PC Reliability: Apple Falls; Asus & Lenovo Gain

Along with the automobile, the PC is something from which its owners demand reliability.

Based on data from computer repair and support company Rescuecom, there’s been a slight shuffle at which company produces the least troublesome computers.

At the end of 2008, Apple had secured the lead with the fewest number of service calls, but has since been overtaken by Asus and IBM/Lenovo (both companies were listed together, perhaps due overlap from older ThinkPads).

Asus and IBM/Lenovo shared the top spot, with the rest in ranked order being Apple, Toshiba, Acer and HP/Compaq.

Rescuecom calculated PC reliability scores based on a sample of over 15,000 servce calls throughout the quarter.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
ManufacturerU.S. Computer Market Share (percentage of computers shipped)RESCUECOM Repair Shares (number of service calls to 1-800-RESCUE-PC)Reliability score
Asus1.6%0.2%927
Lenovo4.1%1.2%348
Apple6.8%2.1%324
Toshiba5.8%3.4%172
Acer12%8%151
HP/Compaq25.3%17.9%14

Rescuecom does note in its data that Asus started shipping a new version of its Eee netbook in September 2008, making its shipping numbers skyrocket in the last few months of the year, yet the repair company received a disproportionately small number of calls to its support line for help with this product.

"The results are in, and although Asus is the leader this quarter with a reliability score of 972, Asus's reliability score should be taken with a grain of salt, even though it was more than 600 points ahead of IBM/Lenovo. We look forward to seeing if Asus is able to maintain the same demand and reliability over the coming quarters," says David A. Milman, Rescuecom's founder and CEO.

Rescuecom's next report, which may reveal evidence of whether or not Asus sustains its reliability momentum, is due out next quarter.

Marcus Yam
Marcus Yam served as Tom's Hardware News Director during 2008-2014. He entered tech media in the late 90s and fondly remembers the days when an overclocked Celeron 300A and Voodoo2 SLI comprised a gaming rig with the ultimate street cred.
  • I think this is somewhat biased pro-apple. People who buy an Apple product won't call to 1-800-RESCUE-PC as they have a "MAC" and not a "PC". That doesn't mean that their computer didn't break.
    Reply
  • hellwig
    Are these hardware issues only? I think it would be amazing if Asus and Lenovo got those numbers with service calls for Windows issues.

    Also, how do these numbers work out? There must be some kind of crazy adjustable scale here, obviously some manufacturer generates a higher percentage of calls than they own market share. Where is Dell on this list, or RESCUECOM doens't handle them (but they handle HP?)
    Reply
  • pharge
    Wondering what is the score for Dell?..;)
    Reply
  • avi85
    I love my asus's! my full size notebook and my eee!!!
    Reply
  • etrnl_frost
    phargeWondering what is the score for Dell?..Negative scores aren't included.
    Reply
  • Tedders
    etrnl_frostNegative scores aren't included.Haha, burn!
    Reply
  • g0rilla
    I guess Apple is hitting the bottom of the Bathtub Curve
    Reply
  • curnel_D
    phargeWondering what is the score for Dell?..Dell's service is run completely through dell itself. They dont outsource. So they have no reason to release these numbers to an outside company.
    Reply
  • SneakySnake
    Asus and Lenovo also had the smallest market share - wonder if that had something to do with he results
    Reply
  • MrManO1
    more important than market share, what is the average age of these computers? If the average HP is 5 times older than Asus then that throws off the numbers a bit. Most Asus PCs out there should be under a Manufacturer's Warranty considering they haven't been out that long, so those people wouldn't call RescueCom. Also what is the proportion of laptops to desktops (and netbooks)? I would buy a Gateway desktop (not on the list) but never one of their laptops. In fact I wouldn't be afraid to buy any brand of desktop except Dell.
    Good idea for an article, bad implementation.
    Reply