🚀 go-pugleaf

On 12/12/96 2:59AM, in message <CR7J7PA6V+ryEwot@studio96.demon.co.uk>, "Graham (Canterbury UK)" 
<graham@studio96.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In article <st942432-2711960137360001@129.64.116.77>, Shawn London
<st942432@pip.cc.brandeis.edu> writes
>In article <849050492snz@longley.demon.co.uk>, David@longley.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I have heard so much from different perspectives that it would be 
>> nice  to see it summarised. To date, I have only  had  experience 
>> with the HP 850C and HP Premium Paper and HP Glossy (compared  to 
>> standard photocopy paper). 
>
>I have an HP 855C, and am really thrilled with it.  I have found that even
>on regular paper, the image quality is excellent.  With the speed and
>versatility of this printer line, you cannot go wrong.
>
>I have had very limited experience with the Epsons, but from my
>experience, I must say that I was quite disappointed.   I saw a store demo
>in which the blacks were unacceptably warm for text.  I'm not sure what
>was up with that printer, but it was not even in the same league as the HP
>in terms of output.
>
I have recently bought an Epson Stylus Pro XL+ and I have found the
print quality totally unacceptable on plain paper. The black is not
black and the ink bleeds.  My old Stylus 800+ (b&w) prints on plain
paper as good as the Stylus Pro does on 720 coated paper. Either I have
a duff machine or it's only any good when using Epson paper. My office
has a HP850 any the standard output quality is far superior and at least
3 times faster than the Stylus Pro. 
I have changed ink cartridges and cleaned the heads many times with no
change in quality.  Its possible I have a duff machine but the one at
the shop where I bought it must also be faulty.  But the shop said that
theirs was very old and heavily used. 

Epson said to try another paper but I've tried several now, all of them
with the same results. I think this machine is going back and I'll go
for a HP instead.
-- 
Graham (Canterbury UK)
--
philip@light.softnet.co.uk
Graham very surprised to see you run down Epson no i hav,t got one but two of my photographic friends have 
and printing at 16 x 12 they are getting superb results but use Epson 720dpi paper another two have the A4 
and again superb results yes as a text printer not up to much and yes slow a 16 x 12 can take 45 mins and 
an a4 15 mins but they certainly seem to be the machine if you are looking for photorelistic output. You 
may quite well have a duff one