Lance Levsen wrote:
> Oh, I agree there. Component testing isn't the subject of this thread
> though. Let's face it, the small white box stores simply buy x amount of
> y,z,a,b,and c. Throw them together and hope for the best. They don't
> spec the drives, or test the memory.
>
Well, sometimes they test the memory, but yeah, you're right.
> The problem as exemplified by two examples here though is when y isn't
> y. Component testing _should_ be upstream of the white box though, if it
> isn't then the white box store has to raise a little hell with their
> suppliers.
This is true. But it's also the white box's responsibility to actually
track failure rates and take their suppliers to task.
> I also doubt that the Dell's, Gateways, and Compaqs of the world do that level of testing either.
>
No, but they have enough clout to beat some sense into their suppliers
if they start getting higher than normal failure rates. ;)
> QA isn't just a one spot thing. As you mention, it's also on the head of
> the end-user.
>
Yes, this is *very* true. Unfortunately, most users aren't equipped to
do this. :(
G
Received on Wed Feb 7 11:44:42 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 07 2007 - 11:44:47 CST