Mesh support forum?

[Saracen]

.....

Here is a review of the psu (its not that bad).

MADSHRIMPS - Hardware Reviews ,Crazy Projects, Modding Tutorials and Overclocking
.....

It's not necessarily that good, either.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know that PSU and have no opinion of it either way. I have a loose opinion of that review, though.

My first issue with any web-based review is to try to gain a sense of the competence of the review, and/or the site hosting it. I hit a problem with that review in the first paragraph ...

As a manufacturer, Compucase is ISO9001 certified; met Underwriters Lab requirements in both U.S. and Canada and in compliance with FCC in the U.S.

And ????

What's the relevance of most of that?

Let me explain. With respect to UL, fine. But FCC and ISO9001?

The FCC does NOT certify power supplies. They certify systems ..... and it's usually self-certification (though even that doesn't necessarily mean what it might appear to mean at first glance) at that, after the deregulation a few years back. So at best, IF that remark relates to this particular product, which the review doesn't even claim it does, it will be in relation to use in a given system, not to stand-alone operation.

Then there's ISO9001. That doesn't refer to the quality of products in any way whatsoever. It a system designed to check business processes. It makes sure management processes are controlled and consistent, that information distribution is quality-controlled, that manuals and procedures are under change-control, and so on. And a lot of it is, in my experience, utter cobblers, at least for small to medium companies, because they often pay lip-service to it to ensure they can use the ISO logos (which means passing ISO audits, addressing non-conformance issues, etc but it doesn't ensure that those processes are actually followed in practice.

So .... the reviewer is citing those as things that ought to, and often probably do, instil some confidence in the product when, actually, they have little or nothing to do with the specific product and are used as a marketing tool to try to imply some kind of official approval. This suggests that the reviewer is just citing these as impressive-looking without actually understanding them. It doesn't, personally, fill me with confidence for the rest of the review.


All this is, of course, just a personal impression and a relatively superficial one at that. I'm not going to try to dissect the entire review, if for no other reason than I don't have the power supply to test to evaluate the relatively minimal technical testing that appears to have been done .... nor do I have the equipment to do it. But just because there's a good-seeming review on a website doesn't mean you can trust it. Anyone (well, almost) can write a review and host a website.


As I said, I'm not criticising that PSU. But the review, while it MAY have been perfectly competently done, certainly didn't inspire me with confidence. It failed my 'gut feel' test. But maybe that's just me. We all have to make up our own minds.

[shadowmaster]

I posted that review only to show that the psu is not as bad blitzen made it out to be. As you said its not the best review but its the only one I could find quickly find on google.

I actually think the psu is quiet good, but thats only from personal experience. It would nice to find a better review on the net, but its not a very well known psu.

In regard to 'ISO9001' and 'FCC', I have no idea what these two meant beside maybe having something to do with quality but thanks for the explanation.

[Blitzen]

Compucase is ISO9001 certified; met Underwriters Lab requirements in both U.S. and Canada and in compliance with FCC in the U.S.

FCC is a certification that all electronics in the USA have to pass to be able to be used. It doesnt really make any kind of odds to the unit as even things like doorbells are required to pass this.

I am a Quality & Environmental Manager at a pretty large company, and to a certain extent, Saracen is correct. ISO9001 is a Quality System used by the company. It doesnt however guarantee quality of product. A company os basically auditted to the ISO9001:2000 Standard on an annual or bi-annual basis to ensure their procedures and processes for operations and/or manufacturing are documented correctly. This doesnt mean that comapnies actually follow them all year around (Even thoigh where i work this is the case

Is there CE Markings on the unit? This allows the unit to be legally sold in the Europe.
BTW.....Dont be fooled that just because any company is big, that they 'mustve got CE approval'. It is well documented that recently a VERY LARGE UK manufacturer released product into the UK market for a number of years without CE Approval. THey were fined almost £9 million pounds.

[Saracen]

FCC is a certification that all electronics in the USA have to pass to be able to be used. It doesnt really make any kind of odds to the unit as even things like doorbells are required to pass this.

Well, unless it's changed, that's not quite the case. Motherboards, cases and power supplies don't need to be FCC approved. It's a convoluted logic, but the idea is that base units do need to be approved, and that will consist of a case, mobo and PSU. Other components (video cards, hard drives, etc) do need to be individually certified to be legal for sale, but even there, there's issues.

The certification consists largely of testing for EMI, but it's done in a given system. So, if you test a video board in an old, slow system you're likely to get lower emissions than you will in a fast, modern system. So even once a video card is approved in that original system, it doesn't necessarily mean it would meet emission standards in the system it's actually used in.

When a manufacturer wants to sell a new "system", they're supposed to certify it. But, once that base unit is certified, they can then replace certain components with other FCC-approved components, like hard drives and video cards, without having to redo the certification. And there is then no certainty at all that the new system would pass the emissions test if it was retested, because of the limitations on the testing of those other components, and the potential differences between the component in it's original test system and the system it eventually ends up in.

And, of course, it is not unknown for some manufacturers to just stick an FCC badge on stuff without actually certify it at all. The problem is that the FCC doesn't really have the resources to fully police the whole system, so it's got some fairly significant structural weaknesses simply due to logistics, and that's where it isn't ignored completely.

Oh, and while the most obvious implication of FCC approval is in relation to what gets sold, you're quite right, it does also, in some ways, applies to what gets used. If you, asa home user, buy bits (mobo, case, psu, etc) and build a system, then it's supposed to meet FCC standards. But the practical implications of policing that!

It's technically feasible that a home-builder could be prosecuted if he builds and uses a system so far out of spec that it caused problems, but not aware of it ever having happened.

[Saracen]

....

I am a Quality & Environmental Manager at a pretty large company, and to a certain extent, Saracen is correct. ISO9001 is a Quality System used by the company. It doesnt however guarantee quality of product. A company os basically auditted to the ISO9001:2000 Standard on an annual or bi-annual basis to ensure their procedures and processes for operations and/or manufacturing are documented correctly. This doesnt mean that comapnies actually follow them all year around (Even thoigh where i work this is the case

But there's even a large body of opinion that doesn't believe ISO9001 should be followed, that believes that whilst it can impose a certain rigour it can also be too binding restrict and restrict innovation and limit a company's ability to react quickly. The benefits would certainly seem to be more relevant to larger organisations that, because of sheer size, aren't amenable to the level of direct hands-on management that smaller organisations are. Yet, it's not unknown for even quite small organisations to find that bids for contracts from much large companies are either severely hampered by lack of ISO9001 certification, or are ruled out entirely because of it .... especially for some government contracts.

And at the other end of the spectrum, there are some very large companies that feel that ISO doesn't cover everything they need, and are implementing, for example, Six Sigma on top. Which begs the question, as one commentator put it, if ISO aren't the standard-bearer and Six Sigma is needed (or perceived as needed by those using it) in addition to ISO, what right to ISO have to tell companies how to work? Perhaps they should ensure they are at the leading edge before dictating standards for others to follow?

Before anyone points out that that ISO don't "tell companies how to work" in the sense of compelling them to implement ISO9001, I know that and didn't mean that. But ISO set themselves up as the reference standard that many companies have to meet to be considered eligible for some contracts. There's also been a fairly substantial body of research looking at the whole process, and while it's clear that 9001 certification can be expensive to reach, and quite costly to retain, the effect on long-term revenues is doubtful. In other words, it's not at all clear that the benefits justify the cost.

I'm not involved in this field directly, and I certainly don't claim to be better informed than Blitzen (or I would damn well hope not anyway ), but I read enough to know that not all is sweetness and light in the ISO9001 field - it's VERY widely used, but certainly not either perfect or universally loved. And while not directly involved, I have had commissions to implement some systems specifically because of a need for ISO certification. Those systems certainly had a benefit for the company and a system would have been implemented anyway. But whether it would have been done quite the way it was without ISO .... that's another matter. And whether the hoops that were jumped through for that certification were justified or not is a very different question to whether the system benefited the company. Let's just say I'm a bit sceptical.

[Blitzen]

Well, unless it's changed, that's not quite the case. Motherboards, cases and power supplies don't need to be FCC approved. It's a convoluted logic, but the idea is that base units do need to be approved, and that will consist of a case, mobo and PSU. Other components (video cards, hard drives, etc) do need to be individually certified to be legal for sale, but even there, there's issues.

Yep...you know what i meant. Its more of a 'final build to the seller 'certification rather than by component.

When a manufacturer wants to sell a new "system", they're supposed to certify it. But, once that base unit is certified, they can then replace certain components with other FCC-approved components, like hard drives and video cards, without having to redo the certification.

Well technically they cant but i see your meaning.
You are right when you say the 'whole build' doesnt need re-certification.
However, if a component is changed, your example being the HDD, then a new Bill of Materials needs submission and to be certified as usable by the relevant certification body.
Until this BOM is signed off, the component shouldnt be used within the build.

But there's even a large body of opinion that doesn't believe ISO9001 should be followed, that believes that whilst it can impose a certain rigour it can also be too binding restrict and restrict innovation and limit a company's ability to react quickly. The benefits would certainly seem to be more relevant to larger organisations that, because of sheer size, aren't amenable to the level of direct hands-on management that smaller organisations are. Yet, it's not unknown for even quite small organisations to find that bids for contracts from much large companies are either severely hampered by lack of ISO9001 certification, or are ruled out entirely because of it .... especially for some government contracts.

And at the other end of the spectrum, there are some very large companies that feel that ISO doesn't cover everything they need, and are implementing, for example, Six Sigma on top. Which begs the question, as one commentator put it, if ISO aren't the standard-bearer and Six Sigma is needed (or perceived as needed by those using it) in addition to ISO, what right to ISO have to tell companies how to work? Perhaps they should ensure they are at the leading edge before dictating standards for others to follow?

Before anyone points out that that ISO don't "tell companies how to work" in the sense of compelling them to implement ISO9001, I know that and didn't mean that. But ISO set themselves up as the reference standard that many companies have to meet to be considered eligible for some contracts. There's also been a fairly substantial body of research looking at the whole process, and while it's clear that 9001 certification can be expensive to reach, and quite costly to retain, the effect on long-term revenues is doubtful. In other words, it's not at all clear that the benefits justify the cost.

I'm not involved in this field directly, and I certainly don't claim to be better informed than Blitzen (or I would damn well hope not anyway ), but I read enough to know that not all is sweetness and light in the ISO9001 field - it's VERY widely used, but certainly not either perfect or universally loved. And while not directly involved, I have had commissions to implement some systems specifically because of a need for ISO certification. Those systems certainly had a benefit for the company and a system would have been implemented anyway. But whether it would have been done quite the way it was without ISO .... that's another matter. And whether the hoops that were jumped through for that certification were justified or not is a very different question to whether the system benefited the company. Let's just say I'm a bit sceptical.

My current company uses Six Sigma along with ISO9001 & ISO14001 and to be honest its an incredibly antiquated system.

Also Saracen, i think you are getting a little in depth on ISO9001. Some bigger companies you talk about use more specialised quality standards as opposed to not implementing any at all.

TS16949 is a prime example. WHen i worked for Ford Motor Company they implement this as opposed to ISO9001. However 9001 is encompased within TS16949 and if you are accredtitted to it, then you are automatically compliant with ISO9001 aswell.

The truth is...ISO9001 has a VERY wide scope whereas a standard that is more specialised such as TS16949 or ATEX is very specific in what it is trying to achieve.

Just so the OP knows aswell.........FCC Approval is the American accreditaion and CE Marking is the European version.
However!
If the item already has FCC Approval, the company building and selling whatever the unit is, can 'self certify' the said unit as CE Approved as the FCC approval automatically covers the CE accreditation.
This doesnt work the other way around though. CE Marking doesnt automatically make something FCC Approved.

[moogle]

A Dell@Hexus support forum as a replacement would be great!

probably
hexus never review dell/alienware stuff due to their demands on a review. Alienware afaik but maybe Dell is different , unless they will be reviewing an expensive kit like an XPS..

[tinners]

Shame they left, like others getting my old Mesh PC fixed was the reason I first came to these forums.

Oh well at least I met Hexus

Hope Davey has found gainful employment doing something else. That man took a lot of stick for little reward.....

[shadowmaster]

Hope Davey has found gainful employment doing something else. That man took a lot of stick for little reward.....

He is still working for mesh, but hes moved to managing the forum at the mesh owners club.

MESH Computers Owners Club - Powered by vBulletin

[kelso]

Some intelligent posts on this thread - enjoyed reading them.

I have experienced lip service with the magical ISO label - companies want to appear professional and stick a quality logo after their name. In practice, once attained, procedures are dropped or slacked unless very good management keeps the whip cracking.

Poor field engineer experience is something that many have mentioned.
That is really the fault of the employer - sub sub contracting, lack of training & performance evaluation all cost bucks & someone, somewhere in the chain, is taking money under false pretences.

Some of the best quality manufacturers/service companies have gone down the plughole despite adoring customers, so on we go towards 'disposable everything'...

The laptops get slimmer, but flimsier, Desktops become worthless in a couple of years and Microsoft get richer with their global domination.

My Scan desktop has been faultless and my limited need to contact them has been (in contrast to Mesh) speedy and pleasant.

Dont throw the old pc's - put on PCLinux Gnome & pass to family members old & young

"Live long & prosper"