Mac look alike?
iodine at runbox.no
Mon Nov 30 15:38:02 UTC 2009
Colin Law wrote:
> 2009/11/30 Odd <iodine at runbox.no>:
>> Also, for those who think the survey makes Apple look bad, Apple
>> did actually come out pretty well. And the difference from the 3
>> ahead of Apple is not that big. Apple is only 1.8% behind the best,
>> So I don't see what the fuss is about. Why does Apple have to be
>> the absolutely best?
>> Take solace in the fact that Apple is among the 4 best, rather than
>> the 5 worst.
> In addition there are no statistical details on the figures. Without
> confidence limits we have no way of knowing whether the small
> differences seen are real or just down to random chance. If you back
> to the original source
> http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109 and download
> the report it says that they have enough data to provide
> statistically significant data on the two year failure rates but says
> that the three year figures are projections (though how they have
> forecast it is not clear to me).
You take the original 2-year numbers, and extrapolate, perhaps?
> This says to me that nothing can be read into the three year figures
Not nothing, but it is more uncertain, for sure.
> On the two year ones the difference between the first manufacturers
> is very small. The report states that the results are statistically
> significant but even that is meaningless without more information.
> What is it about the results that is statistically significant? What
> is the confidence level that Apple is 1% worse than Asus?
1.8%. I'd say it's a 1 in 4 chance that Apple is best.
> Without more information I think all one might say is that the
> manufacturers towards the left of the chart are probably more
> reliable than those towards the right, but I would hesitate to say
> more than that.
That's probably right.
More information about the ubuntu-users