If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If it ain't broke, fix it!
Was: CANON: DESIGNED TO FAIL by a dishonest company
About my old failing Canon BJ-300, I wrote: It is not a 15 years old printer. It's a three weeks old printer! I've seen some Laserjet 4 printers print more in 3 weeks as mine in 14 years. Consequently, when the glitch goes away, it prints perfectly. I had to face one such planned glitch 8 years ago. (Cf. the little sponge in the purge unit.) Canon told me the printer was dead. After I pressured them into telling me how to fix their planned glitch, a 5 minute job got it working until now. Comparing a BJ-300 to the plastic ink dispensers that Canon sells nowadays does prove what kind of fuchhead you are. It's slow, it doesn't print color, but it still fits my needs. I wouldn't print in color even I had a color printer and I'm never in such a rush. Mickey answered: How sad you are but there is hope. Maturity comes with age and 21 is not too far away. 21 not too far away? Oh, this would be the nicest Christmas gift! Unfortunately for your reasoning, if I was one of those kids who's been taught ecology instead of how to use a screw driver, I probably would have declared my printer obsolete soon as it first stopped working in 1996. I suppose I got this attitude from one of my uncles, a mechanic who was still driving his 1947 Chrysler around 1980. Not only did he keep his car for more then 30 years before he sold it as a vintage car, but every time a part would fail, he would consider fixing it before buying a new one. Open the hood, take a look, consider: that was his attitude. I still own his mini-dryer. In twenty years, I only had to change a switch and a fan belt. My only regret is that, though the dryer will be 40 years old in 2005, I can't any money from it as a vintage dryer Are you aware that the HP LaserJet you mentioned is powered by a CANON printer engine. All LaserJets have used CANON print engines. "Have used." And now? What you're saying here just goes to prove my point. The BJ-300 is a work horse capable of delivering much more than the 12,000 sheets I got from it. And Loosenut Boogs may rest assured that the stainless steel shafts are not rusted, the rubber rollers are not degraded and no ink has spilled on the printed circuits. This printer was mechanically made to last. So what? It seems that at the time of manufacture, Canon decided at the last minute there was more money to be made with ink than printers. That's when the change occured, Soon thereafter, the new Bubblejets came out at around 200$. So they had a problem on their hands with this printer designed the good old way. There were no one picoliter, or whatever, drops at that time and any ink would do OK. So, they put a sponge in the purge unit that would at least eventually block the most off-the-plate non-Canon inks, in order to sell their 35$, 350 pages, cartridges. In other words, they ****ed up the ink distribution system. But because the printer had been costly to produce, they didn't lower the price. So, the customer -- me , in this case -- ended up with an expensive unreliable printer. What was HP's approach with the Deskjet 500 at the same time? As I already explained, it's one of the most rugged printer of all times, and it sold at about 50$ less than the BJ-300. Millions of pages must have gone through some of those printers. And the printhead being part of the cartridge, it couldn't clog. Of course, if was impossible, even less than now, to build a disposable printhead of as good quality as a permanent one. When you looked at a print made by a Deskjet, you could see minute droplets of ink around the letters. And, of course, every magazine would confirm this. So, I told myself, what was 50$ more to get better quality? Only later was I to discover that the difference in quality would cost so much more and so much pain in the ass. A friend of mine had a Deskjet and used to buy plain Carter's ink, which still sold in pharmacies at the time, and refilled her cartridges with a seringe for her drafts. "It must clog the head", I told her. "Of course, after 4 or 5 refills, it does, she answered. I then have another new empty cartridge ready to refill." With the help of magazines, who hardly ever test long-term reliability, I've been one of those Bozos who've been lured by Canon's so-called high-technology. Too bad there isn't a law to forbid printer companies to sell ink. The printers would certainly be more expensive, but the print would finally come down to a lot less, with much less trouble. Of course, I'm neither a printer, nor an industry specialist, and I couldn't tell how HP is behaving since La Fiorina took control or how Lexmarks does after IBM decided there was nothing to get out of it. But I know one thing for su Canon has spearheaded this /revolution/ were the customer has become the sucker. And I know that, to this day, Canon has refused to acknowledge they sold me a printer at yesterday's price with today's flaws. I know they went as far as refusing to provide the information I needed. I'm sure they still perfectly know about the flaw I'm experiencing today and are still refusing to provide the few words of support I need. I had only words of praise for Canon before I bought this printer. I still own a Canon FTB-QL 35 mm camera and, though I haven't used it for quite some time, it probably still works perfectly. But sometimes, companies change. They're headed by /more efficient/ administrators invertors learned to luv. As a customer, I don't peculiarly appreciate Canon's way of management. As a matter of fact, I now truly abhor this company. They might send as many trolls they want, whether I tell my story long or short, it will get more precise each and every time, and rest assured I'll get the message through. Money talks! In the meantime, the planet is dying and buying a Prius is really an indecent way of acquiring an ecologist status. "Cutting-edge technology", as Motor trend puts it, comes at an expense when repair time comes. So here's my advice for the New Year to every sensible citizen of this world. Stop preaching ecology, get a screwdriver and, if it's only a glitch, it ain't broke, fix it! GP |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I remember I bought a Canon BubbleJet way back when. I think it was a BJ600
or something like that. It was a demo model, but still had plenty of ink in the original carts, indicating very little actual use. One of the heads died right out of the box. At first Canon didn't want to do anything about it. After the fact I found out it was a notorious problem on those printers with a $200 replacement part required. They finally decided to fix it, but they made me transport the thing 25 miles to their chosen ASP. 25 crappy, traffic jammed miles. It took me two full afternoons of screwing around to get it fixed. I got it back, immediately sold it and never looked back. Canon may make good laser engines for other companies, but I'll never gamble again on their IJ technology. "GP" wrote in message ... Was: CANON: DESIGNED TO FAIL by a dishonest company About my old failing Canon BJ-300, I wrote: It is not a 15 years old printer. It's a three weeks old printer! I've seen some Laserjet 4 printers print more in 3 weeks as mine in 14 years. Consequently, when the glitch goes away, it prints perfectly. I had to face one such planned glitch 8 years ago. (Cf. the little sponge in the purge unit.) Canon told me the printer was dead. After I pressured them into telling me how to fix their planned glitch, a 5 minute job got it working until now. Comparing a BJ-300 to the plastic ink dispensers that Canon sells nowadays does prove what kind of fuchhead you are. It's slow, it doesn't print color, but it still fits my needs. I wouldn't print in color even I had a color printer and I'm never in such a rush. Mickey answered: How sad you are but there is hope. Maturity comes with age and 21 is not too far away. 21 not too far away? Oh, this would be the nicest Christmas gift! Unfortunately for your reasoning, if I was one of those kids who's been taught ecology instead of how to use a screw driver, I probably would have declared my printer obsolete soon as it first stopped working in 1996. I suppose I got this attitude from one of my uncles, a mechanic who was still driving his 1947 Chrysler around 1980. Not only did he keep his car for more then 30 years before he sold it as a vintage car, but every time a part would fail, he would consider fixing it before buying a new one. Open the hood, take a look, consider: that was his attitude. I still own his mini-dryer. In twenty years, I only had to change a switch and a fan belt. My only regret is that, though the dryer will be 40 years old in 2005, I can't any money from it as a vintage dryer Are you aware that the HP LaserJet you mentioned is powered by a CANON printer engine. All LaserJets have used CANON print engines. "Have used." And now? What you're saying here just goes to prove my point. The BJ-300 is a work horse capable of delivering much more than the 12,000 sheets I got from it. And Loosenut Boogs may rest assured that the stainless steel shafts are not rusted, the rubber rollers are not degraded and no ink has spilled on the printed circuits. This printer was mechanically made to last. So what? It seems that at the time of manufacture, Canon decided at the last minute there was more money to be made with ink than printers. That's when the change occured, Soon thereafter, the new Bubblejets came out at around 200$. So they had a problem on their hands with this printer designed the good old way. There were no one picoliter, or whatever, drops at that time and any ink would do OK. So, they put a sponge in the purge unit that would at least eventually block the most off-the-plate non-Canon inks, in order to sell their 35$, 350 pages, cartridges. In other words, they ****ed up the ink distribution system. But because the printer had been costly to produce, they didn't lower the price. So, the customer -- me , in this case -- ended up with an expensive unreliable printer. What was HP's approach with the Deskjet 500 at the same time? As I already explained, it's one of the most rugged printer of all times, and it sold at about 50$ less than the BJ-300. Millions of pages must have gone through some of those printers. And the printhead being part of the cartridge, it couldn't clog. Of course, if was impossible, even less than now, to build a disposable printhead of as good quality as a permanent one. When you looked at a made by a Deskjet, you could see minute droplets of ink around the letters. And, of course, every magazine would confirm this. So, I told myself, what was 50$ more to get better quality? Only later was I to discover that the difference in quality would cost so much more and so much pain in the ass. A friend of mine had a Deskjet and used to buy plain Carter's ink, which still sold in pharmacies at the time, and refilled her cartridges with a seringe for her drafts. "It must clog the head", I told her. "Of course, after 4 or 5 refills, it does, she answered. I then have another new empty cartridge ready to refill." With the help of magazines, who hardly ever test long-term reliability, I've been one of those Bozos who've been lured by Canon's so-called high-technology. Too bad there isn't a law to forbid printer companies to sell ink. The printers would certainly be more expensive, but the print would finally come down to a lot less, with much less trouble. Of course, I'm neither a printer, nor an industry specialist, and I couldn't tell how HP is behaving since La Fiorina took control or how Lexmarks does after IBM decided there was nothing to get out of it. But I know one thing for su Canon has spearheaded this /revolution/ were the customer has become the sucker. And I know that, to this day, Canon has refused to acknowledge they sold me a printer at yesterday's price with today's flaws. I know they went as far as refusing to provide the information I needed. I'm sure they still perfectly know about the flaw I'm experiencing today and are still refusing to provide the few words of support I need. I had only words of praise for Canon before I bought this printer. I still own a Canon FTB-QL 35 mm camera and, though I haven't used it for quite some time, it probably still works perfectly. But sometimes, companies change. They're headed by /more efficient/ administrators invertors learned to luv. As a customer, I don't peculiarly appreciate Canon's way of management. As a matter of fact, I now truly abhor this company. They might send as many trolls they want, whether I tell my story long or short, it will get more precise each and every time, and rest assured I'll get the message through. Money talks! In the meantime, the planet is dying and buying a Prius is really an indecent way of acquiring an ecologist status. "Cutting-edge technology", as Motor trend puts it, comes at an expense when repair time comes. So here's my advice for the New Year to every sensible citizen of this world. Stop preaching ecology, get a screwdriver and, if it's only a glitch, it ain't broke, fix it! GP |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Kos wrote:
Canon may make good laser engines for other companies, but I'll never gamble again on their IJ technology. I know gambling is some kind of sickmess that's hard to get rid of So I suppose the best I can do is wish you good luck if you want to take a chance with a Canon laser printer or camera. Do you really figure their repair center for those will be any closer? I for one am not much of a gambler and won't buy any Canon product anymore. GP |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Canon isn't dishonest. At least Canon doesn't use chips in their ink
cartridges like most other companies do to rip their customers off. And many of the printers in the Canon line use clear tanks so you can see exactly how much ink is left... unlike their competitors. My Canon s820 has lasted longer than my previous Epson. "GP" wrote in message ... Was: CANON: DESIGNED TO FAIL by a dishonest company About my old failing Canon BJ-300, I wrote: It is not a 15 years old printer. It's a three weeks old printer! I've seen some Laserjet 4 printers print more in 3 weeks as mine in 14 years. Consequently, when the glitch goes away, it prints perfectly. I had to face one such planned glitch 8 years ago. (Cf. the little sponge in the purge unit.) Canon told me the printer was dead. After I pressured them into telling me how to fix their planned glitch, a 5 minute job got it working until now. Comparing a BJ-300 to the plastic ink dispensers that Canon sells nowadays does prove what kind of fuchhead you are. It's slow, it doesn't print color, but it still fits my needs. I wouldn't print in color even I had a color printer and I'm never in such a rush. Mickey answered: How sad you are but there is hope. Maturity comes with age and 21 is not too far away. 21 not too far away? Oh, this would be the nicest Christmas gift! Unfortunately for your reasoning, if I was one of those kids who's been taught ecology instead of how to use a screw driver, I probably would have declared my printer obsolete soon as it first stopped working in 1996. I suppose I got this attitude from one of my uncles, a mechanic who was still driving his 1947 Chrysler around 1980. Not only did he keep his car for more then 30 years before he sold it as a vintage car, but every time a part would fail, he would consider fixing it before buying a new one. Open the hood, take a look, consider: that was his attitude. I still own his mini-dryer. In twenty years, I only had to change a switch and a fan belt. My only regret is that, though the dryer will be 40 years old in 2005, I can't any money from it as a vintage dryer Are you aware that the HP LaserJet you mentioned is powered by a CANON printer engine. All LaserJets have used CANON print engines. "Have used." And now? What you're saying here just goes to prove my point. The BJ-300 is a work horse capable of delivering much more than the 12,000 sheets I got from it. And Loosenut Boogs may rest assured that the stainless steel shafts are not rusted, the rubber rollers are not degraded and no ink has spilled on the printed circuits. This printer was mechanically made to last. So what? It seems that at the time of manufacture, Canon decided at the last minute there was more money to be made with ink than printers. That's when the change occured, Soon thereafter, the new Bubblejets came out at around 200$. So they had a problem on their hands with this printer designed the good old way. There were no one picoliter, or whatever, drops at that time and any ink would do OK. So, they put a sponge in the purge unit that would at least eventually block the most off-the-plate non-Canon inks, in order to sell their 35$, 350 pages, cartridges. In other words, they ****ed up the ink distribution system. But because the printer had been costly to produce, they didn't lower the price. So, the customer -- me , in this case -- ended up with an expensive unreliable printer. What was HP's approach with the Deskjet 500 at the same time? As I already explained, it's one of the most rugged printer of all times, and it sold at about 50$ less than the BJ-300. Millions of pages must have gone through some of those printers. And the printhead being part of the cartridge, it couldn't clog. Of course, if was impossible, even less than now, to build a disposable printhead of as good quality as a permanent one. When you looked at a print made by a Deskjet, you could see minute droplets of ink around the letters. And, of course, every magazine would confirm this. So, I told myself, what was 50$ more to get better quality? Only later was I to discover that the difference in quality would cost so much more and so much pain in the ass. A friend of mine had a Deskjet and used to buy plain Carter's ink, which still sold in pharmacies at the time, and refilled her cartridges with a seringe for her drafts. "It must clog the head", I told her. "Of course, after 4 or 5 refills, it does, she answered. I then have another new empty cartridge ready to refill." With the help of magazines, who hardly ever test long-term reliability, I've been one of those Bozos who've been lured by Canon's so-called high-technology. Too bad there isn't a law to forbid printer companies to sell ink. The printers would certainly be more expensive, but the print would finally come down to a lot less, with much less trouble. Of course, I'm neither a printer, nor an industry specialist, and I couldn't tell how HP is behaving since La Fiorina took control or how Lexmarks does after IBM decided there was nothing to get out of it. But I know one thing for su Canon has spearheaded this /revolution/ were the customer has become the sucker. And I know that, to this day, Canon has refused to acknowledge they sold me a printer at yesterday's price with today's flaws. I know they went as far as refusing to provide the information I needed. I'm sure they still perfectly know about the flaw I'm experiencing today and are still refusing to provide the few words of support I need. I had only words of praise for Canon before I bought this printer. I still own a Canon FTB-QL 35 mm camera and, though I haven't used it for quite some time, it probably still works perfectly. But sometimes, companies change. They're headed by /more efficient/ administrators invertors learned to luv. As a customer, I don't peculiarly appreciate Canon's way of management. As a matter of fact, I now truly abhor this company. They might send as many trolls they want, whether I tell my story long or short, it will get more precise each and every time, and rest assured I'll get the message through. Money talks! In the meantime, the planet is dying and buying a Prius is really an indecent way of acquiring an ecologist status. "Cutting-edge technology", as Motor trend puts it, comes at an expense when repair time comes. So here's my advice for the New Year to every sensible citizen of this world. Stop preaching ecology, get a screwdriver and, if it's only a glitch, it ain't broke, fix it! GP |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Tim wrote:
Canon isn't dishonest. Sorry. Canon is dishonest without a shade of a doubt. They knew perfectly well what the solution to my sponge problem was(1) and chose to keep me for hours online with their drones who only suggested the printhead was dead and had buying a new printer as the only possible solution. (1) And for a good reason: they designed the problem! See: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=10ruv5ihafboce9%40corp.supernews. com&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=fr GP |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"GP" wrote in message
... Bob Kos wrote: Canon may make good laser engines for other companies, but I'll never gamble again on their IJ technology. I know gambling is some kind of sickmess that's hard to get rid of So I suppose the best I can do is wish you good luck if you want to take a chance with a Canon laser printer or camera. Do you really figure their repair center for those will be any closer? I for one am not much of a gambler and won't buy any Canon product anymore. GP Absolutely. You guys think their printers are bad - you're lucky you never purchased a Canon XL1 video camera (complete with focus, backfocus and major lens problems). Like you, my days of purchasing Canon products are at an end. Regards, Hughy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What this disagreement proves is that each company has a certain
percentage of bad product. Certainly even Canon acknowledged the problems their printers had in reliability, which is why they started over from scratch and put millions into R&D to come up with the i series. I think the i series has some good value and good design, and the tanks are indeed easier to refill, but even Canon seems to be moving their model toward more costly ink cartridges. The main weaknesses with Canon's printers a they do not handle pigment inks well, and have never endorsed pigment inks, to my knowledge, for these printers. They did some promotion about making pigment inks but I don't think it ever came out. Secondly, I warned when they first came out that the idea of a permanent ink head using a resistance bubble jet or thermal technology seems like a contradiction of terms. I expected head failures within 18-24 months of purchase for heavier users, and it seems to be now doing just that. I very much like the removable head for cleaning and the number of nozzles makes the printer very fast, as well. I like how they reduced dot size to allow for elimination of the light dye load inks, as well, something again I predicted someone would do. Epson and Canon together would possibly be able to produce a better than product than either by themselves if they each adopted some aspects of the others technology. However, in the long run, the two technologies do not appear to have compatibility. I still tend to believe the cold piezo head is more durable and flexible, and with certain modifications, would be even more reliable. If the clogging issue were better addressed, and it could be, the piezo would be more reliable, more accurate, and overall allow for much more variations of ink. There is a reason why the art segment and the ink manufacturers has mostly looked to Epson piezo technology. But in terms of image quality, all three majors are close and it comes down to format wars, which I am not interested in engaging or fanning the flames. Art Tim wrote: Canon isn't dishonest. At least Canon doesn't use chips in their ink cartridges like most other companies do to rip their customers off. And many of the printers in the Canon line use clear tanks so you can see exactly how much ink is left... unlike their competitors. My Canon s820 has lasted longer than my previous Epson. "GP" wrote in message ... Was: CANON: DESIGNED TO FAIL by a dishonest company About my old failing Canon BJ-300, I wrote: It is not a 15 years old printer. It's a three weeks old printer! I've seen some Laserjet 4 printers print more in 3 weeks as mine in 14 years. Consequently, when the glitch goes away, it prints perfectly. I had to face one such planned glitch 8 years ago. (Cf. the little sponge in the purge unit.) Canon told me the printer was dead. After I pressured them into telling me how to fix their planned glitch, a 5 minute job got it working until now. Comparing a BJ-300 to the plastic ink dispensers that Canon sells nowadays does prove what kind of fuchhead you are. It's slow, it doesn't print color, but it still fits my needs. I wouldn't print in color even I had a color printer and I'm never in such a rush. Mickey answered: How sad you are but there is hope. Maturity comes with age and 21 is not too far away. 21 not too far away? Oh, this would be the nicest Christmas gift! Unfortunately for your reasoning, if I was one of those kids who's been taught ecology instead of how to use a screw driver, I probably would have declared my printer obsolete soon as it first stopped working in 1996. I suppose I got this attitude from one of my uncles, a mechanic who was still driving his 1947 Chrysler around 1980. Not only did he keep his car for more then 30 years before he sold it as a vintage car, but every time a part would fail, he would consider fixing it before buying a new one. Open the hood, take a look, consider: that was his attitude. I still own his mini-dryer. In twenty years, I only had to change a switch and a fan belt. My only regret is that, though the dryer will be 40 years old in 2005, I can't any money from it as a vintage dryer Are you aware that the HP LaserJet you mentioned is powered by a CANON printer engine. All LaserJets have used CANON print engines. "Have used." And now? What you're saying here just goes to prove my point. The BJ-300 is a work horse capable of delivering much more than the 12,000 sheets I got from it. And Loosenut Boogs may rest assured that the stainless steel shafts are not rusted, the rubber rollers are not degraded and no ink has spilled on the printed circuits. This printer was mechanically made to last. So what? It seems that at the time of manufacture, Canon decided at the last minute there was more money to be made with ink than printers. That's when the change occured, Soon thereafter, the new Bubblejets came out at around 200$. So they had a problem on their hands with this printer designed the good old way. There were no one picoliter, or whatever, drops at that time and any ink would do OK. So, they put a sponge in the purge unit that would at least eventually block the most off-the-plate non-Canon inks, in order to sell their 35$, 350 pages, cartridges. In other words, they ****ed up the ink distribution system. But because the printer had been costly to produce, they didn't lower the price. So, the customer -- me , in this case -- ended up with an expensive unreliable printer. What was HP's approach with the Deskjet 500 at the same time? As I already explained, it's one of the most rugged printer of all times, and it sold at about 50$ less than the BJ-300. Millions of pages must have gone through some of those printers. And the printhead being part of the cartridge, it couldn't clog. Of course, if was impossible, even less than now, to build a disposable printhead of as good quality as a permanent one. When you looked at a print made by a Deskjet, you could see minute droplets of ink around the letters. And, of course, every magazine would confirm this. So, I told myself, what was 50$ more to get better quality? Only later was I to discover that the difference in quality would cost so much more and so much pain in the ass. A friend of mine had a Deskjet and used to buy plain Carter's ink, which still sold in pharmacies at the time, and refilled her cartridges with a seringe for her drafts. "It must clog the head", I told her. "Of course, after 4 or 5 refills, it does, she answered. I then have another new empty cartridge ready to refill." With the help of magazines, who hardly ever test long-term reliability, I've been one of those Bozos who've been lured by Canon's so-called high-technology. Too bad there isn't a law to forbid printer companies to sell ink. The printers would certainly be more expensive, but the print would finally come down to a lot less, with much less trouble. Of course, I'm neither a printer, nor an industry specialist, and I couldn't tell how HP is behaving since La Fiorina took control or how Lexmarks does after IBM decided there was nothing to get out of it. But I know one thing for su Canon has spearheaded this /revolution/ were the customer has become the sucker. And I know that, to this day, Canon has refused to acknowledge they sold me a printer at yesterday's price with today's flaws. I know they went as far as refusing to provide the information I needed. I'm sure they still perfectly know about the flaw I'm experiencing today and are still refusing to provide the few words of support I need. I had only words of praise for Canon before I bought this printer. I still own a Canon FTB-QL 35 mm camera and, though I haven't used it for quite some time, it probably still works perfectly. But sometimes, companies change. They're headed by /more efficient/ administrators invertors learned to luv. As a customer, I don't peculiarly appreciate Canon's way of management. As a matter of fact, I now truly abhor this company. They might send as many trolls they want, whether I tell my story long or short, it will get more precise each and every time, and rest assured I'll get the message through. Money talks! In the meantime, the planet is dying and buying a Prius is really an indecent way of acquiring an ecologist status. "Cutting-edge technology", as Motor trend puts it, comes at an expense when repair time comes. So here's my advice for the New Year to every sensible citizen of this world. Stop preaching ecology, get a screwdriver and, if it's only a glitch, it ain't broke, fix it! GP |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Your problems started when you began using third-party ink, not made by
Canon. This is Canon's fault? Inkjet ink technology is very complex chemistry! More often than not, when using ink other than that of the manufacture, you will eventually run into problems with any Inkjet printer, regardless of who made it, not just Canon. The other problem is a result of using it so infrequently. Again, any Inkjet printer, will have issues if it's not used on a regular basis. It sounds like you should seriously consider a laser printer, for your particular needs. Bill Crocker "GP" wrote in message ... Was: CANON: DESIGNED TO FAIL by a dishonest company About my old failing Canon BJ-300, I wrote: |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Arthur Entlich wrote:
What this disagreement proves is that each company has a certain percentage of bad product. No. You didn't read what my posts. The BJ-300 is not a bad product. It's a product where flaws have been voluntarily introduced in the ink distribution system. The same goes with the problem I now have. Some Loose Nut here said that my printer was old and probably nobody remembered how to fix it. Of course, everybody noticed how ridiculous this opinion was Companies have databases where new problems are registered so that all repairmen throughout the world don't go through the same troubleshooting. Canon has certainly sold thousands of BJ-300 just like mine that have been put through much heavier use. And certainly the same problem, whether planned by Canon or not, has occured before and the solution is in their database. They just refuse to give the solution because they want you to buy a new printer. And people do buy new printers. Unfortunately, they don't buy new /Canon/ printers. I took a ride to Staples this aft and I heard a woman looking for an inkjet printer say to the salesman she wanted any kind of printer, just not Canon. I said I agreed and, remembering all the problems we'd been though with Canon, we laughed. As I said in my first message, Canon's name, which was everywhere in the dealers' ads in the Yellow pages have all but disappeared. And this is not because this Canon product is good, this other one is bad, as you pretend. It's because Canon has developed a "couldn't care less" attitude towards the customer. Dependable computer stores deal as little as they can with those companies. GP Certainly even Canon acknowledged the problems their printers had in reliability, which is why they started over from scratch and put millions into R&D to come up with the i series. I think the i series has some good value and good design, and the tanks are indeed easier to refill, but even Canon seems to be moving their model toward more costly ink cartridges. The main weaknesses with Canon's printers a they do not handle pigment inks well, and have never endorsed pigment inks, to my knowledge, for these printers. They did some promotion about making pigment inks but I don't think it ever came out. Secondly, I warned when they first came out that the idea of a permanent ink head using a resistance bubble jet or thermal technology seems like a contradiction of terms. I expected head failures within 18-24 months of purchase for heavier users, and it seems to be now doing just that. I very much like the removable head for cleaning and the number of nozzles makes the printer very fast, as well. I like how they reduced dot size to allow for elimination of the light dye load inks, as well, something again I predicted someone would do. Epson and Canon together would possibly be able to produce a better than product than either by themselves if they each adopted some aspects of the others technology. However, in the long run, the two technologies do not appear to have compatibility. I still tend to believe the cold piezo head is more durable and flexible, and with certain modifications, would be even more reliable. If the clogging issue were better addressed, and it could be, the piezo would be more reliable, more accurate, and overall allow for much more variations of ink. There is a reason why the art segment and the ink manufacturers has mostly looked to Epson piezo technology. But in terms of image quality, all three majors are close and it comes down to format wars, which I am not interested in engaging or fanning the flames. Art Tim wrote: Canon isn't dishonest. At least Canon doesn't use chips in their ink cartridges like most other companies do to rip their customers off. And many of the printers in the Canon line use clear tanks so you can see exactly how much ink is left... unlike their competitors. My Canon s820 has lasted longer than my previous Epson. "GP" wrote in message ... Was: CANON: DESIGNED TO FAIL by a dishonest company About my old failing Canon BJ-300, I wrote: It is not a 15 years old printer. It's a three weeks old printer! I've seen some Laserjet 4 printers print more in 3 weeks as mine in 14 years. Consequently, when the glitch goes away, it prints perfectly. I had to face one such planned glitch 8 years ago. (Cf. the little sponge in the purge unit.) Canon told me the printer was dead. After I pressured them into telling me how to fix their planned glitch, a 5 minute job got it working until now. Comparing a BJ-300 to the plastic ink dispensers that Canon sells nowadays does prove what kind of fuchhead you are. It's slow, it doesn't print color, but it still fits my needs. I wouldn't print in color even I had a color printer and I'm never in such a rush. Mickey answered: How sad you are but there is hope. Maturity comes with age and 21 is not too far away. 21 not too far away? Oh, this would be the nicest Christmas gift! Unfortunately for your reasoning, if I was one of those kids who's been taught ecology instead of how to use a screw driver, I probably would have declared my printer obsolete soon as it first stopped working in 1996. I suppose I got this attitude from one of my uncles, a mechanic who was still driving his 1947 Chrysler around 1980. Not only did he keep his car for more then 30 years before he sold it as a vintage car, but every time a part would fail, he would consider fixing it before buying a new one. Open the hood, take a look, consider: that was his attitude. I still own his mini-dryer. In twenty years, I only had to change a switch and a fan belt. My only regret is that, though the dryer will be 40 years old in 2005, I can't any money from it as a vintage dryer Are you aware that the HP LaserJet you mentioned is powered by a CANON printer engine. All LaserJets have used CANON print engines. "Have used." And now? What you're saying here just goes to prove my point. The BJ-300 is a work horse capable of delivering much more than the 12,000 sheets I got from it. And Loosenut Boogs may rest assured that the stainless steel shafts are not rusted, the rubber rollers are not degraded and no ink has spilled on the printed circuits. This printer was mechanically made to last. So what? It seems that at the time of manufacture, Canon decided at the last minute there was more money to be made with ink than printers. That's when the change occured, Soon thereafter, the new Bubblejets came out at around 200$. So they had a problem on their hands with this printer designed the good old way. There were no one picoliter, or whatever, drops at that time and any ink would do OK. So, they put a sponge in the purge unit that would at least eventually block the most off-the-plate non-Canon inks, in order to sell their 35$, 350 pages, cartridges. In other words, they ****ed up the ink distribution system. But because the printer had been costly to produce, they didn't lower the price. So, the customer -- me , in this case -- ended up with an expensive unreliable printer. What was HP's approach with the Deskjet 500 at the same time? As I already explained, it's one of the most rugged printer of all times, and it sold at about 50$ less than the BJ-300. Millions of pages must have gone through some of those printers. And the printhead being part of the cartridge, it couldn't clog. Of course, if was impossible, even less than now, to build a disposable printhead of as good quality as a permanent one. When you looked at a print made by a Deskjet, you could see minute droplets of ink around the letters. And, of course, every magazine would confirm this. So, I told myself, what was 50$ more to get better quality? Only later was I to discover that the difference in quality would cost so much more and so much pain in the ass. A friend of mine had a Deskjet and used to buy plain Carter's ink, which still sold in pharmacies at the time, and refilled her cartridges with a seringe for her drafts. "It must clog the head", I told her. "Of course, after 4 or 5 refills, it does, she answered. I then have another new empty cartridge ready to refill." With the help of magazines, who hardly ever test long-term reliability, I've been one of those Bozos who've been lured by Canon's so-called high-technology. Too bad there isn't a law to forbid printer companies to sell ink. The printers would certainly be more expensive, but the print would finally come down to a lot less, with much less trouble. Of course, I'm neither a printer, nor an industry specialist, and I couldn't tell how HP is behaving since La Fiorina took control or how Lexmarks does after IBM decided there was nothing to get out of it. But I know one thing for su Canon has spearheaded this /revolution/ were the customer has become the sucker. And I know that, to this day, Canon has refused to acknowledge they sold me a printer at yesterday's price with today's flaws. I know they went as far as refusing to provide the information I needed. I'm sure they still perfectly know about the flaw I'm experiencing today and are still refusing to provide the few words of support I need. I had only words of praise for Canon before I bought this printer. I still own a Canon FTB-QL 35 mm camera and, though I haven't used it for quite some time, it probably still works perfectly. But sometimes, companies change. They're headed by /more efficient/ administrators invertors learned to luv. As a customer, I don't peculiarly appreciate Canon's way of management. As a matter of fact, I now truly abhor this company. They might send as many trolls they want, whether I tell my story long or short, it will get more precise each and every time, and rest assured I'll get the message through. Money talks! In the meantime, the planet is dying and buying a Prius is really an indecent way of acquiring an ecologist status. "Cutting-edge technology", as Motor trend puts it, comes at an expense when repair time comes. So here's my advice for the New Year to every sensible citizen of this world. Stop preaching ecology, get a screwdriver and, if it's only a glitch, it ain't broke, fix it! GP |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Crocker wrote:
Your problems started when you began using third-party ink, not made by Canon. This is Canon's fault? Buying Canon's ink make a printer worthless. It's way too expensive. Inkjet ink technology is very complex chemistry! After 3 months without printing, I would probably have had the same problem with Canon ink. Today's equipment -- spectrometers, chromatographs, etc. -- can make a pretty good chemical analysis. And, you know, Canon doesn't make its ink on Mars. And when the sponge dries, washing it in demineralized mater is very simple technology, believe me! GP |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Broke power supply pin | x | General | 8 | December 22nd 04 06:02 AM |
Inspiron 4100: Trackpoint broke. | jason | Dell Computers | 3 | September 21st 04 12:03 AM |
4.5 broke up videocard?! | Serge Yatsenko | Ati Videocards | 14 | May 30th 04 09:37 AM |
ATI 9700pro broke, wait till nextgen card? When do they come out? | Brook Harty | Ati Videocards | 3 | February 7th 04 09:21 PM |
Is my motherboard broke? | steve | General | 2 | November 5th 03 09:51 PM |