what's with my ink setup?

On Nov 14, 5:42 am, TJ wrote:

BTW, if all you really want is a hotdog, it's foolish to buy a steak
instead, just because it costs more. But here's a tip: If you're going
to use this stupid analogy, use "hamburger" instead of "hotdog."

Well, food analogies suck. He likes to compare McDonald's burger with
decent 1/3 pound restaurants burger. Hardly the same thing, and it's
obvious from the get go that the restaurant burger, while not branded,
tends to taste a good deal better.

Compatible ink tends to look the same. Compatible ink tends to work
the same. There are solutions that are actually archival though
mainly for Epson.

Canon, well, canon isn't really an archival solution in the first
place. Canon is the cheap solution, the the exception of lexmark
which offers some dye inks that are less archival than Canon, but they
do offer an archival solution as well.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:42:26 -0500, TJ wrote:

measekite wrote:

Since you just said that you are not getting the same thing you are
spending less and not saving money. If you decide to eat a $1.00 hot dog
instead of a $10.00 steak you spend $9.00 less but saved nothing.

However if the same steak goes on sale the next day for $7.00 then you
can claim a $3.00 savings.

Also if you buy a choice steak for $3.00 less than a prime steak you did
not save any money either but you spent less.


You want to use a FOOD analogy? OK, let's talk food. I grow tomatoes and
sell them to the public on a farm market. This past September I was
selling my tomatoes at $1.25-$1.50 a pound, when the supermarkets were
selling hothouse tomatoes for $1.99 and "homegrown" for almost $3. Lots
of people saved money by buying my tomatoes. They spent less and got
more, because the worst tomato I sold was much better than the best
hothouse tomato the supermarket ever had. The hothouse tomatoes had a
registered brand name - I use my own name. You don't necessarily get
more by spending more.


They saved nothing but did spend less. If they got better quality it is a
matter of opinion. It is the same thing if you bought a Ford for $2000
less than a Chevy and you think the Ford is better quality.

Better yet if you bought an End of Year Ford for $3,000 less than the new
model that may look the same and may (may is the keyword because of slip
streaming) be the same you still did not save any money but you spent less
and got less. You got a year old model.

So now you went to the dairy farm outside of Syracuse and a gallon of milk
was $3.00 but you opted to go to a store that sold imported chinese milk
for $1.00 do you think you saved money or just spent less. Maybe you
think you saved money because you like melamine.






We took some of the tomatoes that weren't quite good enough to sell,
and, using my mother's recipe, made them into pasta sauce, which we
canned and put away for our own use this winter. The sauce doesn't taste
like Ragu, or Kraft, or any of the other commercial brands, but we like
it. It cost us less than those brands would, but we got more, because we
know how those tomatoes were grown, and we know what's in the sauce. You
don't necessarily get more by spending more.

BTW, if all you really want is a hotdog, it's foolish to buy a steak
instead, just because it costs more. But here's a tip: If you're going
to use this stupid analogy, use "hamburger" instead of "hotdog."

TJ

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:13:31 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

On Nov 14, 5:42 am, TJ wrote:

BTW, if all you really want is a hotdog, it's foolish to buy a steak
instead, just because it costs more. But here's a tip: If you're going
to use this stupid analogy, use "hamburger" instead of "hotdog."

Well, food analogies suck. He likes to compare McDonald's burger with
decent 1/3 pound restaurants burger. Hardly the same thing, and it's
obvious from the get go that the restaurant burger, while not branded,
tends to taste a good deal better.

NO THAT IS A THEORY FOR DEBATE.


Many times the Mac Burger is better but not always. If if you choose that
Mac over a Carls Junior did you spend less or save money.


Compatible ink tends to look the same. Compatible ink tends to work the
same. There are solutions that are actually archival though mainly for
Epson.


False, Just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck that does
not mean it is a duck.


Canon, well, canon isn't really an archival solution in the first place.
Canon is the cheap solution, the the exception of lexmark which offers
some dye inks that are less archival than Canon, but they do offer an
archival solution as well.

For standard format printer Canon and Epson offer typical solutions.
Epson only makes one standard format print (R800) that is archival and
that is way over priced.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:52:44 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

On Nov 13, 8:26 pm, measekite wrote:

Since you just said that you are not getting the same thing you are
spending less and not saving money. If you decide to eat a $1.00 hot dog
instead of a $10.00 steak you spend $9.00 less but saved nothing.

However if the same steak goes on sale the next day for $7.00 then you
can claim a $3.00 savings.

Also if you buy a choice steak for $3.00 less than a prime steak you did
not save any money either but you spent less.

Actually if you bought a $1.00 hot dog rather than a $10.00 steak, you
saved $9.00. Granted I don't buy hotdogs, I don't enjoy hotdogs, and

That is either dumb and false or false and dumb. You choose. It is like
saying you bought a pearl for $100 and a diamond for $10,000 you saved
$9100. How dumb is that.




I actually am not a big steak fan.

But we are not talking hotdogs and steak, we're talking ink and ink.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:55:19 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

On Nov 13, 8:27 pm, measekite wrote:

Bulk ink is going to be MORE consistent than OEM since there is no
reasonable assurance that two OEM cartridges are made at the same
factory, at the same time, from the same batch. A pint of aftermarket
ink is going to be MORE consistent since it will be exactly the same
ink for 36 refills. Granted, I've not noticed an issue with Canon, I
have noticed an issue with Epson.

You are rationalizing. That is crap.

Dude, you bought up consistency. What is by definition more
consistent, ink from an unknown source, or bulk ink from a known
source? What is more consistent, random 13ml inks from various
factories around the would, or a pint from a single factory, the same
ink made in the same vat, the same day?

If you want consistency, you buy bulk ink.


The only known source of bulk ink is Sensinent and you need to buy each
color by the gallon. I called them and that is what I was told. And even
them had major issues with their bulk magenta.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:47:17 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

On Nov 13, 8:34 pm, measekite wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:06:54 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
That's not what we are talking about dude. We're talking about system
compatibility . If you had a IBM Compatible, you could run pretty
much the same software on one as another. The earlier years was a

run pretty much is not compatible

Ok, then IBMs were not compatible with them selves. PS/2s were known
as "piece of **** 2". They were not 100% compatible with off the
shelf software that would work with the a stock IBM PC without an
issue. Part of the issue was using a very non-standard chip, the
486SLC, which IIRC was pin compatible with the 386sx. Another issue
was lack of EGA support, and their VGA support was rather limited to
their own standard, but that was rather the norm for the time
period.

Why don't you have the intelligence to know that a PS/2 is not a PC and
never was intended to be. It is a PS/TWO and the other is a P_SEE. What
they have in common is they are both computers and are somewhat related
but are not intended to run the exact same thing. The architecture is not
the same.






Get the picture. IBM was a meaningless term. Just because a machine
had IBM on the front of it doesn't mean it would run off the shelf
software designed to IBM or IBM compatibles. The clones did a better
job of remaining compatible with the older software with the exception
of ROM basic, but as I said before MS was more than happy to provide
GW Basic and Quick Basic.

Canon USA DOES NOT NOT NOT SUPPORT LINUX. PERIOD. NEITHER DOES EPSON.
PERIOD..HP HAS NO OUT OF THE BOX SUPPORT FOR LINUX. PERIOD

HP doesn't support Linux? The bringers of HP/UX? WTF?

Their choices are limited, that is true. For the most part they do
outsource their drivers to Microsoft. I'm not aware of an AIO that
has full integrated linux drivers.
HP Color LaserJet 3600n Printer (Q5987A) shows up in a simple search
on their website.

Epson is only slightly better than Canon. Epson Kowa was their linux
support at least for scanners, but the site appears to be defunct.

But if you want a $100 inkjet, and you want it to work under linux,
you buy turboprint.
http://turboprint.info/
It costs $30 euros.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:37:36 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

On Nov 14, 5:56 am, TJ wrote:

Most HP printers and AIOs are supported by the HPLIP package. The
project isn't run by HP, but HP does give the project more support than
any other printer manufacturer. That said, I know of at least three
devices that aren't "fully" supported when it comes to all features. I
was unable to activate the Deskjet 5650 auto powersaver feature from
Linux, for example, and the Linux drivers do not support the use of
banner paper with the Deskjet 5650 or the Officejet 6110. Also,
Measekite's "out-of-the-box" claim has merit, since there is a delay
between the introduction of a new printer and the implementation of
Linux support of that printer's new features. However, while I have only
used older models, thus far all HP printers I've tried since the advent
of the HPLIP package have been plug-and-play with Mandriva Linux.

There are fewer printers with out of the box support. HP has a few,
but near as I'm aware they are color lasers, and they start at $500.

Most things Linux depend on community support rather than OEM
support.

Out of the box support, valid claim.

No support? Bull****


Here is some bull**** that you can eat. Let say you want an Epson 3800
printer or a Canon IPF5100 printer. Go to the Turbo print website and you
will find no support. And there are many other models.

I do not even think the Canon IP4600 is supported. If a new model of
anything comes out it is very iffy that you will find Linux support for it.
And that is not only true for printers. Mot packaging say support for
Version ??? of Windows and most for version ??? for Mac.





There is limited support for printers under linux from OEMs. Third
Party support is better, mainly things like Turboprint which isn't
free, but reasonably priced.
ftp://download.canon.jp/pub/driver/bj/linux
Canon has some support for the ip3100/ip4100 but as previously said,
canon them selves don't support cd printing nor duplex printing. They


and CanonUSA does not support Linux at all. END OF STORY.

have a guide for the ip4300 but it's in Japanese and I can't make
heads nor tails of it.
http://support-au.canon.com.au/EN/se... menu=Download
This is as close to out of the box support as you can get. The .rpm


Close but no cigar

I'm told is limited to 600dpi, and as expected, no advanced features
are supported such as CD printing or duplex.

You can say this is inadequate support, **** poor support, but you
can't claim it's NO support. Measekite would have us believe it's not

Inadequate is None. You cannot print great photos with the machine. NONE

That is like buying a car and only reverse works. But someone like you
would buy it if it was cheap and drive around backwards all of the time.




compatible, when clearly it is. Not to the same degree that it's
supported under windows, but it does WORK under linux, just not as
well.

On Nov 14, 9:30 am, measekite wrote:

NO THAT IS A THEORY FOR DEBATE.

Many times the Mac Burger is better but not always. If if you choose that
Mac over a Carls Junior did you spend less or save money.

It's been over a decade since I've been to a McDs, I've never been to
a Carls Junior. Whatever is cheaper, or tastes better, or both.

I don't do fast food burgers. I do some fast fish and fast chicken.
Perhaps a fast pita. To be honest, for my restaurant food I tend to
find holes in the wall with good food and low prices.

Compatible ink tends to look the same. Compatible ink tends to work the
same. There are solutions that are actually archival though mainly for
Epson.

False, Just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck that does
not mean it is a duck.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epso...2004_12_03.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_83243268
"According to the Wilhelm report, the "stability data for the much
improved MediaStreet.com Generations (version 4) inks printed with the
Epson 3000 (a four-ink printer) and the Epson 5000 (a six-ink printer)
and MediaStreet.com Royal Plush Paper. With both printers, the new
pigmented Generations formulations are rated in the report at "greater
than 100 years and are also expected to have very good humidity-
fastness properties."

Now the MediaStreet R800 ink is G8, not G4. I don't have the actual
test handy, but it looks like their G4 ink is somewhat on par with OEM
ink, though on matte paper Epson is rated at 150 years before fading
(64years on Epson Premium Luster), rather than just 100 years on a non-
specified paper. If they are talking Epson premium photo paper, well,
that's about the same isn't it?

The r800 takes 8 tanks @ $14 each, or $112 for a refill.
Mediastreet G8 ink costs $172 for 4oz of 8 colors.

IIRC the r800 cartridges are 13ml each

OEM $1.07/ml or $14/cartrdige or $112/set
Mediastreet 18c/ml or $2.34/cartridge or $18.72/set
Savings = 83%

Canon, well, canon isn't really an archival solution in the first place.
Canon is the cheap solution, the the exception of lexmark which offers
some dye inks that are less archival than Canon, but they do offer an
archival solution as well.

For standard format printer Canon and Epson offer typical solutions.
Epson only makes one standard format print (R800) that is archival and
that is way over priced.

Dude, you're not aware of the durabrite series? Any of Epsons C
series printers is going to be more archival than the UltraChrome inks
like the r800.

I don't know the going rate of the r800. But if you want you can get
a referb r280 and fill it with pigment ink. The printer is only $55
referb shipped from epson, and comes with free ink. Now you might
want to say you'll risk a clog, but at that price, buy two printers,
one for dye ink, the other for pigment. If the pigment one explodes
well you spent less on the OEM ink than you would at costco.

There's also Kodak
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/koda...2008_10_05.pdf

Their ink is rated 132years under glass on Ultra Premium paper, 200+
years on ultimate paper under glass. Better than the epson r200,
likely better than MediaStreet ink. But worth spending 9 times as
much?

measekite wrote:


NO THAT IS A THEORY FOR DEBATE.


Interesting choice of words, that. It reminds me of somebody who posted
here using a writing style similar to yours, but he CLAIMED he wasn't
you, and you claimed you weren't him. Never did believe it, and I still
don't.

TJ

On Nov 14, 9:34 am, measekite wrote:

The only known source of bulk ink is Sensinent and you need to buy each
color by the gallon. I called them and that is what I was told. And even
them had major issues with their bulk magenta.

There is also Image Specialists. You can buy it form Inksupply.com
http://www.inksupply.com/imagespec.cfm
You've been told this many times. MIS is the an official distriubter
of Image Specialists inks.
http://www.image-specialists.com/abo...lobal_dis.aspx

They've been listed as an official distributer for over 3 years now.
AFAIK you only get branded bottles if you buy pints.

You also bring up Lyson inks as well. There are a few other brands of
bulk ink including Pelikan/InkTek/PriteRite and such.

The "issue" you're speaking of is when a company accidentally ordered
Sentient bci7/cli8 magenta and sold it as being compatible. It was a
minor mistake that was resolved 3 years ago.

Hobbicolors may have made that error as well.

Canon certainly has made that error, filling bci-3e with bci-6 ink.