Canon CLI-8/PGI-5 resetter question
in [Printers]
|
Prev: Printing on toilet paper
Next: Lexmark Z640 vs Z2320
From: measekite on 26 Dec 2008 03:08 On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:47:50 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote: > I'm only responding to mindless Measekite because he's been quoted, so I > have seen his reply, and because he is, as per usual, speaking out of > his lower orifice. What orrifice are you using to top post when others have requested you do not do this. You are the type that just does not give a damn what others think. > > Canon printers may work without resetting the chip while losing the ink > monitor systems which may lead to a head burnout, but Epson printers > simply will not work if the cartridges chip is not reset or replaced > with a new one. Epson and other inkjet manufacturers have used legal > means based, in part, on the political climate in North America, to > "protect" their ink sales by claiming patent infringement. In some > cases, the patents themselves were adopted to force 3rd party companies > to violate them in order for the cartridges to work with the printer > design. Don't you think that is terrific. > > My hope is that with the change of administration in the White House and > more awareness of the environmental impact of these horrible business > models, as in the EU, North America will be legislated into providing > refillable cartridges. Do not count on it. I am glad you are not allowed to vote. > > Art > > If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste, No interested. > I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog: > > http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/ > > Taliesyn wrote: >> measekite <inkystinky(a)oem.com> wrote in >> news:a2T3l.9588$D32.3598(a)flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com: >> >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:24:25 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote: >>> >>>> Indeed, I feel similarly with any chipped cartridge... Of course, >>>> that would defeat the whole reason they put the chip there to begin >>>> with (in spite of what they may claim). >>>> >>>> With Epsons, which I have a lot more experience with, I have seen >>>> many chip and chip firmware related problems, as well as hardware >>>> related problems related to the chips. I find it ironic that >>>> purchasers end up paying extra for the printer, and the ink >>>> cartridges, and have additional issues with their printers so that >>>> they can be forced to buy the manufacturer's ink. "What a 'country'!" >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> Art >>>> >>>> >>> The above top posted statement is incorrect. The mfgs are not forcing >>> anybody to use the correct ink. >> >> That's why they placed the chips on the cartridges, stupid. People HAVE >> to buy BRAND NEW MANUFACTURER'S CARTRIDGES or lose ink metering. That >> is "force" by any definition of the word! >> >> >>> There are many jerks that do not follow the advice of the mfg. >> >> The manufacturer's advice is to pay an incredible $100+ CAD for a set >> of new (Canon) cartridges. I don't subscribe to this sort of robbery >> since it's also the price of a brand new printer - with cartridges >> included! >> >>> and get lousy results >> >> Been using refilled cartridges/prefilled cartridges for 13 years. If I >> didn't like the quality, durability, concern for the printer, I would >> have stopped 12 years ago. Obviously I have seen nothing that would >> sway my opinion. I'm very happy and have saved thousands of dollars >> over the years. Basically every printer I buy now is technically "free" >> because of the years of money saved not using OEM cartridges. >> >>> but either they lie about what they get or they are unknowingly >>> willing to accept poorer results and enjoy complaining and having >>> issues with their printers. >> >> What issues? Printers are cheaper than the ink. Even the brand new >> iP4600 can be bought for less than the price of a set of expensive new >> Canon cartridges. I don't register with the mfg, I buy a 1-3 year >> automatic replacement warranty from the store. Never had to use it >> though. However, I will not deal with the mfg. Last (and only time I >> will ever call them) they told me to bring my printer to a service >> center. Right! What am I supposed to print with for 3-4 weeks? That >> 1950's kind of customer service just won't cut it in this modern world. >> >> -Taliesyn
From: measekite on 26 Dec 2008 03:13
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:17:16 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote: > On Dec 22, 12:48 pm, measekite <inkysti...(a)oem.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:24:25 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote: >> > Indeed, I feel similarly with any chipped cartridge... Of course, that >> > would defeat the whole reason they put the chip there to begin with (in >> > spite of what they may claim). >> >> > With Epsons, which I have a lot more experience with, I have seen many >> > chip and chip firmware related problems, as well as hardware related >> > problems related to the chips. I find it ironic that purchasers end up >> > paying extra for the printer, and the ink cartridges, and have >> > additional issues with their printers so that they can be forced to buy >> > the manufacturer's ink. "What a 'country'!" ;-) >> >> > Art >> >> The above top posted statement is incorrect. The mfgs are not forcing >> anybody to use the correct ink. There are many jerks that do not follow >> the advice of the mfg and get lousy results but either they lie about what >> they get or they are unknowingly willing to accept poorer results and >> enjoy complaining and having issues with their printers. >> >> The majority of printer users do in fact use OEM productgs. > > Manufacturers are doing their best to force users to use their ink. I called Canon and Epson and they say you are lying when you make these stupid statements. > With Epson they employ a patented cartridge design and use chips. Same > with Canon, they went after third party manufacturers that used prisms > in the UK, and they started using chips in their cartridges. HP has been > using chips for some time, though many printers are the head on the cart > type which to be fair is more of an issue to have refilled, and can't > exactly be manufactured with ease by a 3rd party, well, until the patent > expired. That is great news. > > Manufacturers are in fact trying to force users to buy their ink. That is dumb. You do not have to buy their printers; therefore you do not have to use their ink. > > I'm perfectly willing to accept there are some cartridges and inks that > have issues. Making an informed choice is important. That's why people > like my self share information about products we've actually tried. MIS The value of what you share is not worth much. > inks I've used enough to say my printer did not explode. I replaced the > head after 15 cartridge changes. I saved over a grand which I used for > a modest vacation, Porta del Carmen, Cancun, Merida, Chitzen Itza. If you spent less that is understandable but you saved nothing., > > For aftermarket ink for the Canon, there isn't really an archival > solution, but my main application is printing on discs where the discs That is for sure. > are in cases not near sunlight. Not an issue. OEM Canon ink is not > very archival in the first place, so I see little point paying 10x as According to Wilhelm you are giving incorrect information. Canon's Claria inks and Epsons K34 inks are archival when using appropriatge paper. > much for a substandard product. For archival, I'm going to use the > Epson 1280 with pigmented ink. That without a doubt will out perform > OEM dye which to be fair was pretty lame on that model. |