Dell denies 20 - 30% return rates for SSD-laptops

Alright Avian Securities, looks like you might have some explaining to do. Dell claims that the 20 to 30% failure and return rates for SSD laptops cited by Avian's report "don't even vaguely resemble what's happening in our business." Dell says it wasn't contacted in the study, and that "global reliability data shows that SSD drives are equal to or better than traditional hard disk drives we've shipped." The company says that return rates are "are in line with our expectations for new technology," and an "order of magnitude" better than what is being reported. To be fair to Avian, the original report cited an unnamed "large computer manufacturer," which some in the press assumed meant Dell, thought it was never said explicitly. It looks like we're going to need some more hard facts from both sides to get the true picture of SSD reliability and customer satisfaction, but for now let's nobody panic.

[OneLove @ Mar 19th 2008 11:19AM]

thats cause they do everything in their power to prevent returns.

[ShortFuse @ Mar 19th 2008 12:03PM]

Sure they do.
When any part of my laptop breaks (Display, Bezel, Hinges, Motherboard, Keyboard, etc) I contact Dell, they ship me the part (for Free) and I receive it Next Business Day Air. I get lazy and take 2 weeks to ship it back to them, even though they already include a pre-paid return label. They even let me replace the motherboard myself and it won't void the warranty. Yes, a laptop motherboard.

[Chuckles McGee @ Mar 19th 2008 1:15PM]

Well, just the returns that have pebbles in the bay where the SSD used to be...

[Chebwa @ Mar 19th 2008 11:24AM]

A large company shipping SSDs with a high rate of failure...

Sounds like a job for Jobs.

[Flashpoint @ Mar 19th 2008 11:27AM]

LOL - Apple Hate !!!!

[Chebwa @ Mar 19th 2008 11:34AM]

Apple is just one of the only other big players in the game with a major product featuring a SSD (the MBA).

Yeah, I hate Apple crap, but in this case it's a legitimate guess.

[Tim @ Mar 19th 2008 11:47AM]

Well at least they can't blame Sony this time.

The SSD's can set them on fire. Here's a video of the Alienware SSD catching some SMOKE!

http://x.cursedsanctuary.com

[jonouk @ Mar 19th 2008 12:03PM]

tim you fucker

I clicked on it and instantly realised the mistake i made before it loaded

[Zak @ Mar 19th 2008 2:21PM]

Chewba, if it's a legitimate guess, then show us one other source that points to a 20-30% failure rate with Macbook Air SSDs. I mean come on, let's be realistic. If there really were that kind of failure rate with Macbook Air SSDs, don't you think it would be all over the news? On every single site and every tech blog in existence? Don't you think Apple haters like yourself would be all over something like this?

Have you even seen the way Apple haters act? They will take the smallest, tiniest insignificant thing and blow it so far out of proportion that you can't even recognize what the original issue was. So please, show me any source that shows Macbook Airs having a 20-30% failure rate on SSDs. If you can't, then obviously Apple is not a legitimate guess after all, is it?

[Chebwa @ Mar 19th 2008 5:59PM]

Hey Zak. Are you insane?

I am simply pointing out that of all major PC vendors (and supposedly this vendor is a big one), Apple is one of the only big guys offering a high profile, mass market product with an SSD. Maybe Lenovo, too.

And if I had a source, it wouldn't be a GUESS anymore, would it?

[jblack @ Mar 19th 2008 11:29AM]

The company says that return rates ARE "ARE in line with our
expectations for new technology,"

Three in a row! Paul Miller for the grammatical error hat trick!

[Rick @ Mar 19th 2008 6:55PM]

Yea, because otehr than Dell, Apple is the ONLY other company that would make a legitmate guess? I'm sure it's one of the many sheep machines running a buggy and flawed Windows OS that you favor.

[Iain @ Mar 19th 2008 11:40AM]

Hands up everyone who is not at all surprised.
*raises hand*

Of course SSDs are more reliable (assuming they are manufactured to a similar sort of QC level as standard HDDs).
That other story always smelled spammy.

[tekdroid @ Mar 19th 2008 11:50AM]

in other words, please buy Dell, there's nothing to fear. (TM)

We are never gonna see an acknowledgement from a computer maker's PR on this.

...unless it's forced outta them. Frankly, they don't need to share this data with us, nor will they.

[Waveblade @ Mar 19th 2008 11:55AM]

It's an unnamed on who the manufacturer is, so it's merely a guess it is Dell

[www.ssdforums.com @ Mar 19th 2008 12:10PM]

I'm wondering how these drives will perform once they start filling up with data. The wear levelling techniques used by most vendors might not take into account drive performance when all their 'free cells' are being used up. I guess they could just try and monitor how much each cell is being used and base it off of that, but it would be interesting to see if there's a performance hit.

if you'd like to discuss this after this conversation is over... it's in the wear levelling thread on my site.

[Mace Moneta @ Mar 19th 2008 12:18PM]

Since there's no seek, why would there be a performance impact?

[Paul @ Mar 19th 2008 12:18PM]

Is it any surprise that there is a 30% return rate for the Macbook Air?
I estimate it takes about 1 week before the novelty of an overpriced, under-performing, ethernetless laptop wears off and buyers remorse kicks in.

[Mace Moneta @ Mar 19th 2008 1:36PM]

"Initially, there is no seek"

No, there is never a seek. That's what SSD is all about; it's flash, there is no movable head to seek with.

Real spinning hard drives allocate spares from spare bands too you know.

[www.ssdforums.com @ Mar 19th 2008 1:27PM]

That's exactly the issue. Initially, there is no seek because the entire drive is basically empty. After things start to fill up, the wear levelling has to find cells that haven't been written to multiple times. Intially, there is no seek time because there are plenty of cells that can be used. As those cells start to fill with data or they become marked as being written to many times, the amount of cells decreases. After that... I don't know...

[Nate @ Mar 19th 2008 12:31PM]

This is because Dell will do almost anything to prevent you from being able to return a computer in the first place.

[Daniel @ Mar 19th 2008 12:33PM]

I LOVE my SSD Dell machine.... I'm using one of the new XPS laptops and i show it off whenever I can. Maybe I got lucky, but overall it's been one of the best laptop experiences I've had.

[www.ssdforums.com @ Mar 19th 2008 2:20PM]

Good to hear there's at least one satisfied customer out there!

[Calvin Gorriaran @ Mar 19th 2008 12:58PM]

"Dell says it wasn't contacted in the study, and that "global reliability data shows that SSD drives are equal to or better than traditional hard disk drives we've shipped.""

That statement makes it pretty clear. Anyone dealing with Dell Servers in the last year will remember the Maxtor drives that had to be fully replaced in several server lines.


Cal

[Mike @ Mar 19th 2008 1:23PM]

I work at a local college IT department, and we were talking with dell execs for a large order of new PCs (ala 8000...very large college :D) and when asking about SSDs they said the rate of lost disk space after a year on an almost-always-on machine is stupendous and that they advise from buying SSDs for another few years. DELL TOLD US NOT TO LOOK AT COMPUTERS WITH SSD DRIVES.

Let that sink in. Press announcements to cover what the rest of the company already knows are foolish attempts at keeping the early adopters at bay.

[lcdrdata @ Mar 19th 2008 1:54PM]

Paul, I hate to dog on you, but you really need to proofread your news posts before you throw them up. 2 typos in this one alone. It's really unprofessional.

/grammarnazi

Still, thanks for great info.

[matt @ Mar 19th 2008 11:22PM]

These things are turds. The reason they are denying the return rates is because they are making it as difficult as possible to return them. We have two that we couldn't let clients keep because they were so bad and Dell wouldn't take them back. Outlook in any version is unusable on these machines.

[Student Driver @ Mar 20th 2008 3:59PM]

The large manufacturer was probably Sony, and they were just covering for their new line of EPIC FAIL batteries that the laptops are shipping with.