What's wrong with HPs printer

BKKSW said:

Something else to remember.. Windows XP is soon to be released, and
it WILL be something you want

Click to expand...

Bruce Paterson said:

Carlos said:

Hi..

Why i always see comments about epson and olympus printers and
nothing about the HPs... The HPs numerically has more pixels than
the epson..
Is there any problem printing really good photos for sale with
this printers..

Click to expand...

I would not say there is anything wrong... it is just that the
Epsons are better!

I've got an HP 960c, an Epson Photo EX and an Epson Photo 890. On
an A4 print from my E-10 the HP is ok, the EX is much better and
the 890 blows it away... there is no comparison. I enter prints
from the 890, generally between 8 * 10 and A4, printed on Epsons
Heavyweight Matte paper in photographic competitions and regularly
score well against conventially produced film prints. As others
have said in this thread, another benefit is the longevity of the
print.

I use the HP for home office use and DTP.

Click to expand...

Chris said:

One last comment, my HP is a old beast (720c) and the driver is
(compared to the Epson) quite a systemhog. Other than just using
the defaults, altering setting (for instance when printing
envelopes) it is soooooooo slooowwww. Even when theres ample memory
(> 128MB free) and resources. The Epson driver is much snappier. I
have the HP on the LPT port and Epson on USB and have no
interfacing problems.

Click to expand...

Cleave said:

I would completely agree with you about XP except for one thing...
the Microsoft copy protection scheme for ALL of their XP products.
I do not pirate software. In fact I spend thousands of $s each year
on software, but I will NOT buy software that prohibits me from
reinstalling it legally on either a replacement PC or a PC with
significant hardware upgrades. I hope that a lot of end-users feel
the same as me and get Microsoft to eliminate this copy protection
scheme. Note that corporate users of XP will not have this copy
protection scheme, just us home end-users. I've seen more software
piracy at various companies than I've ever seen at private homes.

Whew...

Cleave

BKKSW said:

Something else to remember.. Windows XP is soon to be released, and
it WILL be something you want

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Excal said:

excal said:

One last comment, my HP is a old beast (720c) and the driver is
(compared to the Epson) quite a systemhog. Other than just using
the defaults, altering setting (for instance when printing
envelopes) it is soooooooo slooowwww. Even when theres ample memory
(> 128MB free) and resources. The Epson driver is much snappier. I
have the HP on the LPT port and Epson on USB and have no
interfacing problems.

Click to expand...

Of course the Epson is faster - it's connected on the USB port!
Try the newer HP's that have USB connection and compare - I think
you'll be pleasantly suprised!

Excal

Click to expand...

Terry Sessford said:

Tom Meeks said:

I have had scores of HP printers including three of the original HP
Photosmart printers (which I loved) and two of the HP 1100
PhotoPrinters which I have grown to hate.

The paper handling is my biggest gripe... along with the wheel
tracks that leave faint lines on glossy prints.

Click to expand...

Tom, I used to own an Epson printer and hated it, so about a year
ago I switched to an HP PhotoSmart P1100 as my main inkjet printer
and I have never experienced any paper handling or wheel track
problems, but I am very interested in what you say about the Epson
1280 ...

Member said:

I recently purchased my first Epson Inkjet... the 1280. I can tell
you, as a long-time loyal HP user, that I am blown away by the
radical difference in photo quality between the HP printers and the
Epson 1280. The HP is OK for snapshot quality pictures; but, it
can't even come close to the 1280's depth and richness.

So, for 4x6 quicky prints I still sometimes use the HP PhotoSmart.
But, for all the rest I invariably choose the 1280.

One word of warning. DON'T count on an Epson printer for daily
printing needs. The 1280 is too slow and the cartridges too small
for wasting on Word documents. So, I have BOTH hooked up to my
computer.

Click to expand...

I forget the exact name of the Epson printer I had until a year ago
-- was it a PhotoStylus 750 (did A4 prints and when I bought it a
couple or so years ago it was Epson's top A4 photo printer). The
main reason I hated this printer was because the ink nozzles were
forever getting blocked -- there was a little test pattern that
could be printed to show blocked nozzles -- and I was continually
and repeatedly running the nozzle cleaning function. I also found
that the printer drank ink -- even when I had a period during which
I did very little colour printing (only black text) the colour
cartridge still managed to empty itself! The main culprit seemed
to be the ridiculous start-up ritual that the Epson went through
every time it was switched on, whereby the print head danced
backwards and forwards and there was much noisy whirring for no
obvious reason.

It was such a relief when I replaced the Epson printer with the HP
1100. Compared to the Epson the HP was faster (especially for
text), much quieter (both when printing and at start-up), there was
no silly dance at start-up, ink cartridges lasted MUCH longer (they
seem to last forever in the HP compared to the Epson) and print
quality was generally better (text quality was much better and
photo quality was probably similar to that of the Epson). And,
perhaps most importantly, the ink nozzles of the HP NEVER become
blocked, so no frustrating and wasteful (of both time and ink)
nozzle cleaning sessions every week.

But these days so many good words are said about Epson printers, so
I recently suggested to my wife that we should perhaps investigate
getting a 1280 or similar for photo work -- she responded that
after the hassle and problems we had previously she never wanted to
see an Epson in the house again!! In contrast, the HP has been
completely problem-free and 100% reliable. So, my question to you
Tom, and others, is: have Epson printers improved significantly in
terms of reliability, nozzle blockage and ink-consumption over the
last year or so? Does the 1280 do an irritating print-head dance
when it is switched on? Is the 1280 susceptible to the blocked
nozzle problem?

Thanks for any feedback.

Terry.

Click to expand...

Terry Sessford said:

Tom Meeks said:

I have had scores of HP printers including three of the original HP
Photosmart printers (which I loved) and two of the HP 1100
PhotoPrinters which I have grown to hate.

The paper handling is my biggest gripe... along with the wheel
tracks that leave faint lines on glossy prints.

Click to expand...

Tom, I used to own an Epson printer and hated it, so about a year
ago I switched to an HP PhotoSmart P1100 as my main inkjet printer
and I have never experienced any paper handling or wheel track
problems, but I am very interested in what you say about the Epson
1280 ...

Member said:

I recently purchased my first Epson Inkjet... the 1280. I can tell
you, as a long-time loyal HP user, that I am blown away by the
radical difference in photo quality between the HP printers and the
Epson 1280. The HP is OK for snapshot quality pictures; but, it
can't even come close to the 1280's depth and richness.

So, for 4x6 quicky prints I still sometimes use the HP PhotoSmart.
But, for all the rest I invariably choose the 1280.

One word of warning. DON'T count on an Epson printer for daily
printing needs. The 1280 is too slow and the cartridges too small
for wasting on Word documents. So, I have BOTH hooked up to my
computer.

Click to expand...

I forget the exact name of the Epson printer I had until a year ago
-- was it a PhotoStylus 750 (did A4 prints and when I bought it a
couple or so years ago it was Epson's top A4 photo printer). The
main reason I hated this printer was because the ink nozzles were
forever getting blocked -- there was a little test pattern that
could be printed to show blocked nozzles -- and I was continually
and repeatedly running the nozzle cleaning function. I also found
that the printer drank ink -- even when I had a period during which
I did very little colour printing (only black text) the colour
cartridge still managed to empty itself! The main culprit seemed
to be the ridiculous start-up ritual that the Epson went through
every time it was switched on, whereby the print head danced
backwards and forwards and there was much noisy whirring for no
obvious reason.

It was such a relief when I replaced the Epson printer with the HP
1100. Compared to the Epson the HP was faster (especially for
text), much quieter (both when printing and at start-up), there was
no silly dance at start-up, ink cartridges lasted MUCH longer (they
seem to last forever in the HP compared to the Epson) and print
quality was generally better (text quality was much better and
photo quality was probably similar to that of the Epson). And,
perhaps most importantly, the ink nozzles of the HP NEVER become
blocked, so no frustrating and wasteful (of both time and ink)
nozzle cleaning sessions every week.

But these days so many good words are said about Epson printers, so
I recently suggested to my wife that we should perhaps investigate
getting a 1280 or similar for photo work -- she responded that
after the hassle and problems we had previously she never wanted to
see an Epson in the house again!! In contrast, the HP has been
completely problem-free and 100% reliable. So, my question to you
Tom, and others, is: have Epson printers improved significantly in
terms of reliability, nozzle blockage and ink-consumption over the
last year or so? Does the 1280 do an irritating print-head dance
when it is switched on? Is the 1280 susceptible to the blocked
nozzle problem?

Thanks for any feedback.

Terry.

Click to expand...

Carlos said:

Hi..

Why i always see comments about epson and olympus printers and
nothing about the HPs... The HPs numerically has more pixels than
the epson..
Is there any problem printing really good photos for sale with
this printers..

I have a 932c wich is really slow but the quality of the print out
looks good to me and for every relative and friend that see my
photos from my Super E-10 camera..

I don't get it!!!

non archival

Click to expand...

Cleave said:

No offense intended but I have to throw in my Microsoft jibe. ;-)

I would completely agree with you about XP except for one thing...
the Microsoft copy protection scheme for ALL of their XP products.
I do not pirate software. In fact I spend thousands of $s each year
on software, but I will NOT buy software that prohibits me from
reinstalling it legally on either a replacement PC or a PC with
significant hardware upgrades. I hope that a lot of end-users feel
the same as me and get Microsoft to eliminate this copy protection
scheme. Note that corporate users of XP will not have this copy
protection scheme, just us home end-users. I've seen more software
piracy at various companies than I've ever seen at private homes.

Whew...

Cleave

BKKSW said:

Something else to remember.. Windows XP is soon to be released, and
it WILL be something you want

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

GageFX said:

The 1270 is FAR better than the HP. I wont even elaborate. It just
is. They dont even compare.

The 777 is my "daily", "whatever I may be printing" printer. It is
a cheap, $70 printer and it prints better photos than the P1100.

If you have nothing daily to compare it to, I guess the HP output
looks pretty good. Compared to the BEST, it is just a sad machine.

GageFX

PeterK said:

Hey Carlos,

I have the Photosmart P1100. I use it for text and photos. Love
it, but would like to go larger than 8x10.

Not a pro so I haven't sold any. Haven't had any refused though.
Several prints I've handed out have convinced people to go digital.

One small gripe - and I don't know if this is common to many
printers: There are tiny tell-tale lines across the photos. Not
lines of ink, but more scores made by paper guides I'm guessing.
Do you have the same problem?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

BKKSW said:

I own and use several printers, my favourite all around printer
being an HP 1220cse.. It's a wide format 13x19, very fast (11ppm
black/9ppm colour), great paper handling (no jams, misfeeds, track
marks, etc, etc), quiet, and can seems to use very little ink
compared to my Epsons. I fail to see any night and day difference
between the two brands in photo quality output, and often I've
asked people pick out which one they think is the best from several
of the printers, and it seems a pretty even split.. Some even pick
the 1220cse over my P400, but I try to forgive them for not wearing
their glasses..

HP has great customer service, a good warranty, etc.. They seem to
be more sturdily built than the epsons also..

I'd narrow it down this way.. If I was going for just one photo
printer only, I'd spend the bucks for the Epson 2000p for the
quality and long life ink/papers.. If $800 is too much for you and
you still want a photo printer only the 1280 is a good choice..
Long ink/paper life applies, but not as good as with the 2000p..

If I wanted the absolute best photo quality and could live with
8x10 paper, the P400 is great..

IF, you wanted the best all around printer for office work, photo
printing, paper handling, wide format, long lasting ink cartridges,
I'd choose the HP 1220cse.. There is also a huge differerence in
office type printing betweent the HP and the Epsons.. The HP is way
ahead in this type of priinting.

If you do choose the HP, I often get the best results by dropping
the Photoret III option, enabling higher printing resolution, and
let PS take over control of the printer.. Since the print heads are
part of the cartridge, you get new ones each time you buy a new
cartridge. When I shipped my things to BKK (by way of a slow boat
to China and who knows where else) it took four months.. The print
head needed no cleaning, or anything right out of the box after
that.. It was about half used, but fired up and started printing a
demo photo for a friend in about 20 seconds..

Something else to remember.. Windows XP is soon to be released, and
it WILL be something you want, so look to see when whatever company
plans to produce a driver for the printer you choose.. So far, my
Windows 2000 HP driver is working great with Wiindows XP, but there
have been problems getting the Epsons to work without little
glitches..

Hope this helps

BKKSW

Carlos said:

Hi..

Why i always see comments about epson and olympus printers and
nothing about the HPs... The HPs numerically has more pixels than
the epson..
Is there any problem printing really good photos for sale with
this printers..

I have a 932c wich is really slow but the quality of the print out
looks good to me and for every relative and friend that see my
photos from my Super E-10 camera..

I don't get it!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Carlos said:

Thanks BKKSW..
So in your opinion the best buy may be the epson 2000p..

Click to expand...

Carlos C. said:

Do you know if there is any problem with the quality using
different papers (Not epson papers)? for example wath about the
Kodak Ultima with 270g/mm?

Click to expand...

Carlos C. said:

Thanks again..

BKKSW said:

I own and use several printers, my favourite all around printer
being an HP 1220cse.. It's a wide format 13x19, very fast (11ppm
black/9ppm colour), great paper handling (no jams, misfeeds, track
marks, etc, etc), quiet, and can seems to use very little ink
compared to my Epsons. I fail to see any night and day difference
between the two brands in photo quality output, and often I've
asked people pick out which one they think is the best from several
of the printers, and it seems a pretty even split.. Some even pick
the 1220cse over my P400, but I try to forgive them for not wearing
their glasses..

HP has great customer service, a good warranty, etc.. They seem to
be more sturdily built than the epsons also..

I'd narrow it down this way.. If I was going for just one photo
printer only, I'd spend the bucks for the Epson 2000p for the
quality and long life ink/papers.. If $800 is too much for you and
you still want a photo printer only the 1280 is a good choice..
Long ink/paper life applies, but not as good as with the 2000p..

If I wanted the absolute best photo quality and could live with
8x10 paper, the P400 is great..

IF, you wanted the best all around printer for office work, photo
printing, paper handling, wide format, long lasting ink cartridges,
I'd choose the HP 1220cse.. There is also a huge differerence in
office type printing betweent the HP and the Epsons.. The HP is way
ahead in this type of priinting.

If you do choose the HP, I often get the best results by dropping
the Photoret III option, enabling higher printing resolution, and
let PS take over control of the printer.. Since the print heads are
part of the cartridge, you get new ones each time you buy a new
cartridge. When I shipped my things to BKK (by way of a slow boat
to China and who knows where else) it took four months.. The print
head needed no cleaning, or anything right out of the box after
that.. It was about half used, but fired up and started printing a
demo photo for a friend in about 20 seconds..

Something else to remember.. Windows XP is soon to be released, and
it WILL be something you want, so look to see when whatever company
plans to produce a driver for the printer you choose.. So far, my
Windows 2000 HP driver is working great with Wiindows XP, but there
have been problems getting the Epsons to work without little
glitches..

Hope this helps

BKKSW

Carlos said:

Hi..

Why i always see comments about epson and olympus printers and
nothing about the HPs... The HPs numerically has more pixels than
the epson..
Is there any problem printing really good photos for sale with
this printers..

I have a 932c wich is really slow but the quality of the print out
looks good to me and for every relative and friend that see my
photos from my Super E-10 camera..

I don't get it!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

BKKSW said:

Carlos said:

Thanks BKKSW..
So in your opinion the best buy may be the epson 2000p..

Click to expand...

It depends on your needs, but for sure it has the highest quality
photo output.. I recently went to a digital photo show and was able
to compare the different printers side by side.. I couldn't believe
it, but there was a display where someone (it had to be company
sponsored) has taken the same photos and printed them out in
different sizes from different brand/model printers.. The 2000p
stood out greatly.. However, I really didn't see a significant
difference between the Epson 1280 and the HP 1220cse (although I
know I'll take flak for that statement)..

Click to expand...

BKKSW said:

BKKSW said:

Do you know if there is any problem with the quality using
different papers (Not epson papers)? for example wath about the
Kodak Ultima with 270g/mm?

Click to expand...

I often use non brand specific papers.. Often you can find bargain
prices and get great results. You've just go to buy a lot of small
lots and print them out side by side, same pic, etc.. And see what
comes out.. No doubt paper is very important..

BKKSW

BKKSW said:

Thanks again..

BKKSW said:

I own and use several printers, my favourite all around printer
being an HP 1220cse.. It's a wide format 13x19, very fast (11ppm
black/9ppm colour), great paper handling (no jams, misfeeds, track
marks, etc, etc), quiet, and can seems to use very little ink
compared to my Epsons. I fail to see any night and day difference
between the two brands in photo quality output, and often I've
asked people pick out which one they think is the best from several
of the printers, and it seems a pretty even split.. Some even pick
the 1220cse over my P400, but I try to forgive them for not wearing
their glasses..

HP has great customer service, a good warranty, etc.. They seem to
be more sturdily built than the epsons also..

I'd narrow it down this way.. If I was going for just one photo
printer only, I'd spend the bucks for the Epson 2000p for the
quality and long life ink/papers.. If $800 is too much for you and
you still want a photo printer only the 1280 is a good choice..
Long ink/paper life applies, but not as good as with the 2000p..

If I wanted the absolute best photo quality and could live with
8x10 paper, the P400 is great..

IF, you wanted the best all around printer for office work, photo
printing, paper handling, wide format, long lasting ink cartridges,
I'd choose the HP 1220cse.. There is also a huge differerence in
office type printing betweent the HP and the Epsons.. The HP is way
ahead in this type of priinting.

If you do choose the HP, I often get the best results by dropping
the Photoret III option, enabling higher printing resolution, and
let PS take over control of the printer.. Since the print heads are
part of the cartridge, you get new ones each time you buy a new
cartridge. When I shipped my things to BKK (by way of a slow boat
to China and who knows where else) it took four months.. The print
head needed no cleaning, or anything right out of the box after
that.. It was about half used, but fired up and started printing a
demo photo for a friend in about 20 seconds..

Something else to remember.. Windows XP is soon to be released, and
it WILL be something you want, so look to see when whatever company
plans to produce a driver for the printer you choose.. So far, my
Windows 2000 HP driver is working great with Wiindows XP, but there
have been problems getting the Epsons to work without little
glitches..

Hope this helps

BKKSW

Carlos said:

Hi..

Why i always see comments about epson and olympus printers and
nothing about the HPs... The HPs numerically has more pixels than
the epson..
Is there any problem printing really good photos for sale with
this printers..

I have a 932c wich is really slow but the quality of the print out
looks good to me and for every relative and friend that see my
photos from my Super E-10 camera..

I don't get it!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Excal said:

Something no-one has pointed out in this thread yet is that Epson
are the only company to built the print heads into the machine.
Everyone else puts them in the cartridge. When the machine is new,
then the Epson may be better, but over time (and not much time
mind) the Epson qualtiy must surely fade. With other
manufacturers, you buy a new cartridge and your heads are new again.

On another note, Epson have also come under critisism in the past
for disabling the print when there is still ink in the cartrdige
and they also tend not to put much ink in them anyway, making the
cost appear cheaper than competitors, when I do not believe this is
so.

Excal

Click to expand...