>/g/ BTFO
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
>/g/ BTFO
>>51664587
The only thing this chart shows is that Applel fags don't report broken machines and just buy another one from Apple.
>>51664602
the only thing that chart shows is that /g/ needs to BTFO
So Apple machines wait a year before breaking down like everyone else. Interesting.
>>51664587
> estimated to break
Lel, fuck off with that nonsense.
>>51664686
wtf are you talking about it's UP to a year. the bulk of the failures happen in the first year.
>>51664587
Given that Lenovo mostly sells low-end crap that's pretty amazing.
>>51664716
No, anon is right - with Apple in OP's chart, they are "estimated" to break at a rate of 1/3 the other brands in the first year, then they break at about the same rate.
Literally what anon observed in >>51664686
>>51664587
but /g/ went full Apple this year m8, lenovo is kill because they killed the thinkpad series.
The retro thinkpad might change this though.
>>51664734
>but /g/ went full Apple this year m8
No you stupid piece of shit. They're just shills, notice in edc, battlestation and desktop threads, they're hardly seen at all. /g/ is Chromebook territory..
>>51664734
Latest gen Thinkpads are also great.
Just a little expensive.
>>51664686
And the first two years are covered by warranty anyways.
>>51664587
>>/g/ BTFO
>Comparing low cost pc with high cost pc for such thing
>>51664587
Lenovo, HP and Dell are used in Enterprise.
The rest are consumer brands.
That's all I have to say.
>>51664602
That's an awfully big assumption. Are you seriously providing anecdotes to argue against solid data?
>>51664812
> solid data
Sauce?
>>51664587
>estimated
>windows computers
WTF is this crap? Does this mean ChromeOS and Linux laptops by the same brands won't break?
The fuck is this shit? How did they even "estimate" this result? Does it have any basis?
>>51664812
Solid Data? Are you kidding?
This is just a collection of anecdotes, not objective data. It has been proven again and again that Apple devices are objectively less reliable than most devices on the market.
>>51664760
>/g/ is Chromebook territory..
I want this meme to end
Macs are like a cellphone in a box these days aren't they? They're a SoC with discrete components to tie everything together. Of course they're less prone to breaking when they don't have anything to break.
>>51664666
Satan confirms!
>>51664602
nice damage control poorfag
>>51664827
I'd love to see a link. Having owned dozens of Windows Machines from various manufacturers and Macs over the years, I can say that the Macs seem to fail far less often and have a much longer usable lifespan than the PCs.
>>51664587
seeing how there are 100 windows pcs for each apple device this is completely reasonable
>>51664921
Why can Americans never grasp percentages?
>>51664587
>asus
>3 years failure
>19%
fugg my asus laptop is now 2 years + almost 3 years. what do /g/ ?
>>51664766
battery life is shit though, also the quad-core ones are fucking huge.
>>51664602
>tfw i know people who've done this
its not a meme
but they don't define how they failed
to a typical retarded user, getting a virus = broken,
>>51664898
depends on who produced the laptop
>tfw i have thinkpads a decade+ old, and they all still run flawlessly
i'm sorry you're comparing a $300 windows machine to a $1200 macbook
go compare a $1200 thinkpad and a $1200 macbook and get back to me
>Windows computer
>>51665080
>arguing semantics
>>51664812
You are making even bigger assumption in stating you know true from false.
/lit/ would have a field day with you.
>>51664886
>>51664587
>2000$ Facebook machines break down a little less than the ones for 400$
Oh wow, what a shock!
