Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jemw Having been a QA Engr for a Semicondutor Mfg. in the early years of my carrer, I would like to suggest that we are improperly equating performance with quality.
The quality of a device (be it a component or and end item such as a computer) is normally guaged on its ability to continue performing. It usually has a basis in statistics such as MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) and how easy it is to repair MTTR (Mean Time to Repair). This information is gathered from the results of testing over time. If you go to Western Digital or Seagate's web site you will notice that they are (once again) publishing this information. Western Digital "Quality Drives" are advertising a MTBF of 1.2Million hours and Seagate is at 1.5Million hours. If you do the numbers on 1.2 - that's roughly 137 years. And they are once again offering a 5 year warranty. - The reasons behind their new push to quality is the new media replacement on the horizon which will make their disk drives obsolete.
I think the numbers resulting from the index is purely a measure of performance - not quality. If we happen to find a high performer which will last a long time then  WOW!! |
Right on bro--as said above, even though there are different concepts/definitions of quality, neither price nor performance are generally considered to be "quality." Mostly consistent with what you say, quality, IMO (as mentioned earlier), has to do with getting the job done with minimal problems over the expected period of use. For me, the expected period of use tends to lead to lower positive correlations of price and quality--since, for example, one may not need a drive that will work well for 137 years.
For example, a graphic card might exist, or be developed, that would perform faster than another more expensive card, but would only work properly for 15 years as opposed to 20 years with the same expected frequencies and expenses of repair over the expected period of use (say 10 years). So, for the expected period of use, I would prefer the faster and less expensive card. I emphasize that the cards would have the same quality, to me, over the pertinent time period--the expected period of use. So, who cares if the less expensive card will only work well for only 15 years. Also, note that both cards would be essentially worthless at the end of 10 years because of obsolescence of both the cards and the systems they are installed on. Admittedly, this concept of quality is mine, and others may disagree indicating that the more expensive card really has the highest quality. But, to each his or her own. The situation I have described might be exactly the same situation that ants (see above) is in.
02-16-2007, 04:58 PM
The hack can be used to trick vista into activating Aero on lower machines etc... but is obviously not reccomended as the locked features are locked for a reason 
Linear Mode
