Laptop Quality Sucks Just A Bit Less
from the fewer-failu... dept
When it comes to things like the quality of products or services people can be guilty of having a selective memory. The phrase "They don't make 'em like they used to" often seems to apply, though at least in some cases this is a good thing. It seems that according to surveys, laptop quality is getting a lot better. In just the past few years, failure rate has come down, as has the need for getting repairs. Still, 15% of laptops have some kind of problem within the first year, which still seems pretty bad. For computer makers these numbers are incredibly important -- think of all the trouble Dell's had because they misjudged the need for good customer service. If they could alleviate the number of follow-up customer support calls, many of these problems would be solved. So at the risk or jinxing ourselves, we'll stop talking about this subject while the computer is still working.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
First Post...With Data!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yes, grammer checks still not functioning too well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laptop design
Imho, the problem is that manufacturers try to compete with desktops on spec. A laptop should probably run at about 50% to 70% of the current top of the range desktop.
Study the MIT $100 laptop project to see how design decisions on robustness have been made. This isn't a very meaty machine, but I intend to buy one in the 3:1 donation scheme this Autumn because I like the idea of a solid and reliable device for field work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laptop design
One of the things that "I Don't Proofread Joe" failed to mention in this article is that a lot of the 15% of laptop repairs are because of blatant abuse.
When was the last time you dropped your desktop computer? Or, spilled a cup of coffee into your tower?
$100 laptop? Good Luck. Remember, you get what you pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laptop design
Do you even know what he's referring to, or are you just wanking in the room to try and impress people with your condescention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Laptop design
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laptop design
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/
It looks like a toy, yes. And you get what you pay for...well almost.
See, that's exactly what I want. What I want is $100 of computing power. I use Linux micro distros like DSL and Dyne for field measurements. They have a good reputation for being robust and easy to repair. Horses for courses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Laptop design
In the scenerio of field work, where you run Linux or another less resource intensive OS this is exactly what you need. There are a lot of old, outdated, even disposable machines out there that would suit those needs as well.
Machines that are used for field work usually don't last longer than a year or so. It is the nature of the beast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIT laptop is a joke
In any regards, laptop quality does seem to be improving, as each year I see new laptops around the office suck just a little bit less, but I still see a slew of them sent of to be serviced for such things as bad screen latches, hard drive problems, screen problems, battery problems, etc, etc, etc. While the quality of the materials and screens might be improving, in general when you compare laptops to desktops, you will probably return a laptop 5 to one compared to a desktop system.
This, surprisingly, includes the latest round of MacBooks Pros, and the few I have seen all have many minor annoances outside of what I have been reading online.
Does anybody wonder is perhaps the culprit here is the cheap slave labour in Asia putting these things together? When Dell sells a few million laptops in a quarter, does anybody need to question how quality can result when quantity is valued greater?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I must be lucky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucky too perhaps?
Mind you, I'm not particulary careful you my laptops. They travel with me in my backpack and I take them everywhere. My Compaq went camping, hiking and survived many other activities when I was writing my dissertation in it.
Meanwhile I've had to reinstall Windows more times that I can ever remember in my desktops due to HD crashes, motherboard failures and a particulary interesting incident involving a HD that blew up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bit shortsighted re: $100 laptop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A bit shortsighted re: $100 laptop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You lose!
"Thinks" is still a word in the english dictionary and is spelled correctly so the spelling checker would disregard it.
It's the grammar checking tool that would (or should) pick up that the word "thinks" doesn't belong in that particular sentence.
You are incorrect my friend, junglerot has you beat. You lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You lose!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You lose!
(This is by no means a jab at Joe. After all, I was the one who once sent a departmental memo saying "If the actual cash dropped for the day is less than the total from our audit, we are shot." ^_^)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny stuff here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Joe Cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, that mistake is neither spelling nor grammar, and should not have been caught. This is a good example why a spell checker or grammar checker is not an excuse to be lazy and not proof read (not saying this guy didn't, typos make it through proof reading all the time.) There are things that fall under the category of neither spelling nor syntax, but just don't make sense. This is one of those.
"The elephant doves into the refrigerator and froze." is a good extreme case. The sentence will pass any spelling or grammar checker, but we all know immediately that it is nonsense. Same deal here.
"When it comes to thinks like the quality of products" is definitely incorrect, but recognizing that requires understanding of the sentence. That understanding is so automatic for humans that we have trouble decoupling it, and we think instead that it's incorrect because "comes to thinks" is bad grammar, but really it's not.
Consider a valid phrase with those two words: "Come to think of it." That could have been misused as "Comes to think of it." The grammar checker would say that is a error in either "Comes" or "think", because plurality does not match. "Comes to Thinks" passes grammar, because it is just two valid verbs chained together, and the plurality matches. The confusion starts because we understand what was meant, therefore we know it's wrong, and our brain screams "NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!" and wants to call it bad grammar. It's actually just bad logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy! This could go on forever...
I do have an issue with people arguing semantics while using inarticulate grammar and incorrect terminology. It's like Bush saying "Nucular" all the time. It grates on my nerves. Didn't you people actually pay attention in class?
As for arguing 'mute' points, so far this point is FAR from mute. Mute means 'without voice', 'silent'. The word you were looking for was 'moot', meaning a hypothetical point of discussion or debate. Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value.
Just my 2 cents...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quality does seem to be getting better but....
Just my .02
[ link to this | view in chronology ]