Would my laptop last for 6 years?

I don't mind replacing easily replaceable parts such as HD, optical drive, RAM or even the CPU. My concern is I have to replace not so easily replaceable parts such as the screen. My old laptop started to darken significantly after only 3 years.

I am afraid that would happen again with my other laptop. It has been 2 years now. So far no problem with the screen but I am afraid it might happen. So, do you think my laptop would last for 6 years without any problem with the screen or with other difficult to replace part? It is Sony FW190. http://www.docs.sony.com/release/SPECS/VGNFW190_mksp.pdf I use it practically everyday.

 

I think it's all up to how you take care of it. Some people just toss it around and spill stuff on it, don't think it'll last that long ... But I take really good care of my laptops (to the point of being anal) and I think it would last as long as you want.

 

You can treat it with care, but still things can go wrong. Its not worth the trouble worrying about problems until they happen

 

Who knows.It's really a quessing game.Some people with the exact same notebook report quite different experiences.I wish you to be one of the lucky ones and last 10 years.Your notebook is certainly reliable.Here some surveys that may interest you.

The Most Reliable Laptop Survey, Best Netbook Reliability Comparison

http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf

Laptop & Notebook Ratings | Service & Reliability Survey 2009 - News and Analysis by PC Magazine

 

On top of what the others have said, as long as you take care of it, it's not a question of whether it will last. The bigger questions is whether it'll still satisfying your laptop needs after 6 years, i.e. how you use it. A laptop can easily survive for 4+ years, but it'll have issues running the software at that point. As far as the software released when it was built, there shouldn't be any issues.

 

this is why I hardly ever see the point in spending more than $600 on a laptop.

The more money you spend, the longer you want to keep it. The 'quality' of a machine is only loosely coupled to the price. Batteries wear out in 2-3 years and need to be replaced. A hard drive older than 3 years is 'suspect' and should be replaced. All of a sudden you've spent another $200 on your machine and it's still out of warranty.

Do you want to spend $2500 on a machine you feel you need to keep for 5+ years or have $600 to spend on a new machine (with new battery, hard drive, screen, and warranty) every two years knowing that if it had to, the $600 machine can and most likely will last 3-4-5 years.

 

$600 would buy you a trash as a laptop. In fact, the netbooks with Atom crap are being sold for that price...

I would second everything you said provided that $600 would be replaced with $1500.


--

 

still wish someone would toss the fully rugged Pannies in those surveys .. under 3% over 3 years ... oh well its all marketing to consumers

 

you can get i5 machines, 320 gb drive, 4 Gb ram, hdmi out, 5.1 audio out, 17" screen, all of the bells and whistles and connectivity for $600-. An i3 costs about $50- less.

With the same warranty as a $2000 machine. Brands include Lenovo, HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba, etc, etc.

The only difference between a $600 machine and a $2000 machine is often the casework. Internal components are the same. 3x/4x/5x the price is a lot to pay for the fit and finish of plastic casework.

do your homework......

 

You send a lot more on a car and they typically get replaced in 4 year. Still, there are car running more than 30 years old. You can get from A to B, but you won't get there in the latest fashion.

 

These reports as stated before are mostly garbage.

 

Oh yes I know the sport of "stating".Exactly by whom it was stated???It's a retorical question because I am not going to even enter into such an argument...See I d'rather trust reputable organisations that put people,money,effort and resources and come up with some results,than people full of themselves that indulge in the highly productive and very scientific sport of "stating"...Difference of opinion I guess...

 

Those studies are garbage because there are so many flaws with each respective study's analysis, even from a statistical point of view. That said, I don't think personal testimonials from users on a forum are any more indicative of what laptop brand is the most reliable. Besides, there are huge differences in "reliability" among the different models of each brand in any case.

But back to the OP's concern: there are so many variables among so many components in a laptop that 6 years is sort of pushing it. Laptops are becoming more and more of a commodity, and are therefore designed without all that much emphasis on 4+ years survivability in terms of components.

Physically, the chances of a laptop surviving for 6 years is also dependent on how you treat it, as previously mentioned. Throw it around all the time, and it'll be a wonder if it survives 2 years. Baby it, and it could very well survive for that long.

 

I quess you must be a statistical analyst and a great one at that to disprove entire teams of other statistical analysts.And also you must have access to the data(and I mean ALL the data) from those surveys. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such a confident "statement"that these surveys are garbage without a single doubt in your mind.

 

hmm I have a few laptops designed for that kind of abuse that are 10 years old and have been beat by lumber and dropped on cement almost daily. but YES they are MADE for it

 

You don't need to be a statistical analyst to discount studies like this. The fact is, a lot of studies have flaws, even ones in scientific journals (but especially in sociology studies like these where there the data is from a third party). Being in the medical profession, I have taken courses on designing studies and how to critique them, along with publishing several papers, and reviewing papers weekly. I can and will confidently say that these surveys are garbage. You can blindly accept these reports or you can do a little thinking and researching for yourself to see how these studies are not representative of real life situations.

 

sgogeta4 I am talking to you with the utmost respect and I am not trying to be antagonistic here.My profession is Economist and I have a masters degree in statistical analysis.I have no interest in protecting these companies but I do want to defend my profession.I know how these surveys are conducted and the standards applied to them.For anyone outside the profession who doesn't have full access to the data(and you don't) to say that they are garbage,sorry but it is rediculous.They may well be imperfect but the unqualified John Doe and Jim Someone cannot be the judge of that...Otherwise it's: move over "PC mag" and "Square trade" sqoqeta4 has "stated".With all due respect....

Edit:So that there are no misunderstandings:I didn't mention my profession to prove anything.My point would still be the same even if I was in a diferent line of work.

 

As is making such a statement without stating why. At best, you've traded one opinion for another.

Yes all data has flaws. However that doesn't mean you should discard that information completely.

On the contrary, that's exactly why you mentioned it.

In the interest of fair play, it would not. A professional opinion carry more weight. That's why we have them.

 

Yep, sorry, I should have mentioned that there have been several threads and discussions on these studies before - which is what I meant when I was stating that these surveys are garbage. I'm not discounting the data itself hence why I don't need access to the information they have, but I am criticizing the way they have utilized the information that they have. If they wanted to prove that their study was even remotely useful to anyone, they would have to have done a much more comprehensive review to see why the values they found were the way they were (but of course that would exponentially increase the cost of the study).

One of the many flaws was pointed out by Lenovo in that they use 30,000 laptops total that used only SquareTrade warranties as compared with the 142.5 million laptops shipped out in the last year and while they stated that this was a random sample, they did not state how they determined that this value was statistically significant (especially since their company's goal is to sell warranty hence introducing bias and also we do not know how their customer base is distributed).

In every good study, there needs to be calculations showing level of significance in which this study is valid, which this study does not show at all. Also, generally hardware isn't made by the ODMs selling the product (ie. Dell buys laptops made by Quanta, etc. but their hard drives are from Hitachi, Seagate, etc. - so how can you quantify hardware failures without breaking down in categories exactly what the failure was?). In the end, they make several assumptions and conclusions that have no basis (or shown to consumers).

 

Pardon me? $600 would buy an ok mid-spec'd laptop. Netbooks don't go more than $400, cheap "trash" laptops are around $300-500.

I try to stick to used laptops when I can. Buy cheap, use for a year or two, sell for a bit less than what I paid.

 

Myself, I don't trust used computers at all. Things like cars and appliances, you can easily have qualified people inspect them. Computers, not so much. It's annoyingly difficult to find qualified individuals who can tell you what kind of shape a laptop is in (at a reasonable cost) after x years of abuse. Yes, they exist, but you're not going to find them at your local mom and pop or best buy.

As far as cheap "trash," it's a matter of perspective. Lowballing this to disfavor my argument, but I'd say you could get away with an annual cost of $200 or so sticking to the lowest acceptable specs on a used laptop, although it wouldn't do more than the basics (if that's what you need, that's perfectly fine). So far I'm running at an annual cost of roughly $350 or so, but my replacement is brand spanking new and probably has a minimum 3 years left in it. Factor in greater functionality for higher end machines, and for my needs, I've gotten the greater value. It's all a matter of perspective.


As far as reliability of the study goes, there's good and bad to it. The population samples are terrible - PC Mag subscribers in one, people who've chosen to buy SquareTrade warranty AND invoke it in the other. They're certainly not definitive samples, but the results are at least suggestive. I'd rather see numbers based on manufacturer warranties, since I think (no i have no numbers here) the majority of laptops are sold with manufacturer rather than third party warranties. But since manufacturers aren't likely to release those numbers (potentially bad for them), maybe looking at small samples will at least help somewhat.

In my mind, a better study wouldn't just look at the fact of malfunction, but the type, cost to repair, and final disposition. It's one thing to say the hard drive, memory, or some other frequently suspect part needed to be swapped out because of a component failure, another to say the plastics cracked in normal use, and yet another if a failure occurs because of rough handling (look at the netbook numbers) but isn't reported as accidental damage.

 

I have one Sony that is 10 years old, it runs great... For casual surfing.
I have a 6 year old one as well, it works for general office work.
Both have had upgrades thrown at them over the years, batteries drives, keyboards, etc, but they were cheap. You don't need a $300 battery for your 3 year old laptop.

Don't expect a $500 laptop to do it unless you plan on lots of repairs. while someones said internally they are the same, I find that to be false. Soem use better capacitors, some have better memory, some have better drives. Yes, the chipsets and processors may be the same, but is the power circuits? How about the board strength, and how good is the chassis at fighting off board flex? How is the cooling system? Is it a cheap hard disk?

There are differences between a $500 laptop and a $1500 laptop, you may or may not see them, but they are are there. Take my 6 year old Sony and try to flex it, you can't, now try and flex the 5 year old cheap HP sitting in my closet, careful, you may break it in half. Heck, my Sz still keeps up with new systems, did I get ripped off paying $1200, HECK NO.

Engineering costs money, how much are you paying for?

Can you honestly tell me that my $100 desktop power supply is no better than the $40 generic? Give me a break. If all internals were the same, we wouldn't see such huge differences in reliability results like those shown. While I discount their results, you can't tell me that there isn't a huge reliability gap between certain manufacturers.


Worse than that, use a $500 laptop for a day, and then a $1500 laptop and tell me they feel the same. Yes, both may do the job, but chances are the $1500 one did it faster, and was much nicer to use. Better screen quality, faster processor...

I deal with peoples crap laptops for work, I don't like coming home and using one. I would take my 6 year old Sony over a new $350 pile of garbage. It simply feels nicer. It doesn't give the impression that someone just slapped the cheapest parts into it they could, granted it was an $1800 laptop when new, so that makes some sense right?




As for used laptops,
It's like buying a used car, you need to know what you are looking and and be prepared for what comes with it. Buying a $350 used Dell, that needs a $150 battery is pointless if you can buy a brand new one from Dell of similar quality for $50 more.

 

I have an old HP about 8 years old, a HP about 6 years old, a duo core tablet about 3 years old, a 3 year old Dell duo core and a new Asus G73. I have replaced the HD by need on the oldest, and on the next two, replaced the HD because of wanting a faster drive with more room. On the newest one I added a SSD for speed. All work well, but over time, the speed and ability of them has changed in accordance to my needs. I have passed all on to my kids to use except the Dell and the Asus. The Dell I use everyday for work (it has a Sprint mobile card in it, so I have internet anywhere I go) and the Asus for video work, games and whenever I just don't have the patience to wait. I take care of my lappys, they are all not immune to parts stopping/failing. But I have not yet had one go so bad i couldn't fix/replace whatever was needed. My issue over 6 years has been my expectations. I am old enough to remember 14.4 modems being the major speed upgrade on computers. Now I am irked if my bandwidth is less than 100Mbps. It all comes down to my expectations. Maybe I have been lucky, but I believe if you take care of, and get a good understanding of you computer, you can make it last as long as you want/ are comfortable with it's performance. That being said, I understand that there is no guarrantee ANY computer will outlast it's warranty. But you get what I am saying.

 

And like Leslie says, as soon as I buy a new one, there is a newer, better one announced. Did I get ripped? No. I am happy with the specs I chose, and I always do the upgrades I want. You will not get the same specs on a $600 computer you will with a $1200. That is why you choose what you want, don't settle just to save a bit of money, if you settle for less than you really will be happy with...you won't ever really be happy. Same as buying a car. If you really want a new Camaro, but settle for a Saturn, you will never be happy with the Saturn. It was 2nd choice. Get what you want, and enjoy it.

 

4GB DDR3 1066MHz (Laptop) - $120
320GB HDD 2.5" - $60
i5-520m - $230
17" Laptop screen (new) - $150
Low end motherboard - $70
Shoebox (as case) - $5=4.99
Bells and whistles - $15
Low end discrete graphics card - $50

Total: $699.99

Not included: Power supply, laptop battery, power and related buttons, charger, operating system, fans, keyboard, touchpad.

Now you see why I have to stab you. Please come closer.

It appears you have been deceived by the sharks. No worries, let an average fish farmer like I present my humble opinion.

There's nothing wrong with the data, it is, most likely, collected and processed accurately.

But to infer conclusions, such as "A is more reliable than B", from the data, requires a slight extrapolation of reasoning, which may or may not be "garbage".

Rather, it would be inductive to reason:
From a complete population of laptops with a specified warranty, more warranties for a certain laptop manufacturer was invoked compared to another laptop manufacturer.

Through simple statistical calculations on the data, we can prove, to a certain pre-stipulated extent, that the mean of the percentage of unused warranties for laptop brand A is statistically lower than the mean of the percentage of unused warranties of laptop brand B.

As a percentage of laptop warranties invokes is a reasonable and acceptable indicator of reliability, we can infer that laptop brand A is better than laptop brand B.

The axioms may be wrong, such as the certainty extent (usually referred to as the confidence interval); the proof of distinction, but the process is not. Likewise, the inference may be wrong, but the data is not.

You can think of it as LD 50. You can use it as indicator of resilience of a population to, say, environmental poisoning from factories, but I can likewise insinuate your inference to be garbage. Like so, "Your study is garbage".

There, even a medical doctor should be able to understand this

 

@newsposter
u don't know what you are talking about
diff bw a 500$ and 1500$ laptop is casing plastic-lolzzzzlolzzzzzzzzz
asus g73jh with mob 5870 is TRILLION TIMES graphically better than 500$ dell studio with intel shared for abt 600$.Correct ya facts.Plz

 

@newsposter
u seem to be carried away with one of the alienwares i think