Myth of the "business class" notebook

My experience has been quite the opposite - the IT department is forced to upgrade hardware that's not yet obsolete because the service contract expired, and the bean counters just go along with it because they calculate depreciation using the length of the service contract. It's the users who don't want to upgrade and subtly express frustration when you tell them that they have to stop working for 15-30 minutes while you set up their new machine. Some of them even ask why you don't do it during lunchtime.

 

It has always bothered me when reviewers test build quality by subjective measurements of "flex" and "pliable."

How am I suppose to take this seriously?? Some people are stronger than others. And how much is the flex? Does it affect the machine 3 years later? Will this plastic piece fall off if I drop it? Does it protect my components if the machine suffers heavy shock? Essentially, you are trying to draw conclusions that are best drawn from a longitudinal study.

It is like testing the bumpers of an automobile by kicking its bumper.

If we want to test build quality, lets test it using an observable measure. Throw the laptop from a height of 5m across a distance of 10m. And then boot it up and stress test it.

That's a true test of build quality. While I'm aware that most reviewers are not allowed to perform such test on a review machine, it just goes to show how subjective and unreliable these "build quality" views are.

 

I think you make very valid points, but some aspects of build quality portions of reviews could be important to some people. For example, if things like rubber bumpers are installed visibly crooked, (like the case of the Inspiron 11z NBR reviewed) and parts don't line up well, it might make the person thinking about buying the product question just how well made the product is, and how much pride the company (outsourced to ODM's or not) takes in assembling it, even though the 11z's actual materials were of pretty decent quality.

It all depends on how you look at it I guess. And yes, throw tests would be pretty cool to see, lol.

 

I had a business idea related to this...but obviously not every PC company would be rushing to donate their laptops for testing since some are obviously much worse in build quality. So...want to invest lol?

Also, I feel like another important aspect to "build quality" is how will it last. Like using it for 6 months to see how it turns out, that's even more important in some ways.

 

My way isnt so scientfic, I see which machines cross my desk the most frequently. If I get a batch of say 20 machines of a certain make and model and 15 of them keep breaking due to non software related issues then I happily call them CRAP.

 

Watch some video reviews of ruggardized laptops - half of them just do generic performance tests (boring), but the other half of the videos are quite entertaining... Like the time they threw a Toughbook out of a moving pickup and then backed up over it.

So, which currently-available models would you say are the worst? People frequently ask me to recommend them a computer, and I would hate to make a bad recommendation because the spec sheet looked good and the price was right, but quality was lacking.

 

Ill send you a PM Peon, I dontwish to cause massive flame wars here and I would need better information on the applications and type of machines you would need

 

I like the Thinkpad videos where they take the same Thinkpad and drop it at different locations around the world.

 

Those vidoes are a hoot, but dammit the OLD thinkpads took sooo much more abuse then the new ones.

 

I'll probably get the new Toughbook mod pissed at me for saying this, but I am curious regarding the "acceptability" of CF-30s among the executive crowd. The things weigh more than 8 pounds. And while beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, well . . .