Digital BW, The Print

> Obviously when I used the term "reliable" I needed some reference frame.
> I have used or am using the 1200, 1280, C84 and 2200 with MIS B&W
> inks. The 1200 and 1280 were run with a CFS.

The CIS/CFS use is a huge factor in reliability.  I stopped using these
devices several years ago.

> I did my purgings and
> nozzle checks religiously. None of the printers had problems ever with
> the original OEM dye inks. With pigment, both the 1200 and 1280 were
> creatures from hell ...


> The 2200 is the most reliable (as in non prone to clogging) B&W unit
> that I have used personally. The C84 comes second, ...

The printers that are designed for pigments are more reliable with MIS
pigments.  So, the 2200 and C84/86 would, I expect, be more reliable than a
1280 or any modern dye printer. 

The most obvious and noticeable difference between a dye and pigment printer
is that the pigment printer runs more automatic cleaning cycles.  While this
"wastes" ink, it may be the price we pay for reliable pigment printing.
What I don't know is if people manually did the same number of cleaning
cycles with a 1280, would it be as reliable as the 2200?

The cart differences have also been significant.  Before the sponge-less
1280 carts, I was about to drop all support for the machine and recommend
against its purchase.  The only problems I've had with the sponge-less carts
may have been due to air leaks into the fill holes when I ran out of
stoppers and tried, unsuccessfully, to seal them with tape.  

But, bottom line, desktop printers made for pigments (Durabrite,
UltraChrome, & Epson Archival inks) appear to do very well with MIS
pigmented inks.  Desktop dye printers have had more problems and may need
more attention.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com