Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:46:46 +0100, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote: > Wow. The thread that went "Moving to D"->"Problems with > DMD"->"DVCS"->"WHICH DVCS"->"Linux Problems"->"Driver > Problems/Manufacturer preferences"->"Cheap VS. Expensive". It's a > personally observed record of OT threads, I think. > > Anyways, I've refrained from throwing fuel on the thread as long as I > can, I'll bite: > >> It depends on a number of factors, including the quality of the card >> and the conditions that it's being used in. I've had video cards die >> before. I _think_ that it was due to overheating, but I really don't >> know. It doesn't really matter. The older the part, the more likely it >> is to break. The cheaper the part, the more likely it is to break. >> Sure, the lack of moving parts makes it less likely for a video card to >> die, but it definitely happens. Computer parts don't last forever, and >> the lower their quality, the less likely it is that they'll last. By no >> means does that mean that a cheap video card isn't necessarily going to >> last for years and function just fine, but it is a risk that a cheap >> card will be too cheap to last. > "Cheap" in the sense of "less money" isn't the problem. Actually, HW > that cost more is often high-end HW which creates more heat, which > _might_ actually shorten the lifetime. On the other hand, low-end HW is > often less heat-producing, which _might_ make it last longer. The real > difference lies in what level of HW are sold at which clock-levels, I.E. > manufacturing control procedures. So an expensive low-end for a hundred > bucks might easily outlast a cheap high-end alternative for 4 times the > money. > > Buy quality, not expensive. There is a difference.
Nicely written, I fully agree with you.