35 years of printing, they still can't do it right

On 10/23/2015 8:24 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Why is it after 35 years of desktop printers, they're still stupidly
designed?

I was in the middle of a print job and one of the colours ran out
(without it knowing). So I removed the paper to stop it from doing any
more the wrong colour, then opened the door. The ink cartridges were
hidden away. So I closed the lid, inserted some paper, then once it
started going and the cartridges were in the right place, I opened the
lid and placed my finger in the way so they could be accessed. I
changed the cartridge and both LEDs flash at once. Ok, it's upset, so I
turn it off and on again, and it moves the cartridges back and looks
happy. So I print the print job it's forgotten to complete for some
reason, and I then get more flashing, in morse code. I eventually found
this on the internet:

"If the orange LED flashes 16 times (!) followed by the green LED once,
the ink level cannot be detected, and you should press the resume/paper
feed button for at least 5 seconds to continue printing."

How ****ing difficult is it to detect when you change a cartridge, then
simply count how much it's used then assume it's empty?

HUH?? Read your manual! It will tell you what to do --- usually
just one or two button pushes--- to move the ink holder to a position
where all cartridges are accessable. At the point, changing a cartridge
is a trivial task.

On 10/23/2015 10:37 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:33:36 +0100, philo wrote:

On 10/23/2015 08:24 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Why is it after 35 years of desktop printers, they're still stupidly
designed?

I was in the middle of a print job and one of the colours ran out
(without it knowing). So I removed the paper to stop it from doing any
more the wrong colour, then opened the door. The ink cartridges were
hidden away. So I closed the lid, inserted some paper, then once it
started going and the cartridges were in the right place, I opened the
lid and placed my finger in the way so they could be accessed. I
changed the cartridge and both LEDs flash at once. Ok, it's upset, so I
turn it off and on again, and it moves the cartridges back and looks
happy. So I print the print job it's forgotten to complete for some
reason, and I then get more flashing, in morse code. I eventually found
this on the internet:

"If the orange LED flashes 16 times (!) followed by the green LED once,
the ink level cannot be detected, and you should press the resume/paper
feed button for at least 5 seconds to continue printing."

How ****ing difficult is it to detect when you change a cartridge, then
simply count how much it's used then assume it's empty?


My wife and I exclusively use Epson printers, they will not start a job
unless it determines there is enough ink to print it entirely.

So if you print a 100 page document, you could waste up to 99 pages of
ink? Why can't it pause mid document? My Epsons always did. The only
model I can remember is a Stylus Photo 1200.




LOL no


It's a photo printer and we would never do more than one print at a time.


It would be insanity to print a 100 page document on an ink-jet (or even
one page for that matter)...The only way to do that is on a laser printer.

It will never stop due to low toner, it just gets lighted and
lighter...that's all


They have a 30 day return policy IIRC

Easy enough to sell ink on Ebay if you can't. Or get another printer
that uses the same ones.




Why would I sell it on ebay when Epson gave us a 100% refund

that would be senseless.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:21:22 -0500, Pfsszxt wrote:

[snip]

HUH?? Read your manual! It will tell you what to do --- usually
just one or two button pushes--- to move the ink holder to a position
where all cartridges are accessable. At the point, changing a cartridge
is a trivial task.

It can be, but it is also a bother in the middle of a print job.
A print job with double-sided printing makes it especially difficult.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:21:22 +0100, Pfsszxt wrote:

On 10/23/2015 8:24 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Why is it after 35 years of desktop printers, they're still stupidly
designed?

I was in the middle of a print job and one of the colours ran out
(without it knowing). So I removed the paper to stop it from doing any
more the wrong colour, then opened the door. The ink cartridges were
hidden away. So I closed the lid, inserted some paper, then once it
started going and the cartridges were in the right place, I opened the
lid and placed my finger in the way so they could be accessed. I
changed the cartridge and both LEDs flash at once. Ok, it's upset, so I
turn it off and on again, and it moves the cartridges back and looks
happy. So I print the print job it's forgotten to complete for some
reason, and I then get more flashing, in morse code. I eventually found
this on the internet:

"If the orange LED flashes 16 times (!) followed by the green LED once,
the ink level cannot be detected, and you should press the resume/paper
feed button for at least 5 seconds to continue printing."

How ****ing difficult is it to detect when you change a cartridge, then
simply count how much it's used then assume it's empty?

HUH?? Read your manual! It will tell you what to do --- usually
just one or two button pushes--- to move the ink holder to a position
where all cartridges are accessable. At the point, changing a cartridge
is a trivial task.

Why should I have to? Some printers move the cartridges when you open the door, or they are accessible from their park position.

I don't have a manual, most people do not keep manuals, or lose them.

This printer is stupidly designed.

--
Some people are like slinkies, not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:57:44 +0100, philo wrote:

On 10/23/2015 10:37 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:33:36 +0100, philo wrote:

On 10/23/2015 08:24 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Why is it after 35 years of desktop printers, they're still stupidly
designed?

I was in the middle of a print job and one of the colours ran out
(without it knowing). So I removed the paper to stop it from doing any
more the wrong colour, then opened the door. The ink cartridges were
hidden away. So I closed the lid, inserted some paper, then once it
started going and the cartridges were in the right place, I opened the
lid and placed my finger in the way so they could be accessed. I
changed the cartridge and both LEDs flash at once. Ok, it's upset, so I
turn it off and on again, and it moves the cartridges back and looks
happy. So I print the print job it's forgotten to complete for some
reason, and I then get more flashing, in morse code. I eventually found
this on the internet:

"If the orange LED flashes 16 times (!) followed by the green LED once,
the ink level cannot be detected, and you should press the resume/paper
feed button for at least 5 seconds to continue printing."

How ****ing difficult is it to detect when you change a cartridge, then
simply count how much it's used then assume it's empty?


My wife and I exclusively use Epson printers, they will not start a job
unless it determines there is enough ink to print it entirely.

So if you print a 100 page document, you could waste up to 99 pages of
ink? Why can't it pause mid document? My Epsons always did. The only
model I can remember is a Stylus Photo 1200.

LOL no

It's a photo printer and we would never do more than one print at a time.

Ah so what you're meaning is it won't start a PAGE before checking there is enough ink. That's different entirely. All printers either do that, or have enough to spare after the point they say it's run out, or are capable of continuing midpage without leaving a mark.

It would be insanity to print a 100 page document on an ink-jet (or even
one page for that matter)...The only way to do that is on a laser printer.

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Inkjets are drastically cheaper to run than lasers. And 100 pages isn't very much. Unless most of the pages are full of large colour images, it won't take that long.

It will never stop due to low toner, it just gets lighted and
lighter...that's all

A decent laser will tell you it's going to run out.

They have a 30 day return policy IIRC

Easy enough to sell ink on Ebay if you can't. Or get another printer
that uses the same ones.

Why would I sell it on ebay when Epson gave us a 100% refund
that would be senseless.

What part of "if you can't" didn't you understand?

--
What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock?
Spits out the feathers.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:11:55 +0100, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:42:15 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265"
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:37:18 +0100, Wolf K wrote:

On 2015-10-23 11:25, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
[...]
Easily done in software, no cost.
[...]

Programmers and chip makers work for free, is that it?

They only have to do it once. There is no repeating manufacturing cost or raw material cost as there would be if there was a mechanism that did it.

But you would not pay once?

Ok, virtually no cost.

--
Q: If you have a mothball in one hand and another mothball in the other hand, what would you have?
A: The undivided attention of a very large moth!

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:12:20 +0100, Charmed Tuna wrote:

On 2015-10-23 11:50 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:46:57 +0100, Charmed Tuna wrote:

On 2015-10-23 11:30 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:26:39 +0100, Charmed Tuna wrote:

On 2015-10-23 11:02 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:52:37 +0100, Charmed Tuna wrote:

On 2015-10-23 10:38 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:48:31 +0100, Charmed Tuna wrote:

On 2015-10-23 9:24 AM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Why is it after 35 years of desktop printers, they're still
stupidly
designed?

They're not meant to be reliable or last for a particularly long
time;
the companies expect you to keep dishing out money for toners, ink
cartridges or new printers to keep them going. What you _need_ or
_expect_ is of no concern to them.

If a company made one that worked properly, they could charge
more for
it, and put the others out of business as everyone would buy theirs.
Sell it with a 5 year guarantee or something, and state what it
can do
that others can't. Like some car makers do.

I usually resolve my issues with a poor-quality piece of hardware
by no
longer buying from that company. For instance, my wife and I
purchased a
Samsung washer and dryer in 2009 after our wedding. Six years later,
the
washer broke beyond possibility of repair following the dryer's
loss of
its function the year before (reparable though). For me, six years is
unforgivable regardless of the fact that such hardware is no longer
able
to last longer than 10 years. As such, I shall never touch Samsung
products in general again.

The cost of white goods is ridiculous. £250 for a washing machine?
It's just a motor in a box ffs. I can buy a second hand one for £40
that lasts about 5 years. If it breaks, I don't care, it goes in the
skip and I get another. Cheaper to buy a 2nd hand one than to repair
one.

Unfortunately, my wife insists on utilitarian items such as washing
machines and dryers being pretty as well as useful.

How is one prettier than another? Besides, you have a choice of 2nd
hand ones too. Or you could go on Ebay and buy washing machine decal
stickers.

Tell yourself that my wife bought herself a BMW 428i not because it is
better than any other car but because she looks better in it than the
others.

I'm the one driving it now so I don't mind the decision too much.

Haven't you noticed no other drivers let you go first because all BMW
drivers are cocks? :-)

A lot of people stare at my car as I drive by but the people are
generally quite nice.

Every BMW driver I've seen drives around with full beam (or more likely badly adjusted or badly designed dipped beam) headlights on in broad daylight. I take this to mean they are flashing to let me out and pull in front of them.

Some loser whose self-confidence seems to depend
on the quality of his car stared at mine for quite a long time (he was
driving a 328i) and Mercedes drivers often act like dicks to try to make
themselves feel better about having paid more for less but otherwise I
don't encounter too many problems.

You paid more for less than a VW or Audi driver.

--
The only two animals that can see behind themselves without turning their heads are the rabbit and the parrot.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:58:13 +0100, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 10/23/2015 11:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I dunno, maybe more expensive printers could do it.

Easily done in software, no cost.

The printer buffer and its management is not as sophisticated and robust
as you thought.

I read somewhere that Epsons count the drops, and have a microswitch to tell when you've changed the cartridge. This was about a decade ago. No chips on the cartridge, no head on the cartridge, the cartridge was just a plastic tank. Epson Stylus Photo 1200. There is no other way it could have worked out when it was empty.

If your printer was not reliable as before when printing in max. speed,
then you should ask your programmers to modify the printing routine to
handle it.

But then, how about replacing it with a new if not better one?

I expect more from a decent Canon photo printer.

You got page number right?

Different stuff on different pages.


Time to print page numbers then.

No, you misunderstand. Some pages can have just text, some have pictures, some have lots more ink used. So impossible for a human to count how much ink is used.

--
The wife suggested I get myself one of those penis enlargers, so I did.
She's 21, and her name's Kathy.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 20:26:47 +0100, Anonymous wrote:

In article
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Why is it after 35 years of desktop printers, they're still stupidly designed?


[snip]

Buy a decent printer

It's a Canon ip1900, which is meant to be a decent printer.

#firstworldproblems

Please stop using DOS to post to newsgroups.

--
Recent medical journals are now advising doctors that, should they discover a patient has an AOL account, they should refrain from telling the patient they have sugar in their urine.
Studies show these people go home and **** on their cornflakes.

On 10/23/2015 02:07 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
X
Xr.

snip

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Inkjets are drastically cheaper to
run than lasers. And 100 pages isn't very much. Unless most of the
pages are full of large colour images, it won't take that long.

X


snip


Before I got the laser printer I was spending a couple hundred dollars a
year to print out documents...now I spend $30.


I stand by my statement that it's nuts to use an inkjet for such


but carry on

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:12:19 +0100, philo wrote:

On 10/23/2015 02:07 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
X
Xr.

snip

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Inkjets are drastically cheaper to
run than lasers. And 100 pages isn't very much. Unless most of the
pages are full of large colour images, it won't take that long.

X


snip


Before I got the laser printer I was spending a couple hundred dollars a
year to print out documents...now I spend $30.


I stand by my statement that it's nuts to use an inkjet for such


but carry on

A laser is more expensive per page to print text or photographs. Source - me: I've bought several hundred of both for my places of work, and worked out the cost of running all of them. The only reason lasers were ever bought was for speed. Unless you're stupid enough to buy a Hewlett Packard and use genuine ink?

--
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words. On occasion English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James Nicoll, rasfw

On 10/23/2015 3:27 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:12:19 +0100, philo wrote:

On 10/23/2015 02:07 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
X
Xr.

snip

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Inkjets are drastically cheaper to
run than lasers. And 100 pages isn't very much. Unless most of the
pages are full of large colour images, it won't take that long.

X


snip


Before I got the laser printer I was spending a couple hundred dollars a
year to print out documents...now I spend $30.


I stand by my statement that it's nuts to use an inkjet for such


but carry on

A laser is more expensive per page to print text or photographs. Source
- me: I've bought several hundred of both for my places of work, and
worked out the cost of running all of them. The only reason lasers were
ever bought was for speed. Unless you're stupid enough to buy a Hewlett
Packard and use genuine ink?


You are full of BS case closed.

Rene

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:56:59 +0100, Wolf K wrote:

On 2015-10-23 15:07, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
[...]
What an utterly stupid thing to say. Inkjets are drastically cheaper to run than lasers.
[...]

Data?

Easy enough to work out for yourself. I've done it many times in my line of work, and I'm certainly not going to do it again to satisfy your ignorance.

--
"Th on my k yboard has stopp d working"

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:43:29 +0100, Wolf K wrote:

On 2015-10-23 11:51, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:47:13 +0100, Wolf K wrote:

On 2015-10-23 11:37, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:33:36 +0100, philo wrote:
[...]
My wife and I exclusively use Epson printers, they will not start a job
unless it determines there is enough ink to print it entirely.
So if you print a 100 page document, you could waste up to 99 pages of ink? Why can't it pause mid document? My Epsons always did. The only model I can remember is a Stylus Photo 1200.
[...]

No, you could _save_ 99 pages.

What? Yours makes you change the ink when there is 99 pages of ink left in the cartridge, which you've now put in the bin. Every printer I've known prints the 99 pages, waits, then prints the last page with the new cartridge.

Oh, I see. You think that if there's 99 pages left, and you want to
print 100, you can't do it....

Well, I can. Just print 99 pages, replace the cartridge, and print p. 100.

Easy peasy.

Have a good day,

Philo claimed that his printer wouldn't have started the job.

--
REALITY.EXE corrupt. Reboot universe (Y/N)?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:46:59 +0100, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

On 10/23/2015 3:27 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:12:19 +0100, philo wrote:

On 10/23/2015 02:07 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
X
Xr.

snip

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Inkjets are drastically cheaper to
run than lasers. And 100 pages isn't very much. Unless most of the
pages are full of large colour images, it won't take that long.

X


snip


Before I got the laser printer I was spending a couple hundred dollars a
year to print out documents...now I spend $30.


I stand by my statement that it's nuts to use an inkjet for such


but carry on

A laser is more expensive per page to print text or photographs. Source
- me: I've bought several hundred of both for my places of work, and
worked out the cost of running all of them. The only reason lasers were
ever bought was for speed. Unless you're stupid enough to buy a Hewlett
Packard and use genuine ink?


You are full of BS case closed.

Rene

Full set of colour and black cartridges for inkjet - £8. Pages printed - 400.
Full set of colour and black cartridges for laserjet - £45. Pages printed - 1000.
You do the maths.

--
BREAKFAST.SYS halted... Cereal port not responding.