Sorry Duane, I should have told you exaclty what the problems were. But, before I do, I will say that when the heads were clean, the print quality on the Epson was incredible. However, 1. At the time I owned the Espon, the printer heads were part of the machine. They frequently clogged and needed cleaning. The cleaning process was slow, noisy, and used a great deal of ink. It often took multiple cleanings to restore the print. Therefore, I was constantly replacing the print cartridges. 2. It had the annoying habit of adjusting the print quality every time you turned the printer on--this was a noisy, slowwww process. 3. When, I finally got fed up cleaning the printer heads--the time between needed cleanings got shorter and shorter--I sent it back to the company. Luckily it was still under warranty. Unfortunately, 3 months later I had to send it back again. This time it wasn't under warranty. They didn't fix the problem, so I sent it back again. Still no fix. Anyway, I gave up and bought a new HP. At least with HP (the models I've used) the printer head is attached to the cartridge, so you get a new one everytime you load a cartridge--less clogging, less cartridges to buy. Good luck with your decision. Renita On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 11:42 PM, mvance wrote: > My experience with Epson printers has been just the opposite. I have > a 1520 that I have had many years. It is a work horse and it does all > the things I could ever want a printer to do. It still does most of > my printing work. > > When I got a couple of new computers that needed usb printers, I > bought an Epson 2500 and it has worked beautifully since the day I > bought it more than three years ago. > > mj > > >> Duane, >> >> I'll never buy another Epson. The problems I experienced with the >> one I had sends my blood pressure sky high just thinking about. Don't >> do it, don't do it. >> >> Anyway, having said that--I have never owned that model. This is >> just my opinion. I am sure other's will disagree. >> >> Renita >> >> On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 10:45 PM, Duane Murphy wrote: >>