Comment Re:MS could we get a DVD drive that works? (Score 1) 935
The point was not to provide the greatest compatibility, but rather just the opposite! MS requested that the lasers be designed in such a way to not read CDR/CDRW/DVDR/DVDRW, but still manage to read most retail pressed media.
This, I believe, is the root cause for the premature failures of the drives. The drives that most closely met what MS wanted (Thompson), are also the drives that most commonly fail . The drives that have the least problems (Samsung), can read the highest varity of disks. I think this is due to the fact that they have a retail brother (616T) and thus share many of the same parts.
I feel sure MS was warned of this possibility when they made the requests to manufacturers, and probably assumed that QC on retail discs would be high enough to not pose a problem. Just another case of copy protection at the cost of quality, or in this case longevity, of the product.
IMHO MS knowingly and intentionaly used substandard hardware with an unreasonably high rate of failure, and should be held responsible for it.
This, I believe, is the root cause for the premature failures of the drives. The drives that most closely met what MS wanted (Thompson), are also the drives that most commonly fail . The drives that have the least problems (Samsung), can read the highest varity of disks. I think this is due to the fact that they have a retail brother (616T) and thus share many of the same parts.
I feel sure MS was warned of this possibility when they made the requests to manufacturers, and probably assumed that QC on retail discs would be high enough to not pose a problem. Just another case of copy protection at the cost of quality, or in this case longevity, of the product.
IMHO MS knowingly and intentionaly used substandard hardware with an unreasonably high rate of failure, and should be held responsible for it.
