So, I’ve come across four old 3.5" hard drives. Each one has an OS on it—I’m not entirely sure which one, though two are almost certainly Windows XP, if not all four... but honestly, that’s the least interesting part of this. What actually matters is that there are a ton of photos on them, both JPEG and RAW formats. I was wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction regarding an adapter with its own power supply? I need something where I can just plug these HDDs in to pull the photos off and move them over to my current storage drive... any advice would be greatly appreciated. 🙏
Nathan Mitchell3 said:It feels like the Canon G series should actually be more expensive than the Epson models... .
Not really... I mean, the Canon g2400 is actually a solid machine. It features a print head that's easy enough to swap out yourself—any amateur DIYer could handle it at home without needing specialized tools. But honestly, that’s not even the main point. The real kicker is that if the head fails, the replacement cost is minimal compared to buying a whole new printer. Back when I picked up an IP3300 at a local Best Buy for about $167, it was basically the last floor model they had. Now, a new head costs roughly $35 online—sure, you have to deal with the shipping and fees, but you aren't stuck paying some technician's hourly rate just to get it running again (which would easily run you $133 at a repair shop). As for the scanner, it's pretty middle-of-the-road... totally fine for basic stuff, though the software can be a little clunky. It's been working perfectly for me for over five or six years now. Even if the original ink is pricey, it doesn't matter much; you use the Canon, and it delivers those vibrant colors. It's definitely heavier than an Epson, probably because it's built sturdy enough to be shipped in a standard cardboard box across the US without getting trashed... everything considered, it's actually a better value than the Epson L220. (I won't even mention the L210, since Canon has already moved past that, but if we did, the Epson would seem cheaper, even though that model is bulkier than the newer L220) 😁
So, you're suggesting the Epson L series performs so poorly that it can only handle two or three refills? I find that hard to believe... though I haven't personally spent enough time working with Epson to say for sure. You're essentially talking about what happens within the warranty period. If all these models are built on the same foundation, it doesn't quite track why they’d offer an extended warranty on a lighter model like the L220... there's just no logic there in what you're saying. Anyway, let's just leave it at that for now and pick this back up down the road...😁
Look, you’re just being dishonest to cover your tracks. My whole point was about getting an all-in-one machine—something that handles printing, scanning, and copying—because I’ve been wasting money running two separate devices that cost the same as one multifunction unit. Instead, you're offering me a basic printer for the exact same price... and even if I were to ship this to someone out in California, there's zero chance it would arrive the same day. And let's be real, there’s no way you could somehow pull a miracle and get me that specific printer within 24 hours that nobody else in the entire country seems to have, unless you're claiming you have some exclusive monopoly on it 👍... I'll give you credit for having some skill, but you clearly don't know how to actually deliver on it. It doesn't make much difference compared to someone who has no talent at all but still manages to stumble onto the goal every once in a while like a blind chicken hitting a grain of corn 😉
It’s like you’re playing a great game of soccer but missing all the shots... you can run all over the field, but if you don't score, the scoreboard doesn't care. Same thing here. The L210 isn't an option for $300 (based on what I dropped) anymore; instead, you're looking at the L220 for about $383. And once that Canon g2400 finally hits the shelves, expect the price tag to jump even higher. That's when you'll really see which brand treats its customers better... just speaking from experience comparing full-frame versus APS-C Canon cameras🍿
It looks like you’re still mixing up your apples and oranges here. The Canon G1400 is just a printer, whereas the Epson L210 is a full scanner/printer/copier combo—putting it more in the same league as the g2400. Also, could you please point me toward a local shop near me where I can actually find that $200 price you mentioned for an Epson L210? And I mean a brand new one, complete with the original pads and the full warranty included
So, what you're saying is Epson has perfected the print head as this rock-solid component, yet they refuse to change their winning lineup—instead, they just rotate through interns who are easily replaced. They basically leave a weak link in the form of cheap mechanics working alongside that reliable head. On the flip side, Canon has solid mechanics but a weak link in the head itself... I've found that Canon heads are relatively easy for a layman to swap out, but they aren't nearly as cheap as the marketing suggests. For instance, on an IP 3300, they charge about USD 45 for a replacement, when the whole printer originally cost around USD 80. To me, choosing between Canon and Epson for total amateurs is basically picking between a toss-up and a disaster depending on which name sounds better to you. My take? That Canon G line is going to end up being significantly more expensive than the Epson L series... and by a noticeable margin at that.🍿
I've owned a few different Canon printers over the years... some were the older style where you just refilled everything, and others used those cartridge systems with the little chips. Honestly, replacing the print heads or nozzles never really made sense financially for me on either type. With the first setup—the one using standard black and color cartridges—it lasted about three years. The second one, the chip-based cartridge version, hung in there for maybe six. In that first scenario, getting service was just prohibitally expensive... whereas the second way was cheaper, sure, but still a bit of a headache and not exactly cheap. So, if I'm reading this right, it sounds like Epson offers more reliable print heads and inexpensive ink, but the internal mechanics might be less dependable...
Look, I hear what you're saying about that noise... but regarding what Epson is putting out right now with their L series—you were basically calling them out for essentially selling the same machine over and over, claiming it’s just a way to mislead customers. And honestly, it feels like they're lagging behind or just copying others because they lack actual innovation. Meanwhile, Canon is coming at it with their upcoming G series... which is fine, provided it stays cheaper while offering the same or better performance than what's already on the market. So, I'm really not following your logic here. You criticize one manufacturer for certain flaws, then turn around and overlook the exact same issues with another... it's a bit inconsistent. Just give me a clear breakdown of how the print heads actually work between Epson and Canon—the pros and the cons. From what I can tell, Canon makes head replacement a total nightmare (though I suspect there might be more to that story, judging by how they handle their DSLR cameras), whereas with Epson, I haven't seen that kind of headache when it comes to replacing the head. I assume there's a reason for that difference, specifically regarding the G and L series...😉
For years, I relied on my old Canon Pixma + HP ScanJet combo for everything around the house—printing invoices, making business cards, labels for bottling, photos, A4 PDFs, or color handouts for the kids' school projects. I always used decent paper from Walmart, just standard quality stuff, and was pretty happy with how things turned out... except for the constant headache of messing with those tiny chips on the third-party ink tanks. This Epson setup handles all of that and then some, plus it has a 70ml tank without any of those annoying chip issues, whereas the Canon only held about 7ml. I'm curious about those crazy prices you were mentioning... it seems wild to expect someone to drop $120 on an all-in-one printer and then shell out for a full 280ml ink set. If that Canon you brought up costs what you said, I highly doubt anyone would swap their Epson for it for just $700. Honestly, looking at the price of a Canon Pixma, which only gives you 7ml per tank and lacks an Ink Tank System, it’s just bulky and heavy... though I suppose it was built specifically for A4 photo printing. The one you're talking about would probably cost at least twice what I paid for the Epson much less than that. 😁Maybe I've got it wrong, but I seriously doubt it... 😉
At that price point, I’d expect it to be at least 150g lighter than the HP Envy. But if I’m actually going to bake cookies and fill them with 50–70 ml of edible ink for about $30 $23... then spending up to $700—assuming the ink kit is included—would truly be a steal. If things turn out exactly how you say they will, I might just sell my Epson... even if I end up losing my shirt like the head of NASA during a meeting with Kamala Harris... and finally pull the trigger on that Canon Pixma 🙏
That Canon Pixma can handle just about anything you throw at it, almost like it’s baking cakes with that specific ink... unlike the HP Envy / HP Envy models which just can't quite compete. Not sure where you'd even find those around here or what they'd cost nowadays...😁🤔
So, you’re basically arguing—with whatever logic you've got there—that the HP Envy and the HP Envy are essentially the same machine, just separated by software... I guess. It’s an interesting take. If you can just confirm that the driver for the HP Envy actually works on the other HP Envy, then you'll have finally satisfied my curiosity. Though, it would be nice if you actually backed up that claim with some real evidence or something...😉
Since you're so hung up on weight and footprint: HP Envy = 9.7 lbs, dimensions: 18.6 x 11.8 x 5.7 in (W x D x H) HP Envy = 9.5 lbs, dimensions: 19.0 x 11.8 x 5.7 in (W x D x H)
So, the newer one is lighter yet larger... by your logic, that makes it worse because they used less material to achieve more. It’s like they just cheapened things out after the first run was successful enough to act as an advertisement for new customers, leaving the subsequent series a bit underwhelming... 🤷
Print specs for HP Envy: Black print speed: 6 ppm, Color: 3 ppm, Black (plain paper): 27 ppm, Color (plain paper): 15 ppm, 69 seconds per 4x6 photo (HP Premium Glossy Photo paper)
Print specs for HP Envy: Black print speed: 7 ppm, Color: 3.5 ppm, Black (plain paper): 27 ppm, Color (plain paper): 15 ppm, 69 seconds per 4x6 photo (HP Premium Glossy Photo paper)
Regarding the HP Envy, the difference is obvious right away. That model actually has features the other two lack... but looking at what's listed above, those two are basically identical. You're comparing apples to oranges here... 😉
hollowmarlin27, you’re completely missing the mark regarding my level of satisfaction here... you've got it all wrong. I'm actually happier than I expected after picking up this HP Envy. I managed to snag it for less than what I'd pay for a brand new one with a warranty back in the day... and I even grabbed some hobbyist software I used to rely on from my old Canon setup. You've totally misinterpreted how I put this together... I used to run the Canon scanner and printer separately, and honestly, it was a perfectly fine little kit for home use. But this HP Envy, after using it for a short while, turned out to be more practical than that old setup. In terms of weight and footprint, the HP Envy + HP ScanJet combo is roughly comparable to this HP Envy. When I saw the Canon Pixma iP7250 in person, the sheer size and weight compared to the old ip3300 caught me off guard... the ip3300 was smaller, lighter, and even had two trays. For me, size and weight are huge factors when judging whether a machine is actually "quality" for a home user. That light, compact ip3300 served me well for over five years using all sorts of different inks. I actually used an older Canon N670U scanner, but I ran newer software on it from the lide series... which is exactly why I was asking about the HP Envy vs Canon Pixma situation. When I saw they were marketing the L220 as the successor, I couldn't see much difference from the L210, so I became curious and specifically sought out opinions on that... The iP7250 might be a superior printer, but I’m just not interested in dealing with the headache of third-party cartridges—whether they have chips or if I have to manually reset them myself. Plus, I don't want to mess around with finicky Canon scanner software, especially when it comes to simple copying. Everything has its pros and cons, but we're talking about something else entirely: the HP Envy vs Canon Pixma comparison... and you didn't really say anything about that part, which was my actual interest. So, go ahead... feel free to dive into the details of the HP Envy vs Canon Pixma. As for Canon, forget it; that era is long gone. If you happen to need cartridges, I have a couple of original Canon CLI-8C/Y ones, or some Orilink replacements (CC3/5/6/8Y-M-C) without chips... I've got about ten of those left over from the ip3300, and I'll let them go cheap just to clear them out. 😉
So, nobody seems brave enough to actually do a hardware comparison between the HP Envy vs Canon Pixma... and don't even get me started on the software side. From what I can gather, it feels a bit like a shell game to me—selling an older model just because they tacked on an extended warranty, bumping it from one year to two. Sure, the price goes up to cover that extra coverage, but when you're essentially buying repackaged old tech... they really should have just offered a warranty upgrade for the HP Envy instead. And that would come with the option to just grab the latest software updates directly from the official sites, which honestly still feels a step behind what Canon offers anyway.
So, I’ve got this HP Envy, and looking at its successor, the newer HP Envy, it seems almost identical at first glance. The specs claim better printing and scanning speeds, but... can I just install the software from the newer model onto my current one? Thinking maybe I could trick the old hardware into performing like the new version, or is this just a case of them selling us a completely different product inside the exact same old shell? wtf...
darkowl72, I just downloaded Easy Photo Print... it’s basically the same deal as what I used with my old Canon setup. The color nuances might be a little off, but it gets the job done. The real issue is that functionality I used to have with my Canon scanner—that ability to scan a document or a photo and save it directly into a photo album or a database, or send it straight to an editing program like ArcSoft Photo Studio to then move it to an album, a file, or just hit print immediately. My HP DeskJet doesn't seem to have that option (unless it's just basic copy-print functions) or maybe I'm just missing how to work it 🤦 . It makes things such a massive headache when you're trying to copy some text that needs editing—you know, deleting parts or overwriting them—especially when everything is stuck in JPEG format. Or even worse, trying to process scanned text into a PDF using OmniPage, which was bundled right along with the Canon scanner and those other two programs. At the end of the day, a standard copier works fine and the printer itself is okay, but the actual scanning workflow is just terrible... I can't... I don't... I just don't get it. Any advice from you good people? 🙏 🤔
I tracked down and got the HP easy photo print app installed, but I’m still hunting for a decent scan editing program—something to handle PDFs or photos similar to how Canon ArcSoft PhotoStudio works.
So, I’ve been looking at this HP DeskJet, and I'm noticing a bit of a gap in the software suite... It doesn't seem to come with any dedicated photo editing or album creation tools for when you're scanning—nothing like what you'd find with Canon's ArcSoft Photostudio or PhotoBase. There’s also no specialized tool for tweaking photo print settings, like Canon’s Easy Print, nor anything for text processing like their OmniPage. The software feels pretty Spartan, honestly. That said, from what I can tell after such a short time using it, it seems to hit exactly what I'm looking for... just a straightforward, hopefully budget-friendly way to handle my copying, scanning, and printing. It looks like it might actually be a better deal than going with Canon