Ianeon

I find it terrifying that people can spend lots of money on hardware and software and have problems within a such a short time period - and without proper backup from the manufacturer/retailer of the product. Then you have to think about "national security" - the whole world is run by computers - Is that not scarey ?

DonaldG

Greetings & welcome Ianeon


What a majority of folk don't realise is that the data on the machine(s) is worth far more than the hardware. The times I visit companies and find that there is no back-up regime..

TheAtheist

I read in Pc advisor about a month ago a funny article concerning file backup. something along the lines of
" very few of us backup our data to another means, and of those who do, where do we keep the backup. On the desk next to the computer"

so so true, my pictures is backed to a DVD! when i should have it kept elsewhere as i hold the only copy of photos in the house!!!

EnglishPaul

I'm sure there are really relyable computers. Perhaps not with MS badges. And for high importance applications, there are empolyed highly skilled technicians.
So I think we are quite safe with computers.
I also think that the shorter a lifespan a software/ hardware combo has, the more likely you are to spend more... what industry wouldn't try to foster that situation?

All that said, I don't have any confidence in the British government to percure a decent computer system for anything. In fact the British government would probably struggle to organise a piss up in a brewary! Which is why they leave that to kids on street corners!!

carsey

I believe everything is designed to 'break' after a period of time. Maybe hardware and software companies could stay alive with better versions of their software, but take the car industry for example:
People have known about stainless steel for ages and the life of it. If they wanted to make things last forever, they would make cars out of it or aluminum. But if you imagine everyone having a car that lasted forever, the companies would go out of business.

Chevy

In 2003 there was a Consumer Reports article talking about the major PC manufacturers. They quantified the failure rate of each in the first thirty days (a failure was anything that made the PC either difficult to use to something catastrophic. IIRC, they excluded malware infections and anything caused by the user).

Dell was the best with a rate of ~25%
HP/Compaq was in the 30% range
Gateway was 32% or 33%
E-Machines was over 35%

That's right ... Roughly 25% of all Dell systems failed to some extent in the first 30 days.

DonaldG

Failure rate with electronic component is usually within the first few hours of use. This is known as 'infant mortality'. As time goes on, any component not yet failed enters what is known as the HIREL part of its life (HIREL = High Reliability).

This life can be many years (10 - 20 years or more). Eventually the components will start to 'end of life' fail.

The failure/reliability Vs Time when plotted shows a characteristic bath tub curve. With most failures in the first few hours, dropping rapidly down to low failure rate within that time span. then the long flat period of few failures. Then the slow rise of the 'end of life'.

So, removing the technical side, what does this mean to the average consumer?

Firstly, there is usually a warranty/guarantee with new equipment. Say 1 year. That means that if an electronic component is going to fail, it will do so while the kit is still under warranty.

Secondly, it means that after a few weeks/months of use, it is in the high reliability stage of its life.

Thirdly, and this is the main point to consider, there is no real need to take out (and pay high rates) extended warranty for kit.

Obviously this is a generalisation, but if you look back on the history of ALL the electronic stuff that you have bought/used, how much of it failed in years 2 - 5?

Perhaps 1 or 2 at most.

Now think of the cost of replacing those 1 or 2 items. THEN consider the cost of additional or extended warranty.

You will find that it is far less expensive in the long run to NOT take out additional warranty!

sobeit

the big question is, is it failure of the hardware or failure of the users. I find most problems are caused by the users not the hardware.

EnglishPaul

Yep, I've always found computers to be relyable providing I don't run anything and certainly don't install anything.
In fact the more I try to get my computer to do, the less it actually does. Is this a known law; if not I claim it as Paul's Law!

Nik00117

I find that true as well. If a piece of hardware lasts you like a month or so it hsould last for a VERY LONG TIME, Unless something happens to it, like GPU getting its heatskin knocked loose or it being dropped, but very rarely will it break after the first "burn in" period.

And as for the realiablity of computers, and if the ulimate disaster would happen and all computers go down, then I guess we go back to hunting and fishing for our food well we wait for it to start back up.

Life is not without its risks, and living life without risks is not living.

Chevy

IIRC, they specifically weeded out user-caused failures.

beefers1

One more reason to go back to traditional bookkeeping. Not that I'm against computers, but we seem to be far too dependent on them. You know, there was a time when companies thrived without computers, and people lived without Internet, and video games.