Why you should stay AWAY from XOTIC PC

OK, it seems people are misunderstanding me.

I will c l a r i f y.

I E X P E C T dead pixels. Not from day one but I do expect they will happen. If they do happen from day one, I E X P E C T the reseller or
store to make my purchase whole by either a repair│replacement or a refund.

And all without a financial penalty to me.

Is that clear enough?

 

But one thing you seems not quite understand, is that by the moment you placed your order, you are automatically agreed to their manufacture policies, which included dead pixel condition. Whether you like it or not it's the law, if you go to court because you have 1 dead pixel on your newly received laptop, you will be lose you case.

By your logic, If I EXPECT murdering would be legal in US, do you think I can walk out free after I kill somebody? simply no.

 

What!?! Do you even understand what the point of this comment is?

 

Wow, you just compared buying a laptop through an online reseller to gambling every penny away on Vegas. I won't comment further on such a statement since it does enough damage on its own. The customer does not care about the industry standard which in my opinion is total bull, since all it does is satisfy the industry. However, not all customers have the technical or industrial knowledge about LCD screens or the industry standard on dead pixels, and not all Xoticpc customers frequent these forums. If the resellers' website stated: "You may or may not get a dead pixel if you don't purchase our warranty" it would clarify and truly set the record straight, since as a regular customer I would expect no dead pixels on a newly customized product. Unfortunately, this would cause the resellers to lose a lot of business and could not be expected to be stated on their website.

I will not argue about the no dead pixel warranty since if I'm buying a 2k+ plus product, I'll probably spend a few hundred more on my peace of mind. But the problem here is that Xoticpc knew they hadn't received perfect screens from Sager and failed to communicate this to their customers. If the customer had known this detail, I believe he would simply have opted for a full refund instead of stretching the problem further.

From what I see on this forum Xoticpc seems like a very customer friendly reseller with very convenient prices. But it should be noted that they have practically no quality control over their products since they are as has been repeated here: "A middle-man".

 

From pages of your post, they were all about your OWN opinions, which is subjective. But the reality is, Sager wrote the polices and customers are supposed to read them carefully before making purchase decisions. At this point, OP has no right to complain before 1) he obviously didn't read them 2) he agreed to Sager's agreement bc he purchased the 8660 3) his rig has less than 5 deal pixels.

If you points were valid then you know what I think? I THINK sager should refund me of one million dollars because the 5793 fans are god **** loud. I EXPECTED my rig as quite as my iPhone. I didn't pay $2500 for a vacuum. But you know what, I agreed to their polices, so all I can do at this point is STFU.

There is a different between "what you think" and the law.

 

On this, I agree.

 

Well, for starters, you are right that the consumer should know about the possiblity of screen defects and other things. That's why most of them ask about the 1 year manufacturer's warranty, which often comes with the system. And most often than not, the fine print on these warranties are ambiguous; they'll say that they'll cover general defects, but they're not specific enough and when a certain defect is presented, then they'll get all specific and would find ways not to fix it (unless more cash is forked up). There is none a better example of what my mother is currently going through with her car.

Secondly, this issue doesn't pertain to just members of NBR; it's a universal thing and not everyone would know about NBR to look up this topic (and similar ones) and be more cautious with their future purchases. Again, it's unfair to label consumers who fall victim to this as "fools" when the sources they seek to obtain better information regarding their purchase (such as the fine print on the manufacturer's warranty, catalogs, Consumer Report articles, etc.) don't explain the entire story.

 

Not a single dead pixel here on my 1920x1200

 

Honestly I don't really like the no dead pixel guarantee option. It should not be a gamble everyone should get the same quality laptop from the start. I don't really care if it would lower their margins, resellers should include that no-pixel guarantee in the cost of their laptops. I know that point has been argued and some have said larger companies like Dell/HP can do that easier because of economies of scale etc but think about what is happening right now. Two people pay $2000 dollars for a laptop and one is happily gaming while the other can't stop looking at 1-4 dead pixels and rips apart the reseller on online notebook forums. Both should just pay $2100 for good screens and everyone would be happy. To be honest I ordered from Eurocom because they have the screens on location, they wouldn't have to fill out any forms to get a new screen or whatever it is that takes resellers like XoticPC months to get replaced...

 

the whole is overblown to an astronomical degree.
can sager has a dead pixel, yes! just like any other pc maker.
besides sager dont make lcds.
if u avid sager fan boys feel like throw stones/eggs/ketchup at somebody,
lets direct ur anger at that culprit--lcd manufacturer probably AU.

 

Those posts at least were related to Eurocom, you know? And it was clear that they were misinforming the one customer (who posted numerous anti-Eurocom rants for days), for example. And yeah, I did post in them and question whether the guy posting had legitimate issues and I did say that I felt bad for Eurocom because they had to deal with him.

You're kidding, right? A better source would have been registrant info, not IP. One of my websites is hosted with 10 other websites - are we all the same company? Hard to beat? Not really. I just want you to back your **** up and stop trolling about minor issues. I could care less what company spun off from what, nor did I say that ""Pro-Star is NOT a spin-off of Sager and the two companies are not closely held by family members making all decisions jointly" (by the way, how does your Lynnbay & Prostar _IP_ info add any evidence to that) - I just want idiots to stop posting their pet theories everywhere.

^^ This. Point is, why is ny.skyscraper posting unrelated stuff about various companies in yet another thread! Why would someone register on a forum to troll like this?

... That argument is totally and completely related, for sure.

Eh, other people have said this better already. Geez, this forum :/:/:/ *hair gets grey from frustration*

Um, hey genius, the pixels are related to resolution, not screen size. And higher number of pixels = higher chance of one of them being dead; you know, simple math? And guess what - larger screen + same number of pixels = larger pixel size = larger components = far less likelier for a larger transister to be shorted out.

 

well...i shall see if my shinny new screen has a shinny new dead pixel in it.

 

Regular LCD Panel Warranty:



If any claim meets the following category within one year then will allow to have LCD panel exchanged:



a) over 3 bright dots or 6 black dots or 8 mixed bright and black dots in total,

b) 2 adjacent bright dots or 2 adjacent black dots,

c) 3 bright and / or black dots within an area of radius 7.5mm.



For those models not covered by “ ZBD “ guaranty service program automatically imply to this “ Regular LCD Panel Warranty “ and start from the first day of the notebook purchase.



Note: This regular LCD Panel Warranty’s LCD panel replacement is not ZBD guaranty.



Zero Dead Pixel Insurance (Available for Clevo Models Only):

Any units purchased with the “Zero Dead Pixel Insurance” option that are received with ANY dead pixels including partial-lit pixels will be treated as a DOA unit, and we will replace the unit. (Continental USA only). This guarantee is only for the first thirty (30) days of purchasing (Invoice Date), and not the entire year period of the general warranty



Zero Bright Dot Free (for selected Asus Ensemble units only):



Customer who purchase selected branded with “ ZERO BRIGHT DOT FREE “ ( ZBD ) guaranty service covered eligible for ZBD free LCD panel exchange claim within first 30 days of purchase, the first 30 days’ period direct apply to the end-user, any claimer needs to provide the invoice to prove it within first 30 days.



End-User may contact our notebook technical support / RMA Service Rep. For returning notebook’s LCD panel exchange; this service will not imply to the “ DOA “ , which means no REPLACEMENT / CREDIT can be claimed.



This guaranty service program only cover FIRST 30 DAYS OF END USER PURCHASING, any claim case if over our guaranty period, then will only treat as regular RMA process, and will not accept any ZBD LCD panel exchange, and service only focus on functional repair ( there is no ZBD will be offer even LCD replaced ).



For Asus Zero Bright Dot Free services or questions, please contact Asus directly at (888) 678 3688.

 

These are all the sorts of issues that have kept me from ordering anything so far. Matters are even harder for us in canada as for the most part the warrenties are even less favorable, we have to pay the return shipping to get something repair underwarrenty, even with the extended/enhanced warrenties.

As for the topic, my personal OPINION is this:
I Expect a laptop to arrive with 0 dead pixels, it should ship without any known dead pixals and thus arrive so (If it doesn't, then that means the carrier damaged the device, and thus it's up to the carrier and thier insurance to foot) pixels that develop over time are another issue and can reasonably be expected to warrent a premium warrenty.

I personally know enough to ask about retaillers policies, a majority of people I would assume don't, the majority wouldn't even notice 1 or 2 dead/stuck pixels. Some retailers have assured me all units would ship free of dead pixals (I find those (I'm not saying ALL, just a couple I spoke to) that don't offer the policy will pre-test the units for dead/stuck pixels before shipment, but afterwards your out of luck, while those with the policy likely won't (As they are all sager resellers, and as said before get drop ships) and then it's up to the consumer to return the unit for replacement (Under policy, which is where us in canada are out of luck, since even shipping isn't included, so IMO it's not even worth buying a policy simply for that fact... if it's going to cost me $250-300 to ship the unit back, I might as well just return it instead.)

$200 is a bit much for a policy, as all laptops are already (By sager or assembler) burn-in tested, it would not take more then 10-15 minutes to QC a LCD screen, even less with a dedicated tool (Simple Full screen app, Cycling from Red, Green, Blue, White and Black). The main question is what is done with the screen afterwards, is it simply scrapped? returned to manufacture? or resold to another customer? I highly doubt the screen is scrapped, so that would lead either returning it to the manufacture or (In my opinion less ethical) reselling to another consumer.

I understand the policies the manufactures have concerning pixels, and I understand that costs would be higher if not for those policies, but I also believe those policies are due for a change, likely as it is not to ever happen... The industry is too content in it's current state, which I find very comparable to the car industry... They give you a price, and then tack on freight and PDI, even if the car is on the lot.... Frieght is a grey area in my opinion, while I can see the cost of it being shipped as a valid figure, It is my belief it should be rolled into the cost of the car not a seperate charge (you don't buy tomato's and get to the cash and get charged a delivery fee, it's part of the price of sale) and PDI is just junk to me, to think that I actually have to PAY to have the right to have the car inspected prior to being sold to me?? Common sense tells me that If I'm buying something, expectially with a warrenty, they should be inspecting it first.... which is why I refuse to pay PDI(under no circumstances), and freight (Just on the princible that it's not included in their listed price), most dealers don't like that, which is fine as it's their right as a seller, but they just don't get my business.

It's more about the principal then the cost, I believe the price stated should be the price sold for a defect free product from the start, The industry had advanced along way from when defect rates were high, I would rather see the price be inclusive of 0 dead pixels, with the sub-par "defective" panels sold at a discount price, Just as how to use a example "defective" CPU's from intel which were manufactured for say 3Ghz that don't meet QC are retested at lower clock grades till they meet QC I can't see any reason that defective panels could be sold as either discounted or recut as a smaller panel.

 

At long last, a voice of reason.

 

Cheers to that!

I personally agree, when i bought my street bike. I did not buy a street bike with a chipped fender/windshield. When i bought my car i did not buy it with a dent or a chipped windshield. When i am buying a high end laptop for 2-3 K im not buying it with damaged parts.

Now some might dispute that a dead pixel is natural, not damaged. But would you be angry if you bought a Lexus IS300 - 2JZ-GE Inline 6, 3.0 L engine and only 5 cylinders were firing because of a defect when it was made by the manufacturer? i know i would be taking that mother****er back to the dealership that day. And yes im analogying(lol) this notebook to a lexus, because this is a high end, high price tag, not your run of the mill notebook and same is a Lexus. Even if this was a piece of **** cavalier, if i bought a new cavalier, it would not be coming with a chipped windshield/dent either.

 

i would like to add a comment to all the nonsense that has been posted in this post, past posts and future posts. i,too, wish that lcd screens arrived perfect all the time. not every person is aware of the flaws of lcd technology but definitely most laptop veteran buyers are, including the original poster. but the comment i'd like to add that will trump all reason, logic, pre purchase research and business standard and practices is this...


just imagine how expensive lcd's would be if we catered to all the babies that just have to have a perfect screen but don't pay the premium for it. all those slightly less than perfect lcd's in the trash would generate zero income for the manufacturers of lcd's and the premium would be passed on to EVERYBODY. laptops would be not affordable anymore.

and to add a little more nonsense to the lack of sense i've seen in some of the posts here. this is for haha's so nobody get their panties in a bunch. i wouldn't mind having a plasma screen on my laptop. yes, it would add heat, thickness, weight and worst of all much higher power consumption thus countering one of the major reasons people buy laptops, portability and walking away from a plug. but i'm one of the knuckleheads that is plugged in 99% of the time, soooooo that means i get stuck with mainstream standard of screen technology, liquid crystal displays. i'd rather have a better display for the display reasons, rather than portable reasons. and plasmas have a much lower pixel defect rate. one of the many, many reasons i bought a plasma television.

 

i knew someone was going to start using cars and bikes sooner or later...

no where near the same. better back that up to a smear/over spray/chip in paint/extra glue on seat/nick in paint/run's and so one. sorry, but that isn't no where the same as a dead pixel in a screen.



has anyone notice the original poster hasn't posted in quiet some time? might be because they have got the issue settle??? maybe?

bottom line..99 percent of the world is not paying 200 bucks for a 30 day guarantee. we get that already.

and any one of you get a dead pixel, we already know your gonna send it back. that also we know.

you people just report back whether or not you had to pay shipping to ship said item back!...*LMAO* that's all i want to know. (sager/clevo stuff only)

 

lmao @ the car windshield analogy. it doesn't work becaaaaause, the lcd and dedicated gpus are highest priced components in a laptop. try using a defective engine analogy and you're closer to using an apple to apple analogy. and returning a car is much harder than returning a laptop. and fixing something defective with engine/transmission or heck anything with the car, is usually much easier than finding an ASME/ISE certified defective pixel MASSEUSE.

 

I agree 100 %

 

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about, a defective lcd screen with dead pixels is not "thrown in the trash" ... a 17 inch lcd can easily make a 15''/13'' tv/screen once salvaged, assuming that the pixels are not dead center. Even then, camera/camcorder lcds and lcd picture frames range from 2'' -10''. Incase you did not know, dead pixel screens returned to manufactures are not just chucked out. Anywayz enough about that i think you get the drift.

Finally, my point about the bike/car is that the lcd is a major part of a laptop and the engine is a major part of a car. No dealership/manufacturer will ship a defective engine that is running on 5/6 cylinders, and sure as hell wont sell one. nuff said.

 

Mausimo:

That's exactly the point I was making, LCD tech has come a long way from the days of high defect rates and small screens, It used to be that panels could be made no bigger then 19" and larger TV's actually contained multiple panels, Now the actual panel is more or less a printed sheet, the transisters are all aligned then cut to spec, now I'm not saying it's a simple switch but I'll compare it to silcon wafers, just because there is a defect in the wafer, the entire batch isn't scraped, the defective wafer is isolated even before cutting, and removed from the batch, in that case yes it is unusable, cant' do much with a faulty CPU, but in the case of a LCD i'm sure in this day and age a computer (Which is doing all the machining and testing anyways) could easily develop the most effecient (And less wastefull) method of cutting which would yield the best panels.

And the defect rate is far lower then it's been in the past, yes it still happens, which is why this is occasionally a issue, but if this was handled at a manufacturing level, it could be eliminated with a minimum level of scrapping.

My point was simply the industry has become comfortable in how it's accepted, so they feel why should they change since it's in their favor, same as with the car industry where it's become accepted for there to be "hidden" costs above the sticker price.

People have a choice, and that is why I'll be buying from the retailer who inspects the laptop prior to shipment, Yes anything can happen after, that's a risk for anything, but at least I want to know it shipped in "perfect" condition. If it wasn't for the annoucement of 55nm GPU's coming soon, I'd have already ordered.

I'm all for there being a profit margin, I realize people have to make money on resaling, but there is definitely a degree of gouging/expoiting/higher then usual markup for those who want more then just the basics. Here are some examples:

$29 for artic silver (Takes what? 5 Minutes to apply, a tube costs $5 for 10+ uses)
Ram: Upgrading to 4GB costs almost as much as it would to buy 4GB (yes notebook dimms) down the street, no 1 dimm 2GB option....
CPU: $50-$100 markups against buying the CPU Retail (Q9550, Q9650)
OS: ~$50-100 markup on some places against OEM prices (Ultimate Edition)
HD: $50 Markup between a 160GB 5400 and 320GB 7200

Like I said, I know there is a profit to be made, But that should be included in the base cost of the unit, upgrading sure, add a small markup there too, but the prices I've compared against? Retail, going to one of many shops "down the street" which already included a markup for retailer profits in them... And I'm not even converting CND to USD which would even further increase the price disparity.

If I could buy just the clevo chasis and MB, I'd be one happy fellow, the rest I could handle myself, I know not everyone has the skill or is comfortable doing so, and I'm all for retailers turning a profit, but the markups get under my skin, it takes no longer to install any of the "upgraded" parts, no further testing, so why are the markups progressivly higher the more you "upgrade"...

Sorry for ranting, Just gets under my skin

 

well, i did just that. bought the base parts (meaning chassie,mb,dual gt cards,bt,wireless)and got the rest of the parts myself.

 

Mind if I ask where? The other problem is being in canda, if I can find a place a place that sells and ships to canada I'd love to do that... Clevo is so under represented here with only eurocom being in canada (And if you want to talk markup look no further, IMO eurocom is the king of markups.... $3000 difference in price?????)

 

www.rjtech.com

 

Ok, I think everyone is really missing the point here. This whole situation isn't about the industry standards, or what we wish they are. The fact is it's very clear that if you don't purchase the dead pixel policy you can't expect to be taken care of cost free. It was clear to me that if it was something they're charging extra for it's not gonna be something I can get fixed if I don't pay for it... And I'm not very knowledgeable about computers. (I am learning) I did however carefully read the warranty info and any other info I could get my hands on before I decided to make my purchase. That's something everyone should do!

 

Does anyone know the yield percentage (0 dead pixels) of the LCD panels currently available to notebook OEMs? I think this needs to be known before an argument or judgment can be made as to whether the expectation of 0 dead/defective pixels on all high end notebooks sold is a reasonable one.

If, for example, LG has a 99 % yield (say 3-sigma) for their LCD panels it means that only 1 out of 100 customers experiences a display with one or more bad pixels-the other 99 are happy. However, LG is not happy at all-they are losing a lot of money. 3-sigma yields are terrible by todays standards in the semiconductor industry. Therefore LG, in order to be profitable must expand their yield ( to say 6-sigma) by passing panels with 6 or less defective pixels, hoping that the impact on their sales is minimal.

So it comes down to yield numbers and whether they are reasonable based on the Thin Film Transistor (TFT) technology used with active matrix LCD panels today.

 

Er... Xotic is:

Arctic silver is standard, so that may or may not be true. I'm pretty sure that this is standard at Sager, so why are you in a Xotic thread commenting on other resellers/Sager's pricing based on other companies' specs?!
+2GB ram is $100 last I checked; newegg has it around $80. $160 buys you 4GB + shipping and maybe tax. That's not "almost as much."
There IS A 1 DIMM OPTION.
Q? Clearly not talking about the reseller OR the notebook being discussed :/
Who the hell's making you buy an OS?
Hard drive comment is about right; I calculated $45, but varies by brand.

And you CAN JUST BUY THE CHASSIS. Why do so many of you guys rant first, check later? Maybe you should go look at, say, Dell's markups?

 

Resellers need top make a profit or there will be no reseller but making a profit
from a warranty or guarantee, depending on the verbiage they use, is wrong.
The manufacturer should be held to a higher standard and stop pushing the idea that for them to do so would elevate costs. Right now the failure rate must be very low as only a handful of people experience the dead pixel and Consumers Union never comments on the subject so it leads me to believe that in all of their testing, it is not frequent enough to mention.

Think about what you are saying when you suggest a dead pixel warranty is a reasonable concept.

The consumer is being asked to pay for a product that should have failed internal quality controls. Intel makes processors that have as many parts as the LCD and most, smaller. All without trying to convince the consumer it is in their best interest to buy the defects.

As I said before and as someone else pointed out, those defective screens can be used for other applications thereby rendering the need to force feed them in the laptop segment mute.

The bottom line is "influence" rolls down hill. The LCD manufacturer (say, LG)knows that the ODM (Clevo in this case) isn't going to start making LCD's and won't have a salable notebook without LG's LCD so they flat out tell Clevo, you buy it-you own it. Clevo then passes this along to its resellers such as Sager who then passes it along to its vendors like DSS and RJTech.
Now they have no choice but to acquiesce and convince the consumer its better for them to pay for that which is their right by virtue.

Now, once again, as some have had to type in bold font so as to avoid
being reprimanded, these are just my opinions, seperate from anything else.

 

Oh, I agree that it's unreasonable (the cost) and the manufacturing should be better. However, I think the unreasonable part is not that one company makes you pay for something you get from other companies (I haven't seen proof either way) but that one company is being upfront with you and telling you what the facts are and offering you an extra option. Now, the 'dead pixel policy' might be 1) a way for Clevo resellers to get more money (possible) OR 2) something that is already included in, say, Dell's pricing (which is $600-800 higher than equivalent Clevo configs (and is usually not equivalent, but is subpar)) OR 3) most other companies don't check at all, don't offer such a warranty and refuse to take back screens with pixel defects under a certain number. I think #3 is fairly likely, and the other two could also be true.

So what multiple people are complaining about is that the cost is either 1) not invisible to them, so they don't feel ripped off or pressured to get the warranty OR 2) that they are getting a choice to get a quality check on screens that isn't offered by other manufacturers and this isn't added into the price, so it's invisible. It's all about a perceived ripoff, imo.

Of course, this all assumes that Clevo's supplied screens don't have a much higher dead pixel rate or they're not contracting with substandard LCD stocks and the like. Without knowing the above for certain, this entire thread is one of "I am upset because I do not want to know about the dead pixel warranty and wish it were invisible and included in the price, even if the price was higher." I don't think it's acceptable to want that. I think it's very selfish to want everyone to pay a higher price for something just so you can feel better about NOT being offered a separate option.

I did not get the no dead pixel warranty, and I treated it as if NOT getting it was an extra $$ off (that is: I assumed other, pricier + less for your money, options like Dell did no dead pixel checks and included that cost in their price, even if it was not needed and I LIKED being given a choice).

 

Why Has The Industry Established an Acceptable Level of Dead Pixels ?

To better answer this question, a comparison between a TFT active matrix LCD screen and a CRT monitor will help illustrate why the market players have established standards for LCD screens.

Dot defects can be noted in both CRT monitors and LCD screens. During the manufacturing process for both CRT monitors and LCD screens, dot outage is difficult to assess. Only upon completed assembly can an individual display be assessed for dead pixels. The more units classified as defective in a production line due to dot malfunction, the lower the overall yield. The lower the overall yield results in scrapped materials from those defective units and therefore higher production costs. With higher volume production and lower material costs as well as improved manufacturing methods for CRT monitors, if there is a decrease in yield it has a minimal effect. However, for LCD screens which have lower production yields and higher material costs based on current manufacturing methods, every attempt is made to reduce the number of scrapped displays. The higher production costs of LCD screens is the main reason this issue is more prominent with LCD screens than it has been with CRT monitors.

As a result of higher production costs of LCD screens, like their CRT counterparts, LCD screen manufacturers and notebook makers have set limits as to how many defective pixels are acceptable for a given LCD screen, based on user feedback and manufacturing cost data. The goal in setting these limits is to maintain reasonable product pricing while minimizing distraction from defective pixels for maximum user comfort. LCD screen manufacturers (i.e. AU Optronics, LG.Philips, Samsung and Sharp) and notebook makers (i.e. Apple, Dell, Fujitsu, HP Lenovo, Sony and Toshiba) have worked together to strike a balance between functionality of a screen and affordability of a notebook. The very price that a customer has paid for a notebook computer is directly related to the dead dot limits set by these industry players. The cost of accepting only perfect displays could significantly increase the price of a portable computer using an LCD screen. This is true of all notebook computers using LCD technology.

ISO 13406-2 Standard

To regulate the acceptability of defects and to protect the end-user, ISO has created a standard for manufacturers to follow. ISO 13406-2 recommends how many defects are acceptable in an LCD screen before it should be replaced, within the terms and conditions of warranty.

ISO 13406-2 states that all reputable manufacturers should conform to and support the ISO 13406-2 standard.

Please view link to see charts of dead pixel standards of major laptop manufacturers: http://www.newlaptopscreens.com/standards.htm

 

Imagine that 2 people buy a glass of orange juice. One gets a perfectly full glass, but the other person's glass has some small stain on it. The person with the stained glass has every right to be annoyed because the other person paid the same as him and got a better product.

The same would go for these screens were it not for the bull**** industry standard, which simply satisfies the industry.

I know that when I buy a laptop I will at least wish for it to be looked at or inspected before it is sold to me. This should be done in every case of a sale by seller or customer. These companies should strive to give every customer a product of equal quality, instead of sitting back and telling them to deal with it.

 

you should wish you never born because this is how this world work. such things happen in EVERYWHERE. One guy got more fries than others at McDonald; One phone has 1 minute battery life long than another; One can of soda has 1 mL extra than others. Ever heard of "possibilities"?

 

Sorry to pick on you again, Zenica, but I find it really, really amusing that people keep comparing LCDs with dead pixels to Intel's chips, and going "gawrsh, if Intel can produce a flawless chip, why can't display makers produce a flawless LCD?"

Have you ever actually looked at any of Intel's production statistics, or, more to the point, the errata that comes on the datasheet of every Intel chip?

I don't feel like researching what Intel's rate of failed chips is per batch produced, but that's not central to the issue because that would be just like the lcds that the manufacturers throw out.

What is to the point is the number of defects in its chips Intel expects customers to buy, and in particular the defects it knows about and has no intention of doing anything about.

First, here's the definition of "Errata" from one of Intel's "specification update" documents (specifically, 318727-011, which is the spec update that includes the Q9xxx quadcores):

I've copied in the Intel summary errata table for these chips below; however, for those who want to just get the digest version, there are a total of 72 errata identified - so far - by Intel for these chips and, of those 72 errata, Intel has no plans to fix 61 of those errata.

Do you know what that means? That means that Intel is currently "knowingly selling shoddy equipment" (to quote the OP who started this silly thread) containing at least 62 known defects that Intel has absolutely no intention of fixing, which are not covered under any warranty as a "defect" for which a claim can be made (chips are sold as-is, subject to known errata), and guess what - if you're unhappy with a chip you get (which you certainly cannot pre-inspect before you buy it as the OP so haughtily claimed he could do), Intel is just going to tell you to go suck it up and be a man, unlike XoticPC, which has quite clearly tried to conscientiously work with the OP to resolve his little nits.

And these aren't just tiny little peccadilloes of errata in the Intel chips - some are quite significant. Here's a nifty one (that affects the QX9770, which is also covered by the errata sheet):

Geez, whaddya think of that? Here you are, a nice little computer user who thinks he's getting best of breed when he buys an Intel QX9770 to slap into his desktop gaming juggernaut, only to find out that the thing is so defective that he can reasonably expect to have "unpredictable system behavior" with that chip, and Intel does give a fig about it, because they have no plans to fix that erratum.

To be quite blunt about it, contrary to what you posted:

Intel does, in fact, expect you to buy the defects, and you'll bloody well like it or no chips for you at all!

I trust that puts the end to the phoney-baloney comparisons of perfect Intel chips with faulty LCD display units.




Now, here's the summary table of all the errata Intel has, to date, identified in these chips:

 

Come on guys, if you want to have zero pixel warranty as a industry standart you have to buy laptops from those who have it (eg. ASUS). So simple. It ain't rocket science. Ranting at NBR will have no effect at all.

Sure, ASUS has quite bad gaming laptops but ZBP policy. On the other hand Clevo has quite nice gaming laptops but pixel its warranty is bad. But I can get my back covered by paying some extra. I see no reason to whine.

 

You know, being the voice of calm, quiet reasonableness here is just not very helpful; c'mon, get with the program and start making unrealistic whinging noises about something, anything!

 

I'm sorry, but I don't wish to be charged for something that I don't want or need. I didn't pay the extra 200 bucks for a reason. I highly doubt that I would even be able to tell if I had a dead/stuck/or whatever pixel. I like the fact that it is given to me as an option, not something I have to pay for whether I want to or not!

 

AGGH! Another one! Stop being so reasonable people! Any more of this, and the thread's going to just die of it's own accord!

 

You never fail to make me giggle! :wub:

 

1) OP made non-sense complaints here
2) Justin saw this thread
3) Hot debate
4) Justin took care of him because the incident was growing
5) OP don't even bother to reply after the deal has been settled down
6) We are all being used.

next time when stupid stuffs like this show up I suggest we all ignore it.

 

I figured I would share this post that Andrew made here on NBR that is a good read on dead pixels and a chart with other manufacturers DP thresholds for those that are interested.

 

Where's my pink trim on the TU, ha?
How`s that for industry standard?

 

I know this is how it works, however, a company should try its hardest to give products of equal quality to its customers. Not tell them to suck it up.
I bet that if a guy next to me gets a noticeable amount of fries more than me and is standing next to me while they serve my food, I'll simply tell them to serve me more fries while pointing at the other guy's fries. And guess what, I'll get them.

Sadly, capitalism's core idea is to make profit, so the customer satisfaction becomes a distant second.

 

Hmmm, you're absolutely right - those folks in Soviet Russia sure had a better deal than we've got - why, not once did any of them ever, and I mean ever, have to deal with a dead/stuck/hot pixel ('course, that's 'cause they never got to have a notebook in the first place!). Same goes for those lucky saps in Cuba and the great unwashed masses in rural China. Oh, and let's not forget about those lucky, lucky stiffs in North Korea - ye gods but they must be living it up large in the Eden of customer service, right?

Why doncha try reading some econ101, say, perhaps, some Adam Smith; you might then get an inkling of why customer satisfaction is best served in a free-market capitalist economy. You might then also reconsider your vote of Barack "Second Coming of Jimmy" Obama (change, you want change, howz about back-to-the-future, 1970s style change!).

 

1920X1200 = 2304000 pixels

I myself have 2304000 working pixels, and OP has 2303999 working pixels.
so (2304000 - 2303999) / 2304999 = 4.338 x 10^(-7) = 0.0000004338 = 0.00004338%.

Are you calling 0.00004338% difference noticeable?

 

just called sager and they said it's 5 dead pixel and they will replace.

 

Actually, when you consider that the lit sub-pixels is what people like the least, there are 6,912,000 of them on your screen...so even 3 of them permanently lit means that the screen is 999999.6% perfect.

The Sager warranty policy is MORE than 5 and it will be replaced during the warranty period.

 

Double Post

 

Having to pay extra for no dead pixels for a brand new machine is ridiculous. The manufacturing processes need to be improved from the ground up to guarantee that all LCD screens ship with no faults. Why should anyone pay for a defective screen with any dead/stuck pixels? It is a totally unacceptable practice to sell defective LCDs. Why should anyone agree to be sold a defective product.

 

I dunno - you keep buying defective CPUs from Intel, and without a complaint, how come?