> My experience with HP printers (post 2000) has been painful. I was a big > fan of the early HP laserjets which were like tanks.
Until the other week I was really enjoying the HP Color LaserJet 3600n I picked up last December. But the other week I was asked by a client to run off about 400 postcards via MailMerge using data from my DCMS (VFP based) application, as his non-HP laser was on the blink. I ran the first 50 sheets (200 postcards) off, and was shocked to see major smudging throughout the entire run, but increasingly worse as the run went deeper into the sheet count. The postcards were totally unusable. The following Monday I called HP after spending some time the other weekend going through all the cleaning routines, checking other obvious areas that could have caused the problem. So, last Monday I called HP Tech Support (warranty is good through the end of December). After getting bounced around a bit I got in touch with one Tech who suggested I run off another set using regular HP paper (20# bond) to see if it may have been the media thickness that caused the smudging. Those all came out perfectly. She then cheerfully advised the initial print stock specs for the 3600 family of Color LaserJet printers had been a bit aggressive. They reduced the media poundage rating from 58# maximum to 53# due to the kind of smudging I was experiencing. I advised that was not going to do me any good as I had invested in the 3600n specifically for its ColorSphere technology and ability to handle fairly thick media. Further, the postcard stock was only about 35#, still less than the "new rating" of 53# maximum. Yet, this gal was trying to tell me that because of the rating change somehow everything is okay now, and I should have no further problems. Worse, I had already purchased a ream of HP Glossy LaserJet paper for producing color prints, and the particular part # was the same one recommended with the printer's document inserts. I ran a few of those off and got smudging also. Grrrr..... I asked her to have someone call me re: trading the 3600n for a more beefy ColorSphere Color LaserJet that is rated to handle thick media (58#), even at additional cost, and with a trade-in value less than my 3600n purchase price for the toner usage. Thus far, despite me sending an eMail repeating that request this past Wednesday, I have yet to get a response. I have been gathering my documentation that came with the printer in order to take further action if need be. I am very disappointed in the performance of the printer with thicker stock media, but even more so with the lack of timely response by HP. That they initially mis-positioned the capabilities of the 3600n is not my fault. And if it is incapable of performing as presented, and I had purchased the printer based on its claimed specifications and capabilities, I feel I am not being unreasonable in asking for trade credit toward a larger unit. It is not as though I am demanding a full refund, or a free upgrade. Fair is fair, but it has to cut both ways. So, until this issue is resolved, as far as I am concerned, the jury is now out with respect to my current opinion on HP printers, and their willingness to correct this wrong in a spirit of cooperative effort. For the record, I used my trusty, old 1995 era HP LaserJet 4 Plus to complete the project. It printed the postcard stock perfectly. I am so glad I opted to not replace it just because it is over a decade old. I was really hoping to get the same kind of serviceable life from the 3600n, especially since it is a higher end small office laser printer, and harnesses the ColorSphere toner technology. Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Malcolm Greene > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [NF] Printers a-go-go > > > Whil, > > I'm not a fan of multi-function printers. If you want to scan - buy a > scanner. If you want to fax (from your pc), use send2fax.com or similar. > > My experience with HP printers (post 2000) has been painful. I was a big > fan of the early HP laserjets which were like tanks. But the new HP > inkjets just suck (we have 3 or 4 sitting in my basement waiting for our > community's recycling day). HP has been milking its printer reputation > for years now. > > I use an Epson Photo R300 for printing anything that goes to a customer. > Amazing output. Even prints on printable CD's. The downside: much slower > than its advertised speeds and burns through expensive 6 jet (!!!!) ink > cartridges very very fast. I've tried to refill these cartridges using > kits, but the results have been poor and I always end up making a mess. > > What do I use for scrap printing? In a pinch I use our Epson R300 but > most of the time I just go out of my way not to print ... period. > > Malcolm > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
