<<My next printer demand list will be as follows...
1 is this printer ok if not used say...1 week....4 weeks etc. what volume of printing has this machine been tested for to establish min/max production levels for consumers ?..what written independent evidence do you have (manufacturer) to substantiate your claim..is this printer rated for durabilty like say fridges are for energy efficiency
2 Is there a review site where i can readily see the experiences to date for this printer from existing consumers...why not ?
3 is there a software package (windows/mac )available to activate the printer for "away " periods...that exceed your recommended levels of dormancy....
4 are my ink requirements properly matched to this printer...are there unnecessary ink options with this printer..
If so ...why so..was i asked what my ink requirements are ? Were ink recommendations offered to me ?
5 is there an ink agitation program built in
6. Can i easily maintain the park station wiper blade dampers myself and what are the costs to me for these parts.
7 in the event that a nozzle permanently blocks ....can this printer fall back to replacing a blocked nozzle with a spare standby built-in nozzle unit....
8 most importantly, is the nano nozzle technology being serviced by an unwashed and unmodified wiper blade system ...or has the nano technology been (modified )downgraded to match existing hygiene standards ?
9 is there a reputable tried and tested clog busting solution available for purchase ...what is the MSDS for this solution and what is the cost of it..what written evidence is there that this solution is reliable>>
I think your list is basically a good one, though I don't understand #8. I believe the emphasis on throughput is very important because I too think there are grounds to attest that there hasn't been enough advance disclosure in this area, and from everything one reads including personal experience there are whole categories of printers for which it will be a primary performance issue given the characteristics of the technologies involved. A few comments on some of the others:
For #2, it means you won't be an early adopter, because I think one needs months of time to pass and evidence to accumulate before getting a reliable fix on the clogging issue. For example, I reviewed the 4900 on this site when it first came out - the objective was to get an early evaluation published primarily about machine usability and print quality, knowing full well there are certain usage issues that simply can't be reviewed because not enough time has passed.
For #4, the only dormant ink most users would experience is one of the two Blacka. If one is always using papers that require the same vintage of black, it doesn't really matter what happens to the other black or its channel - if you don't use it. One of these days when I want to punish myself I should try firing up Matte Black to see what happens, because I don't print on matte papers any longer. The other inks all get used, not evenly, but all used. So whether this is a real issue, I'm not sure.
For #5, one needs to distinguish between deal-breakers and "nice to have" features. I think the primary issue of throughput falls into the former category, but container agitation the latter, because when the machine is off we can simply remove each cartridge, shake it around a bit and put it back. Regular usage of the printer probably makes this unnecessary (I've not done it through 5 Epson professional printers in 13 years), but for really irregular usage I would think it prudent to do so before each printing session. Who knows, perhaps stuff settles.
Re #7, as things stand, you would not be looking at an Epson printer - you would be buying one of the Canon IPF models, because their heads do exactly that. I wonder whether Epson could build such redundancy into its head technology - one of these things they must have thought of because the competition does it, but again only they can answer to.
Re #9, I think for people experiencing really stubborn clogs this is an important point, and I don't understand why it takes 3rd party developers to market these solutions while the manufacturers don't. It seems that from much of what one reads, the most effective and permanent cleaning requires running solution right through the head. This means substituting a cleaning cartridge for an ink cartridge, pumping it through the channels, re-substituting the ink for the cleaning cartridge, and then recharging the channel so the lines are full of ink. I think it would be a bit challenging for manufacturers to design a user-friendly approach to running such cycles, but I for one would encourage it - despite the steps involved, has to be a lot cheaper and a lot less trouble than head replacement.