Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ausdauer who wrote (9455)	3/4/2000 11:33:00 AM
From: Rocky Reid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

>>I narrowed my choice to either the HP C1000 or the Epson PhotoStylus 750.<< The Epson 750 printer has been the Standard of cheap excellence for printing home digital photos for a year now. However, Epson recently unveiled their newest line of printers, including the Epson 870. This printer lists for $299 and in supposed to be a watershed product for home photo printing. It uses new ink as well for photos that are supposed to age and last as long as film prints. (Up until the 870, inkjet printers faded quickly). As good as the Epson 750 is, the Epsonj 870 is supposed to be that much better. If you haven't already bought the 750, I'd recommend holding out for the 870.

To: Ausdauer who wrote (9455)	3/4/2000 11:49:00 AM
From: DWalmsley	Respond to of 60323

Ausdauer, I really appreciate your taking the time to give me the benefit of your experience. It's funny that you bring up the PhotoStylus 750. I had been considering this model and didn't know if I was being penny wise and dollar foolish. From your comments, it's a very capable unit with an attractive price tag. Thanks again, Doug

To: Ausdauer who wrote (9455)	3/4/2000 4:26:00 PM
From: Tumbleweed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

OT: re the Epson 750 I'd mostly agree with Ausdauers comments, but there are downsides to the 750, which I have. 1) It is pretty slow on black and white text docs, slower than my old Canon printer which was several years older and today would probably cost $50 if you could still buy it. The b&w quality is also not that good unless you have it set to best in which case its also slower of course. 2)It uses a LOT of ink. I have come to the conclusion that I did not purchase a cheap printer, but a device that allows me to buy expensive ink from Epson. 3) The most serious (IMHO) criticism. The print head is in the printer, which means that should they be damaged (by using 3rd party ink, or through infrequent use), you have a problem. If you dont use it that often, then when you do print, it spends some time cleaning the heads, a procedure that uses yet more expensive ink! I understand that with HP printers the print head is in the cartridge, which means a new print head every time, and also means you can experiment with refills without fear. If all you want to do is colour printing, and a fair bit of it, then the only problem IMHO would be the ink cost. For mixed use, I dont think I'd get one again. IN fact, I@m sure I'll end up with a 'workhorse' printer for general use, and thena dedicated photo printer. Mixed use is a compromise. Just to be fair, the colour pictures are excellent. Unless you look at them next to a 35mm you could think they were from a 35mm, and that is on my 1M pixel camera ( 6 x 4 size). Friends are amazed its from a printer. Hope this helps Joe