Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #43700Re: Apple's Horrible Product Quality
From: Kent Borg
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 1989 15:10
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 1989 15:10
22 lines
1360 bytes
1360 bytes
I seem to remember a story a year-or-so ago about the reliability of Macintoshes vs. IBMs in University settings. The figures were something like a virtual certainty that a given IBM would need `fixing' in the first year, and much less for the Macintoshes. (Was it 25%?? Well, whatever.) The point was not that the Macs didn't break as much as the IBMs did, the point was that the IBMs are so difficult to use that normal behavior was mistaken for `it's broken'. Most of the time the repair people could find nothing physically wrong with the `broken' IBM. I guess I am not commenting on Apple's product quality in the traditional manfacturing sense, rather I am reminding us of the greater underlying level of quality. (Translation: Kent's just another IBM Basher.) P.S. Let's hear it for the 1 year warranty! Kent Borg kent@lloyd.uucp or ...!husc6!lloyd!kent
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<415@lloyd.camex.uucp>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!bbn!husc6!lloyd!kentReferences:
<89156.130832GFX@PSUVM> <1936@aucs.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!bbn!husc6!lloyd!kent From: kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Apple's Horrible Product Quality Summary: Alternate aspect of `reliability'. Message-ID: <415@lloyd.camex.uucp> Date: 9 Jun 89 15:10:24 GMT References: <89156.130832GFX@PSUVM> <1936@aucs.UUCP> Reply-To: kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) Organization: Camex, Inc., Boston, Mass USA Lines: 22