Wouter,

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:02:14 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>...
> > In the end, the end user is to blaim.
> 
> That I do agree! If the end user prefers a laptop that is somewhat
> chaper but works only 3 years, that's what he will get (and it is what
> he deserves).

That idea falls down because it doesn't say on the box "Will fall apart after 3 years", does it?  When a house 
is built in Britain it is "Guaranteed" by the National House Building Council for 10 years - that doesn't mean 
it will fall down after 3651 days, it means that it was built to a design and with the right materials and 
skill that they are prepared to fix anything that fails due to a lack of those things for 10 years, so the 
buyer doesn't have to worry about it.  The expectaion is that as long as the house is maintained properly, it 
will last "for ever".

As a consumer there is no way to tell if something is made from inferior or short-lived materials, apart from 
the reputation of the manufacturer, if there is any.  The old saying "You get what you pay for" is flawed - 
you don't usually get *more* than you paid for, but you can easily get less.  Paying more is no guarantee that 
you will get something better than if you pay less, because manufacturers charge as much as "the market will 
stand" and if you have a good name you can charge more without actually selling something better.

So, back to laptops:  Which manufacturer would you buy from (and pay extra) to get something that lasts longer 
than average?

Cheers,





Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist