It's grey and overcast here right now, so I'm unlikely to be videoing my CISS in full flight today. But I can comment on the ink quality as against that of the Epson Claria inks supplied with the printer.
It's always a bit of a gamble using 'compatible' products, particularly with ink, where it's simply impossible to assess the permanence of the results. I have however been using compatibles for the last 10 years now, almost exclusively for photographic work, and at this point my earliest prints have lasted quite as well as those printed with OEM ink. One of the other problems with compatibles is shifting ink formulations; it's difficult to be certain that the ink you buy one month is going to be the same as the one you'll get the next. Not least this is because UK distributors can start to source from a different supplier, or simply because branding on these generic Chinese products is always a little on the vague side. But again, I can say that I've not experienced any problems whatever so far.
When I am printing photos, I tend to normally print on the same media, and to use the same printer settings, which at least produces consistent results. And I think that the media is a far bigger factor in determining the final quality of the print than the ink. I use Epson Premium Glossy paper, and get excellent results with it. I prefer to have my printer set for 'standard' rather than the Epson 'vivid' default. And if the ink dictated it, I would tweak the colour balance for the best result. I print at 'Photo' rather than 'Best Photo' quality; it uses a hell of a lot less ink for an absolutely minimal drop in quality.
So how does the 'Colorfly' ink that came in my CISS compare with the Epson Claria? Remarkably well, actually. I have done several identical A4 prints with both inks, and the compatible ink colours are far more accurate than the Epson. The Claria has a pronounced magenta bias, which is clearly visible in flesh tones and light areas, and probably not quite enough yellow, as greens lean slightly towards the turquoise. This could of course though be dialled out. The Claria colours are also excessively saturated although most people tend to favour this; I actually prefer a more natural appearance. If I wanted stronger saturation with the compatible ink I would simply revert to the 'vivid' setting on the printer. So I'm happy, and I suspect most other users would be too.
Digressing slightly, I have been looking at various reviews and seeing repeated comments about ink consumption and the perception that there's a benefit of having individual ink cartridges. But is there any benefit? I certainly thought so when I decided to buy an R300, but now I rather suspect that it is actually the reverse. Firstly it seems to me that the Epson chips calculate ink consumption on the basis that you are producing prints with an average colour balance, that is to say that they don't actually measure your ink usage. There's only one way to definitively test this hypothosis; start with a full set of cartridges and repeatedly run off plain yellow prints. Either the yellow cartridge will empty while the others remain full, or they will all 'empty' at the normal relative rates (maybe I'll try one day). So your individual cartridges could be showing as empty when they are in fact completely full. And secondly, ink consumption is heaviest when a cartridge is replaced, as the ink supply to the head re-primes. And this priming draws off ink not only from the new cartridge, but from the partially-used cartridges that are in situ as well. So replacing a set of six cartridges on six different occasions draws off six times the amount of ink.
Priming the print head is done by pumping ink through the head, and out into a waste pad at the back of the computer. People who fit an external waste ink trap are always surprised by the amount of ink discarded in this process; something approaching 5mls. As a guestimate I would say around 10% of the content of the cartridge. And now that I've done the maths, I would say that a combined colour cartridge probably represents significantly better value than a set of individuals, as well as being far less hassle in terms of cartridge changing. These printer manufacturers; never miss a trick, do they?
I found a curious Epson Printer Support blog (I've linked to their R285 review). Despite its unquestioning enthusiasm for all things Epson (most posts sound as if they come straight from Epson's promotional literature) it surely can't be an official site. But I was interested to see that they identified the same magenta tinge in flesh tones with the Claria inks.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Bad Sector
Several months ago, I found that Norton Ghost failed to do one of it's scheduled backups. It was certainly running, because another backup (for a different drive) had backed up perfectly later the same night. I tried running the backups again with the same result. Checking the log confirmed that there was an error on the drive I was unsuccessfully attempting to backup.
I ran 'CHKDSK', but it failed to repair the error. So I ran Acronis Disk Director, which showed a single bad sector on the drive concerned. Now that disk is the original 10-year old 13GB drive, which has clearly exceeded its anticipated lifespan. And Ghost does offer an 'ignore bad sectors during copying' option which would have worked round the problem. But I didn't really want to go down that route; I felt that if I didn't remedy the fault immediately it would soon become beyond satisfactory resolution.
The online doom-and-gloom merchants all seemed to say the same thing: once you get a bad sector you need to change your hard drive pronto, or you'll lose the lot. Not a great problem, I had a recent backup of the disk that was error-free, but I didn't want the hassle or the expense; I seem to have spent too much time over the years tinkering with the innards of my PC for one reason or another. So I wiped the disk (using Disk Director from the boot - it was my C drive that was giving the problem), and then reformatted. Disk Director now showed the disk as error-free, and a restore from the Ghost image had everything back as it had been the week before. I only keep software on my C drive, so nothing lost from the seven days since that backup was made either. (Ed. See update below; wiping the unused portion of the drive is all that is required).
Well, that was 6 months ago, and the old Fujitsu hard drive is running as well as ever with no more problems at all. But this did encourage me to rethink the demands I place on the disk in terms of sheer usage. I haven't run the disk defragmenter since, I don't do full scans for viruses so regularly (just once a week now), and I generally try to be more selective in controlling background applications. I no longer leave Skype logged on as routine.
Do people really need to defragment their drives as often as many do? I doubt it somehow. Hardened games players may benefit from the increased speed but I doubt if the normal user notices any difference. And most people who defrag are doing so in the hope that it will solve other problems, such as the one that Microsoft Updates inflicts.
Changing the subject, the CISS is in my printer and working well. As soon as there's enough natural light to video it in action, I'll post in detail about the installation.
UPDATE: Since posting the above I have had two further bad sectors show up, on two different partitions across two further hard-drives. In each case, I have found that wiping the 'unused' section of the partition concerned cured the problem without any file removal whatever; clearly the problem lies (in my case at least) with the way the disks are storing the fragments of deleted files. For those that lack a disk wiping utility, I recommend Eraser by Heidi (a free download). It's probably the benchmark for such software. I'm using the 5.8.6 Beta with no problems whatever; I had to try several mirrors before I was able to get one that would actually give me the proper download (most but not all of those listed are free sites, so you don't need to pay).
I ran 'CHKDSK', but it failed to repair the error. So I ran Acronis Disk Director, which showed a single bad sector on the drive concerned. Now that disk is the original 10-year old 13GB drive, which has clearly exceeded its anticipated lifespan. And Ghost does offer an 'ignore bad sectors during copying' option which would have worked round the problem. But I didn't really want to go down that route; I felt that if I didn't remedy the fault immediately it would soon become beyond satisfactory resolution.
The online doom-and-gloom merchants all seemed to say the same thing: once you get a bad sector you need to change your hard drive pronto, or you'll lose the lot. Not a great problem, I had a recent backup of the disk that was error-free, but I didn't want the hassle or the expense; I seem to have spent too much time over the years tinkering with the innards of my PC for one reason or another. So I wiped the disk (using Disk Director from the boot - it was my C drive that was giving the problem), and then reformatted. Disk Director now showed the disk as error-free, and a restore from the Ghost image had everything back as it had been the week before. I only keep software on my C drive, so nothing lost from the seven days since that backup was made either. (Ed. See update below; wiping the unused portion of the drive is all that is required).
Well, that was 6 months ago, and the old Fujitsu hard drive is running as well as ever with no more problems at all. But this did encourage me to rethink the demands I place on the disk in terms of sheer usage. I haven't run the disk defragmenter since, I don't do full scans for viruses so regularly (just once a week now), and I generally try to be more selective in controlling background applications. I no longer leave Skype logged on as routine.
Do people really need to defragment their drives as often as many do? I doubt it somehow. Hardened games players may benefit from the increased speed but I doubt if the normal user notices any difference. And most people who defrag are doing so in the hope that it will solve other problems, such as the one that Microsoft Updates inflicts.
Changing the subject, the CISS is in my printer and working well. As soon as there's enough natural light to video it in action, I'll post in detail about the installation.
UPDATE: Since posting the above I have had two further bad sectors show up, on two different partitions across two further hard-drives. In each case, I have found that wiping the 'unused' section of the partition concerned cured the problem without any file removal whatever; clearly the problem lies (in my case at least) with the way the disks are storing the fragments of deleted files. For those that lack a disk wiping utility, I recommend Eraser by Heidi (a free download). It's probably the benchmark for such software. I'm using the 5.8.6 Beta with no problems whatever; I had to try several mirrors before I was able to get one that would actually give me the proper download (most but not all of those listed are free sites, so you don't need to pay).
Saturday, 27 October 2007
Chain Mail, Phishing....
A brief note to explain why I don't like chain mail. People who send you chain mail share your email with an indeterminate number of people you don't know. And sooner or later your email passes into the public domain, and you find yourself bombarded with spam. And while most spam filters these days are pretty good at blocking it, you still have to check your 'junk' box to make sure nothing legitimate has got misdirected. In short, it's a pain.
So, for some time now, I've not passed it on, and sent polite 'No, thanks' notes to people who send it to me. But sooner or later someone else sends me one. So I'm putting a signature on my mail now telling people I don't welcome it. "I don't share my email with people I don't know. If you send me chain mail you're sharing it for me". I hope it doesn't sound rude....
As I've said before, everyone needs at least two email accounts. One should be used with friends and people you trust to respect your privacy; the other for everything else. My 'public' email gets loads of spam, but my private one hasn't had any this far (there, I've tempted fate, haven't I?).
The Velez-Diaz saga needs rounding off too. Their site reappeared, and this time a 'whois' actually gave the name, address, telephone, and email for Joanna Velez-Diaz, who was most surprised to hear from me. But it does seem that the site is legitimate, and the phishing pages were hacked into the site.
Finally, a mystery. Well a mystery to me that is; most computing bods will know exactly. I've seen phishes recently that have concealed code at the bottom (using white text on white background). It all looks rather like the stuff that comes up when you get the infamous BSOD, and no doubt has some malign intent, should you be foolish enough to open the email in say, Outlook, rather than using a web-based mail. But if you're passing by and know exactly what it does, please post a comment; I'd love to know. This, for example, was hidden at the end of a recent 'Royal Bank of Scotland' phish :
0x4228, 0x72761993, 0x40 start, tmp, update, NGL, XWBR 0x93889253, 0x26883050, 0x093, 0x4, 0x836, 0x267, 0x5, 0x79, 0x62 0x907, 0x0, 0x98175715, 0x96744278, 0x694, 0x7766 S5E: 0x059, 0x811, 0x42019273, 0x02119710, 0x6959, 0x4, 0x096, 0x86479479, 0x6544, 0x78, 0x75844392, 0x00, 0x447, 0x88, 0x921 0x342, 0x84, 0x00, 0x48622110, 0x70, 0x1208 source: 0x617, 0x33, 0x3560, 0x1, 0x211, 0x723, 0x2, 0x65, 0x49118100, 0x92, 0x84090947, 0x91769642, 0x12, 0x0100, 0x92263527 OBD: 0x536, 0x1214, 0x28 0x986, 0x9, 0x3
So, for some time now, I've not passed it on, and sent polite 'No, thanks' notes to people who send it to me. But sooner or later someone else sends me one. So I'm putting a signature on my mail now telling people I don't welcome it. "I don't share my email with people I don't know. If you send me chain mail you're sharing it for me". I hope it doesn't sound rude....
As I've said before, everyone needs at least two email accounts. One should be used with friends and people you trust to respect your privacy; the other for everything else. My 'public' email gets loads of spam, but my private one hasn't had any this far (there, I've tempted fate, haven't I?).
The Velez-Diaz saga needs rounding off too. Their site reappeared, and this time a 'whois' actually gave the name, address, telephone, and email for Joanna Velez-Diaz, who was most surprised to hear from me. But it does seem that the site is legitimate, and the phishing pages were hacked into the site.
Finally, a mystery. Well a mystery to me that is; most computing bods will know exactly. I've seen phishes recently that have concealed code at the bottom (using white text on white background). It all looks rather like the stuff that comes up when you get the infamous BSOD, and no doubt has some malign intent, should you be foolish enough to open the email in say, Outlook, rather than using a web-based mail. But if you're passing by and know exactly what it does, please post a comment; I'd love to know. This, for example, was hidden at the end of a recent 'Royal Bank of Scotland' phish :
0x4228, 0x72761993, 0x40 start, tmp, update, NGL, XWBR 0x93889253, 0x26883050, 0x093, 0x4, 0x836, 0x267, 0x5, 0x79, 0x62 0x907, 0x0, 0x98175715, 0x96744278, 0x694, 0x7766 S5E: 0x059, 0x811, 0x42019273, 0x02119710, 0x6959, 0x4, 0x096, 0x86479479, 0x6544, 0x78, 0x75844392, 0x00, 0x447, 0x88, 0x921 0x342, 0x84, 0x00, 0x48622110, 0x70, 0x1208 source: 0x617, 0x33, 0x3560, 0x1, 0x211, 0x723, 0x2, 0x65, 0x49118100, 0x92, 0x84090947, 0x91769642, 0x12, 0x0100, 0x92263527 OBD: 0x536, 0x1214, 0x28 0x986, 0x9, 0x3
0x8396, 0x83, 0x36789709, 0x22, 0x3380, 0x4, 0x2, 0x74, 0x770, 0x087 DYX6: 0x3, 0x2, 0x11434130, 0x86353061, 0x0, 0x54717057 J5LB: 0x2, 0x78974884, 0x433, 0x91877241, 0x4, 0x81, 0x713, 0x836, 0x87301466, 0x6421, 0x34, 0x35, 0x8, 0x9569 dec stack TFRG Q8II serv cvs CWSM 04O HG1I. 0x7, 0x56, 0x1, 0x990, 0x6843, 0x14 OZ3: 0x4, 0x16, 0x71503439, 0x3589, 0x1310, 0x27862888, 0x967, 0x74, 0x5200, 0x4672, 0x9463 create, update, P2H. update: 0x319, 0x64587121, 0x9568, 0x67, 0x20503463, 0x1 0x262, 0x04, 0x024, 0x4, 0x4, 0x1009, 0x0, 0x5, 0x286, 0x51 0x3227, 0x36552697, 0x2, 0x2200, 0x580, 0x90240837, 0x96, 0x2097, 0x4077, 0x93474775, 0x069, 0x8, 0x7866
0x02, 0x7106, 0x39556455, 0x5, 0x07, 0x1509, 0x41, 0x7111, 0x651, 0x23524145, 0x467 dec: 0x466 0x37773781, 0x547 0x0, 0x3, 0x62, 0x7004, 0x72, 0x29844702, 0x27255691, 0x301, 0x2, 0x3, 0x1, 0x4604, 0x4077, 0x82034915 CSJ, stack, hex, Y46I, include0x40, 0x140, 0x56136335, 0x98, 0x483, 0x09, 0x72520667, 0x6806, 0x4169, 0x82858326, 0x55183934, 0x83269347 0x12, 0x14, 0x2, 0x71, 0x33, 0x99 0x75210624, 0x0, 0x36, 0x7, 0x1, 0x8, 0x9384, 0x37941281, 0x7, 0x9, 0x254, 0x426, 0x1 rev TLAS tmp interface J0GL UAV6 stack engine 0x814, 0x20668964, 0x000, 0x545, 0x5, 0x09, 0x34526887
Any ideas?Tuesday, 23 October 2007
A New Printer
My old inkjet printer (Epson R300) reached the end of the road recently, and I've had to do a bit of thinking about where I want to go with a replacement. It's used mainly for printing photos; I have an Apple Laserwriter and an old Canon BJC210 which cover very well for letters etc.
The choice is a straightforward one in that it's between Epson and Canon, both on grounds of print quality and running costs. Running costs? Yes, both horrendous if you stick with OEM ink cartridges, but very easy to find cheap alternatives that from my previous experience produce entirely acceptable results. But it's a difficult choice in that I really want to step up to a machine that prints larger than A4 (so probably A3+), but then economics come into play. If I'm going to spend considerably more on a printer, I want to know that it's of more substantial construction, and of greater life expectancy, than the cheap A4 machines.
I also want to fit a Continuous Ink Supply system. I do a lot of photographic printing, and constantly having to exchange the cartridges is a real pain, as well as wasting an absurd amount of ink. So in the end I decided to go with another cheapie, which will give me an opportunity to see how I get on with a CISS, and to stick with Epson for now simply on the basis of 'better the devil you know...'
So it's the Epson R285, a very reasonable £62, and it's just arrived. It's a relatively compact printer, far neater in appearance than the R300. It's a lot easier to get the top off too, if you're like me and like to have a good look at the innards. And the first real change I notice is that it no longer uses wiper pads at either end of the carriage track. The ones in the R300 (sponge at the left end, felt at the right) were a real pain; they didn't drain nearly quickly enough and would deposit ink on the lower side of the print head where it would drip on the paper if you did too large a print job at one go. Then there's the waste pad at the rear, far larger than the one in the R300 which implies a considerably longer service life. The tube for the waste ink is really easily accessible though a small clip-on hatch at the rear, which makes it very easy to connect your own ink trap. And the shorter CD/DVD printing tray looks like a definite improvement, as it no longer runs out through the rear of the printer.
I don't like the new-style front tray. It's fussily overcomplicated and invites damage by not closing with a single pivot. The refusal to print unless the lid is closed is pointless at best. And the manual on the CD is an absolute joke, with less info than the stuff on the (very clear) get-yourself-started sheet that you get.
Well, it's up and running, and the print quality is excellent. The CISS system has arrived, but I'm going to use the bulk of the supplied Epson cartridges first, before I connect that up. It'll give me an opportunity to realistically assess the quality of the ink that has come with the CISS; I can always top up with another brand if I don't like it.
Once I've fitted the CISS I'll post a few photos, so that the curious can see how exactly it goes in; I've avoided using one before because the early systems appeared very Heath Robinson, but the latest generation certainly seem very neat indeed.
The choice is a straightforward one in that it's between Epson and Canon, both on grounds of print quality and running costs. Running costs? Yes, both horrendous if you stick with OEM ink cartridges, but very easy to find cheap alternatives that from my previous experience produce entirely acceptable results. But it's a difficult choice in that I really want to step up to a machine that prints larger than A4 (so probably A3+), but then economics come into play. If I'm going to spend considerably more on a printer, I want to know that it's of more substantial construction, and of greater life expectancy, than the cheap A4 machines.
I also want to fit a Continuous Ink Supply system. I do a lot of photographic printing, and constantly having to exchange the cartridges is a real pain, as well as wasting an absurd amount of ink. So in the end I decided to go with another cheapie, which will give me an opportunity to see how I get on with a CISS, and to stick with Epson for now simply on the basis of 'better the devil you know...'
So it's the Epson R285, a very reasonable £62, and it's just arrived. It's a relatively compact printer, far neater in appearance than the R300. It's a lot easier to get the top off too, if you're like me and like to have a good look at the innards. And the first real change I notice is that it no longer uses wiper pads at either end of the carriage track. The ones in the R300 (sponge at the left end, felt at the right) were a real pain; they didn't drain nearly quickly enough and would deposit ink on the lower side of the print head where it would drip on the paper if you did too large a print job at one go. Then there's the waste pad at the rear, far larger than the one in the R300 which implies a considerably longer service life. The tube for the waste ink is really easily accessible though a small clip-on hatch at the rear, which makes it very easy to connect your own ink trap. And the shorter CD/DVD printing tray looks like a definite improvement, as it no longer runs out through the rear of the printer.
I don't like the new-style front tray. It's fussily overcomplicated and invites damage by not closing with a single pivot. The refusal to print unless the lid is closed is pointless at best. And the manual on the CD is an absolute joke, with less info than the stuff on the (very clear) get-yourself-started sheet that you get.
Well, it's up and running, and the print quality is excellent. The CISS system has arrived, but I'm going to use the bulk of the supplied Epson cartridges first, before I connect that up. It'll give me an opportunity to realistically assess the quality of the ink that has come with the CISS; I can always top up with another brand if I don't like it.
Once I've fitted the CISS I'll post a few photos, so that the curious can see how exactly it goes in; I've avoided using one before because the early systems appeared very Heath Robinson, but the latest generation certainly seem very neat indeed.
Saturday, 20 October 2007
Automatic Updates - End of the Story?
Sorry, it's been some time since I posted last. In one sense that's because there didn't seem much left to say on the Automatic Update thing; I turned them off and my PC stopped freezing, period.
Acquaintances I've given the same advice to have all had the same 100% success. But the reason for all this remains difficult to understand. When I do a manual update, Microsoft search my computer for less than 10 minutes before offering me a full list of priority and other updates. And my PC doesn't freeze up while it's doing it. With Automatic Updates however the search takes far longer and the computer often freezes solid. So why? It doesn't happen with new computers, and it never used to happen to older ones either. Could Microsoft be subtly encouraging us to trade our old machines in?
I've also dealt with my antivirus software, which I had identified as a potential culprit but wasn't. I originally bought Norton Systemworks Premier 2005, and my subscription for the antivirus finally expired a couple of months ago. I briefly looked at renewing, but when I saw the fee they wanted, considerably more than I'd need to pay to buy their antivirus new from say Amazon, I baulked. And their UK fees are nearly twice those charged for US customers! So I've downloaded the free Antivirus software from Grisoft; it's had fantastic write-ups in the computing press and works well. No doubt everyone else has known about it for ages, but I didn't.
I suspect that Norton and McAfee make the bulk of their profits on the back of high subscription renewal fees, relying on subscriber inertia. And I also wonder if half those messages they pop up on your screen are primarily intended to encourage you to think how effective their product is. I must say though that a lot of the other software in my Systemworks 2005 package is really useful. I make regular use of Ghost, WinDoctor, CleanSweep, and WipeInfo. But they're all subscription-free, and the builds are old enough not to overstress an older PC like mine.
Acquaintances I've given the same advice to have all had the same 100% success. But the reason for all this remains difficult to understand. When I do a manual update, Microsoft search my computer for less than 10 minutes before offering me a full list of priority and other updates. And my PC doesn't freeze up while it's doing it. With Automatic Updates however the search takes far longer and the computer often freezes solid. So why? It doesn't happen with new computers, and it never used to happen to older ones either. Could Microsoft be subtly encouraging us to trade our old machines in?
I've also dealt with my antivirus software, which I had identified as a potential culprit but wasn't. I originally bought Norton Systemworks Premier 2005, and my subscription for the antivirus finally expired a couple of months ago. I briefly looked at renewing, but when I saw the fee they wanted, considerably more than I'd need to pay to buy their antivirus new from say Amazon, I baulked. And their UK fees are nearly twice those charged for US customers! So I've downloaded the free Antivirus software from Grisoft; it's had fantastic write-ups in the computing press and works well. No doubt everyone else has known about it for ages, but I didn't.
I suspect that Norton and McAfee make the bulk of their profits on the back of high subscription renewal fees, relying on subscriber inertia. And I also wonder if half those messages they pop up on your screen are primarily intended to encourage you to think how effective their product is. I must say though that a lot of the other software in my Systemworks 2005 package is really useful. I make regular use of Ghost, WinDoctor, CleanSweep, and WipeInfo. But they're all subscription-free, and the builds are old enough not to overstress an older PC like mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)