I never believe my printer when it tells me I am low on ink. I am low on ink right now. But until the page I'm printing shows ill effects, I recognize it for what it is... another attempt to suck money out of my pocket. I am still very reluctant to purchase refill kits, however, because so much of what I print is photographic, and I just don't have confidence in the refill kits having the exact colors or densities for the jets.

Assuming nothing is broken, replace them only when the printer fails to print (because of no ink) or when print quality drops below your personal standard.Listening to the maker as to when to replace is like throwing out a perfectly good, working, water heater, stove, or etc. because it's exceeded it's published life.Why would anybody actually listen to someone (something?) who has a vested interest in maximizing the amount of money they take out of your pocket?

I totally agree - because the ink is reported as low does not mean you have to replace the cartridge immediately. Wait for the the print quality to fall.

One other change I would like to see is the ink capacity indicated on the cartridges. Not all brands display that information. It should be a requirement so the consumer can see how much ink he/she is buying and can also see which printer is more efficient.

Epson printers won't allow you print if THEY have determined that the cartridge is out of ink -- you have no choice -- the driver simply won't allow you to print. It's funny that the company that was successfully sued for wasting ink is now claiming that an "independent lab" shows that they are more efficient than other companies. At least with the other companies, you can print until the cartridge is drained -- but not Epson.

I just got through paying almost $100 bucks for a whole 3 inkjet cartridges for my two printers!
Just like gas, I think were all getting pumped, or should I say sucked when it comes to re-fueling!
Well,at least they last almost longer than a tank full of gas.

No mention was made on the inkjet efficiency of the Canon, Lexmark or the Brother printers. How did they fare?

I own a Lexmark all in one printer and when it shows the level of ink is low I continue using it until if no longer prints.

It's been done. It's called a color laser printer. If you don't need to print glossy photographs, they are a lot more economical to use -- and a lot faster -- than any inkjet. Of course, some of the manufacturers are applying the inkjet model to lasers and charging ridiculous prices for toner cartridges -- HP being the most guilty. Ricoh's color ink cartridges are actually darned inexpensive by comparison, but Ricoh doesn't make any really inexpensive color lasers.

Actually, the concept of charging a lot for toner originated years and years ago with HP where an executive publicly admitted the real profit was in the consumables -- the profit margin on laser toner (and inkjet ink) is huge and inexcusable in a just society -- but then ripping off the public is just one of the joys of our economic system, isn't it? Profits and high executive salaries come first -- that's why so many of our jobs have been shipped overseas. The public interest? There is none when excess profit can be made.