Re: [IUG] Rationale for "expensive" computers

["Robert F. Rapp" <rfrapp at mf dot lib dot wi dot us>]

Hoyte, Daniel wrote:

> Of course, there can be exceptions...
> On our 2003 upgrade cycle, we rotated in 16 new computers of a major
> name in the industry. Of the 16, 15 have required that the motherboard
> be replaced. One pc has had the motherboard replaced twice.
>
> When you spend more, it does not mean that you will avoid receiving a
> bad pc or, in our case, a bad run of them.
>
>  
Indeed!  When we moved into a new building three years plus ago, I had 
money to buy a bunch of new pcs for public access.  Since the vendor 
that could do the most with sending me preimaged pcs according to my 
specs sold IBM, we bought 41 of them.  To date, 28 have had hard drive 
failure, but only one a second time, even though the replacements were 
the same make and model.  IBM itself, of course, is known for good hard 
drives, but they did not use them in these.  I asked why, and was told 
the IBM drives cost too much (for IBM????).

Now, of course, IBM does not make their pcs at all, but I would not have 
bought any more anyway.  On the plus side, the tech support is fine, 
they get parts to me the next day and returns are prepaid.  All that 
said, I generally buy Systemax now, as they are assembled in Ohio and 
the tech support is first rate, the rare times I need it.

Rob

--
Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, 
verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.
-Heinrich Heine

Robert F. Rapp
Information Technology Librarian
Menomonee Falls Public Library
rfrapp at mf dot lib dot wi dot us