Forums | MacLife

In my first iBook, the video card failed (Hell, a LOT of people had that problem.), then in my iBook G4, the hard drive went bad and the stock RAM died within 3 weeks of owning it. Agh.

In fact, my PC actually, has lasted longer than any of my Macs by itself (I.E., not by me breaking it). I still love my Mac, though, since the heart of Mac is still OS X and you can't get their design anywhere else, but yeah...sometimes stuff like that pisses me off. And I think component failure is worst on a notebook since its really not all that user-serviceable.

Ceemkm wrote:

radams wrote:

They don't.  Not really.  The whole "Macs last longer." is true generally because Apple users simply keep their computers longer.  The only real differences between Macs and PCs are the CPU, Motherboard and Case.

Well Apple users can't keep them longer if they are braking down (hardwarewise). Apple takes their Mac through more testing then most PC boxes out there. See the link I posted in my last post.

I did see the link, and while some of what he says is true, a lot, it's also biased.  And on the whole PCs don't break down any sooner than Macs(Well the really cheap vendors like eMachines, but not Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, and any other reputable vendor).

Digital wrote:

My 15" PB has lasted about a year and a half with no hardware hiccups whatsoever. Just for comparison.

Then my luck needs an upgrade.

Actually some of the old 68k's had PGA's and were really simple to upgrade.

Ceemkm wrote:

radams wrote:

while some of what he says is true, a lot, it's also biased.  And on the whole PCs don't break down any sooner than Macs(Well the really cheap vendors like eMachines, but not Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, and any other reputable vendor).

Your wrong, this is only but one article, there are many out there. Many written by PC lovers who how they hate to say, also agree. That is only one that I found in less then a minute. Also putting Dell, does not help your point. They where up there with Gateway on the smurf list.

And what proof do those articles have either? That's all anecdotal.  What is fact is that Apple uses mostly the same parts as PCs and that Dell is continually held up as a good PC manufacturer in regards to support(The whole India issue not withstanding) and satisfaction by independent research firms, though it is continually behind Apple. 

PC hardware, on the whole doesn't breakdown any faster than Macs either.  Yes, a lot more PCs break down than Macs, but when you take into account the huge number disparity, there really isn't that big of a difference between PC and Mac failure rate from reputable manufacturers. 

Are Macs useful for a longer period of time? Sure, but that's more related to the tightly controlled enviroment that the platform enjoys more than any hardware superiority.

Czachorski wrote:

So how do you explain this then?  Objective report from consumer reports based on 39,000 respondents from their annual survey.  Hardly anecdotal.

http://www.consumerreports.org/content/ … com201.gif

Perhaps there is a difference between specs and design?

Amazing how close Dell and Apple are in regards to failures isn't it?  Apple does have high QA, which means there's less defective parts sent out(Same with companies like Dell), but there's nothing inherently superior about the hardware Apple uses.   Your chances of getting a defective PC out of the box are higher(Especially with the lesser companies), and problems early on, due to QA, but the chances of a 5 year old PC dying are pretty equal to a 5 year old Mac.  However, a 5 year old Mac does seem to have a longer life.  Hell you can run 10.3 pretty comfortably on a G3 B&W, compare that to trying to run XP on a PII-400, and it's no comparison at all.

Czachorski wrote:

radams wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

So how do you explain this then?  Objective report from consumer reports based on 39,000 respondents from their annual survey.  Hardly anecdotal.

http://www.consumerreports.org/content/ … com201.gif

Perhaps there is a difference between specs and design?

Amazing how close Dell and Apple are in regards to failures isn't it?  Apple does have high QA, which means there's less defective parts sent out(Same with companies like Dell), but there's nothing inherently superior about the hardware Apple uses.

True.  True.  It is just that design and QA affect the end product enough to make a significant difference in performance.  When people spout off that Apple is no different than any other PC maker they are neglecting this point and the research data that shows otherwise.  I agree, though, that they are getting better results from the same equipment. 

Dell must have similar capabilities - namely in their manufacturing process.  What is really amazing though, is if you consider that Apple is achieving these results with many of the cases and computers as custom, cutting-edge designs.  Dell is doing it with the tried-and-true box.  With that considertation, Apple's track records is quite amazing.

Those stats are not indicative of the real world situation.
Sure, dirt cheap, bargain basement PCs will be less reliable but if you spend anywhere near what a Mac costs on a PC you will have a box made of equally reliable hardware.
I don't know the stats on more recent Macs but I know for a fact that the original Gum Drop iMac ran a pretty steady 10% dead out of the box rate throughout their production life through all revisions.
In 99 the shop I worked at was the only authorized Apple repair center within 100 miles and 4 days after Xmass that year I had 75 DOA iMacs I had to diagnose. Good for me because I worked on a commission, pretty disappointing for all those consumers though.
And unlike Dell or anyother PC maker, with Apple if you have a DOA Mac you cant just trade it in for a new one, you have to send your dead unit in to be fixed and wait for it to come back.
That was always fun to explain to a pissed off customer.

Pariah wrote:

Those stats are not indicative of the real world situation.

39,000 respondents?  Not real world?  Huh. 

I guess I got you to make my point for me.  Apple's perform better with respect to repairs.  One person argues a few posts back that this can't be true because Apple uses the EXACT same parts as every other PC manufacturer.  So I post some very well researched stats by a very objective and well respected consumer organzations, and then someone else says that the reason Apple performs better is because they use better hardware than those bargain basement PCs.  So which is it?

Frankly, I don't care.  Apple makes a great machine, that consistently, year after year, require fewer repairs than their competition (apple has been tops for something like 4 years in a row now in CR).  Whether it is better hardware, better design, etc, doesn't really matter to me.  I am just happy that Apple exists as an option and they work so well.

PCGuy- you may have a point there.  Some people might be returning PCs because of non-hardwre issues, but because of other problems.  You would have to read the consumer reports survey instructions and criteria for hardware failure.  But again, I don't really care.  Even if the survey includes more non-hardware problems for PCs, it still means that you are less likely to have a "problem" if you get a Mac.  When my mom, sister, grandma, etc. are considering a new computer purchase, this is an important consideration.

Czachorski wrote:

So how do you explain this then?  Objective report from consumer reports based on 39,000 respondents from their annual survey.  Hardly anecdotal.

http://www.consumerreports.org/content/ … com201.gif

Perhaps there is a difference between specs and design?

Pariah wrote:

Those stats are not indicative of the real world situation.

You know it took me a while to stop laughing at this quote you wrote Pariah

Even if I where to say that Apple uses the same parts. They sure know how to put the parts together well to operate at their best and optimum enviroment so they last longer. A lot better then a Lard @$$, rubber stamping "O.K." you may get from your PC boxes.

Kurto2021 wrote:

Macs last longer because they don't ever upgrade their damn product line.  I bought my G4 Powerbook about 2 years ago (a 1.2 ghz cpu) and there is no real difference between the book I have now and the one they are selling now.

In contrast a Dell at the same price range will have seen a major change over these two years.  If I had a Dell right now I would want to upgrade...since I have a mac the marginal difference between what I have and what top of the line is makes an upgrade a waste of time.

I do prefer the Mac over the PC but feel the stabilty claims we mac people make are somewhat farfetched.  I believe that in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing Windows XP is every bit as reliable as OSX.  (preparing to be flamed)

All those points may very well be true, but the discussion was focusing on repair history, not how long Macs last.

radams wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

All those points may very well be true, but the discussion was focusing on repair history, not how long Macs last.

Actually the discussion seemed to be why Apple Hardware lasts longer than PC hardware.  I suppose on the whole it might actually be true, but it's also kinda of irrelevant since on the whole computer hardware will survive past its usefullnes.  There's plenty of Mac SEs and Classics that are in perfect working order, but the machine isn't really useful today.  Just as there's plenty of 486 boxes that were perfectly functional when they were pitched, because well, not a lot can be done with it.

Only partially true. An SE or Classic or 486 still in operating condition will do everything and anything it was originally capable of. There may be newer software that does more that won't run on older machines, but there is a lot that can be done of these machines, particularly basic stuff like word processing, etc.

75% of adult, non business computer useage is word processing, email and websurfing. None of this is very demanding on computer resources.