ThINQ before you INQ before you drive

One element of the inkjet cartridge refill process you forgot to mention was print nozzle life. When a cartridge is reused -- especially if there is "pigment" ink in the cartridge, the worn-down nozzles can be pushed beyond their usefulness, resulting in poorer print quality (which you mentioned a couple of times). Once the nozzles are shot, it doesn't matter how many times or how carefully you refill the cartridge, your print quality will never improve.

As you mentioned, Epson makes the print head an integrated part of their printers, so all that needs to be replaced is the ink tank. In their case, print head life expectancy = printer life expectancy. Once the print head nozzles are worn out, it's time to buy a new printer! I believe, in Epson's case, many of their warranty statements list a printer life of two years, which might give you an indication of how long the nozzles in an inkjet printer can be expected to last. Of course, that depends entirely on your print volume, but it's probably a good standard to go by.

Ink cartridge refills will help to reduce the cost of printing, but it isn't a catch-all in the long term. One way or another, if you want to maintain good print quality, the print head nozzles will need to be replaced. And that requires either a new cartridge or a new printer, depending on the manufacturer.

Interesting article.

One thing to note is that now you can buy a color laser for a few hundred dollars. Toners have much higher page counts, are not that much more expensive (all things considered), and never dry out, etc. They work until they are empty regardless of how often you use them.

Much less hassle. Better print that is *not water-soluble*.

Sean

I must warn you on point that was NOT discussed in your article. Although you claim the photo quality out of the Epson with the generic ink you used was fantastic (something extremely rare out of most ink-jet printers), you failed to test its water-resistance and fade resistance. These are the two areas where all generic inks fall down heavily over the official ink, typically drying much slower, smudging easily, coming right off the page with water and, most importantly, fading within a few months. Initial photo quality alone is nothing compared to what the photos look like in several months, or even several weeks.

Anyone who actually wants photo quality and longevity is still best off sticking with genuine ink.

A few other important notes: current Epson cartridges include microchips that make refilling the cartridges impossible.

The class action lawsuit you referred to over Epson leaving ink in the cartridges was dropped completely after Epson was able to prove the the necessity of leaving ink in the cartridges.

Name supplied

You've just discovered fire or the wheel? Hate to break this to you but BOTH have been discovered long ago, to the point that fire is now used in what is called an "internal combustion engine" and that, dear boy, can propel a madman at speeds over 100+ miles per hour along something called "something-bahn" ... and that was in the 1930s.

So, not only are you claiming a monumental discovery, but you have the gall to promote something called DCX in page upon page of dedicated data. You may recall that when the IBM PC first came out, they have to sloowwwly check the memory meticulously because if you don't and you are launching a nuclear ballistic missile from your tiny bedroom, any faulty memory will result in the missile being re-targeted at your beloved neighbour [not neighbor - ballistic missile launchers please take note], fortunate as that may be.

Now, wind forward to the 21st century, and we have “OEM” inks, “damn cheapo yellow peril” inks, “inks from hell”, “diseased” inks, “virulent” inks, and more. And with the same meticulous accuracy of that IBM PC memory count, one zooms in onto the nastiness of these non-human variants of inks to ensure that they must be kept away from that £30 inkjet printer. We must buy that £40 replacement, genuine, golden balls, “honoulable ahso” imperial heavenliness inks for our £30 printer.

You are glad that satan took away your brain so that he can do your thinking for you, aren't you, dahlings. I've even used spit in my replacement ink and the printer still goes. What “imperial ahso” conveniently forget to inform all is that it is the size=drying=clogging of the ever diminishing ink nozzles that are the main cause of most inkjet problems, not those “yellow peril” replacement inks and stop slurping the stuff that XYZ from Uncle Sammy is feeding you. They have yet to discover food, Coney Hotdogs excepted.

Name supplied

Mario,

"Unfortunately, there isn't universal printer support, which makes the product name a lemon. Currently, only two printer manufacturers are supported - Canon and Epson. Canon has two printers supported: the iP3000 and the iP4000. For Epson, the printer support is a lot better: 1270/1280/1290 and C63/C64/C65/C66 and R200/R210/R300/R310/RX500/RX510/RX600."

I have been a long term fan of canon printers. The IP3000 uses the BCI6/BCI3 color cartridges and a BCI3 black. From the research I've done on the web as well as trying it myself, the BCI3 colors are the same as the BCI6 colors. This means that these are the same cartridges as in like all of the seperate color canon printers.

I have had or used s750, s600, s800, ip3000, mp750, mp780, and some others. I'm confident that because of that, the refill kits you guys are talking about will work in older printers..

The one point of contention that I see is that the BCI3e black IS NOT the same as the BCI6 black. One is pigmented and one is dye, and they should not be mixed. I don't have it straight as to which one is which, but I haven't had to worry about it since the printers I have owned for myself both use BCI3e: the s750 (the workhorse which I used for three years and retired) and the IP3000 (which I bought for like 50 dollars due to a fatwallet deal with a camera).

Ditch the HP inkjets you guys own, don't bother refilling since the ink is different from what I've heard. I have a principled opposition to them since they make so much profit off of that most expensive fluid in the world.

Thanks for the review,
Glen

Why pay so high a prices for cartridges and refills. I've been buying import (Chinese?) replacement cartridges for years for $3-5 apiece (for black) and have never noticed a difference in print quality or picture quality. I get a "package" deal of 4 black and 2 color cartridges for $24 and $32 (Epson plain and Epson "smart"). There are several web sites that sell the exact items under different names, all for pretty much the same price.

You are paying way too much for your 3rd party replacements!

Tom 'tightwad' Griffis

Windows emulation software that sits on top of Linux (eg WINE) isn't too reliable when you try run Windows compatible stuff on it. This is mainly due to the fact that the published Windows API spec isn't exhaustive and complete. Consequently a lot of guess work is required when coding the emulator.

Now that the EU has forced MS to release it's Window's source, could this result in near perfect Windows emulation software?

I think Google should get back at Billionaire Bill for his robot jibe and make a free "Windows compatible" OS. After all MS is trying to steal Google's market share. Why shouldn't Google do the same to Bill? Now that would be funny.

Raed (Comp Sci student)

AMD sales soar by 46 per cent

Adamson I just wanted to say great article. Well written, very funny and informative. About as much granularity (details) as I need.

Cheers,
Derek

Cores

Mr. Magee

Very good coverage from all the Inqsters on this perennial topic. You guys are good on the tech end, as are a lot of the tech hacks. One thing I think is getting under the radar is part of the AMD strategy with dual core.

It costs a good bit of cash for every cpu space on a disk of silicon that goes through production.

As a manufacturing business you want to ship every possible part to your (in their case) slavering hordes of customers. With dual core you have the possibility that at least one of the two cores will turn out and you can sell that particular bit of silicon at the lower end of your produce spectrum instead of throwing it in the trash.

With their demand so high this means they can essentially sell their production failures probably at least at cost. Is this not what Intel has been doing with the "celeron" lines?

Those cpus are all trash from other lines right? This probably means that the AMD cpu lines that are half a dual core will continue to be sold forever, well almost forever.

Art Horn

Intel claims Itanium eating RISC competitors

After seeing the pretty diagrams I read the following paragraph:

He also said that Intel is on track for the introduction of its delayed "Montecito" dual core Itaniums - probably around the middle of this year. Montvale and Tukwila are described as "future platforms" post 2006.

as He also said that Intel is on CRACK for the introduction of its delayed "Montecito" dual core Itaniums - probably around the middle of this year. Montvale and Tukwila are described as "future platforms" post 2006.

Name supplied

You can make the numbers say whatever you want. As for me, I'd say that the Itanium is on a shallow increase line, while the Sparc is growing three times better in the last quarter, and overall growth is almost twice as strong.

Obviously, if you're Intel, you don't like my version.

Pascal

Note that it is expressed in terms of % revenues of markets that are, I believe, shrinking somewhat. That is, if year 1, I receive $100 for goods and my competitor receives $1000, and year 2 I also receive $100, but my competitor receives $500, I've gone from 10% to 20% by this measure, although my sales haven't changed.

"growth" of 10% -> 20% makes a $0 change much more impressive, doesn't it?

Ah, how to lie with PowerPoint!

Name supplied