On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:44:29AM -0600, unit3 wrote:
> 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.
No, the only obligation the white box guys have is to make money and pay
their taxes ... oh, and now collect environmental levies.
> > 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. ;)
Agreed, a lesson Sony recently learned the hard (expensive) way.
There was a time when the white-box way was known as "building a PC",
I believe vendors (at least the ones I dealt with) took pride in what they
were building and tried to make the best system possible. Enthusiasts do
the same today. Stores unfortunately face stiff compention from local
discount vendors and mail order firms. It just doesn't make business sense
to put any more effort than absolutely necessary. The most I'd expect
today from a white-box vendor is a smoke test and I'm sure some don't even
do that.
Received on Wed Feb 7 12:00:07 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 07 2007 - 12:00:41 CST