Laptops Direct + Missing Pixels

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:31:45 +0100, Fat Freddy's Cat
wrote:

Dr Teeth wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:43:20 +0100, Gama Chameleon
wrote:


Of course just below that, it also reads:

"Guarantee of no missing pixels "


NOT on the page I was looking at it didn't!

You must be related to that cerebrally challenged flamebating feline,
join him in the killfile.
--


BWahahahahahahahahhahaha
He killfiles everyone who proves him wrong! What a rich debating tactic.

You want to have a look at the Cleaning a screen thread. Currently 2
killfiled for proving his definition of paper is wrong and looking at
it about 6 pending :-)
--
Gamma gamma gamma chameleon
You come and glow, you come and glow.
Kick out the cats before you reply

In article 415EEAE0.8F0A9D72@ezouvwnmzusxsizefitterzxursaxzo e.com,=20
, a.k.a Johannes H Andersen=20
says...

=20
Since the service is pre-delivery and not pre-sale, how does this affect
missing pixels? I don't expect that they will repair dead pixels will the=
y?=20

They won't despatch it if they find any, replacing it with one that has=20
none, perhaps? That's how my 'guarantee' from digi-uk worked with my=20
Samsung monitor.

=A349 is a lot for loading SP2 that you can get from any computer mag

Yes, it could be done by said method, but he opted to use them to do it.=20
The price is what you can expect to pay for this type of service, even=20
though, no doubt, there are some who would do it for less. In addition,=20
he got a pixel check.

In article , , a.k.a yes says...

=20
It takes approx 15 seconds to check for dead pixels.=20

And .... ?

Installation of SP2 takes about 2 minutes.

Rubbish.=20

If you think a company charging about =A31300 per hour, pro rata for this=
=20
sevice is a good deal, then you are mad.

But they didn't charge him that, did they. They charged him =A349 quid. If=
=20
they did it all in 10 mins 15 sec, then so be it. If it took them an=20
hour, i expect they would have still charged him =A349.

He was paying for peace of mind as well.

=A35 is probably an acceptable fee in my book for a dead pixel check.

You need to get the latest 'version' of your "book" then.
Yours is clearly out of date.

Charging for SP2 installation is thievery

And that is because of ...? I charge clients to install SP2 (amongst=20
other things) My rates start at =A345 a job. My clients are buying peace=20
of mind, my 'expertise' and technical savvy. Am i a thief?

Its a rip-off plain and simple

No it's not. It's a service he was offered, take it or leave it.
He took it, for peace of minds sake. Market rate, job done.

A rip off is when a builder put's a new roof on your house that leaks,=20
but still want's a =A31000 quid a day for doing so!

In article , ,
a.k.a Johannes H Andersen says...


Yes, but it's not exactly demanding work. Any monkey can do that and
perhaps do a dozen at the same time.

Monkeys are related to a lot in this group, i wonder why?

To the average user, installing SP2 is ****ing scary. To the techie,
it's a doddle. Are you suggesting techies are monkeys?

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

Question is if you pay the extra for a machine with no dead pixels
what happens to the machines with dead pixels? They don't go back to
the manufacturer so would you really want to buy from a company which
does this _without_ paying out the extra?

There are acceptable levels of dead pixels. The payment was to guarantee
any product shipped won't have them. I doubt the machines with dead
pixels go back at all, unless there is an excessive amount.

In article , ,=20
a.k.a Johannes H Andersen says...

=20
OK, I see "Guarantee of no missing pixels"...

I'm not sure if this an apology, or an admission of being wrong in the=20
first place?

But I'm still puzzled about what you're actually paying the =A349 for.

*sigh*

It says that it's for a 'Pre delivery inspection' which is a 'Complete qu=
ality
check by our engineers'. In reality you don't need an qualified engineer =
to
find missing pixels, but suppose that you saved the =A349 and had it insp=
ected
instead by an independent top qualified engineer and that he found it had
1 missing pixels? Would they then replace the laptop

I doubt it, as it would (likely) then fall within manufacturers=20
guidelines. There's nothing wrong with that.

If they wouldn't, then the =A349 is for more than the inspection, it's fo=
r
getting a different quality level. Hence the =A349 is effectively a surch=
arge=20
on their computers.

No, it's for *ensuring* the laptop shipped has no dead pixels, and all=20
updates applicable to installed software applied. It's =A349 for a=20
different level of service, not a surcharge.=20

They sell laptops .... some of those laptops will have dead pixels. Some=20
of these will fall under manufacturer guidelines, and be perfectly=20
acceptable for sale, some will not.=20

Pay the =A349 and get one that is perfect, so as to avoid the=20
'disappointment' in getting one which is imperfect but acceptable. He=20
was buying peace of mind, instead of taking a gamble.

It really is so simple, i fail to see how you cannot understand it, or=20
even question why it exists.

In article ,
, a.k.a Simon Zerafa says...


I am surprised you had to pay to have all the recent XP patches installed.

Why?

Any half competent computer company / dealer should be doing this anyway.

Why?

This is something which I do as standard before shipping any PC to a
customer for free

Ah, i see. Because you do it, so should everyone else. Fair enough.

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

snip


Pay the £49 and get one that is perfect, so as to avoid the
'disappointment' in getting one which is imperfect but acceptable. He
was buying peace of mind, instead of taking a gamble.

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

Give it a day or two and teeth will pop along and kill file you for
talking reason. :-)

It really is silly. All the details are listed on their web site.

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.

Of course with all the comlaining by others about £49 quid being too
high, I suspect they assume the magic packing faries unpack the
machine and re-pack it. If its anything like my old Toshiba, its like
trying to heard a pack of Red Setters into the back of a car.
--
Gamma gamma gamma chameleon
You come and glow, you come and glow.
Kick out the cats before you reply

In article ,=20
om, a.k.a Gama Chameleon=20
says...
=20
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,=20
but even going somewhere else that doesn't check still involves a=20
gamble.

Paying an extra =A350 to get perfect when you've spent a =A31000 shouldn't=
=20
be too hard to accommodate for most folk, although clearly, there are=20
one or two exceptions.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:13:43 +0100, Tx2
wrote:


There are acceptable levels of dead pixels. The payment was to guarantee
any product shipped won't have them.

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.

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