Colin Law wrote:
> 2009/11/30 Odd <iodine@runbox.no>:
>> Also, for those who think the survey makes Apple look bad, Apple
>> did actually come out pretty well. And the difference from the 3
>> ahead of Apple is not that big. Apple is only 1.8% behind the best,
>> Asus.
>>
>> So I don't see what the fuss is about. Why does Apple have to be
>> the absolutely best?
>>
>> Take solace in the fact that Apple is among the 4 best, rather than
>> the 5 worst.
>
> In addition there are no statistical details on the figures. Without
> confidence limits we have no way of knowing whether the small
> differences seen are real or just down to random chance. If you back
> to the original source
Exactly.
> http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109 and download
> the report it says that they have enough data to provide
> statistically significant data on the two year failure rates but says
> that the three year figures are projections (though how they have
> forecast it is not clear to me).
You take the original 2-year numbers, and extrapolate, perhaps?
> This says to me that nothing can be read into the three year figures
Not nothing, but it is more uncertain, for sure.
> On the two year ones the difference between the first manufacturers
> is very small. The report states that the results are statistically
> significant but even that is meaningless without more information.
> What is it about the results that is statistically significant? What
> is the confidence level that Apple is 1% worse than Asus?
1.8%. I'd say it's a 1 in 4 chance that Apple is best.
> Without more information I think all one might say is that the
> manufacturers towards the left of the chart are probably more
> reliable than those towards the right, but I would hesitate to say
> more than that.
That's probably right.
--
Odd
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
11-30-2009, 02:46 PM
Colin Law
Mac look alike?
2009/11/30 Odd <iodine@runbox.no>:
> Colin Law wrote:
..
>> On the two year ones the difference between the first manufacturers
>> is very small. *The report states that the results are statistically
>> significant but even that is meaningless without more information.
>> What is it about the results that is statistically significant? *What
>> is the confidence level that Apple is 1% worse than Asus?
>
> 1.8%. I'd say it's a 1 in 4 chance that Apple is best.
I was referring to the 2 year results, I did not see the actual
figures for two years, only the chart, and guessed at 1%.
Colin
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
11-30-2009, 05:01 PM
Florian Diesch
Mac look alike?
Chan Chung Hang Christopher <christopher.chan@bradbury.edu.hk> writes:
>> Either way, I _know_ that apple and IBM hardware has tended to fare
>> better in the environment I tend to put my laptops through than Acer
>> or Dell. This might or might not be caused by the relative quality of
>> their construction, but I'm not about to discount several years of
>> experience on the basis of a single online survey, irrespective of
>> the standing of its publisher.
>>
>
> Yeah, at a former global based in Germany, the local head in Hong Kong
> once lost his temper for some reason and smashed his Thinkpad Tablet
> against the corner of something. He brought it back to me with a broken
> corner in the casing.
>
> Ordered the bottom part of the casing, took the thing apart and replaced
> and the thing was good as new. Everything else seemed to have taken the
> beating without fuss. I wonder how a Dell or an Acer would have fared
> with that kind of abuse. Not so sure about a Macbook though...
Mac look alike?
