Tom Hardware review 12/8/05

[Osage]

To websnail,

I would maintain its somewhat matters not how much ink a given cartridge contains,
be that cartridge a OEM cartridge, a refilled cartridge, or from a non OEM vendor.
Once you have some standard page you are using to compare printers, you simply put in the new cartridge and keep printing the same standard page until the ink runs out.

And if a refilled cartridge or a non-oem cartridge yield more pages it yields more pages or less pages. But it still yields a comparable results if you are dealing with any standard page.

But if you are dealing with a CIS, it really throws a monkey wrench into the compaison because some ink--after the point of refusal, still is retained by the cartridge sponge.--vs. a CIS where one must really just diretly measure the ink used.

So I do agree with your point------one should measure ink used and usable in a given cartridge. And it becomes somewhat apparant when you have a cartridge
that contains only 4.5 ml of ink with only 2.5 ml of ink useable.-------and less important when you have a cartridge that contains 13 ml of ink and only 11 ml of which is usable.

 

[websnail]

To websnail,

I would maintain its somewhat matters not how much ink a given cartridge contains,
be that cartridge a OEM cartridge, a refilled cartridge, or from a non OEM vendor.
Once you have some standard page you are using to compare printers, you simply put in the new cartridge and keep printing the same standard page until the ink runs out.

Well that's true so long as you actually test each of the cartridges... After all, what's the point of a non-OEM vendor claiming that their carts contain Xml more of ink when the chip just ignores that completely and just output the same level as OEM carts because the chip just says "empty" at more or less the same point.

As pointed out elsewhere though, what hardware reviewer is going to do that unless they're either touched in the head, or have some kind of compulsion to do so. It would cost huge amounts in time and money to do it.

I guess this just points to a circular arguement that does point out that you have to be a little aware of what the limitations of a hardware review.

But if you are dealing with a CIS, it really throws a monkey wrench into the compaison because some ink--after the point of refusal, still is retained by the cartridge sponge.--vs. a CIS where one must really just diretly measure the ink used.

Oh lordy... I wouldn't suggest for a minute that a CIS be used to provide a test... It'd be a nightmare and frankly the amount of waste of paper, ink, etc... would be horrendous... So, no, I definitely wouldn't want to put them in there

So I do agree with your point------one should measure ink used and usable in a given cartridge. And it becomes somewhat apparant when you have a cartridge
that contains only 4.5 ml of ink with only 2.5 ml of ink useable.-------and less important when you have a cartridge that contains 13 ml of ink and only 11 ml of which is usable.

Oh that point... I'd agree if you were talking about printing occassionally but for high usage those extra 2ml add up..

Of course, if you refill it's not an issue because you don't throw anything away..

Anyways, we're going off topic... but hopefully my initial point was made...

 

[Osage]

First of all Websnail--in regard to your saying your initial point was made. I fail to see that anyone disagrees with what you said or that what I am saying and you are saying is different. I think its great that you champion CIS, after all, the ink costs
are well under $100/gal and the manufacter wants to charge up to $4000 or so for the same ink. But as you pointed out, a CIS and a refiller are on equal grounds there, no ink is wasted.

My points is and remains that unless honest reviews of printers are out there, the average consumer is going to have zero way to really tell what printer to purchase.

I just googled "inkjet printer" and got over twelve million hits. Care to guess what per cent of those hits contain any honest or useful information? Or google "inkjet printer reviews" and get only a little over four million hits. Again care to guess the honesty or usable information quotent?

At least in my case and I suspect in your case, per page ink consumable costs are a buying factor. Nor do I regard it as a huge expense for a responsible reviewer to use the put in a new cartridge and print some standard page repeatedly until the cartridge runs dry method to compare various printers. After all, bulk paper costs less than a half cent a page and enough cartridges should come from the manufacter who wants their printer included in the test.-----the labor must come from the responsible reviewer. -----or could you suggest some better methodolgy
to compute per page costs?------without using the non standard printer manufacters estimated per page yield that is meaningless when it does not compare apples to apples..

But most reviewers skip the responsibility step because they know if they give an honest cost analysis, its the last printer review they will ever be paid to do. Plus printer manufacters have a tremendous incentive to hide per page costs because any objective tests would blow the whistle on how much they are collectively ripping off consumers.--------but if the consumer COULD EASILY FIND good information on inkjet printer consumable costs, I strongly suspect what we could buy on the open market today would be different and much better.

In terms of this forum-----it took me days of research at random to stumble on. Its a great site but at its present membership has little impact on the buying habits of any large group of consumers---or printer manufacters.

But at the end of the day, most consumers just buy an inkjet printer and use OEM cartridges.---------and if we want better inkjet printers that is the first group to target on out reach. When and if large numbers of consumers demand better consumable costs, the manufacters will have to offer better. The current trend is exactly opposite that Canon notably trying to shut out third party cartridges and making refilling more difficult.

Quality reviews available to the general public is the best defense against that.
Existing printer reviews are mostly meaningless.

 

[websnail]

Yup... agree...

In truth I was just making a technical point about carts with chips ...


I'm also very conscious that my name pops up and everyone starts thinking "oh no.. more CIS stuff"... well that's what my other half does... *cue: scampering of feet as she tears out the room* ... I think that was all I was trying to re-assert.. I wasn't really thinking of CIS units at all, but some of testing technicalities that would throw a proverbial spanner in the stats works..

I'm gonna shurrup now though with full agreement that decent reviews would really make a massive difference... Perhaps we should do a few... whatyourprinterreallycosts.com

 

[Osage]

I did state on post number nine of this thread that I did e-mail THG questioning
the methodolgy of the review------with a promise to get back if I received a responce.

To date, I have received no responce.

 

[Horndean]

I read the review and it's OK but the Author leaves out the fact that Canon has the IP6600 which has:

1. LCD screen
2. Card Slots
3. 3000 nozzles
4. photo magenta and photo cyan
5. cd dvd printing
6. 1 picoliter droplet

KnightCrawler, are there any reveiws on the Canon ip6600D printer?

 

[KnightCrawler]

I read the review and it's OK but the Author leaves out the fact that Canon has the IP6600 which has:

1. LCD screen
2. Card Slots
3. 3000 nozzles
4. photo magenta and photo cyan
5. cd dvd printing
6. 1 picoliter droplet

KnightCrawler, are there any reveiws on the Canon ip6600D printer?

Only user reviews: http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_Pixma_iP6600D/4852-3156_7-31475437.html?tag=sub

 

[LelandHendrix]

I have a similar experience.

Tom's has a review of 4x6 printers, and in the text described how the epson picturemate had the lowest priced consumables at 29 cents per print(paper and ink together). The closest competitor was 38 or 39 cents pr print.

After making such a clear assertion of having the least expensive prints, it got the WORST score for economy.

I didn't email them to point out their glaring mistake, but it did alert me to watch their facts closely and make my own decision. They obviously can't be trusted with ANY sort of math! Haha