John Cole wrote: > And HP 9650 with their own inks and paper (75 yrs.)
It is unfortunate that HP have released this data. The HP data, I believe, is based on 'in house' research and was performed under 'sterile' conditions so as to produce a good longevity claim. I believe that there has been / will be a fanfare to release this data to the digital press in Europe. I have heard that most of the press are sceptical and that this could cost HP in the long run, once real life tests start to be reported back. It is unfortunate that HP were the first printer manufacturer to be criticised for the cost of their consumables. I personally feel that they are still trying to shed this image. When you think how much money they must have made from selling to the business sector in the 80's and 90's, it is amazing that someone like Epson could surpass them and gain the market penetration as it is today. I understand that HP are trying to make amends. I can only comment that they are woefully unrepresented in professional photographic circles at the desktop printer level. hth, Mike =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
