Hi,

Win XP Home.

I thought I'd write this while the PC is undergoing a large virus scan,

Question, the above printer, work just fine, although the software that came with it gave me grief but thats all sorted now.

The orignal ink cartriges emptied pretty quick, no problem thought I, I'll get them refilled, having done that, I then discovered that the printer refused to reconise even the orignals.

I purchased a couple of orignals but they are now getting low, with that in mind, I purchased a couple of remanufactured, high capicity ones from a decent ink cartrige company and a few quid cheaper then orignals.

They arrived today, so I promptly installed them.

Now I was expecting ink levels for both black and colour not to register and this was the case for both cartriges but both worked at first.

I thought I'd print a photo and it was dreadfull, OK I'll run a cleaning cycle but the printer without orignal cartridges won't allow me to this.

Nuts, so I popped the orignals back in, everything was fine.

Not to be beaten, I tried a diffrent approach, I removed the orignals, put back in the remanufactured ones and tried another print option only this time, yep, both remans' are no longer reconised, printer won't print.

Now I've had Cannon, HP, Brother, Epsom and always been able to use compatibles with out any trouble but not with Lexmark it seems

My mistake was removing the remans' after I knew they were working but as I said the colour photo was poor, so I had no choice but i could have left the black cartridge.

Can some one fill me in, ( no pun intended ), as to why refilled orignals won't work and why remans' don't either after being removed and put back and is there anything I can do about it, or do I now have to suffer expensive orignals for the rest of the printers life.

I don't know what to tell you but you are not alone. Many folks have had problems with 3rd Party cartridges not working properly - even cartridges from reputable sources; OfficeMax, Staples, etc. However, going back to OEM and running through calibration and alignment procedures typically rectifies any problems. Perhaps the "compatible" print heads (on those cartridges with print heads) do not quite meet specs, or the ink itself is not of the same caliber. My advice to those folks, stick with OEM cartridges.

Is this Lexmark one of those "buy a computer get a printer for free"? If so, you have nothing to worry about, just get a new printer our use your old one, and get rid of the Lexmark. I got two of those Lexmarks with the last two computers that I bought. As soon as I ran out of ink, I was done with them. I have found out that any ink cartridge that has on-board electronics is bad news, you can not reuse them as easily. My last two Lexmarks had on-board pc boards on their ink containers. Meanwhile, I have been very happy with Cannon. My Cannon has 4 indiviual ink containers. I got a refill kit and have been refilling the Cannon containers without too much problems.

as Digerati says you're not the first and wont be the last to have problems with 3rd Party cartridges not working properly, I've had Xerox and HP and had problems when not using OEM cartridges.

I now use an Epson and use compatibles and so far had no problem (fingers crossed)

this is from 2003, I don't things have changed much

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07...en_times_more/

Thank you all who replied, it apears I'm stuck with OEMs.

It wasn't a buy one get one free, I purchased the Lexmark after a Brother Printer packed up.

The Lexmark software gave me no end of trouble, it's an okish unit a little slow however.

I have been long aware of compatability problems with cartriges but have never experianced it with any of the printers I have owned.

I don't understand why the remanufactured ones worked at first, then when I removed them and then put them back in again, they wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Johanus

.

I don't understand why the remanufactured ones worked at first, then when I removed them and then put them back in again, they wouldn't.

,

The Type of ink containers that have electronics traces attached to them are designed such that it will fail after so much use. This is why the one that are recycled can fail so quickly, they might be at the end of the life, and the trace attached reached its designed life expectency and it failed.

I read somewhere a while back, that some Europian countries where discussing passing laws to disallow such a practice by companices such as Lexmark to make it difficult to recycle their ink containers, in order to minimize impact on the enviorment and landfills. I do not know what is the status of that discussion.

The Type of ink containers that have electronics traces attached to them are designed such that it will fail after so much use.

No they're not! This implies planned obsolescence and that is not the case. Engineers do not design things to fail. Now those that hold the purse strings and make marketing decisions may over-rule the engineers and dictate that cheaper quality materials and manufacturing techniques be used, but to suggest that engineers design parts to fail is ludicrous, and in fact, insulting to those of us who are engineers.

The fact remains ink containers were NEVER designed to be refilled so to blame those who designed them for failing after a refill, or for designing in fail points is simply ridiculous, demonstrates an uninformed position, and frankly, is simply wrong.

http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/.../15/02925/4537
"I have come to realize that recent HP equipment has all been designed to produce cash flow, not to serve the public. HP has taken lessons from GE and Sylvania (light bulbs) about how to engineer a product that is designed to fail after a specific number of hours. HP has taken lessons from General Motors and Ford about how to value engineer a product so that it moves out of the door and mostly holds up for the warranty period but is also engineered to quickly age and fail. HP has taken lessons from the bogus roof repair vultures that take your money for maintenance and service but then high tail when you discover that their service"

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=7114
"But perhaps the judge, the defendant and Lexmark would like to consider this article*, which says the European Union will ban printer firms from introducing proprietary chip technology into their machines.
From 2006, this practice will become illegal, the EU proposes, meaning that printer firms will have to find another way to rip off sell their machines"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,11...1/article.html
"Last year Lexmark began using a chip in some of its cartridges that communicates with the company's printers and verifies that the cartridge is from Lexmark. Without that verification, the cartridge won't work. SCC's Smartek chips mimic the Lexmark chips so third-party cartridges can pose as official ones."

http://www.fixyourownprinter.com/forums/printer/27359
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Georgia woman has sued Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HPQ - news), claiming the ink cartridges for their printers are secretly programed to expire on a certain date, in some cases rendering them useless before they are even installed in a printer."


http://www.rhinotek.com/eurobusiness.aspx
"The machine costs $1,850 but its cartridge sells for a staggering $120. The cartridge was also the first to include a so called smart chip, which triggers messages to users about toner level. The chip also happened to have another benefit for HP in that it made the cartridge difficult to clone. But even this couldn’t stop the remanufactures"

http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php/id;644562533
"In October, a group in Texas filed a lawsuit citing the original Dutch report and charging Epson with using tech*nology to block inkjet cartridges prematurely so that consumers are paying for ink they can’t actually use. "

Originally Posted by Johanus

it apears I'm stuck with OEMs.
I don't understand why the remanufactured ones worked at first, then when I removed them and then put them back in again, they wouldn't.

Looks like Lexmarks "smart chip" is the reason your cartridge did not work.

@joeofeg - You are barking up the wrong tree, and did you even read these articles? You accused engineers of intentionally designing parts to fail prematurely and THAT is what I challenged you on. NOT ONE of these articles support that. All these links do is gripe about how the OEMs are implementing cut-throat business practices to protect their patents and technologies and their share of the market from 3rd party knockoffs.

I don't even have to go looking for opposing articles. YOUR own articles will do nicely to demonstrate my point.

1. Grip2ed -

Originally Posted by joeofeg

http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/.../15/02925/4537
"I have come to realize that recent HP equipment has all been designed to produce cash flow, not to serve the public. HP has taken lessons from GE and Sylvania (light bulbs) about how to engineer a product that is designed to fail after a specific number of hours. HP has taken lessons from General Motors and Ford about how to value engineer a product so that it moves out of the door and mostly holds up for the warranty period but is also engineered to quickly age and fail. HP has taken lessons from the bogus roof repair vultures that take your money for maintenance and service but then high tail when you discover that their service"

Wrote one reader

No comment necessary.

2. The Inquirer -

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=7114"But perhaps the judge, the defendant and Lexmark would like to consider this article*, which says the European Union will ban printer firms from introducing proprietary chip technology into their machines.
From 2006, this practice will become illegal, the EU proposes, meaning that printer firms will have to find another way to rip off sell their machines"

Using proprietary parts is irrelevant. You accused engineers of designing parts to fail. This article does nothing to support your accusations and does not even discuss parts failing.

3. PCWorld -

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,11...1/article.html
"Last year Lexmark began using a chip in some of its cartridges that communicates with the company's printers and verifies that the cartridge is from Lexmark. Without that verification, the cartridge won't work. SCC's Smartek chips mimic the Lexmark chips so third-party cartridges can pose as official ones."

Once again, using proprietary parts is irrelevant. You accused engineers of designing parts to fail. This article does nothing to support your accusations, and again, says nothing of parts failing.

4. Fixyourownprinter -

http://www.fixyourownprinter.com/forums/printer/27359
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Georgia woman has sued Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HPQ - news), claiming the ink cartridges for their printers are secretly programed to expire on a certain date, in some cases rendering them useless before they are even installed in a printer."

Some ding-bat sued McDonald's for selling hot coffee too! This is proof of nothing. We don't know anything of the circumstances here. How long had the printer sat unused? How long had the cartridge been exposed to the air? A chip with a built in expiration date? Come on! You can't seriously believe they could implant a chip with some super secret unbreakable code that would force the system to shut down on a specific date, and no consumer advocate expert has been able to figure that out in all these years? Calling Scully and Mulder!!!

5. Rhinotek -

http://www.rhinotek.com/eurobusiness.aspx
"The machine costs $1,850 but its cartridge sells for a staggering $120. The cartridge was also the first to include a so called smart chip, which triggers messages to users about toner level. The chip also happened to have another benefit for HP in that it made the cartridge difficult to clone. But even this couldn’t stop the remanufactures"

I don't even know why you posted this. It has nothing to do with any parts failing. And again - absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NONE, NO evidence, or even suggestion, of planned obsolescence. Apples and oranges!

6. Arnet -

http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php/id;644562533"In October, a group in Texas filed a lawsuit citing the original Dutch report and charging Epson with using tech*nology to block inkjet cartridges prematurely so that consumers are paying for ink they can’t actually use. "

This is just a he said - you didn't even bother to quote the she said - so I will. Your same article says:

the Dutch call for a boycott was based on a misunderstanding and was withdrawn as soon as the Dutch consumer association was briefed on the technology.

Note where your article also says:

While Canon, Lexmark and HP inkjet cartridges can be run dry, the Epson cartridge must retain a small amount of ink to keep the permanent print head moist to prevent air bubbles forming and causing streaking.

Canon, Lexmark and HP all offer so-called fuel gauges that give low ink warnings, however, they have been criticised as being designed to prompt consumers into prematurely buying replacement cartridge — something all of the OEMs naturally deny.

Now note this:

However, the fuel gauges can be inaccurate if the user hasn’t manually configured their printer to recognise the particular ink cartridge they are using and they often appear when there is still enough ink for dozens more small print jobs.

This article even reported that:

There were cases where poor quality ink would clog print heads or cause other problems but Canon didn’t threaten to void people’s warranty if they used a third party product.

Pretty nice of Cannon, if you ask me.
*****

FTR, I don't support the use of proprietary parts in PCs that claim to support ATX standards, for example, but companies have the right to use non-standard parts all they want - especially where no industry standards have been established. I may not like it, but that is not the engineer's fault. In fact, my colleagues would much rather use standard, off-the-shelf parts if available and if they meet design specifications.

Accuse the business decision makers all you want and I will most likely support your position. But don't accuse the engineers of intentionally designing parts to fail, post a bunch of irrelevant facts and pretend they support your position, then expect us to buy it. Not gonna happen.