|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 03:53 PM EST |
In this instance Apple was in the unenviable position of
having to cover for Intel's failure in its graphics firmware.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 05:23 PM EST |
Your specification for brass rods is unambiguous and would
probably be available in your catalog or web site.
Anybody with a calibrated micrometer can verify whether the
brass rod meets the spec. The tests that you do in QC will
verify that the brass rod will meet the requirements of
anyone who needs brass rod of the specified dimensions with
the specified tolerances.
Apple's so-called test is different. It fails to cull out
displays that will not meet customer requirements. I'm
pretty sure the vast majority, if not all, of computer users
would find ghosting unacceptable, especially to the degree
experienced in the linked blog post.
If Apple's acceptance test doesn't reject systems that meet
the requirements of the vast majority of computer users,
then Apple's test is no good. If Apple refuses to recognize
the fact, bad on them.
Unless, of course, Apple's specification for Macbook Pro
admits that some percentage of the displays will be unusable
for graphics work or work requiring flipping between
screens. But I don't think it does.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|