Hoping Canon make a driver update, any chance of it happening?

[teckat]

I still like this Canon other than the 99 page print limit (which I'll get around by sending multiple print jobs) which is beyond ridiculous, there's no reason at all to have put such a limit, other than maybe hope people will buy the next model up to make more money (although this limitation isn't listed anywhere, it does mention the 99 PHOTOCOPY limit which I don't mind at ll, but I had never seen a limit when printing from a PC). If their hope was to make me buy the next model up, instead they just ensured I will never buy another Canon copier (unless they remove the limitation).

JUNK.JPG

[Brian8506]

Horse? Sounds like he needs the clydesdales

[KenB]

Almost ALL MFPs in this range have a 99 copy per job limit. In fact, there are considerably more expensive machines that have the same limitation.

Machines in this market segment simply aren't designed to do the volume that you're looking to do, so it would only be logical to not expect lengthy runs.

Would you expect to be able to drive coast to coast and back in a Yugo without any massive issues? Of course not. The same rationale applies here.

[aab1]

You misread my issue. I'm not talking about the 99 PHOTOCOPY limit, even my HP inkjet has that limit and I don't have a problem with that.

I'm talking about a 99 page PRINT limit (as in printing from a PC), if I do File>Print, 500 copies, I get an error that reads "This printer does not support more than 99 copies" (however, I can print a 500 page document just fine as it's only 1 copy of 500 pages, the limit is on number of copies, not pages printed).

The same printer made by HP doesn't have any limit at all for printing, even a $50 home HP inkjet doesn't have any print limit.

I was stupidly expecting Canon products to be as well made as HP, as I said before I got my lesson and this is my first and last Canon copier.

I always do 1000+ print jobs on my $600 HP business inkjet copier without any problems, I've done 250 000 prints so far on my inkjet, I expected an $800 laser copier to be able to do the same.

BTW this is no physical limitation of the machine, Canon intentionally set a limit in the software driver which is beyond absurd (again, HP has an IDENTICAL copier to my canon and it doesn't have any print limit at all).

Other things I find ridiculous about this Canon copier:
-250 sheet paper tray, most small inkjets hold this much, my HP business inkjet holds 600 sheets, an additional tiny 250 sheet tray costs... $300, as much as buying 6 Canon inkjet printers!
-Scanner only scans one side, ALL HP copiers I've seen have double sided scanners, even the small home models that have an ADF I'm quite sure do double sided scanning

[SCREWTAPE]

You need to post on one of those review forums.

Buy a copier.

[KenB]

I did not miss you issue; I fully understood what you wrote.

The idea is that the print engine isn't designed for long runs or high volumes, as you are asking it to do.

Things can happen during a long that is too long that will compromise print quality, longevity, etc...so the machine needs to "reset" and make some adjustments between runs.

If HP has decided to ignore these "facts of life", that's their decision.

The smaller machines simply aren't designed to be marathon machines. No offense, but if you had a more thorough understanding and appreciation for how the print process works, as the techs on this site do, along with the issues we see every day of the week, perhaps you wouldn't be complaining so bitterly.

If you didn't check the specs before buying this machine, well then maybe next time you will. Specs like these are published for virtually any machine out there.

Now, as Screwtape just said, go out and buy a real copier, and post your rant in a review column, where it belongs.

[Brian8506]

Heres a question. If your inkjet is so mighty and inexpensive to operate, why did you stop using it? And why don't you go back to using it? You seem to think very highly of it.

[aab1]

I did not miss you issue; I fully understood what you wrote.

The idea is that the print engine isn't designed for long runs or high volumes, as you are asking it to do.

Things can happen during a long that is too long that will compromise print quality, longevity, etc...so the machine needs to "reset" and make some adjustments between runs.

If HP has decided to ignore these "facts of life", that's their decision.

The smaller machines simply aren't designed to be marathon machines. No offense, but if you had a more thorough understanding and appreciation for how the print process works, as the techs on this site do, along with the issues we see every day of the week, perhaps you wouldn't be complaining so bitterly.

If you didn't check the specs before buying this machine, well then maybe next time you will. Specs like these are published for virtually any machine out there.

Now, as Screwtape just said, go out and buy a real copier, and post your rant in a review column, where it belongs.

I fully read the specs before buying it as well as many reviews, NOWHERE does it mention a 99 page limit when printing from a computer (it does mention the 99 page limit when PHOTOCOPYING). Also, if it's because it's bad to print long runs, then why does it let me print a 1000 page document in one shot, but not 100 times the same page?

Brian: I absolutely did not stop using my inkjet, the laser is an addition to it, certainly not a replacement at the cost per page of the laser. I got the laser one as it does have a few advantages over my inkjet (water resistant prints and glossy images even on plain paper, other than that the inkjet beats it on every point).