XPost: alt.windows7.general   
   From: nospam@needed.invalid   
      
   On 2/28/2024 8:14 PM, Newyana2 wrote:   
   > "Java Jive"  wrote   
   >   
   > | >    Doesn't this really depend on what you need/want? And what's   
   > | > it got to do with Linux? This is a Win11 device for playing high end   
   > | > video games at Starbucks.   
   > |   
   > | No, it's a laptop capable in principle of running any OS, and two of my   
   > | laptops dual-boot into Linux & Windows.  You may not like Linux,   
   >   
   >   It's not about liking Linux. What I'm questioning is   
   > whether you need a powerful laptop for whaty you're   
   > doing. If you boot to Linux then the answer is no. If   
   > you want to play GTA then maybe the answer is yes.   
   > You askid this in Linux and Win7, yet it's a Win11 laptop.   
   >   
   > | Now you're seeming to want to start a flame war between adherents of   
   > | desktops and laptops.   
   >   
   > You're a bit touchy. All I'm saying is that people want and need   
   > different things, and you're asking about whether a particular device   
   > is a good deal without any indication of what you expect to use   
   > it for. You could ask whether a Lexus is a good car. Well, that depends.   
   > Do you have that much money to spare? Do you rarely drive more   
   > than 30 miles? Do you need to haul lumber? (And no, I'm not trying   
   > to start an EV "flame war".)   
   >   
   > | FWIW, my last attempt, over a decade ago after   
   > | having done it successfully for many years previously, at building my   
   > | own desktop encountered a myriad of unexpected problems, including but   
   > | by no means confined to ...   
   > |     - A motherboard that fried itself when a fan stopped working [*];   
   > |     - Mismatched memory [*]   
   > |     - The only locally available make of modern PSU with enough grunt   
   > |       for the new motherboard having leads too short for my tower case;   
   > |     - Others I have long since forgotten   
   > | ... and, even all those years ago, as I recall the cost of that mess was   
   > | considerably more than your $400.   
   >   
   >   It can be risky. I once had a problem where either the MB or   
   > CPU was faulty, and Microcenter refused to accept a return.   
   > I suspect that quality control is not great with these things.   
   > So you just have to hope you don't get lemons. In that respect,   
   > something like a Dell is a safer bet. But I enjoy building them,   
   > and in the long run they're cheaper.   
      
   But the Dell came from a factory too.   
      
   You're probably thinking that Sparkle Ponies live   
   in a Dell factory.   
      
   Sadly, all factories are the same.   
      
   Dell is unlikely to run its own PCB factory. Like   
   HP, they would get a motherboard from Trigem or   
   Pegasus or Mitac or Compal or some other ODM.   
      
   Anandtech had a video once, of the Asus motherboard   
   "two minute functional test". This is the test before   
   the motherboard is put in the ESD bag. It covers the   
   main slots, the CPU socket, some memory slot. Most   
   of the two minutes, is the time needed to plug in the   
   test items. The actual test runtime is pretty short.   
      
   The reason the test is short, is it takes 2 minutes :-)   
   Times the 3 million to 5 million motherboards per month   
   receiving the same test. The result is five hundred tables   
   with a person at each table, plugging in shit and testing.   
   It is labor intensive. If any part of the process slows   
   down... it result in a "need for more tables" :-) I think   
   you can see the dynamic tension involved in the topic.   
   If they plugged in all the USB ports, they would need   
   a thousand tables. That's why we have the joke about   
   the test time being short because it's short. Because it's short.   
      
   Naturally, the overall production loop, includes statistical   
   product inspection, which is outside of our little functional   
   test table fiasco. Every one of N items are pulled aside for   
   thorough examination. If there's a problem, it could mean   
   pulling pallets of stuff back from the production area, for   
   rework or correction of systematic mistakes.   
      
   But ultimately, for "fatal" errors, the pile of material   
   to be shredded and put in the dumpsters out back, that's   
   huge. Most of the product 99 44/100 percent of it, *must*   
   go out the door, or the tipping fee and wasted materials   
   take all the fun out of it.   
      
   At some point, things defy logic. If a motherboard retails   
   for $40 (which might be a clearance price for all I know),   
   there isn't money for test. There should be some price point,   
   where only statistical process control ensures product quality.   
   This calls for six sigma ICs. Jelly bean TTL logic of years   
   ago, that wasn't being tested (only statistical test, if that).   
   That's well before someone thought the word "sigma" should   
   be involved.   
      
   While we have expectations of a test strategy, remember that   
   every factory is a dirty grubby place filled with morons.   
   You can have 99 employees of normal intelligence, and the   
   moron running the facility, spoils it for everyone else :-)   
   Every plant has a weakest link. Plants have unions. Etc.   
      
      Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)