Who makes the most reliable laptops?

One question we get pretty frequently is some variation on "Which laptop brand is most reliable?" It's an important question, as laptops can be tough to fix, with pretty much no user-serviceable parts inside (yes, I'm sure you're all clever enough to pop open your laptop chassis and tinker around; I'm talking about all the other laptop owners out there). That means if something goes wrong with your laptop, it's a pretty much guaranteed trip to a repair center.

Most people rely on anecdotal evidence to pick a laptop they think won't break down--relying on horror stories from friends or the Internet. Of course, every manufacturer has a mile-long list of angry customers who have not gotten satisfaction from indifferent tech support telephone drones, fine-print-filled warranties, or shady third-party repair services.

(Credit: Consumer Reports)

The detail-minded folks at Consumer Reports have just put out their annual look at the computer industry, and while our colleague Tom Krazit has already pointed out that Apple ranks at the top of the list for laptop tech support, (with HP in last place), we're more interested in the brand repair history chart from the same issue.

The chart shows data from about 75,000 laptops purchased between 2003 and 2007, recording how many have had a serious problem requiring repair. The companies listed are Lenovo, Compaq, Sony, Toshiba, Dell, HP, Gateway, and Apple, and all scored between 20 percent and 23 percent. Consumer Reports says a difference of less than three points is statistically "not meaningful."

So, there you have it--no major laptop brand is really much more likely to break down than any other. Why? Because most laptops are essentially commodity products, made from the exact same components, and differentiated only by their outer shells and extra features. So, next time someone says not to buy a laptop from a certain vendor because they "break down all the time," you can assure them that there's about a 1-in-5 chance their laptop will develop a major problem, no matter where it came from.

[Delfairen]

Of course Apple has more laptops repaired than any of the others. When your laptop costs three times as much you don't mind the repair bill. The others owners just look and say I can buy a new one cheaper than having this repaired and it will be newer and faster.

[kingrah1]

that is so right

[masterjim]

Also,many brands were left out like Acer,Fujitsu and Asus. Fujitsu is among the lowest needing repairs at 8%. Dell was previously at 29%. So Dell has improved since.

[fschoonbaert]

Guys I have had a lot of laptops over the years as a roadwarrior and been involved in a number of IT departments. The worst experiences with laptops owned by people who travel a lot we have had with Dell (plastic clips that hold the unit together break) and Acer. The best experience without a doubt is with Panasonic. You just can't break those units. Throw coffee on them drop them from a couple of feet height and they just keep working as if nothing has happened. Not even a scratch on the case.

The Panasonics are expensive (so you'll ahve it reapisred if it breaks) but I can definitely say that they are worth it if you travel extensively or work in a dirty or rough environment.

[Kalam1ty]

Gotta say, when you take into account that brands like Lenovo sell far more laptops not only to consumers but to businesses as well and still have lower repair rates than other brands, it's pretty impressive (typing this from my T61 <3 )

[gary85739]

Try Sager, they have all sizes and work well. Good tech support.

[clarrkkent]

And this is news?? It's unfortunate, but should be well known that software/hardware malfunctions will occur. They are inevitable. I wholly agree with HP being last for service. I've had 3 very extremely unpleasant experiences with them. I've since gone with Apple. People should shop based on how they will be treated WHEN their laptop becomes a paperweight, not try to avoid repairs altogether (it's impossible).

[ejeon1989]

Haha, they should have Panasonic on their too. Their toughbooks (I have the CF-19 tablet) are damned near indestructable.

[highlander2000]

Nice article, just would have liked to see more brands if they were included (as masterjim noted).

[JustSKJ]

I have used a Dell, Toshiba, HP, Apple & Sony. And then I used a Thinkpad and have never touched anything else. My sincere opinion? Nothing beats a Thinkpad.

[Igiveup2]

The time period covered by the survey includes Toshiba's woeful Pentium 4 era, so it's interesting that they still have a better reliability record than Dell and Apple. I believe HP also produced some P4 units that were pretty bad. It would be interesting to see how Toshiba and HP would compare with the rest if the P4 anomaly were subtracted out.

This puts to rest the myth that the added cost of Apple is for better, more reliable hardware.

[MasterofMen]

Twenty percent means one in five will die/need "serious" repairs. Why not fifteen, te, or five percent?

I have a Panasonic TV. It had something wrong with the motherboard. By the time I complained about it, it was out of warranty. TV=$600, Repair=$200, TV life=fourteen-plus years. I have a Quadra 840 with the same life-span. Obviously, the engineering on portable computers is not up to snuff!

[fultron78]

"Consumer Reports says a difference of less than three points is statistically "not meaningful.""

Uh, what?

There is no way the statistical error is 3% if they based this study on 75000 laptops.

Do the math. The claim in this article doesn't make sense.

[leftofcool]

The claim that a difference of LESS than 3% is statistically insignificant doesn't mean that the statistical error is 3%--it means that it is probably 1 or 2%. Therefore, if you're comparing two computers within a percentage point, there is no significant statistical difference between them. If you compare the best and worst on the chart which are 3% apart, there is certainly a statistical difference. However, we are not given data on how many computers of each brand were studied, just the total number. For example, there could have been more Dells than Apples in the study which might skew the statistics. Since this type of information is omitted, I would trust the makers of the study about the data's statistical significance.

[leftofcool]

The claim that a difference of LESS than 3% is statistically insignificant doesn't mean that the statistical error is 3%--it means that it is probably 1 or 2%. Therefore, if you're comparing two computers within a percentage point, there is no significant statistical difference between them. If you compare the best and worst on the chart which are 3% apart, there is certainly a statistical difference. However, we are not given data on how many computers of each brand were studied, just the total number. For example, there could have been more Dells than Apples in the study which might skew the statistics. Since this type of information is omitted, I would trust the makers of the study about the data's statistical significance.