David (sorry Jim for mistake), there is a Chinese saying, "Don't fear that you don't know about a product, but fear that you don't compare one with another." Customers compare and shop.
I hear you that Compaq needs to cut corners to compete and their computers do their jobs for customers. Is that enough? Did you read the quote I included about the latest comparision between Compaq and Dell about their service quality, hardware quality and price/performance? Granted that is true, whose product would you buy? According to the result of the same report, customers have chosen accordingly, Dell's market share for that product was up and Compaq's was down.
I also remember reading somewhere that one of the problem Compaq had with Microsoft and/or Intel was that they wanted to distinct themselves with their product offering from just any PC. That's not happening lately. I hope Compaq will do something more and better and have more exciting products for desktops and laptops. Good and clever design doesn't have to cost too much. (They tool-free case design was good) They have done that before. Maybe they will again soon. I am waiting for their announcements.
Talking about computers at work. I used to work for a big software company. My computers, in order from the beginning, were IBM PC, then Compaq, then Gateway and finally Dell for desktops and Toshiba for laptop. The company's decision to buy a particular computer brand is based both the price and the overall value and quality of the products. The trend was there. It is not surprise the Dell has been doing better and better. It has solid products with good prices.
Many corporations can afford a little bit more for price than first time home users for a solid product. Compaq didn't seen to do well with them either lately.
Compaq had good reputation with good services and better products (say than IBM's for a time). Now they are getting cheaper and more affordable which is fine but what about the good reputation and the value of their brand? (I already quoted from the reports about their product quality and services.)
Regarding my friend's who bought Packard Bell, he complained it has slowest disk access so it has very slow program loading, crammed space (because he bought one with a very strangely designed case) that was hard for adding memory chips, a extra hard disk, etc. Previously he had some problem installing NT. Other problems with modem and sound in one card were solved by updating with generic drives than the original plus a dose of a phone support engineer's comment of "Microsoft software's fault". It is a workable machine that he has more frustrations with. You buy what you pay for. He just got another computer. Compaq's low price didn't win him over. He assembled a computer himself with parts from local stores -- even cheaper.
Packard Bell was not known for its products' quality and value but for the cheapest prices. I didn't buy Compaq's stock for that.
I am not saying the Compaq is like that but am alarmed by the impression I am getting from what I see in the stores and the news reports lately. I would rather to hear the opposite is true from anyone here or from Compaq. I know Compaq is very strong on server products. It needs to compete well with all products.
|
