Microsoft is not cut out to make hardware

[Squilliam]

forevercloud3000 said:

Squilliam said:

forevercloud3000 said:

Squilliam said:
Sony took 3 generations to get it right.

Microsoft made a reliable console right out of the gate.

I don't think I need to say any more.

/Thread.

 

took 3 generations to get it right? What do you mean. Yes, the PS2 has a small failure rate, about 12%, but no where near 360 percentage. The PS1 was a SUPER sturdy system, that even after a royal thrashing the thing just would not die. The slim PS2 work perfectly. The PS3 is just as good as the slim PS2 and PS1 in that department.

So that means there was only one incedent with faulty Sony hardware. The PS1 and PS3 success rate outnumbers the PS2's failure rate so in all Sony still can make great hardware.2~1

As for MS's Xbox, it was sturdy too, there were no hardware malfunctions that I know of. Then they rushed the 360 out the gate to get the jump on the market leader, sony. The system is crappily made above all else. That leaves MS with 1~1

Sony wins this one too I am afraid Squilliam....

http://www.zen8750.zen.co.uk/stats.htm Average failure time 17 months after launch. So a lot of people could have been out of pocket on launch PS2s. Since you know, you're comparing launch Xbox 360s to launch PS2s its only fair.

For the PS1 its all anecdotes but what I do know is that the N64s are vastly more reliable than the PS1. You didn't have to run them upside down or anything...

Microsoft still wins.

 

I fail to see how that graph helps. it is showing the average cause of failure within a 17 month time frame. The list is fairly small to try and get any consistent data from it. It is not even comparing the amount of un failed systems to the failed ones, which is how you get the percentage.

I never had a problem with my PS1, I heard no news of a high fail rate. The whole N64 being more reliable is a moot point seeing as we are comparing the XBOX line vs the PS line of consoles. N64's rate means nothing to that. Every console is going to have some form of a failure rate, but it shouldn't ever be as high as 33%, thats like the failure rate of all 3 PS systems combined.

 

Anecdotes Anecdotes Anecdotes. The PS1/PS2 were relatively unreliable to the sturdy Nintendo competition but theres no data as to how unreliable. So theres an impasse.

The PS3s reliability rate is surrounded in mythology. Don't you think its funny that a console with a HDD has a supposed failure rate less than the accepted failure rate of HDDs? (2%) if I remember rightly. So perhaps getting the PS3 failure rate correct would be a good idea- 5% per year is about right considering the 2% HDD failure rate, and the fact that failures do happen. Its within the realm of consumer electronics anyway and vastly ahead of PCs/Laptops etc.

The Xbox 360s reliability is also surrounded in mythology of the negative kind. So I would give an Xbox 360 Arcade Falcon an 8% failure rate while using the accepted 10% for the Falcon with HDD.