Mupp3t wrote:i dont think they can afford to be in the market with that low quality boards anymore. to much competition nowadays isnt it ?
A valid argument, though I would guess too many people just look at the price tag, and if the board craps out right after warranty expires, it's a win situation for the company.
I will give another example, when the CDs were beginning to be marketed, advertisements promised that this medium would be able to hold the information stored on it for a lifetime - at least when handled properly. Competition led to a steady degradation of CDs and DVDs, especially the blank ones, and although the overall average lifespan may still be 5 years for these, some are shot as quickly as 1 year.
Wait a minute, Wolf, I have CDs from over 15 years ago!
Sure you have, first off, quality was better then, and secondly, the problem is not as bad on originally "pressed" CDs you buy in stores since the way information is preserved (actual physical increases and recesses to represent the bits instead of a flat surface a laser marked places as "burnt") is more stable. Obviously, original CDs are a bit less susceptible to environmental conditions, however, these mediums are still a composite medium and thus suboptimal, since the different materials have different chemical and physical attributes.
Competition has led to manufacturers use ever cheaper methods of manufacturing, reduced quality control and greater tolerances towards material flaws - since on that market, money is made over the MASS of sales, and people obviously won't bother trying to return burned CDs is an added plus in the sector...
I know for a fact that even quality responsible manufacturers simply limit their amount of quality control on a simple mathematical formula: the cost of one level of QUALITY CONTROL is measured against cost of expected RMA and replacement at that level of QUALITY CONTROL. If you increase QC, cost for QC goes up while cost for RMA goes down, however, at some point QC costs will rise more than RMA will decrease, so latest then (usually sooner) the limit is reached a manufacturer will bother about quality, because it's primary income is sales!
Yes, there are items which warrant zero fault tolerance... that's why space ships are so expensive.
Anyway... all of this is speculation if it applies to ASRock nowadays or in what measure. My point is simply "just because it looks good, it doesn't mean anything, and since ASRock was known for bad quality in the past, you might be extra wary nowadays and explicitly search for quality remarks in today's test-reports".
Absence of such information is usually not a good sign, because if it is good quality most manufacturers would not hesitate to use that as a sales-argument, on the other hand, if the manufacturer knows its wares are 2nd grade, it will simply leave away that info and concentrate on all the other good aspects the product has.
Just my 2 cents, keep an open eye
