I guess I lied [yesterday](http://brooksreview.net/2011/08/buyers-remorse/) when I quipped this about Renee Oricchio:
>Are you aware that anytime I see your name as the author I will now skip past the article?
Because I went ahead and read her [follow-up piece](http://www.inc.com/tech-blog/comparing-pcs-to-cars.html) which is even more confusing than the original. Oricchio truly doesn’t get “it” let alone anything really.
She posts a bunch of cherry picked criticisms (none of which are mine much to the sadness of my ego) and then stated this in the start of her response:
>I think it’s a fair expectation that a new laptop, albeit cheap, should run seamlessly for more than a day.
That is an absolutely fair expectation — naive — but fair. From there though she seems to forget that first mission statement she laid out (I am quoting large chunks and skipping a few things, but I am trying to keep her original intentions intact):
>Who says you can’t compare apples to oranges? When you’re talking fruit, you absolutely can. It is fair to compare a $1000+ Mac to a $300 Windows machine. PC shoppers do it every day. They have to; both are on the spectrum of buying options. What would not be fair is having the same expectations for the bottom and top of that price range (just like comparing Honda to BMW).
Yes, but you are wrong here. You see it *is* fair to compare a Honda to a BMW if your stated reason for comparison is not performance, but as you suggested above is: reliability. Asking: is a Honda more reliable than a BMW? Is a completely fair question, which seems to me is the crux of your argument. You never said that your new $329 computer was slow, but that it was unreliable because it crashed twice on the first day — the equivalent of a car breaking down — so you absolutely *should* (by your own reasoning) be comparing your Toshiba to a Mac.
>I do expect both my Toshiba with Windows 7 and Toyota to perform consistently. I don’t think a cheap price is a reasonable excuse for a totally spotty performance. If you can’t sell something that works right at that price, then don’t go there.
Ok we are back on point now.
>I daresay that a $800 or even $1,800 PC with Windows 7 is just as likely to crash from time to time as my Kia—I mean Toshiba.
Wait, you just got done saying that… No I thought you were arguing that a cheap computer is *less* reliable than an expensive one? Now you are saying that price doesn’t matter — all Windows computers crash? If you *know* that then why did you complain in the first place? Why did you buy Windows? ((I know why, but I fear she doesn’t. She’s cheap/frugal.))
To use your own car analogies: this is more like you going to the junkyard and buying a car that someone wrote on the windshield “runs”, knowing full well that it likely will breakdown at some point, to only then get pissed when the inevitable happens: your car done stopped workin’.
Oricchio, you keep comparing your laptop to a new car, when it sounds more like you should be comparing it to a used car.
Oricchio ends with some odd quips about car analogies, but before that she states:
>Excusing Windows from crashing because I may have been installing non-MS software (everything was Windows-compatible, by the way) would be like excusing my hyptothetical Honda from dying at a stoplight on the way home from the dealership because some of the parts were not made by Honda (only Honda compatible).
I completely agree with this, BUT we *were* talking about the hardware not the software. The software is the same no matter the hardware when you are buying a Windows machine — you chose this!
Here’s the thing, and why I am harping on this. I am perfectly fine with criticizing shitty hardware. I am perfectly fine with criticizing Windows for crashing. I am fine with people stating that Mac users are crazies. What doesn’t make sense is the logic (or lack of) for this buying decision, here’s why:
1. Oricchio seems to be aware that Windows crashes no matter the hardware.
2. Oricchio seems to know that even though this shouldn’t be the case, shitty hardware is in fact, shitty hardware.
3. Oricchio bought shitty hardware (knowing it was shitty) with Windows on it (knowing it crashes).
4. Oricchio then decided that even though what she knew would happen, happened (multiple crashes on day one), that she is *not* the one at fault. Even though it was her decisions that took her to this place and that she had adequate knowledge to make informed decisions.
To use her own car analogy: this is like buying a brand new Ferrari and driving it straight into a telephone pole and then getting pissed that the car is totaled and your neck is broken. ((That may be a bit of an exaggeration — point stands, both are stupid decisions and stupider reasons for complaining.))
Note: This site makes use of affiliate links, which may earn the site money when you buy using those links.