Any printer gurus?

Page 1 of 2  
I have an in-the-box Epson printer that is apparently 6 years old. The box hasn't been opened until just now and the cartridges are still in the shrink wrap (sealed) condition. Any particular reason I shouldn't be using the printer? Should I get new cartridges or would those in the package still be okay (I couldn't find an expiration date on them)? Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2016 09:45 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

I do a lot of computer repair work, and unlike politics, this is something I actually know about.
The cartridges should be fine if the seal wasn't broken.
It was HP that put "smart chips" in their cartridges that could disable unused but "expired" ink.To the best of my knowledge, Epson has never done anything like that.
My wife and I for the past 15 years have used Epson printers exclusively for our photography and we generally order a large quantity of ink. Not too long ago I discovered some ink that was a few years old that we had over looked, but there was nothing wrong with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and I have rewarded HP for that by not buying another HP printer. M
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2016 9:39 AM, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Epson puts the money in the marking engine -- designing a more robust printhead and "ink detection" capabilities IN the marking engine. So, Epson can just sell "ink tanks" -- no smarts involved, just ink in a specially shaped bottle.
HP, OTOH, puts the printhead in the "cartridge". This ensures that you get a fresh, new printhead with each batch of ink. It also means they don't have to make the printhead durable -- it only has to work long enough to consume the ink in the cartridge!
Leave an Epson sit for too long, and you'll discover the "advantage" of being able to DISCARD the printhead just by replacing the "ink".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2016 10:55 AM, Don Y wrote:

You made a good point, but I think the Epson would have to sit for one hell of a long time. We have certainly never had a problem letting ours sit for months at a time unused.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2016 10:02 AM, philo wrote:

The point is that not every decision has to be one of nefarious goals; HP could have planned their usage model for folks doing less print volume, wanting to "invest" less in a marking engine, etc.
I was involved in the design of a color printer many years ago. It was amusing to see what each of our individual preconceptions regarding the proposed printer's capabilities: photographs? illustrations? office presentations? technical documents? etc.
The needs placed on the marking engine are very different for each of these targeted applications (neglecting volume, cost, etc.). I.e., do you want photorealistic output? *True* color matching (e.g., Rudolph's nose should be Pantone 485C)?
For illustrations, you might tolerate some range of reds (as long as they are "red" and not "orange").
For office presentations, *a* red -- to differentiate it from *a* blue and *a* green in that pie chart -- is probably OK.
For technical documents, you may just want "some SMALL number of discernible colors" -- cuz there's a legend printed as part of the document!
We ended up targeting the office presentation market as a SUPERSET of the technical documents market.
I *rarely* print photos -- and, if I do, use a little Sony "postcard" photo printer. I can exchange a photo via email far easier than printing it and hand delivering!
Using an inkjet to print 50 page documents that happen to contain photographs and illustrations is just wasteful of ink. And, trying to piece together some pages (without photos) from a laser printer intermixed with pages (WITH photos) from an inkjet is a lot of effort -- for dubious results.
So, I'd opt for color laser printing for "working" copies. And, use the Phaser for "proofs" (color calibrated).
The color laser recently got binned (along with the spare fusers, imaging unit and a couple of SETS of toner cartridges) to free up some space in the office (and supply closet). I can walk to a commercial print shop in ~15 minutes if I need color printing -- quicker than taking a drive, waiting for traffic lights, parking, etc.
[End of the Year is always equipment upgrade time -- lately, the emphasis being on moving capabilities OUT of here in favor of spending a few dollars more and NOT having to maintain as much stuff!]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2016 11:53 AM, Don Y wrote:

Yep.
We use a cheap laser jet to do most of our printing.
The Epson is only used for producing photographs that will be framed and displayed .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

brother, and a Xerox that would block up the printheads in less than 3 monts of sitting - in the case of the Xerox less than a month. That's going back over 15 years. It had replaceable tanks and so-called replaceable print heads that cost as much as the printer and took 2 hours to change with the right tools.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lucky you!
I changed from color ink-jets to b/w laser printers cuz of my Epson color inkjet printer was ALWAYS clogging up (weekly!). This is due to inkjets having ink that dries almost instantly. They have this fast drying ink so there will be no ink running n' dripping when used on glass-smooth photo print paper. It's good to see Epson is now replacing the print head (the part that becomes clogged) when replacing the ink (which is still entirely too often!).
It's my understanding that commercial grade Epson inkjets are less prone to this problem. My buddy --a graphic artist-- went from Epson to Canon fer his color inkjet requirements. Regardless, I tossed my Epson fer a Brother b/w laser printer. Brother is good fer Linux users cuz Brother supplies the drivers.
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2016 02:52 PM, notbob wrote:

My Epson can produce 13" x 19" prints
or 13" panoramas 12 feet long
so it's not one a typical home user would likely have.
The fact that our previous Epson got ten full years of hard use without any problems was a good reason for me to just get another Epson.
Since it will not even start a print unless it has sufficient ink, the wasted paper was next to nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep. Sounds like my buddy's commercial grade Epson.
He eventually changed to Canon, but I think it was more cuz of the fact he's a Canon camera lifer. Heck, he's even on Canon's favored customer/testor list, so he probably got "a deal". ;)
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2016 05:24 PM, notbob wrote:

I have used Canon cameras for over 15 years and really like them. My first photo printer was a Canon and it worked well, but all of my friends who do this professionally suggested Epson.
Now the tides are turning and the guy who does my large prints
(I consider 13" x 19" small) has switched to Canon. Hopefully it will be another ten years before I have to make the decision again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2016 10:02 AM, philo wrote:

I had an Epson that was $25 out the door at CostCo after rebates and so forth. I used it rarely and every time I did it was a session with ammonia and q-tips to get it going again. I shit canned it and bought a Samsung laser. When I turn it on every sixth months it might smell a little bad as it heats up and fries the dust but it works.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 09:55:16 -0700, Don Y

and "replaceable print heads" that don't need tools to change. Some epson printers use (or at least have in the past) integrated pring engines as well - ink and printhead in one piece. Can't remember the model but I just threw out a cartrigge I had sitting around for the last couple of years - with no printer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2016 10:39 AM, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Good to hear. After what happened to my friend who worked there and got the axe, I will never buy anything HP.
I am very much pro-Epson.
Our previous printer gave ten full years of flawless performance.
It then gave a warning that the parts were at the end of their life...so even when it did finally wear out...it was not in the middle of a job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 08:39:28 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

I just get the ink carts refilled at Costco.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2016 9:30 AM, philo wrote:

The "chips" were designed to watch how much ink has been used. I.e., each nozzle that is commanded to fire ejects a relatively fixed volume of ink. Count the number of "dots" that you've been asked to produce and you can gauge how much ink has been consumed -- or, conversely, how much SHOULD remain. So, you can report when you think you are empty without actually having to detect your contents!
Lexar made toner cartridges that would similarly stop working. Nothing in the cartridge that "broke" but, rather, the marking engine would refuse to print if the cartridge was expired/spent (or claimed to be).
I know of at least one medical diagnostic equipment manufacturer that sells DISTILLED WATER in *little* cartridges "chipped" like this! (and you wonder why healthcare is so expensive in the US??)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2016 11:30 AM, philo wrote:

HP won't even allow their refilled cartridges to work. Older HP printers allowed you to fill the cartridge yourself, then they made them practically impossible to refill yourself and now they will only work with cartridges that they freshly manufacture.
For OP, cartridges and printer should be OK. Foil seals prevent evaporation and drying. If like HP they won't last long. First refill of an HP with long lasting cartridges will sometimes cost more than the price of the printer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll call BS on that. I run something like 30 HP OfficeJet 8000 printers and I refill the ink tanks (940) about once a month or mabee 2. They have an expiry date on them - and I can refill and re-use them untill the expiry date or until they start to leak - whichever comes first. Generally they are still leak-proof when they expire. Expiry date is 1 - 2 years from purchase date, depending how long they have been in inventory (2 years from date of manufacture) They have a chip with the date in it. Sometimes the contacts on the chip need to be cleaned.

a "starter cartridge" You can by "regular" or "extended life" replacements which are identical except for the amount of ink. I've refilled the regulars with more ink than comes in the "extendeds"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2016 1:46 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I've heard some (inkjet) cartridges are touchy about how well you reseal them after refilling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.