Quote from gnome:
I agree that Dell's support has left much to be desired, but not necessarily about their hardware. (In comparing, I used components which almost exactly matched the Sax System... the only difference was I added $50 to the Dell system to compensate for their not having a 512mb equivalent video card. You can't presume that Dell's components are inferior just because "they're Dell". All of Dell's components are "off the shelf" except for mobo and PSU.)
I've had 5 Dells, 2 of which run all market-day long. (The other 3 were sold when upgrading, still in perfect working order.) The only failure I ever had was a Lite-on CDR which Dell promptly replaced under warranty.
In your previous post, you surmised that I was a "Dell-hater". In this post, you seem to contend that I presume Dell's components are inferior just because "they're Dell."
Both assertions are erroneous, entirely so. I don't understand why you persist in advancing your opinion by mischaracterizing my own.
For the record, I don't assume that Dell's components are inferior "because 'they're Dell'". Indeed, I don't assume anything about Dell's components. Instead, I determine the manufacturing of its critical components and make my judgement on the relative quality/robustness (or lack thereof) on this basis. Your statement that Dell's components are "off the shelf" is, to my way of thinking, essentially meaningless, as the "shelf" of retail components is vast and vastly varied in quality and capability. Or, to put it another way, all motherboards are not created equal, even if they do sit on the same "shelf".
As for the reliability issue, I, too, have had a generally positive experience with Dell. I did have a hard drive failure on a year-old Precision workstation, but such things can and do happen, and I certainly don't hold Dell responsible. When this occurred -- during a market session, no less -- it occured to me that perhaps I should seek to use components, such as hard drives, that have a greater MTBF (mean time between failure) rate than those used by Dell. Unnecessary? Perhaps. It gives me one less thing about which to fret. That's just me, though.
But, as I said in my previous post, let's set the quality issue aside for a moment, as that is somewhat subjective. What is not subjective is performance, and, in this regard, my Sax Systems machine is superior to any offering I've used from Dell. It uses faster memory, cores with faster clock speeds, and a faster front side-bus, all supported by cooling technology that is simply in a different class, assisted by a case of solid extruded aluminimum that is built to last a lifetime (not kidding about this -- the case is unreal).
Bottom line: You say that you configured your Dell system with components that "almost exactly" matched the Sax Systems configuration. I would contend that the devil is in the details -- in the "almost" part.