I know this is not exactly helpful, but one of the things that popped into my mind when every other topic here became about people's new Sandy Bridge builds, was how "careless" (for lack of a better word) I thought it was to jump on new tech so quickly.
There are two elements to this in my mind.
1. It's great and all to be cautious and wait to tech to mature but in many cases, particularly where failures are due to in-the-field wear-and-tear, if it weren't for the early adopters doing the beta-testing then the cautious late adopters would be the early adopters doing the beta-testing! It might be great for you personally to know that someone else has ironed out the bugs by taking the pain of the failure, but if everyone had that mindset no-one would ever buy anything. The in-the-field testing would never happen and the problems never be found.
2. In this case, which looks like a problem with design and in-house life testing, I find it quite difficult to believe that Intel only found out about this yesterday. Sandy Bridge launched three weeks ago. Intel seem to have already gone a long way down the route to identifying the problem at the transistor level, designing a fix, getting the board to authorize a large pot of cash to pay for recalls, got OEMs on board... and so on. So basically what I'm getting at here is that I'd lay money that at least someone at Intel knew about this problem before SB launched. From that perspective, yeah I can see that waiting is a good thing to do
I agree with 1.
I'm typically an early adopter, but only when I feel comfortable and want the product badly
. I'm also a beta tester and a system builder, so SNB was just perfect for me. Had my system been non functional my supplier would have replaced it at once no questions asked. Apple are very smart to wait, but they are already invested in this, just not released.
However I disagree with 2. If Intel knew about this PRE release they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars on shipping alone. Read Anand's article about it
, you might appreciate the fact that the cost of repair and labor is minor compared to the cost of shipping the parts back to OEMs and back to customers. According to Anand's report they have first learned about the problem a few days ago and have been testing to find the exact cause. I'm not saying its not possible but its highly unlikely IMO.