Microsoft analyzes over a million PC failures, results shatter enthusiast myths
What they found is fascinating. The full study is well worth a read; we’re going to focus on the high points and central findings. There are two limitations to the data collected that we need to acknowledge. First, the data set we’re about to discuss is limited to hardware failures that actually led to a system crash. Failures that don’t lead to crashes are not cataloged. Second, the data presented here is limited to hardware crashes, with no information on the relative frequency of software to hardware crashes.
But the analysis can only be as good as the crash data received. Nevertheless interesting.
We present the first large-scale analysis of hardware failure rates on consumer PCs by studying failures in the CPU, DRAM, and disk subsystems.
Yeah well that may be intersting read for harware manufacturers
Selection, bias, 3.2.1, yeah, what I feared.
My machines are not there.
Figure 6 shows that white box machines have less reliable CPUs and dramatically less reliable DRAMs than brand name machines, although disks are just as reliable.
Goes to show when homebuilders go for the cheap way out. I currently have 5 homebuilt desktops (two are modified HP U desktops) and I do not think they have any of the described issues. But then again, the stats are a bit overwhelming to the contrary.
How does this study help improving Windows? Ah, section 8. Interesting.
Custom built rigs have unlocked BIOS, so we play with the settings, it's unavoidable.
To OC a system you advance the settings until it crashes, then adjust again or back them off.
So a custom built system will have more crashes but, will run better
This usually requires more voltage which produces more heat which degrades electronic devices, we all know that and OC anyway.
If you OC with EIST (speed step) enabled your system will run at lower voltage and lower heat most of the time, making it last longer
So it's all good, and we get to have fun.
To OC a system you advance the settings until it crashes, then adjust again or back them off.
So a custom built system will have more crashes but, will run better
not me. Since i played around with KT133 a few years ago I never done any OC.
Since MS primarily deals with software, it's hard to fathom all the different combination of hardware components that create a near endless amount of variables to track down a definitive cause of these failures.
PC enthusiasts are generally those who pick their hardware very selectively (unless their budget can only afford an ultra-cheap setup) and for OC'ing, they tend to employ decent controls (better HSF, pastes, etc.) to manage the additional stress/heat. Since you don't have to be an IRQ/device conflict genius now unlike the Win95/98 days, putting a system together has gotten much easier. The casual user that goes to Costco or what not to buy the cheapest computer made by <insert random OEM here> may not know what quality of components reside in their purchase (I still have nightmares of people buying Compaq or e-Machine computers).
Skewing off the topic just a tad:
Even Apple users still have a very hard time accepting that iOS apps crash/fail significantly more often than Android apps. Unlike Microsoft who deals out only the OS, the hardware found in each iOS device is strictly controlled by Apple. Study: iOS apps crash more than Android apps do | TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog
System Manufacturer/Model Number: Sony / IBM / Apple MB Pro 2011 OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 / OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8 CPU: i7 QM720 - AMD MV40 - i5 2.3Ghz SB Memory: 8GB - 4GB - 8GB Graphics Card: Nvidia 310M - ATI 3200M - Intel HD3000 Sound Card: Various Monitor(s) Displays: Sony 17 inch LCD - 12 inch - 13 inch Hard Drives: OCZ Vertex 2 240Gb
Crucial RealSSD C330 256GB
OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G 240GB
To me that research is useless. Not over a long enough span of time. Not knowing the products, equipment, and or programs also makes it useless. Hell, lack of a Java update can cause all kinds of problems. If you overclock and don't get a shut down your not trying hard enough.
Computer Type: PC/Desktop System Manufacturer/Model Number: Home made Desktop OS: Windows 10 Pro. 64/ version 1709 Windows 7 Pro/64 CPU: Intel i7-6800K @ 4.3 Motherboard: ASUS X-99 Deluxe II Memory: Corsair Platinum 16 gig @2400 Graphics Card: EVGA GTX 1070 OC Monitor(s) Displays: Asus 27" LED LCD/VE278Q Screen Resolution: 1920-1080 or 1280-720 HDMI Keyboard: Das 4 Professional Mouse: Logitech M705/MX Anywhere 2-S PSU: EVGA Platium 1200W Case: Phanteks Luxe Tempered Glass 8 fans/ one radiator Cooling: XSPC/ Water Cooled CPU Hard Drives: INTEL SSD 730-240 Gb Sata 3.0/ Internet Speed: 100 mbits Browser: I.E. 11 default/Firefox/ ISP Time Warner Cable/Spectrum Antivirus: Microsoft Security Essentials/ Malwarebytes Premium 3.0/ SAS Other Info: LG BluRay Burner/
Sound system-KLipsch-THX/
Icy Dock ssd Hot Swap bays.
Agreed. Personally I used to OC my Slot-1 machines back when the Celeron 300A could easily hit 450Mhz (and was significantly faster than the Slot-1 PII 450Mhz due to the Celeron's full speed L2 cache) with just a minor bus speed change in the bios or jumper (Abit BH6).
For today I see no need to OC seriously anymore, machines are often fast enough and the only motivation I'd have to even consider OC'ing is if I'm interested in being the next benchmark king. All the extra mods I'd implement just to keep things under control could easily be reinvested in simply purchasing a faster machine or key system component (graphics card for gaming, CPU, RAM, etc.)
System Manufacturer/Model Number: Sony / IBM / Apple MB Pro 2011 OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 / OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8 CPU: i7 QM720 - AMD MV40 - i5 2.3Ghz SB Memory: 8GB - 4GB - 8GB Graphics Card: Nvidia 310M - ATI 3200M - Intel HD3000 Sound Card: Various Monitor(s) Displays: Sony 17 inch LCD - 12 inch - 13 inch Hard Drives: OCZ Vertex 2 240Gb
Crucial RealSSD C330 256GB
OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G 240GB
Quote
