This is the Brand Reliability tab on the same Consumer Reports writeup.
lower the number the better.
Laptop computers
Sony ====================18
Lenovo (IBM) ===============18
Compaq ==================18
Toshiba ==================18
Dell =========================20
Gateway ======================20
Apple ========================20
Hewlett-Packard ===================21
Sounds like for more money does not translate into quality!
But, you forgot to include this:
"No one brand stood out as the most reliable among laptop brands. That's what we found out when we asked more than 63,000 readers who bought a laptop between 2004 and 2008 about their experiences.
This graph shows the percentage of brands that have ever been repaired or had a serious problem. Differences of less than 3 points aren't meaningful.
Models within a brand may vary, and changes in design or manufacture might affect reliability. Still, choosing a brand with a good repair history can improve your odds of getting a reliable model."
"No one brand stood out as the most reliable among laptop brands. That's what we found out when we asked more than 63,000 readers who bought a laptop between 2004 and 2008 about their experiences.
This graph shows the percentage of brands that have ever been repaired or had a serious problem. Differences of less than 3 points aren't meaningful.
Models within a brand may vary, and changes in design or manufacture might affect reliability. Still, choosing a brand with a good repair history can improve your odds of getting a reliable model."
Oh, so your saying that they are all about the same quality.
I know it's been said price isn't a factor, but doesn't it make sense for something to cost so much and deliver a good experience? The fact that for a significant amount less, dell and toshiba were second should say something for them.
I think everyone can agree that you get what you pay for most of the time, and the toshiba satellite lappy seems to be doing more than that (judging by these charts.)
I mean, people always say they like their Macs, but I always say, for the price, you damn well better.
Cause all those Hollywood films mean nothing. You should also do some research on all the universities using Apple servers (hint: There's a lot of them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckh1272
That is just too funny!! Wow, can't do anything but surf and email photos??!! That is SO original!! Can't do anything complex with UNIX??!! That's even funnier! I am sure some UNIX programmers may want to chime in with their two cents worth on that subject. Good luck living in the land of the blind.
You guys need a sense of humor or a brain or something. :-) The guy you are responding to was JOKING. He was being sarcastic.
"No one brand stood out as the most reliable among laptop brands. That's what we found out when we asked more than 63,000 readers who bought a laptop between 2004 and 2008 about their experiences.
This graph shows the percentage of brands that have ever been repaired or had a serious problem. Differences of less than 3 points aren't meaningful.
Models within a brand may vary, and changes in design or manufacture might affect reliability. Still, choosing a brand with a good repair history can improve your odds of getting a reliable model."
Dave! Thanks for the chart and comments about brand.
I can see what the objectors mention about pricing. Apple does stand out for MBA and MBP.
The one thing I don't understand is, what does the Versatility category cover?
I got my issue of CR either Friday or Saturday, so the "news" was around before AI's article. I use the quotes for news because none of this is new information...
This would have been nice info in the original article/post itself. (not point at you)
Sure. That's why Microsoft-based PCs have such a large market share. And that's just fine with many of us who think that Apple's high-margin, low-volume, high-quality, high-service, low-maintenance strategy is the way to go.
Different strokes for different folks.
And, as a shareholder, I'd rather own AAPL than Dell, Sony, and all those commodity computer stocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
2nd my comment above.
Based on your earlier statement, your preference did not necessarily preclude owning Dell, Sony, and others. I take it you do not own them. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Sounds like you're not happy with your AT&T coverage, and/or customer service. Sorry.
Having just moved over from T-Mobile (I miss their customer service, honestly), I can say that my coverage also being GSM over there, has been about the same? At least in FL and MI.
I have the feeling that coverage has more to do with the spec of GSM and tower saturation, which includes frequency. When I say spec, I also mean voice quality too, as my Sprint service back like, 4 years ago, was noticeably better. Miss that CDMA sound, but no turning back.
All is relative. There customer service was abysmal for my experience.
Verizon makes mistakes, like T-Mobile on billing and getting them to fix it took several conversations with regional managers in accounting.
They both are low on my list.
If AT&T pulls the same crap they will be low on the list.
It boils down to the phone and what you want it to do for you and your personal/professional infrastructure.
AT&T knows Apple's iPhone overcompensates for much of their short comings.
That is just too funny!! Wow, can't do anything but surf and email photos??!! That is SO original!! Can't do anything complex with UNIX??!! That's even funnier! I am sure some UNIX programmers may want to chime in with their two cents worth on that subject. Good luck living in the land of the blind.
Yeah you gotta wonder about some people. Its gotta be a joke - is anyone really that ignorant?
If they didnt, this report shows pretty much what everyone already knew, and Microsoft covers in their adverts. Tehy are great, cool, blah blah blah, they are just expensive...
The main point, for the average consumer, is the extra 11 points worth 1300$?
To some, it will be. To the majority, cost is a major factor.
This is true, but in itself it's not a bad thing. Going for low cost is fine, if that's part of a rational cost vs features/performance and needs analysis. The unfortunate situation is that many people don't do any kind of analysis, won't even read CR, on any type of major electronics or major appliance decision. Just go to the local Best Buy or whatever and pick up what looks good and is cheap.
My wife and I were ridiculed by our neighbors when we told them of how we would get back issues of CR and thoroughly research major home appliances we were considering buying. The result of what we did was that we knew exactly what we were getting and were not surprised or disappointed at a later date.
For the majority of people, who neither care nor know of the differences between Macs and cheap PCs, those cheap PCs will do the job of email, office tasks, entertainment and Web surfing fine. Discriminating users who appreciate or require a higher level of performance and quality, many professional types, will see the intrinsic value in the Mac. As an analogy in the auto world: a Ford and a BMW will both do a good job of getting you from here to there, but there are obvious differences between the two cars. There is a market for both types of cars because not all drivers have the same transportation needs.
The last thing Apple needs to do is try to compete in the cheap PC market; it's doing a very good job serving the market it has chosen and helped to create. Its financial performance to date suggests that it has made the right decisions in this regard.
Those fools at Consumer Reports were tricked by the "pretty cases" on computers that have the "same guts" as every other computer. Don't they know Macs are for "idiots who can't operate a PC"?
I hope Consumer Reports made it clear that Macs aren't for technically savvy people. They're just for people who need a simple computer. You can't do anything complex with UNIX. Just surf and email photos.
Haha! That is good, almost believed you were serious!
I live in Unix, love me a good CLI. MS-DOS is the biggest joke, I abhor using it ever!
Friend of mine who is a Windows guy was getting Mad cause Unix is case sensitive, he couldn't understand why! Man we gotta get rid of Windows, people are becoming CLI stupid!
Well the Consumer Reports Article just proves what Mac users have known all along - that Macintosh computers are a better value than Windows PC's.
The Microsoft Ads are a broken record that harp on the only thing that MS can - that Macs cost more than crappy pc's. The bottom line is you get what you pay for.
I use both pc's and Macs at work and home and find the Microsoft Ads are an insult to the general public's intelligence. How many computer buyers would actually buy the Sony VAIO FW over the Macbook as Microsoft's 3rd Ad pretends when the Vaio rated so poorly in Consumer Report's evaluation comparing systems on Performance, Design, Versatility, Screen Quality and Battery life. Sure, you can buy a cheaper pc but would you really want to? If it won't do what you need it to do, then it is not really a value now is it? Honestly, Consumer Reports has a lot more credibility than Microsoft does.
So lets talk about the software on those cheap pc's. Apple has not responded about the high cost of Microsoft's software compared to Apple's but very easily could . That would be a real embarrassment to Microsoft . Compare OS X Full version at $129 with Vista Ultimate "discounted" down to $320 . Microsoft Office Pro for PC costing $500 with Apple iWorks costing $79 . The examples go on and on. The Apple software products can do everything that users need at a far lower price than the Microsoft offerings. When you figure in the real cost of teh cheap pc hardware plus the expensive Microsoft software, the Mac is a bargain. And by the way, try running Vista Ultimate and MS Office Pro on that cheap pc. Yeah - that would be a real pleasure.
Im not sure I swallow the air, but I strongly agree with the macbook and macbook pros.
Just give me a 15" with a matte screen, and we will call it even.
NOTICE MR. COOKE, THAT THE MAC PRO IS NOT MENTIONED HERE?
Take a hint, and give us a reason to purchase one of your powerhouse comps (up the specs or down the price). I know its a luxury machine, but the macbook pros are as well. They just happen to be somewhat reasonably priced via the market based on build quality. The Mac Pros on the other hand are not. I wish for the old days, when the G5 Tower was just about the bestest tower you could get.
Did you notice how all the Apple reviews said the "display were very good but PRONE TO GLARE."? Yecch.
Well the Consumer Reports Article just proves what Mac users have known all along - that Macintosh computers are a better value than Windows PC's.
The Microsoft Ads are a broken record that harp on the only thing that MS can - that Macs cost more than crappy pc's. The bottom line is you get what you pay for.
I use both pc's and Macs at work and home and find the Microsoft Ads are an insult to the general public's intelligence. How many computer buyers would actually buy the Sony VAIO FW over the Macbook as Microsoft's 3rd Ad pretends when the Vaio rated so poorly in Consumer Report's evaluation comparing systems on Performance, Design, Versatility, Screen Quality and Battery life. Sure, you can buy a cheaper pc but would you really want to? If it won't do what you need it to do, then it is not really a value now is it? Honestly, Consumer Reports has a lot more credibility than Microsoft does.
So lets talk about the software on those cheap pc's. Apple has not responded about the high cost of Microsoft's software compared to Apple's but very easily could . That would be a real embarrassment to Microsoft . Compare OS X Full version at $129 with Vista Ultimate "discounted" down to $320 . Microsoft Office Pro for PC costing $500 with Apple iWorks costing $79 . The examples go on and on. The Apple software products can do everything that users need at a far lower price than the Microsoft offerings. When you figure in the real cost of teh cheap pc hardware plus the expensive Microsoft software, the Mac is a bargain. And by the way, try running Vista Ultimate and MS Office Pro on that cheap pc. Yeah - that would be a real pleasure.
Is that cheap pc still looking like a good value?
JoeCoolDaddio
Exactly.
Aside from the fact that Apple creates products with much higher hardware quality, software is what really sets it apart. I do this calculation. If windows vista costs $300, then Leopard should cost at least $900, as it really is several-fold better than vista. Alas, it only costs 10-times less than that.
So really, what you "save" in software cost makes the price of hardware an afterthought.
Comments
This is the Brand Reliability tab on the same Consumer Reports writeup.
lower the number the better.
Laptop computers
Sony ====================18
Lenovo (IBM) ===============18
Compaq ==================18
Toshiba ==================18
Dell =========================20
Gateway ======================20
Apple ========================20
Hewlett-Packard ===================21
Sounds like for more money does not translate into quality!
But, you forgot to include this:
"No one brand stood out as the most reliable among laptop brands. That's what we found out when we asked more than 63,000 readers who bought a laptop between 2004 and 2008 about their experiences.
This graph shows the percentage of brands that have ever been repaired or had a serious problem. Differences of less than 3 points aren't meaningful.
Models within a brand may vary, and changes in design or manufacture might affect reliability. Still, choosing a brand with a good repair history can improve your odds of getting a reliable model."
But, you forgot to include this:
"No one brand stood out as the most reliable among laptop brands. That's what we found out when we asked more than 63,000 readers who bought a laptop between 2004 and 2008 about their experiences.
This graph shows the percentage of brands that have ever been repaired or had a serious problem. Differences of less than 3 points aren't meaningful.
Models within a brand may vary, and changes in design or manufacture might affect reliability. Still, choosing a brand with a good repair history can improve your odds of getting a reliable model."
Oh, so your saying that they are all about the same quality.
I think everyone can agree that you get what you pay for most of the time, and the toshiba satellite lappy seems to be doing more than that (judging by these charts.)
I mean, people always say they like their Macs, but I always say, for the price, you damn well better.
You can't do anything complex with UNIX. Just surf and email photos.
You're obviously joking, right?
Cause all those Hollywood films mean nothing. You should also do some research on all the universities using Apple servers (hint: There's a lot of them).
That is just too funny!! Wow, can't do anything but surf and email photos??!! That is SO original!! Can't do anything complex with UNIX??!! That's even funnier! I am sure some UNIX programmers may want to chime in with their two cents worth on that subject. Good luck living in the land of the blind.
You guys need a sense of humor or a brain or something. :-) The guy you are responding to was JOKING. He was being sarcastic.
But, you forgot to include this:
"No one brand stood out as the most reliable among laptop brands. That's what we found out when we asked more than 63,000 readers who bought a laptop between 2004 and 2008 about their experiences.
This graph shows the percentage of brands that have ever been repaired or had a serious problem. Differences of less than 3 points aren't meaningful.
Models within a brand may vary, and changes in design or manufacture might affect reliability. Still, choosing a brand with a good repair history can improve your odds of getting a reliable model."
Dave! Thanks for the chart and comments about brand.
I can see what the objectors mention about pricing. Apple does stand out for MBA and MBP.
The one thing I don't understand is, what does the Versatility category cover?
I got my issue of CR either Friday or Saturday, so the "news" was around before AI's article. I use the quotes for news because none of this is new information...
This would have been nice info in the original article/post itself. (not point at you)
I'm assuming that was sarcasm.
I thought that was obvious! Clearly it wasn't...
Sure. That's why Microsoft-based PCs have such a large market share. And that's just fine with many of us who think that Apple's high-margin, low-volume, high-quality, high-service, low-maintenance strategy is the way to go.
Different strokes for different folks.
And, as a shareholder, I'd rather own AAPL than Dell, Sony, and all those commodity computer stocks.
2nd my comment above.
Based on your earlier statement, your preference did not necessarily preclude owning Dell, Sony, and others. I take it you do not own them. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Sounds like you're not happy with your AT&T coverage, and/or customer service. Sorry.
Having just moved over from T-Mobile (I miss their customer service, honestly), I can say that my coverage also being GSM over there, has been about the same? At least in FL and MI.
I have the feeling that coverage has more to do with the spec of GSM and tower saturation, which includes frequency. When I say spec, I also mean voice quality too, as my Sprint service back like, 4 years ago, was noticeably better. Miss that CDMA sound, but no turning back.
All is relative. There customer service was abysmal for my experience.
Verizon makes mistakes, like T-Mobile on billing and getting them to fix it took several conversations with regional managers in accounting.
They both are low on my list.
If AT&T pulls the same crap they will be low on the list.
It boils down to the phone and what you want it to do for you and your personal/professional infrastructure.
AT&T knows Apple's iPhone overcompensates for much of their short comings.
That is just too funny!! Wow, can't do anything but surf and email photos??!! That is SO original!! Can't do anything complex with UNIX??!! That's even funnier! I am sure some UNIX programmers may want to chime in with their two cents worth on that subject. Good luck living in the land of the blind.
Yeah you gotta wonder about some people. Its gotta be a joke - is anyone really that ignorant?
the 15 in uni body fully loaded is the best lap top computer ever made .
And I have it... with a 500 GB western digital scorpio blue HD
Did they include a variable for cost?
If they didnt, this report shows pretty much what everyone already knew, and Microsoft covers in their adverts. Tehy are great, cool, blah blah blah, they are just expensive...
The main point, for the average consumer, is the extra 11 points worth 1300$?
To some, it will be. To the majority, cost is a major factor.
This is true, but in itself it's not a bad thing. Going for low cost is fine, if that's part of a rational cost vs features/performance and needs analysis. The unfortunate situation is that many people don't do any kind of analysis, won't even read CR, on any type of major electronics or major appliance decision. Just go to the local Best Buy or whatever and pick up what looks good and is cheap.
My wife and I were ridiculed by our neighbors when we told them of how we would get back issues of CR and thoroughly research major home appliances we were considering buying. The result of what we did was that we knew exactly what we were getting and were not surprised or disappointed at a later date.
For the majority of people, who neither care nor know of the differences between Macs and cheap PCs, those cheap PCs will do the job of email, office tasks, entertainment and Web surfing fine. Discriminating users who appreciate or require a higher level of performance and quality, many professional types, will see the intrinsic value in the Mac. As an analogy in the auto world: a Ford and a BMW will both do a good job of getting you from here to there, but there are obvious differences between the two cars. There is a market for both types of cars because not all drivers have the same transportation needs.
The last thing Apple needs to do is try to compete in the cheap PC market; it's doing a very good job serving the market it has chosen and helped to create. Its financial performance to date suggests that it has made the right decisions in this regard.
Those fools at Consumer Reports were tricked by the "pretty cases" on computers that have the "same guts" as every other computer. Don't they know Macs are for "idiots who can't operate a PC"?
I hope Consumer Reports made it clear that Macs aren't for technically savvy people. They're just for people who need a simple computer. You can't do anything complex with UNIX. Just surf and email photos.
Haha! That is good, almost believed you were serious!
I live in Unix, love me a good CLI. MS-DOS is the biggest joke, I abhor using it ever!
Friend of mine who is a Windows guy was getting Mad cause Unix is case sensitive, he couldn't understand why! Man we gotta get rid of Windows, people are becoming CLI stupid!
Me too...have been acquiring AAPL since late 80's...best performer in my portfolio..proud owner of 93,255sh acquired at an average price under $78.
Dude (or dudette as the case may be), that's some serious cha-ching!
I'm still mad at myself for not jumping in at $14 in Feb '04.
The Microsoft Ads are a broken record that harp on the only thing that MS can - that Macs cost more than crappy pc's. The bottom line is you get what you pay for.
I use both pc's and Macs at work and home and find the Microsoft Ads are an insult to the general public's intelligence.
So lets talk about the software on those cheap pc's. Apple has not responded about the high cost of Microsoft's software compared to Apple's but very easily could
Is that cheap pc still looking like a good value?
JoeCoolDaddio
Wow.
Im not sure I swallow the air, but I strongly agree with the macbook and macbook pros.
Just give me a 15" with a matte screen, and we will call it even.
NOTICE MR. COOKE, THAT THE MAC PRO IS NOT MENTIONED HERE?
Take a hint, and give us a reason to purchase one of your powerhouse comps (up the specs or down the price). I know its a luxury machine, but the macbook pros are as well. They just happen to be somewhat reasonably priced via the market based on build quality. The Mac Pros on the other hand are not. I wish for the old days, when the G5 Tower was just about the bestest tower you could get.
Did you notice how all the Apple reviews said the "display were very good but PRONE TO GLARE."? Yecch.
Well the Consumer Reports Article just proves what Mac users have known all along - that Macintosh computers are a better value than Windows PC's.
The Microsoft Ads are a broken record that harp on the only thing that MS can - that Macs cost more than crappy pc's. The bottom line is you get what you pay for.
I use both pc's and Macs at work and home and find the Microsoft Ads are an insult to the general public's intelligence.
So lets talk about the software on those cheap pc's. Apple has not responded about the high cost of Microsoft's software compared to Apple's but very easily could
Is that cheap pc still looking like a good value?
JoeCoolDaddio
Exactly.
Aside from the fact that Apple creates products with much higher hardware quality, software is what really sets it apart. I do this calculation. If windows vista costs $300, then Leopard should cost at least $900, as it really is several-fold better than vista. Alas, it only costs 10-times less than that.
So really, what you "save" in software cost makes the price of hardware an afterthought.