I was reading the specs of the just announced Canon Pro9500 Mark II and noticed, that the paper length is limited to (17") correction: 19" - that at a maximal width of 14".

What is the cause of this length limitation? Why can't an inkjet not print until it runs out of paper or ink?

To force you to buy the more expensive models with roll feeds...

Old fashioned ideas about the fundamental moral wrongness of really large buffers?

Mechanical printer guide mechanisms that do a poor job of guiding prints straight?

Fear of emptying a cartridge while in the middle of a very long print?

And after all, who on Earth would ever want to make a 13" wide print longer than 19"?

I can imagine, that the sheet holder physically limits the size - but it should be my problem, how I hold the sheet. Buffer should not be an issue - why would the driver need the data for pixels, which will be processed thousands of rows of pixels later than the current one.

Is this like with certain camera features, which are in firmware and cost nothing for the manufacturer, but they reserve those features for the more expensive or newer models? Perhaps this printer is priced much lower than others and Canon want to prevent in from encroaching in the market segment of the higher models?

But if it is a limitation without technical reason, then I would think that there are hackers out there, who remove/increase such limitations. Is that not happening?

There is indeed such a hack for the Epson 3800, though AFAIK it does not work with the latest printer driver revision.

The 9500s are limited to 23 inches long in a custom size. However, that's a mere 4 inches longer than 19 inches, and most people do not want to cut their own custom sheets from rolls. The printer manufacturers really prefer that people use standard sizes.

BTW, I t/t the Pixma Pro support guys a few days ago... the 9500 MK II differs in the head and firmware, to increase print speed. it also has the (Vista-only) room light control where by you specify what light your print will be displayed in and the printer biases the print for that. Since room lighting changes (as opposed to gallery lighting which is more consistent) i think that's a gimmick.

At least Canon listened to folks squawking about the glacially slow print speed of the 9500 "Mark I". The head and firmware are not, according to Canon, backwards compatable. Same inkset, same 35 mm art paper border. I'm not planning to "upgrade" and since I will never touch Vista, that room-light feature ain't gonna sway me.

I'm increasingly happy that I decided on the 3800 (vs 9500)