OT: How to stop Epson ink primer waste?

Comments

johnmeyer wrote on 3/4/2007, 11:41 AM
So don't spray until AFTER ~24 hours drying time.

When using the real Epson r260 ink, do I really need to spray? I still have a huge can (probably no good after five years) of spray that I used to use with my 1st gen. HP inkjets. Worked well and made them water resistant (although, to my chagrin, I now find them fading, so it didn't help that). The Epson inks are supposed to be pretty much water-proof, and in the few test disks I did, I couldn't smudge them with a wet finger.

JackW wrote on 3/4/2007, 11:55 AM
You might take a look at Reliant Digital's Ink Caddy for the Epson series. I've seen it in use and it looks like a good alternative to expensive ink cartridge replacements. Especially appealing since you can replace a single color at a time.

David Adame, whom I've known for ten years, stands behind his products and will be happy to answer any questions you might have about the Caddy if you email him or give him a call.

JackW
JJKizak wrote on 3/4/2007, 12:36 PM
My guru buddy buy's a new printer every time the ink runs out. He says it's cheaper that way.
JJK
TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/4/2007, 12:42 PM
I've heard that too, but I haven't tested because I have a boatload of cans. :)

But drop it in the sink. If it doesn't run then you don't need to spray. :)
nolonemo wrote on 3/5/2007, 11:47 AM
If you don't like the cost of OEM inks, buy a set of empty resetttable chip cartridges and refill them with bulk ink. Should cost you around $90 to get going. Here's a link for the empty carts, and for ink I would go to Mediastreet.
http://www.printonadime.com/inventory/item.php?item_id=67

One thing you should do before changing over is to flush out the OEM ink - there have been reports that printhead clogs can occur when you change over if you don't do this. I myself have been a victim.

there also is an Epson utility that can disable the startup cycling that drains ink, and allows other tweaks. Use at your own risk.
http://www.ssclg.com/epsone.shtml
johnmeyer wrote on 3/5/2007, 11:59 AM
there also is an Epson utility that can disable the startup cycling that drains ink, and allows other tweaks. Use at your own risk.

That's an interesting link. They don't support my printer yet, but I'll keep an eye on the site. Thanks!
blink3times wrote on 3/5/2007, 1:31 PM
"If you don't like the cost of OEM inks, buy a set of empty resetttable chip cartridges and refill them with bulk ink. Should cost you around $90 to get going. Here's a link for the empty carts, and for ink I would go to Mediastreet."



There's ALWAYS a way around the system... but the point is... why should someone have to go to that extent in the first place???
johnmeyer wrote on 3/5/2007, 2:39 PM
There's ALWAYS a way around the system... but the point is... why should someone have to go to that extent in the first place???

Obviously ALL the inkjet printer manufacturer basically give away the printer and then make the money on ink. That's the economic model. Same as razor blades and cell phone service. I don't mind them charging what they need to charge in order to make that model work, and understand their desire to protect their territory by discouraging third-parties from making ink. (I was on the board of a company that was sued by HP -- successfully -- for OEMing their large format printers and then developing a continuous ink refill system, so I know a bit about this).

What I think is unethical -- and I gather was part of the class action suit (something I normally don't support) -- is that they were basically causing the printer to unnecessarily dump ink in the manner I reported in my initial post, in order to force you to buy more ink than you need. That's darn-near criminal. By contrast, the ink prices are just good business practices. The alternative would be to charge $500 or more for the printer (which is probably closer to what would be necessary to cover costs and make a profit on the printer by itself).
riredale wrote on 3/5/2007, 2:46 PM
John, I see your point of view, but it really shouldn't matter whether Epson intentionally set its cartridges to print only 95% or even 50% of the ink contained inside. When the printers are tested by places like PCmag or PCworld, many of the reviews also state the cost per page. If Epson's configuration resulted in astronomical costs, the word would get around quickly.

As it turns out, I recall that Epson has had very reasonable per-page costs in the reviews I've seen.
craftech wrote on 3/5/2007, 3:19 PM
For what it is worth the settlement did NOT require Epson to change anything about it's printers or how they report ink remaining nor does it require them to keep printing after the ink out warning stops the printer from functioning. It only required Epson to cough up a few extra printer cartridges or $25 to those who filed a claim form in return for being allowed to go on conducting business as usual.

That should be heartening news for the relative few in this country who scorn the victims and favor the aggressors.

John
johnmeyer wrote on 3/5/2007, 3:44 PM
That should be heartening news for the relative few in this country who scorn the victims and favor the aggressors

As opposed to all those who ride around on white horses to save us from every conceivable problem. Personally, I think it is a waste of time -- too many causes, and it is a completely unnecessary exercise. Even mentioning it is a waste of time. The solution is obvious: None of us will buy Epson products again. They may not go out of business, but does it matter? HP and Canon make great products.
craftech wrote on 3/5/2007, 3:59 PM
The solution is obvious: None of us will buy Epson products again. They may not go out of business, but does it matter? HP and Canon make great products.
=========
On that we agree. It's much worse when a complete monopoly gets away with it and there is absolutely NO ONE else to turn to.

John
johnmeyer wrote on 3/5/2007, 4:06 PM
On that we agree. It's much worse when a complete monopoly does it and there is absolutely NO ONE else to turn to.

True. But even the Microsoft situation is going to get very interesting over the next few years. They have become what IBM was back when Gates took them on (over OS/2) and won. Microsoft is now launching a lousy O/S (Vista) that has virtually no reason for existence (i.e., no compelling features); Linux has obviously provided a totally viable alternative on the server side; Apple is cleverly starting to absorb some of the Windows malcontents by (finally) providing computers that can dual-boot and run Windows.

The Vista stupidity may finally get people to consider alternatives. The obvious move would be for Apple to unbundle its O/S so that it could run on top of the PC BIOS. Don't know if that can be done, but since they already have it running in X86, I think it might be possible. Can you imagine the change in MSFT stock, overnight, if Apple even hinted at this? Of course, since I own some, I guess I'm not looking forward to that.

craftech wrote on 3/5/2007, 4:15 PM
The Vista stupidity may finally get people to consider alternatives. The obvious move would be for Apple to unbundle its O/S so that it could run on top of the PC BIOS. Don't know if that can be done, but since they already have it running in X86, I think it might be possible. Can you imagine the change in MSFT stock, overnight, if Apple even hinted at this? Of course, since I own some, I guess I'm not looking forward to that.
================
I think some would be jumping out of the windows on Wall Street.

I thought the OEM computer market would be a bit reluctant when it came to embracing Vista, but it doesn't appear so. It seems they have jumped all over it just like they did with Windows XP in spite of what seems like widespread disappointment.

John
johnmeyer wrote on 3/5/2007, 4:33 PM
I thought the OEM computer market would be a bit reluctant when it came to embracing Vista, but it doesn't appear so. It seems they have jumped all over it just like they did with Windows XP in spite of what seems like widespread disappointment

Unfortunately, you are correct. I just had to purchase a laptop replacement for my daughter, and HP, Dell, and Gateway all sell ONLY Vista at this point. Fortunately, Fujitsu and others are still selling XP Pro. What was interesting is that I found out that Microsoft has a program -- which apparently they have always had -- where you can downgrade for free. Thus, you can purchase the Vista OEM O/S with your new computer, but then download the older O/S for free. You can Google "microsoft vista xp downgrade" and find out all about it.
craftech wrote on 3/5/2007, 5:07 PM
"downgrade for free"
==============
LOL I love it.

John
TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/5/2007, 5:16 PM
Nobody remembers ME at all, do they? Every company went with ME for a while. :(

anyway... craftech's right. We have a choice in what printers we buy. I LIKE my Epson R220. I love it. Much better then any HP or Epson I've owned. I love the multi-cart ink system. I love the CD/DVD printing. I love the small driver package (12mb).

HP's drivers are 300mb to download. Most of their printers all use duel cart system (3color + black). :( Never used cannon's but at work there's a few & they're good.

But we have a choice. And most people just need to understand: cheap printers are crap. :) At $100+ starts the ones that are decent.
John_Cline wrote on 3/5/2007, 5:34 PM
I'm with John. I've got an Epson 220 and a 320. They work just great. In the past, I have wasted money on HP and Canon printers, never again.

John
nolonemo wrote on 3/5/2007, 5:45 PM
Look, I bought an HP 8250 (or some number, can't keep them straight) for my dad at Xmas, it cost me $40 after rebate, shipped free. Hell, that's less than a replacement set of ink cartridges. So you have a choice - get the printer for next to nothing, and give the manufacturer a profit by buying the OEM inks, or.... get the printer for next to nothing and use third party bluk inks for 1/10 the cost. Your choice.
DJPadre wrote on 3/6/2007, 2:00 AM
"Factory ink is overpriced, but you have to be realistic with generics -- at $3 vs. $30+, can you really expect anywhere near the same quality?"
better actually.. but it depends on the whether the ink pigment is sourced from powder or liquid

powder based refils are a waste and cause issues, but liquid oil based inks work a treat.
I use Summit inks ($4.50 each) which i use for my canons and i guarantee you, that you wouldnt be able to tell the difference.. even the blacks are identical and dont hint on the blue side liek so many..
blink3times wrote on 3/6/2007, 2:19 AM
"I'm with John. I've got an Epson 220 and a 320. They work just great. In the past, I have wasted money on HP and Canon printers, never again."


Quite the opposite here... wasted enough money on Epson.... going back to canon
RexA wrote on 3/6/2007, 2:52 AM
Let us remember that the thrust here is printing on DVD/CDs. Didn't Epson have a monopoly on that market in the US? How did/could that happen? Does it still exist?

I haven't shopped for a printer in a while and haven't been printing enough to worry about the cartridge price, but would be happy to find the best current solution for CD/DVD printing. I know a full set of Epson cartridges for my R300 is now probably well more than I paid for the printer.

On a similar note, I trashed my old paper laser printer when I needed a new cartridge and found out it would be $100 or more. It was an HP LJ 2100 -- did a nice job an had very good resolution, but I didn't really need it at a super premium price. I then looked at the price of all the cartridges for laser printers available in the store, and bought a new printer (also HP) based on the price of its cartridges and the large stock in the store. Figured it was a sign that they wouldn't get scarce and expensive soon.

The new printer seems to be working fine and faster than my old one.

Tail wagging the sensible dog?
craftech wrote on 3/6/2007, 5:16 AM
Didn't Epson have a monopoly on that market in the US? How did/could that happen? Does it still exist?
=============
Yes, they did and still do. You have to hack a Canon printer here in the US to make it print to CDs and DVDs. How could it happen? Simple: We have a government that puts the interests of large corporations ahead of the public interest. Whether it be the oil industry, the pharmaseutical industry, or the communications (news media) industry there is a simple rule ...............Monopoly is good and systematic consolidation is the route to that end.

John
JJKizak wrote on 3/6/2007, 5:20 AM
I guess the Epson patent on DVD printing with an inkjet printer is the same as a copyright or am I wrong?
JJK