what's with my ink setup?

Just out of interest, do you know if anyone is selling filled
cartridges lacking cartridge chips, which could allow the end user to
remove the chips from the OEM cartridges, install them on the new filled
cartridges, and then reset them?

Seems like a "clean" method of using 3rd party inks without chip problems.

Art

If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

Joel wrote:
"rb" wrote:

For whatever reason, everytime we put one ink, out of a set, in my Epson
CX9400Fax the other inks don't "recognize" it.

Therefore, we have to put in all four cartridges together, and everything
seems fine.

What's going on with this? Why can't I change a single cartridge???

It sounds like you have CHIP problem, and with newer Epson printer they
may have newer firmware that may not work with older Compatible and old ARC
(Auto Reset Chip).

While waiting for newer ARC chip (I would recommend the refillable
cartridge or CIS) you can get a 9-PIN chip resetter on eBay for around
$12-15 or so. But the Chip Resetter will only work with OEM so you will
need to read and save your original Epson cartridge *or* you can buy the OEM
remanufactured which usually cost around 1/3 of Epson brand (and sometime
onsale for 1/4 to 1/5 of the Epson brand).

I am using Epson RX680 and the 9-PIN Chip Resetter does work, the
Refillable Ink Cartridge with older ARC won't work, and the seller told me
that he got newer ARC chip and it works with newer firmware, but I haven't
had the chance to test it yet.

I also bought 18 (3 full sets) of the OEM remanufactured which I tested
and it works (it was onsale and with 20% off promotion code I only paid $74
for 18 cartridges), and I still refilling the original Epson cartridge
(refilled 4 times and still going strong).

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:29:58 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

On Nov 7, 10:52 am, measekite wrote:

These are NOT Canon numbers.

No, they are Image Specialist numbers.

They are NOT on the Canon website

No, they are on the Image Specialist website, and some others that
sell their ink.

This is NOT Canon ink.

It is Canon ink. As I pointed out with the exception of the pigment


You are misrepsenting unintentially or lying intentially. If the ink is
not developed by Canon or sold by Canon on at least a wholesale or mfg
level it is not Canon ink. Canon says the ink is NOT theirs. They
should know not someone like you.








ink, they dye ink they make is exclusively for
Canon. The pigment ink
was used in older HPs such as yours, the #45 cartridge.

I called Canon and they said they have nothing to do with Canon and
Canon DOES NOT RECOMMEND them for use in any Canon printer.

Well, canon doesn't recommend anything but their own products. In fact,

I did not think you are stupid enough to make contradictory statements.
First you say it is Canon ink when you know it is not and with the line
above you say Canon does not recommend anything but their own products.
You just admitted that it is not a Canon product so the ink is not Canon's/







they don't even recommend anything but their paper. I got that speech


That is another lie. I spoke with Canon and they told me that Epson paper
works fine in their machines but Kodak does not. I do not think that
Epson paper is made by Canon.





from them when had to
get a head replaced on my mp760. They are not
responsible for damage cause by other manufactures paper, so I asked
them if they wanted me to do a nozzle test on Canon matte paper, and
they said no that would be silly.

Compatible is just a stupid word. Like in the old days IBM compatible
and a lot of software that depended on the EPROMS did not work. Just
because they squirt out of the nozzle does not make is compatible.

You have a valid point. Image Specialist ink not only squirt out the
nozzle, but they are reasonably color balanced to the OEM ink. It's not
an exact match, but it's good enough. In fact, someone might prefer it
over OEM.

If it is good enough for you then use it but do not say it is the same
quality.





But this IBM compatible thing, you understand that this only covers a
short period of time in IBM history? It became a moot point when 3rd
parties could take IBM roms, and it became a further moot point when IBM
clones became the standard, and IBM was the incompatible one. It also
was a moot point when Microsoft included basic as part of dos.

Come to think about it, some IBMs were shipped without the basic roms.

And IBM compatible missing software needed to run certain programs is
still an IBM compatible. However there were levels of compatibility.

1) Media - DEC for example shipped with 5.25 inch drives, full height
double drive single sided.

2) CPU - I know of a few systems that shipped with an 80186 or a 8086.
Sometimes these guys didn't play nice with stuff made for the IBM XT.
Most common was software that used XT timing to operate.

3) OS - Does it run MS-dos?

4) Hardware - Extra slot for IBM roms for basic, ISA slots, that sort of
thing. Wang for example didn't offer hardware compatibility. DEC was
usually better about offering ISA slots, and their own processor slot
and in the 386 age, their own 32bit slot for drive controller. I had one
that sported a full height ESDI drive.

5) Keyboard - DEC was noted to offer their own keyboard

6) Video - Herc, CGA, VGA. AT&T for example offered a video card which
supported analog RGB but not any graphics compatibility.

7) System - This is where the roms came in.

IBM compatible for the most part in 1984 meant something that will run
MS-DOS (3). This was good enough for most people. In some rare cases,
some software demanded full system compatibility (7). But guess what,

First it is compatible and now you say that some software demanded full
system compatibility so the word compatible did not mean very much. It
still does not.





this became a non issue when software developers designed their software
to work with level (3) systems. Level (3) systems were the norm, and as
such became the standard.

I have NEVER personally encountered software that demanded an IBM XT
Basic Roms.



You never wrote programs.

It is still generic ink. It is NOT factory recommended ink.

No, it's not generic ink. It's Image Specialist ink made for Canon,


There are two basic types of ink. They are ones developed by the mfg and
the generic stuff that is not.


except the pigment ink which is also used
in a couple other printers.
Image Specialists is the manufacture of the ink. They make ink
specifically for the Canon.

On Nov 9, 7:35 pm, measekite wrote:
You are misrepsenting unintentially or lying intentially. If the ink is
not developed by Canon or sold by Canon on at least a wholesale or mfg
level it is not Canon ink. Canon says the ink is NOT theirs. They
should know not someone like you.

It's Canon ink. It's not Canon's ink. It's ink developed by the
manufacturer to go into the Canon printers.


I did not think you are stupid enough to make contradictory statements.
First you say it is Canon ink when you know it is not and with the line
above you say Canon does not recommend anything but their own products.
You just admitted that it is not a Canon product so the ink is not Canon's/

It's not Canon's, it's someone else's ink. But it's designed for the
canon.

That is another lie. I spoke with Canon and they told me that Epson paper
works fine in their machines but Kodak does not. I do not think that
Epson paper is made by Canon.

No, it's not a lie, I was told by the agent that they would not be
responsible for damage caused by paper other than Canon. Now the
person YOU talked to might have say "Hey Epson paper works, Kodak
paper does not".

Now the person I talked to said it was OK to use Hammermill paper or
whatever it was costco was selling at the time for the nozzle test.
She said specifically that it would be pointless using Canon Matte
paper for a nozzle test. The only reason I bought it up was her
speech about only using Canon paper, which is silly since they don't
offer 20pound paper, at least not that I'm aware.


If it is good enough for you then use it but do not say it is the same
quality.

I never say it's the same quality. I've heard of pigment black that
is of superior quality to Canon OEM, which wouldn't shock me since
Canon has not made any changes to their pigment black for about 10
years. It's pretty obvious when you see the recommended aftermarket
ink for the pigment black is the same as what is recommended for the
HP #45 cartridge. about 20 pages per ml @ 5% yield.

There's also magnetic ink for the Canon, as well as edible ink for the
Canon.


First it is compatible and now you say that some software demanded full
system compatibility so the word compatible did not mean very much. It
still does not.

It still means something. If you were looking for a PC in 1984, this
may have been an issue. Then you could buy IBM compatibles. What did
compatible mean? It meant it ran MS dos. That was the basic
meaning. There were many degrees of compatibility but in order to
resolve any ambiguity machines were sold as "dos compatible"

Obviously something developed for the XT, or perhaps early ATs, that
dependent on IBM basic roms being present needed "full system"
compatibility, which presented issues with IBM. AFAIK there were some
clones that had the option for IBM roms on board.

I have NEVER encountered software that required the IBM Roms. I
bought my first clone in 1988. Obviously there were issues with many
machines, some I already illustrated. Tandy was another company that
offered clones but didn't offer much beyond level 3 compatibility.
They ran DOS. You were better off buying a Gateway at the time.

You never wrote programs.

I certainly didn't write programs using IBM basic. GW basic, that's
another matter. But this is coming from someone whose only experience
is Visual Basic.

But the point you are trying to make is very much moot. Yes, there
was a short period of time when it was common to actually use the IBM
basic roms, but that software was not common. Most everything worked
on a clone, and anything that didn't either was rewritten for clones,
or abandoned for stuff that did.

You "could" say compatible was meaningless because IBM made the MCA PS/
2, but you know what, the software we are talking about wouldn't work
with the MCA PS/2 because the MCA PS/2 didn't come with IBM basic. It
was ****ing abandoned dude. That being said, there are still some MCA
PS/2s in service. I believe Sears uses them with URMA cards (either
3270 or 5250 serial ports). PCI URMA cards would cost $500 to $1000.
I'm not sure how much IBM sold their PS/2s for with MCA URMA cards,
but it was cheaper than their color terminals. Can Sears buy a new PC
and use their old hardware? **** no. Does that mean anything? Not
really. IBM abandoned Microchannel.

This is the thing you're not grasping Measekette. Yes, IBM tried to
lock you into buying their product, their ROM or their Hardware. They
don't do that anymore. Microsoft released their own basic with Dos,
and EISA/VESA/PCI were cheaper than MCA. That's what people bought.

No, it's not generic ink. It's Image Specialist ink made for Canon,

There are two basic types of ink. They are ones developed by the mfg and
the generic stuff that is not.

There really is no such thing as "generic" ink, unless you are talking
about companies that supply dye and provide mixing formulas, or some
type of universal ink.

Image Specialists makes ink. It's not "generic" ink, they make very
specific ink for a range of printers. Other copmanies do the same.
It's a big business.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:52:28 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

On Nov 9, 7:35 pm, measekite wrote:
You are misrepsenting unintentially or lying intentially. If the ink is
not developed by Canon or sold by Canon on at least a wholesale or mfg
level it is not Canon ink. Canon says the ink is NOT theirs. They
should know not someone like you.

It's Canon ink. It's not Canon's ink. It's ink developed by the
manufacturer to go into the Canon printers.

No it is not marketed as Canon ink. It does not have the Canon name on
the package.







I did not think you are stupid enough to make contradictory statements.
First you say it is Canon ink when you know it is not and with the line
above you say Canon does not recommend anything but their own products.
You just admitted that it is not a Canon product so the ink is not Canon's/

It's not Canon's, it's someone else's ink. But it's designed for the
canon.

That is the claim.







That is another lie. I spoke with Canon and they told me that Epson paper
works fine in their machines but Kodak does not. I do not think that
Epson paper is made by Canon.

No, it's not a lie, I was told by the agent that they would not be
responsible for damage caused by paper other than Canon. Now the
person YOU talked to might have say "Hey Epson paper works, Kodak
paper does not".

No mfg is responsible for another's malfunctions.





Now the person I talked to said it was OK to use Hammermill paper or
whatever it was costco was selling at the time for the nozzle test.
She said specifically that it would be pointless using Canon Matte
paper for a nozzle test. The only reason I bought it up was her
speech about only using Canon paper, which is silly since they don't
offer 20pound paper, at least not that I'm aware.


If it is good enough for you then use it but do not say it is the same
quality.

I never say it's the same quality. I've heard of pigment black that
is of superior quality to Canon OEM, which wouldn't shock me since
Canon has not made any changes to their pigment black for about 10
years. It's pretty obvious when you see the recommended aftermarket
ink for the pigment black is the same as what is recommended for the
HP #45 cartridge. about 20 pages per ml @ 5% yield.

There's also magnetic ink for the Canon, as well as edible ink for the
Canon.


First it is compatible and now you say that some software demanded full
system compatibility so the word compatible did not mean very much. It
still does not.

It still means something. If you were looking for a PC in 1984, this
may have been an issue. Then you could buy IBM compatibles. What did
compatible mean? It meant it ran MS dos. That was the basic

Now that is really dumb. You are not talking about IBM compatible but MS
DOS compatible meaning a machine that runs MS DOS. MS DOS is not exactly
the same as PC DOS.







meaning. There were many degrees of compatibility but in order to
resolve any ambiguity machines were sold as "dos compatible"

Obviously something developed for the XT, or perhaps early ATs, that
dependent on IBM basic roms being present needed "full system"
compatibility, which presented issues with IBM. AFAIK there were some
clones that had the option for IBM roms on board.

I have NEVER encountered software that required the IBM Roms. I
bought my first clone in 1988. Obviously there were issues with many
machines, some I already illustrated. Tandy was another company that
offered clones but didn't offer much beyond level 3 compatibility.
They ran DOS. You were better off buying a Gateway at the time.

You never wrote programs.

I certainly didn't write programs using IBM basic. GW basic, that's

If you used IBM basic you did not use a so called compatible machine since
these could not run IBM basic.





another matter. But this is coming from someone whose only experience
is Visual Basic.

But the point you are trying to make is very much moot. Yes, there
was a short period of time when it was common to actually use the IBM
basic roms, but that software was not common. Most everything worked
on a clone, and anything that didn't either was rewritten for clones,
or abandoned for stuff that did.

You "could" say compatible was meaningless because IBM made the MCA PS/
2, but you know what, the software we are talking about wouldn't work
with the MCA PS/2 because the MCA PS/2 didn't come with IBM basic. It
was ****ing abandoned dude. That being said, there are still some MCA
PS/2s in service. I believe Sears uses them with URMA cards (either
3270 or 5250 serial ports). PCI URMA cards would cost $500 to $1000.
I'm not sure how much IBM sold their PS/2s for with MCA URMA cards,
but it was cheaper than their color terminals. Can Sears buy a new PC
and use their old hardware? **** no. Does that mean anything? Not
really. IBM abandoned Microchannel.

This is the thing you're not grasping Measekette. Yes, IBM tried to
lock you into buying their product, their ROM or their Hardware. They
don't do that anymore. Microsoft released their own basic with Dos,
and EISA/VESA/PCI were cheaper than MCA. That's what people bought.

No, it's not generic ink. It's Image Specialist ink made for Canon,

It is generic ink that they claim is Canon specific.






There are two basic types of ink. They are ones developed by the mfg
and the generic stuff that is not.

There really is no such thing as "generic" ink, unless you are talking
about companies that supply dye and provide mixing formulas, or some
type of universal ink.

Image Specialists makes ink. It's not "generic" ink, they make very

There is generic ink. Some of the generic ink works in one brand of
printer, some generic ink works in more than one brand of printer and some
works in all brands. But works can work to varying degrees of quality and
satisfaction.




specific ink for a range of printers. Other copmanies do the same. It's
a big business.

On Nov 10, 10:29 am, measekite wrote:

No it is not marketed as Canon ink. It does not have the Canon name on
the package.

It is marketed as Canon ink. It says so on the website, and actually
says so on the bottle. I gave you a link.

The Image Specialists dye ink is made specifically for the Canon.

It's not Canon's, it's someone else's ink. But it's designed for the
canon.

That is the claim.

That is the fact. The pigment ink is recommended for a few printers.
The dye ink is made exclusively for Canons.


No, it's not a lie, I was told by the agent that they would not be
responsible for damage caused by paper other than Canon. Now the
person YOU talked to might have say "Hey Epson paper works, Kodak
paper does not".

No mfg is responsible for another's malfunctions.

That's not what I'm told. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you but I
was given the long speech that they were not responsible for damage
caused by 3rd party paper. I think the printer is designed for 3rd
party paper, and Canon near as I'm aware doesn't make 20 pound
paper.

Now that is really dumb. You are not talking about IBM compatible but MS
DOS compatible meaning a machine that runs MS DOS. MS DOS is not exactly
the same as PC DOS.

You asked what IBM compatible meant. For the most part it mean it
could run MS dos. It if a machine could run MS dos, it could run a
vast array of software developed for MS Dos.

Now, we are talking about 1981-1984 when PC dos and MS dos were
EXACTLY the same thing.

1981 - DOS 86 - Paterson develops Down and Dirty dos
1981 - PC dos 1.0
1983 - PC Dos 2.0 Hard disk support
1984 - PC Dos 3.0

I'm not are at what point PC dos and MS dos actually forked off and
became separate products, but since you're talking IBMs with basic
roms, we're talking the early years of MS Dos.

If you were looking for a computer in 1987, there were a few on the
market. One might consider an IBM or a IBM compatible. A smart
person will ask if it ran the software the user wanted to run, which
the odds were pretty good at this point it did. There were some
exceptions, Tandy had their own vision of the PC, one that included
their GEM style workbench and their own proprietary graphics and sound
adapter. Wang had their own vision.

Come to think about it, the pre-1990 PC was a bit querky. Your best
bet was the cheap computer with an unmarked intel motherboard, or by
486, that cheap computer with the unmarked Asus motherboard, as it was
Asus that actually helped intel getting their motherboard working with
the chip.

But the point is IBM compatible meant something, for the most part it
meant it could run Dos.
If you used IBM basic you did not use a so called compatible machine since
these could not run IBM basic.

I said GW basic. And guess what, it was compatible with BASICA.
Obviously programs that referenced the ROM wouldn't work, but things
compiled under GW basic WOULD work. Fancy that.

GW Basic according to wiki was released in 1983, mainly for Compaq.
AFAIK MS developed both BASICA and GW Basic.

A "compatible" machine with the roms could.





It is generic ink that they claim is Canon specific.

It's not generic ink. In this case, it's made by Image Specialists.
That's hardly generic. It's made for Canon.

There is generic ink. Some of the generic ink works in one brand of
printer, some generic ink works in more than one brand of printer and some
works in all brands. But works can work to varying degrees of quality and
satisfaction.

Which is rather why it's a good idea to not buy "generic" ink, but
rather buy a brand that you know the quality of. Some people prefer
Formulabs, some prefer IS, others like Inktec. These are not generic
inks.

[What does Apple Compatible mean]

During the early 1980s, a whole slew of computers came out that were
apple compatible. According to Wiki, there were more than 190
different clones. I'm mainly familiar with the VTECH Laser 128
clone. These guys licensed Apple Basic from Microsoft. While not
100% compatible with Apple, it did offer an advantage in terms of
speed and stock memory and software developers often took the Laser
128 into account.

There were a ton of Apple compatibles on the market which did feature
100% compatibility.

To buy an "apple" or a clone?
The rule of thumb was if the software you needed to run only ran on
Apple, you bought Apple. If you wanted to save a few bucks, and
wanted to run things faster, you bought a Laser.

[What does IBM Compatible mean]

For the most part, it meant it could run MS Dos. There are various
levels of compatibility, and as explained before some companies went
their own path. Before 1990, a computer wasn't just a commodity piece
of hardware but rather something sold as part of a system, a system of
interlocking hardware and software.

To buy an "IBM" or a clone?
If you needed to run Dos, Word Perfect, and Lotus 1-2-3, you bought a
clone. If you needed to run software from IBM, that was keyed to the
IBM, you bought IBM, and paid a huge premium.

When not to buy "IBM"?
When the software developers used clones, developed software on a
clone, designed it to work with a clone, you bought the ****ing
clone. While there were obvious pitfals before 1990, a good rule of
thumb was if it ran an intel bios, pheonix, award, or AMI, it was the
standard. Things like Compaq, Tandy, and the like had their own
querks and as such were not 100% clone compatible.

Why was the Clone the standard?
It's what the people bought, it's what the software was developed for,
it was what was used. To this day, the standard is the clone.

[What is Canon compatible ink]

This is ink designed to work with Canon printers. Pigment black tends
to be less propriatory, but dye is for the most part specific to
Canon. Compatible ink is balanced for color, viscosity, and boiling
point.

When to buy OEM ink?
Canon OEM dye ink for the most part is more fade resistant than
aftermarket substitutes. Color calibration is going to be based on
OEM ink. While other manufacturers might have slightly different
colors for their OEM ink if produced from a different factory, I've
not observed this in Canon.

When not to buy OEM ink?
OEM ink costs about 10x as much as aftermarket bulk ink. For you
average every day projects, you don't need to spend 10x as much for
things like a google map, a birthday card, just about anything with
only short term use or dark storage in mind.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:21:43 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

On Nov 10, 10:29 am, measekite wrote:

No it is not marketed as Canon ink. It does not have the Canon name on
the package.

Canon did not authorize the use of Canon branding for that or any other
product inferior or not.



It is marketed as Canon ink. It says so on the website, and actually
says so on the bottle. I gave you a link.

The Image Specialists dye ink is made specifically for the Canon.

It's not Canon's, it's someone else's ink. But it's designed for the
canon.

That is the claim.

That is the fact. The pigment ink is recommended for a few printers.
The dye ink is made exclusively for Canons.


No, it's not a lie, I was told by the agent that they would not be
responsible for damage caused by paper other than Canon. Now the
person YOU talked to might have say "Hey Epson paper works, Kodak
paper does not".

No mfg is responsible for another's malfunctions.

That's not what I'm told. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you but I
was given the long speech that they were not responsible for damage
caused by 3rd party paper. I think the printer is designed for 3rd
party paper, and Canon near as I'm aware doesn't make 20 pound
paper.

Now that is really dumb. You are not talking about IBM compatible but MS
DOS compatible meaning a machine that runs MS DOS. MS DOS is not exactly
the same as PC DOS.

You asked what IBM compatible meant. For the most part it mean it
could run MS dos. It if a machine could run MS dos, it could run a
vast array of software developed for MS Dos.

Now, we are talking about 1981-1984 when PC dos and MS dos were
EXACTLY the same thing.

1981 - DOS 86 - Paterson develops Down and Dirty dos
1981 - PC dos 1.0
1983 - PC Dos 2.0 Hard disk support
1984 - PC Dos 3.0

I'm not are at what point PC dos and MS dos actually forked off and
became separate products, but since you're talking IBMs with basic
roms, we're talking the early years of MS Dos.

If you were looking for a computer in 1987, there were a few on the
market. One might consider an IBM or a IBM compatible. A smart
person will ask if it ran the software the user wanted to run, which
the odds were pretty good at this point it did. There were some
exceptions, Tandy had their own vision of the PC, one that included
their GEM style workbench and their own proprietary graphics and sound
adapter. Wang had their own vision.

Come to think about it, the pre-1990 PC was a bit querky. Your best
bet was the cheap computer with an unmarked intel motherboard, or by
486, that cheap computer with the unmarked Asus motherboard, as it was
Asus that actually helped intel getting their motherboard working with
the chip.

But the point is IBM compatible meant something, for the most part it
meant it could run Dos.
If you used IBM basic you did not use a so called compatible machine since
these could not run IBM basic.

I said GW basic. And guess what, it was compatible with BASICA.
Obviously programs that referenced the ROM wouldn't work, but things
compiled under GW basic WOULD work. Fancy that.

GW Basic according to wiki was released in 1983, mainly for Compaq.
AFAIK MS developed both BASICA and GW Basic.

A "compatible" machine with the roms could.





It is generic ink that they claim is Canon specific.

It's not generic ink. In this case, it's made by Image Specialists.
That's hardly generic. It's made for Canon.

There is generic ink. Some of the generic ink works in one brand of
printer, some generic ink works in more than one brand of printer and some
works in all brands. But works can work to varying degrees of quality and
satisfaction.

Which is rather why it's a good idea to not buy "generic" ink, but
rather buy a brand that you know the quality of. Some people prefer
Formulabs, some prefer IS, others like Inktec. These are not generic
inks.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:00:52 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

[What does Apple Compatible mean]

During the early 1980s, a whole slew of computers came out that were
apple compatible. According to Wiki, there were more than 190
different clones. I'm mainly familiar with the VTECH Laser 128
clone. These guys licensed Apple Basic from Microsoft. While not
100% compatible with Apple, it did offer an advantage in terms of
speed and stock memory and software developers often took the Laser
128 into account.

There were a ton of Apple compatibles on the market which did feature
100% compatibility.

To buy an "apple" or a clone?
The rule of thumb was if the software you needed to run only ran on
Apple, you bought Apple. If you wanted to save a few bucks, and
wanted to run things faster, you bought a Laser.

[What does IBM Compatible mean]

For the most part, it meant it could run MS Dos. There are various


That is incorrect. It meant it should run on PC DOS.

levels of compatibility, and as explained before some companies went
their own path. Before 1990, a computer wasn't just a commodity piece
of hardware but rather something sold as part of a system, a system of
interlocking hardware and software.

To buy an "IBM" or a clone?
If you needed to run Dos, Word Perfect, and Lotus 1-2-3, you bought a
clone. If you needed to run software from IBM, that was keyed to the
IBM, you bought IBM, and paid a huge premium.


because the other machines or not IBM or PC Compatible.

When not to buy "IBM"?
When the software developers used clones, developed software on a
clone, designed it to work with a clone, you bought the ****ing
clone. While there were obvious pitfals before 1990, a good rule of
thumb was if it ran an intel bios, pheonix, award, or AMI, it was the
standard. Things like Compaq, Tandy, and the like had their own
querks and as such were not 100% clone compatible.

Why was the Clone the standard?
It's what the people bought, it's what the software was developed for,
it was what was used. To this day, the standard is the clone.

[What is Canon compatible ink]

This is ink designed to work with Canon printers. Pigment black tends
to be less propriatory, but dye is for the most part specific to
Canon. Compatible ink is balanced for color, viscosity, and boiling
point.

Dye ink is also specific to the lower part of Epsons line of printers

When to buy OEM ink?

When you want the very best quality that the printer was designed to
produce.


Canon OEM dye ink for the most part is more fade resistant than
aftermarket substitutes. Color calibration is going to be based on OEM

therefore compatible is just a meaningless word.


ink. While other manufacturers might have slightly different colors for
their OEM ink if produced from a different factory, I've not observed
this in Canon.

Of course not. OEM is consistent.

When not to buy OEM ink?


Wen you do not care about quality that much and want to produce throw away
text documents and you are spending enough less money to risk the printer.

OEM ink costs about 10x as much as aftermarket bulk ink. For you


That is not really true. When you purchase Canon ink you get Canon ink
inside a Canon cart. When you buy the generic ink inside a generic cart
the price is about half. Sometimes a little more and other times a little
less.



average every day projects, you don't need to spend 10x as much for
things like a google map, a birthday card, just about anything with only
short term use or dark storage in mind.

On Nov 10, 4:40 pm, measekite wrote:

Canon did not authorize the use of Canon branding for that or any other
product inferior or not.

Canon doesn't have to authorize it. Ink is a consumable. It's like
oil for your car. The manufacturer can not mandate that you put Dodge
oil in a Dodge engine, or Toyota gas in a Toyota car or truck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

Image Specialists makes ink for specific printers including Canon.
They have inks manufactured specifically for specific printers, and
advertise it as such. There is no problem.

On Nov 10, 4:46 pm, measekite wrote:
[What does IBM Compatible mean]

For the most part, it meant it could run MS Dos. There are various
levels of compatibility, and as explained before some companies went
their own path. Before 1990, a computer wasn't just a commodity piece
of hardware but rather something sold as part of a system, a system of
interlocking hardware and software.


That is incorrect. It meant it should run on PC DOS.

PC dos and MS dos were one and the same thing during the time period
we were talking about, roughly 1981-1987, though I have to admit I
don't know exactly when the fork happened.

Systems were sold as IBM compatible. What did this mean? This means
it could run DOS, IBM dos, PC dos, MS dos. There was a VERY limited
amount of software that would only run on an IBM, mainly stuff
developed in BASICA or stuff that referenced the BASICA roms.
However Microsoft released MS-DOS 4 IIRC with GW Basic, which allowed
you to use your old basic programs without paying full price for an
IBM.

This is what you can't really grasp. IBM basic wasn't an IBM thang,
it was a MICROSOFT thang. It was really Microsoft that defined the PC
as a stnadard.

What did IBM compatible mean? - For the most part it meant you could
take a disc of MS-DOS and run it. As indicated before there were
various levels of compatibility.

Would this software work on a compatible? - Between 1981-1987 you had
to ****ing ask first. There were very few programs that were
developed EXCLUSIVELY for IBM. There was stuff that worked with
Compaq that wouldn't work with IBM. There was stuff for Tandy that
didn't work with IBM or other clones. Wang stuff was pretty much Wang
stuff, esp the hardware.

Did compatible mean something? - Absolutely! You still had to ask how
compatible, or most importantly will it run my software, mainly things
like word perfect, lotus 1-2-3, and Dbase.

How good were compatibles? - Various quality from 1981-1985.
1985-1988 clones overtook IBM in terms of features and speed. 1988
and beyond clones were the standard and IBM was a sluggish beast, one
that you only used if you whole information system was based on IBM
software designed to only work with an IBM.

To buy an "IBM" or a clone?
If you needed to run Dos, Word Perfect, and Lotus 1-2-3, you bought a
clone. If you needed to run software from IBM, that was keyed to the
IBM, you bought IBM, and paid a huge premium.

because the other machines or not IBM or PC Compatible.

No, because they didn't include BASICA. That was the main issue. But
in case you haven't noticed, software was developed with the clones in
mind, and specifically for the clones.

Dye ink is also specific to the lower part of Epsons line of printers

If you consider the Epson 1400 to be a lower part of the Epson line,
then sure.

When you want the very best quality that the printer was designed to
produce.

Well, that's subjective. What's to say that someone can't come out
with ink superior to OEM?

And how often do you need OEM really? For longest life, Canon OEM ink
tends to beat out compatible dye. However Image Specalist ink on
swellable polymer paper beats OEM on PR101 paper in terms of light and
gasfastness.

therefore compatible is just a meaningless word.

Not at all. Compatible ink is ink that is designed to work like OEM.
Is it a perfect match? Certainly not, no one claims it to be. Could
be better, worse, or about the same. Currently it's the norm to mass
produce cheaper ink in terms of longevity, but there are solutions
that are more archival than OEM mainly in the Epson line, which isn't
shocking as dye ink for the Espon 1270/1280/1280 was pretty **** poor
in terms of longevity.

Of course not. OEM is consistent.

Not always. You could observe Epson pigment and dye ink with slight
color variations if you bought Made in Mexico, Made in USA, and Made
in Japan. It's close enough, but truly picky users would have to buy
the same thing.

Aftermarket is consistent, more so than OEM, if you buy in bulk. A
liter of ink is going to be the same color through out the liter. OEM
ink might have been made at a different time, in a different factory.
OEM may have changed their forumla, or merged two cartridges into one
general cartridge. It's sort of a mysterory what happens with OEM
ink, they won't tell you. But at least if you are buying aftermarket
ink, if they make a change odds are good they will give you the
changed model number.

Wen you do not care about quality that much and want to produce throw away
text documents and you are spending enough less money to risk the printer.

As indicated before, the quality of aftermarket pigment ink is good,
really good.
I'm told druckerchannel make reference to KMP pigment which scores
higher on the highlighter test than Canon OEM.
http://www.tintenalarm.de/liter-text...db-p-5659.html

The risk to the printer is mitigated by getting good advice and using
quality aftermarket products that have been tested by others. So
long as you are able swap out your cartridges twice you are likely to
save $100, the value of your average inkjet. On canon the printhead
is only rated for 10 cartridge changes in the first place.

For text printing, there is little reason to go OEM unless you can
actually observe a difference. I can't.

$1.25 for 500 pages or $13-$17 for 500 pages.

Though to be fair there are aftermarket cartridges which do cost more
$2.50 - $5.00 for 500 pages, or $13-$17 for 500 pages


OEM ink costs about 10x as much as aftermarket bulk ink. For you

That is not really true. When you purchase Canon ink you get Canon ink
inside a Canon cart. When you buy the generic ink inside a generic cart
the price is about half. Sometimes a little more and other times a little
less.

You'll note I said "aftermarket bulk ink" not aftermarket cartridges.
Still, I bought a set of G&G aftermarket cartridges for $2.25 each.
OEM cost about $12. That's a 81% savings. I'll agree that many
aftermarket cartridges cost 50% to 80% as much as OEM. Most notable
are those sold in the office stores (NCR/NuKote/Others) rebranded.

Canon aftermarket ink floats at about 2.50 to $3.00/ounce or 4.2c to
5c/ml
Canon OEM ink for the bci6 floats about 92c/ml. Savings of about 95%
Canon OEM ink best deal I know about is $48 for a 4 pack, or 12 each,
also 92c/ml.
Canon OEM single tanks about $14 each or $1.08/ml.

I say 90% because it covers a 5% variance between the price of OEM
cartridges, and the price of the aftermarket ink.

But I should correct my self since OEM cartridges can easily cost 20x
as much or higher than aftermarket bulk ink.

WOW.