“I am sure you have all kinds of data to back up your comment which indicates you believe that Macs are not as reliable as stated from a hardware perspective...”
That’s not what I said at all. Would you deny that there is a difference between “reliability” and “perceived reliability?”
Remember that this article refers to a *survey of users.* Think about that as it pertains to hard facts. Obviously there is a difference. Now, Swordmaker can go dip into other sources all he wants to try and make his point - which he has done already - but that doesn’t address the critical flaw in CR’s methodology, which is that it is a *survey*.
Ever notice how when you *survey* Americans whether or not we should “throw all the bums out in Congress,” they strongly agree? But when elections roll around, incumbents keep winning? Surveys are inherently flawed, and sometimes bear little resemblance to reality.
So, KarlInOhio’s post was spot on. You need more data. Force your respondents to actually name specific problems that they did or did not encounter. Lots of people will complain about things but then can’t name any specific problems. For example, the next time a libtard starts squawking about Fox News’s bias, ask them for a specific example. Watch them flounder. I’ve tried - 90% can’t name one specific thing. They just go to generalities. “Well, Bill O’Reilly is biased!” Really? Tell me one thing he has said, specifically. “Oh, I don’t watch him!” Aha.
Then, as to not compare Apples to oranges, you should also ensure that you are only asking about machines in the same price range. You should also have parity of hardware. Are Windows users experiencing failures in their DVD ROMs, something most Apples don’t even have? Finally, what are the users DOING with the machines? Are Apple users installing the same kinds of productivity software? Are they installing more complex software, or less? How many applications per device on Apple that could potentially interact in a faulty manner compared to Windows? Are the Windows users doing hardcore gaming on their machines (Fallout 4, anyone?) and overheating GPUs by cranking the settings too high whereas only a small percentage of Apple users ever game on their machines?
So, you see, I don’t need to provide “all kinds of data” to back up my criticism of this faulty survey because there’s no data in it to contradict. It’s akin to asking people “which news channel is most biased” but then proving no hardcore data to show actual bias. What Swordmaker originally posted is a bunch of survey bunk, with mostly editorial comments. There’s one small bit of data about notebook prices, *but only for one specific BRAND and TWO models*. Gee, I wonder why they didn’t do a cross-brand/model price parity comment? Maybe it didn’t support the conclusion that the author wanted? We’ll never know, because the amount of data provided is so limited.
So, yeah - garbage in, garbage out. Same as the AGW crowd’s BS. It’s extremely helpful to be able to spot this kind of junk.
Consumers' Reports went with a very simple metrics. Read the article:
"CR defines serious and catastrophic breakdowns in a way that, perhaps, long-time computer jocks like us may not. In a comment on the CR web site, Mary Elizabeth Bernal, who works at CR, noted that
". . . [O]ur laptop reliability survey is designed to capture the ownership experiences of "everyday" people, as they perceive it. . . . [T]his survey allows our organization to provide the general public with a holistic understanding of what they can expect from the laptops currently available for purchase on the US market. Furthermore, let us assure you that . . . we do define what we mean by "serious" and "catastrophic" breakdowns in the survey."When I left Silicon Valley for the mountains of northern Arizona 10 years ago, I was startled at how differently "everyday" people saw computers. It's binary: work; or, not work.
They don't say - "oh it's a hardware problem, no bad on Microsoft." No, they say "my Windows notebook stinks 'cause it broke." CR is doing the absolute right thing.
Did your computer work or not work. Very easy question to answer. Yes/No. How often did it Work/Not Work. Those questions are the questions people are most concerned with. Does a computer work when they need it to work.
Remember that this article refers to a *survey of users.*
Any survey of reliability is going to be a survey of users, bolobaby. It has to be. There is no other way to measure the metric because no one complains about a computer that doesn't break, and non-broken computers are never sent to a repair depot and don't get counted in a percentage of machines repaired. . . because they haven't been.
Further, this was a survey of 56,000 users. . . it was likely a very well responded survey where you are not going to get a bunch of rabid Apple users skewing the results as you imply. People are generally honest in reporting their experiences. Contrary to your belief's bolobaby, Apple users hold Apple to a higher standard as far as quality control is concerned than general PC users. Apple users EXPECT a quality experience and complain loudly when they don't get it! They don't sweep unacceptable user experience under the rug as you assert.
KarlInOhio, try to get bolobaby to specify anything about Apple that is actually true. He will spout myths that are easily refuted.
There’s one small bit of data about notebook prices, *but only for one specific BRAND and TWO models*. Gee, I wonder why they didn’t do a cross-brand/model price parity comment? Maybe it didn’t support the conclusion that the author wanted? We’ll never know, because the amount of data provided is so limited.
The sample of 56,000 would cover that, when one make stands head and shoulders above all the rest. They also addressed the cost factor in their article, bolobaby. There is something else at work. . . and that is the OS running on the other machines that may be built to the same standards as Apple's.
Frankly, you seem to be the one who is tossing garbage in, garbage out in your commentary.