Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!bbn!husc6!lloyd!kent
From: kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Apple's Horrible Product Quality
Summary: Alternate aspect of `reliability'.
Message-ID: <415@lloyd.camex.uucp>
Date: 9 Jun 89 15:10:24 GMT
References: <89156.130832GFX@PSUVM> <1936@aucs.UUCP>
Reply-To: kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg)
Organization: Camex, Inc., Boston, Mass USA
Lines: 22

I seem to remember a story a year-or-so ago about the reliability of
Macintoshes vs. IBMs in University settings.  The figures were
something like a virtual certainty that a given IBM would need
`fixing' in the first year, and much less for the Macintoshes.  (Was
it 25%??  Well, whatever.)

The point was not that the Macs didn't break as much as the IBMs 
did, the point was that the IBMs are so difficult to use that normal
behavior was mistaken for `it's broken'.  Most of the time the repair
people could find nothing physically wrong with the `broken' IBM.

I guess I am not commenting on Apple's product quality in the
traditional manfacturing sense, rather I am reminding us of the
greater underlying level of quality.  (Translation: Kent's just
another IBM Basher.)

P.S. Let's hear it for the 1 year warranty!

Kent Borg
kent@lloyd.uucp
or
...!husc6!lloyd!kent