They also don't want you to buy a Tesla 3 because it's failure rate is average even though they've never seen one in real life

haha

8)

Consumer Reports has been known to "get it wrong" sometimes.  They've recommended devices that turn out to have issues down the road and they seem to soundly ignore some continually problematic vendors in favor of their agenda.  That's ok.  It's an opinion and theirs is just one.  I believe they try but rarely do they keep items long term in a testing state (costs!) and rely on surveys where people are prone to complaining.  There were definitely issues with Surface items in the early days but they have been soundly cleared up.  I use a SP4 in excess of 70 hours a week, both at home and work since launch.  This is not my first one and not the only one in the many I've recommended.  CR got into some problems, found others in the surveys complaining and made a judgment call.  I do not believe it was the right call and it tarnishes themselves more than MS.  Every PC vendor has made the "race to the bottom" of using cheaper and cheaper parts a standard year in year out cycle.  Every PC vendor has made customer service a cost to be forgotten.  And all the other makers are worse - and that is something missed in their accusation.

Quote from: ruz on October 21, 2017, 15:28:17
Really not a fan of this article and genuinely disappointed with the site for this kind of content. This feels like an attack piece on competitor rather than something that was written to help and inform consumers.

You claim they are "biased", then state their reasoning and methodology and then claim that evidence of previous unreliability across multiple surface products (including the previous version of the product) doesn't matter. You don't offer any explanation why this data isn't important, you don't explain why consumers should be confident that they will get what they pay for, you don't explain how you know Microsoft quality assurance and support has improved

Not only is the content poor, the quality of the article is poor as well. I expect better.

Agreed.  Very disappointing article.

Really not a fan of this article and genuinely disappointed with the site for this kind of content. This feels like an attack piece on competitor rather than something that was written to help and inform consumers.

You claim they are "biased", then state their reasoning and methodology and then claim that evidence of previous unreliability across multiple surface products (including the previous version of the product) doesn't matter. You don't offer any explanation why this data isn't important, you don't explain why consumers should be confident that they will get what they pay for, you don't explain how you know Microsoft quality assurance and support has improved

Not only is the content poor, the quality of the article is poor as well. I expect better.

They are pretty spot on. Surface lineup is pretty much plagued with bugs which will be (hopefully) fixed later with software updates. Sometimes hardware problem like screen, battery, etc.

But gosh, those problems are easily forgiven by all the innovations it offers. If you don't want headache, just don't be an early adopter when they sell something completely new, like previous SB with its detachable dGPU, MS makes you the beta tester.