Laptops Direct + Missing Pixels

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:27:50 +0100, Tx2
wrote:

In article ,
, a.k.a Gama Chameleon
says...

My concern is that they will be checking laptops then ones that fail
the PDI check but acceptable will be put to side for the next person
who doesn't pay for the PDI. In effect you pay the PDI or have a much
higher chance of dead pixels that if you went elsewhere.

The odds of getting a 'faulty' one certainly increase it has to be said,
but even going somewhere else that doesn't check still involves a
gamble.

Paying an extra £50 to get perfect when you've spent a £1000 shouldn't
be too hard to accommodate for most folk, although clearly, there are
one or two exceptions.

Aye, providing you have a spare 50 quid left after speding a grand on
a laptop :-)

The point is that once the precident is set you in effect are put
down the route of either paying the extra or accepting a higher than
normal risk of a partially defective display. On top of that, buy not
spending the 50 quid you are pretty much acknowledging that you are
going to get a higher risk of a non perfect display.

Then again I have yet to see a single TFT on a laptop that has been
bought by me or any company I have worked for with defective pixels
and thats going for some years.

Personally I would probably go for the 50 quid extra to get the
machine PDI'ed and patched before receipt simply becuase I can't be
bothered to piddle around with yet another SP2 installation. :-)
--
Gamma gamma gamma chameleon
You come and glow, you come and glow.
Kick out the cats before you reply

In article ,=20
, a.k.a Peter Parry says...

=20
Exactly my point, don't pay for this extra service and you increase
your chances of getting a machine with dead pixels compared with
buying from a supplier who doesn't do this

There is still the gamble whichever supplier you use if the check isn't=20
carried out. OK, so the odds are perhaps increased, but at =A350, it's=20
worth it for total peace of mind....IMO

In article ,=20
om, a.k.a Gama Chameleon=20
says...

=20
Aye, providing you have a spare 50 quid left after speding a grand on
a laptop :-)

If it's that tight, maybe the laptop shouldn't have been a consideration=20
in the first place?

The point is that once the precident is set you in effect are put
down the route of either paying the extra or accepting a higher than
normal risk of a partially defective display.=20

Yep, no dispute there. Pay your money, take your choice.

The whingers should note of course, that no-one is forcing them to use=20
such a service, nor buy from said supplier. If they can't afford the=20
=A350, i understand companies like "The Computer World" aka Time can=20
probably accommodate 'budgets' ;-)

Then again I have yet to see a single TFT on a laptop that has been
bought by me or any company I have worked for with defective pixels
and thats going for some years.

yup, likewise.

Personally I would probably go for the 50 quid extra to get the
machine PDI'ed and patched before receipt simply becuase I can't be
bothered to piddle around with yet another SP2 installation. :-)

indeed. take delivery, switch on, sit back. well worth =A350

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:57:56 +0100, Tx2
wrote:

In article ,
, a.k.a Gama Chameleon
says...


Aye, providing you have a spare 50 quid left after speding a grand on
a laptop :-)

If it's that tight, maybe the laptop shouldn't have been a consideration
in the first place?

There is also for corporate buys certain limits on purchase of kit of
course too. Once you go down to say a 600 quid laptop that 50 quid
starts to be a significant % of the total price.

snip

Personally I would probably go for the 50 quid extra to get the
machine PDI'ed and patched before receipt simply becuase I can't be
bothered to piddle around with yet another SP2 installation. :-)

indeed. take delivery, switch on, sit back. well worth £50

And best of all, less chance of needing to phone to company to sort
out problems after delivery. For many companies, the loss of an hour
or two of employee's time far outweighs £50.

--
Gamma gamma gamma chameleon
You come and glow, you come and glow.
Kick out the cats before you reply

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:52:55 +0100, Tx2
wrote:


There is still the gamble whichever supplier you use if the check isn't
carried out. OK, so the odds are perhaps increased,

The odds are increased, of that there is no doubt. The problem they
will face is that buying from them without paying for this check
makes no sense unless their prices are markedly lower than
competitors who don't do it. You will stand a higher chance of
getting a machine with dead pixels. The more people who pay the
premium the greater the chances of getting a machine with dead pixels
if you don't.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:02 +0100, Tx2
wrote:

Am i a thief?

No. You are a bit cheap though.
--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:29:55 +0100, Tx2
wrote:

It really is so simple, i fail to see how you cannot understand it, or
even question why it exists.

Because he is flamebate. Killfile him like I did.
--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

Tx2 wrote:

In article ,
om, a.k.a Gama Chameleon
says...


Aye, providing you have a spare 50 quid left after speding a grand on
a laptop :-)

If it's that tight, maybe the laptop shouldn't have been a consideration
in the first place?

The point is that once the precident is set you in effect are put
down the route of either paying the extra or accepting a higher than
normal risk of a partially defective display.

Yep, no dispute there. Pay your money, take your choice.

The whingers should note of course, that no-one is forcing them to use
such a service, nor buy from said supplier. If they can't afford the
£50, i understand companies like "The Computer World" aka Time can
probably accommodate 'budgets' ;-)

Then again I have yet to see a single TFT on a laptop that has been
bought by me or any company I have worked for with defective pixels
and thats going for some years.

yup, likewise.

Personally I would probably go for the 50 quid extra to get the
machine PDI'ed and patched before receipt simply becuase I can't be
bothered to piddle around with yet another SP2 installation. :-)

indeed. take delivery, switch on, sit back. well worth £50

This is true, but isn't it also true that the OP can reject the laptop
under the Distance Selling Regulations for any reason, or no reason. Dud
pixels = send it back.

I've missed the start of this thread so if someone has posted this
before - sorry...

--

Peter

In article ,
, a.k.a Peter Hayes says...
Tx2 wrote:

This is true, but isn't it also true that the OP can reject the laptop
under the Distance Selling Regulations for any reason, or no reason. Dud
pixels = send it back.

No. The DSR only gives you the right to examine the goods, in the
packaging.

It does not give you the right to use the goods to assess for
suitability etc.

Assuming no pre-sales pixel check, he could only send the laptop back on
a dead pixel arrangement if it exceeded manufacturer guidelines, which
would then be covered by the Sale of Goods Act for faulty goods

The retailer could also of course agree a goodwill gesture return if it
were not a case of excessive dead pixels.

If he had received a laptop with dead pixels and a dead pixel check
*had* been carried out, then again the Sale of Goods act would apply,
but only because the retailer had extended his statutory rights by
offering the pixel check service they offer.

IANAL

Tx2 wrote:

In article ,
om, a.k.a Gama Chameleon
says...

My concern is that they will be checking laptops then ones that fail
the PDI check but acceptable will be put to side for the next person
who doesn't pay for the PDI. In effect you pay the PDI or have a much
higher chance of dead pixels that if you went elsewhere.

The odds of getting a 'faulty' one certainly increase it has to be said,
but even going somewhere else that doesn't check still involves a
gamble.

Paying an extra £50 to get perfect when you've spent a £1000 shouldn't
be too hard to accommodate for most folk, although clearly, there are
one or two exceptions.

OK, so we have now at long last now established that the £49 is not for
the inspection time or engineering skills at all. It's a surcharge for
getting a laptop at a higher quality level.