I believe you have miss my point.
Our points seemed to have missed each other completely.
Your logic that user buys a new product should take the risks of its consequence, is hard to swallow.
Is it right? No. However, it is the truth of much hardware today. Early adopters of new tech often get burned.
It is the manufacture's responsibility to assure their products to function satisfactory.
It is the manufacturer's responsibility to assure that their products function to
specifications, and if it doesn't then that's what warranties are for.
I don't use the term
satisfactory because I've known people to be
not satisfied even if the part performed as specified, due to unmet expectations. Whether their expectations were reasonable is up to interpretation.
Your refusal to take Agility3 off the BEST BUY list
I refuse to take it off my list because from my point of view you are a random person who is new here and unknown to me, and making demands of me that I do not feel is reasonable.
If the Agility 3 has a 100% failure rate, then your request is completely reasonable. If it has a 50% failure rate, your request is completely reasonable. If it has a 25% failure rate, your request is completely reasonable. If it has a 1% failure rate, your request is unreasonable. If it has an unknown failure rate, then your request is unreasonable.
Do you have any kind of reputable proof of what the true failure rate is?
Note that OCZ sells SSDs by the boat load, so even if they have the same failure rate as other drives (and I'm not saying they do) they would still have a much higher volume of problems/complaints.
BEST BUY means a product that functions satisfactory with the best price/performance.
I did not say "best buy." I said "best
to buy," with my definition listed as:
"These are all known good SSDs that give reasonably high performance and are resilient to performance degradation."
What I wrote is my own definition. What you wrote is your own definition. I'm sure other people have their own definitions that may or may not align with either of ours.
Hence, my last question is, by defining BEST BUY to based on performance alone:
See my "best
to buy" above.
Is this the official criteria that Anandtech embraces?
I do not represent AnandTech.
I will saw, however, that the majority of computer hardware review sites use performance as a major rating criteria, and features/price when performance is the same, such as with motherboards. You may or may not agree with that stance. Feel free to start your own hardware review site that does not rate hardware by performance.
I will continue to post at your forum and others to put the heat on OCZ until the much delayed issues are resolved.
I see you have an agenda. There are plenty of OCZ haters here so you are welcome with open arms.
I'll help you.
If you want to "force" me to change my recommendations, you can always
complain here, or even click on the "report post" icon (that little red triangle to the left of the offending post). That would put my post under scrutiny by other moderators.
You can also "encourage" me to change my recommendations by providing some reputable failure rate information on these drives, or even run polls to see what the general population thinks.
EDIT: I re-read your first post and you said "please" (we both went downhill from there) so I'll put it to a poll.