doesn't have a lot of validity either. The newer HPs do
look very good, especially in the higher ranges. Face it, if you buy a
printer in the two digit numbers, it's a throw away (but has a year
warranty). I'm happy with my Canon iP4000r, Thing likes his very
similar iP5000 and there are some very nice HP printers out now. The
new Canons have a chip in the inktank to discourage refills, I'm not
sure how that affects the cost of the cartridge. Think and I have just
tanks (like just juice I guess, like a man after a vasectomy).

I fully agree with Frederick that a review in a forum that includes an
advertisement for the reviewed product must be highly suspect, and I
suspect more prevalent.

 
Reply With Quote
 
S Roby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Chris Hope <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Geoff M wrote:
>
>> I am looking at getting a printer that will do CDs - some thing like
>> the Canon Pixma 4200. The main use will be CDs, and the odd colour
>> print - I have a laser for everyday work.
>> Any suggestions or recommendations?

>
>I use a Canon Pixma IP3000 for printing CDs and it's been really good
>(I've printed about 4000 CDs and DVDs with it so far). I would assume
>the 4200 is a better model?


Ive a 3000 also & I highly recommend it (even thou no longer available)
Its duplex, always a bounus.
Good thing is the ink carts hold a descentish amount of ink & aftermarket
carts are cheap
 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2006

"frederick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1139520735.313443@ftpsrv1...
> Fred Dagg wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:53:38 +1300, Geoff M
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>I am looking at getting a printer that will do CDs - some thing like the
>>>Canon Pixma 4200. The main use will be CDs, and the odd colour print - I
>>>have a laser for everyday work.
>>>Any suggestions or recommendations?
>>>Geoff

>>
>>
>> Honestly, it's not worth going past the Canon. They're miles ahead of
>> their competition in inkjet technologies.

>
>
> lol - tell HP and epson. Although canon do make some professional
> machines, HP and Epson dominate the pro market. I'm not saying that Canon
> are rubbish - but your comment is uninformed. As much as I dislike HP,
> for consumer inkjets, they are ahead in technology.


LOL
You have no idea what you're talking about. Paper handling on budget HPs is
crap, and they can't do good quality borderless prints that the budget
Canons can.
The upper range HPs are probably a lot better - they'd have to be.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2006
Jerry wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>> thing2 wrote:
>>
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>
>>>> thing2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I got a Canon iP5000 because of the high quality output, and low
>>>>> use and cost ink cartridges, HP could not compete IMHO. Now while
>>>>> people may argue the Canon will not last as long....I consider HP's
>>>>> have gone so far down hill in quality that I doubt that myself,
>>>>> plus over the life the Canon the cartridges say so mach that in TOC
>>>>> terms I think I will be ahead.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Thing
>>>>>
>>>> I reckon that you are partly right. IMO HP lost the plot a few
>>>> years ago, and churned out some unreliable garbage at the cheap
>>>> consumer end of things - IIRC the 3000(3820 etc?) series deskjets
>>>> etc that had flimsy trouble-prone mechanisms that were not
>>>> repairable, no parts available etc. Part of that may also have been
>>>> international marketing and/or the local HP office's fault. I was
>>>> attempting to repair one a few months ago, and my search for parts
>>>> led me to find out that there weren't any parts available to repair
>>>> an apparently very common fault (a broken nylon cog in the head
>>>> maintenance tray mechanism). The other thing that google led me to
>>>> was the fact that a printer that my client had paid $250 for in NZ
>>>> was sold in supermarkets in the US for $29.95 and less.
>>>> I think that HP may have seen the error of their ways lately -
>>>> because the opinion you express is widespread and will have hurt
>>>> their sales, and they are now making some quality and innovative
>>>> consumer printers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think someone commented that a company can destroy its reputation
>>> in one act and take 10 years to recover from it. I rate early HP
>>> printers, but from the HP 5/6l era on (circa 199 they produced crap
>>> IMHO. I think there is nothing that should be more jealiously guarded
>>> than a company looking after its reputation.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Thing
>>>

>> I agree.
>> What I'm not so sure about these days is that genuine advice on
>> product comparison can be relied upon in internet forums and usenet.
>> One reason is that companies like HP (deservedly?) still get crap
>> because of the error of their ways in the past. Another is that I
>> strongly suspect that some well known companies employ and pay shills
>> to post to forums, and that this has become a regular practice in
>> competitive markets. I also wouldn't trust any reviews in any
>> "E-zine" or magazine that prominantly feature product from that
>> manufacturer in advertisements, and particularly those that have
>> competitions with prizes and giveaways with product sponsored by that
>> manufacturer. As they say, turkeys don't vote for xmas.

>
>
> It does take a long time to build a good reputation, and a short time to
> destroy it. A newsgroup opinion that says my printer is great therefore
> yours is crap doesn't have a lot of validity either. The newer HPs do
> look very good, especially in the higher ranges. Face it, if you buy a
> printer in the two digit numbers, it's a throw away (but has a year
> warranty). I'm happy with my Canon iP4000r, Thing likes his very
> similar iP5000 and there are some very nice HP printers out now. The
> new Canons have a chip in the inktank to discourage refills, I'm not
> sure how that affects the cost of the cartridge. Think and I have just
> tanks (like just juice I guess, like a man after a vasectomy).
>
> I fully agree with Frederick that a review in a forum that includes an
> advertisement for the reviewed product must be highly suspect, and I
> suspect more prevalent.
>


Hmm yes....

I went looking for a kayak last year, I almsot subscribed to a mag based
in Auckland, but after reading it a few times, I got a frown...so I
looked at the editorial....guess what the "independant" magazine was
closely affiliated with certian kayak shops and kayak companies....the
articles all dripped with good points and didnt seem to mention the bad
ones..(I have rented and used different kayaks for years, so I know some
have weaknesses) Over a few months other good kayaks were not
mentioned...(I quite like one called storm, an older design and a bit
heavy but Ive found it seaworthy myself).

Then I emailed Q-kayaks about 2 or 3 in their range and they recommended
an article....I read it and decided the magazine was nothing more than
marketing blurb tyed up in a mag....ie worthless....so why would I want
to subscribe in order to receive adverts?

Recently I happened to look at some of my youngest's mags and thought
wow, weekly Disney Press releases for only $5.95.....

Take wikipedia, the US politicans keep editing its pages to make
themselves look good...

Or the Microsoft employees who are allowed bogs.....

So now I wonder just how much if any information out there can be trusted?

I now think that in order to get a fair assessment of a product on line
you have to go and dig considerably, not so much for independant reviews
but looking for reviews that all sound the same....marketing cannot
resist sending to everyone the same blurb, and cheap jounalists/ mags
who have sold out reguritated so if the tone sounds similar.....I
discount it.

regards

Thing

















 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inkjet printers - Reg Sethu Computer Support 1 02-26-2005 11:45 PM
Inkjet Print vs Wet Chemical Print Bob Williams Digital Photography 37 12-05-2004 05:24 AM
Archival inksets for inkjet printers. Conway Yee Digital Photography 90 02-10-2004 10:52 PM
A3 inkjet printers and archival permanence Dave Henson Digital Photography 4 11-18-2003 11:50 AM
inkjet photo printers: eps files nosredna Digital Photography 2 11-18-2003 04:38 AM



Advertisments