Would it be more accurate with 5,000 respondents was a rhetorical question. Sorry, but a higher number of respondents in any kind of poll always increases accuracy. It's simple math.
No it doesn't, it's simple statistics.Would it be more accurate with 5,000 respondents was a rhetorical question. Sorry, but a higher number of respondents in any kind of poll always increases accuracy. It's simple math.
No, YOU must be Don Francisco's sister.No it doesn't, it's simple statistics.
Lethal
No, blah blah blah blah
Would it be more accurate with 5,000 respondents was a rhetorical question. Sorry, but a higher number of respondents in any kind of poll always increases accuracy. It's simple math.
It may increase accuracy, but not necessarily of the question you are seeking to answer. We would need to take random samples of Mac users, see how many have problems, compare this a number of polls on the website in question, determine the probability of someone with a problem computer responding to such a poll versus someone without.
Since we have done no such normalisation the poll effectively has a SD of infinity thus higher numbers have no effect on accuracy to the thread question.
It would increase the reliability of the poll, but NOT the validity.
The Leopard Sleep->Restart issue aside (one that will be fixed in no time), 22% of Mac Pros don't have major problems. That's just dumb.
I'll believe it when I see it. I had this issue with a dual 2.0 G5, first revision. There was apparently a problem with the power supplies in some early G5s I was told. Then a few years later I'm on a dual 2.7 G5 and still having the same issues. I've installed at least 2 or 3 updates that claimed to fix these problems, but they didn't.
This poll (nor flyingscott's I believe) was never meant to be scientific, but it does indicate something to me, personally. I "feel" like this release of the Mac Pro has had more problems than the first Mac Pro in 2006. I simply want to know how other people "feel" about the results of flyingscott's poll....The quality of the sample group is more important than the quantity of the sample group...l
This poll (nor flyingscott's I believe) was never meant to be scientific, but it does indicate something to me, personally. I "feel" like this release of the Mac Pro has had more problems than the first Mac Pro in 2006. I simply want to know how other people "feel" about the results of flyingscott's poll.
But speaking of "accurate, large, real, random sample polls" -- how would one go about creating a poll like that?
I just got the 2008 Mac Pro satisfaction results back from both Pew Research and Gallop. Both organizations polled every person in the world who has purchased a Penryn Mac Pro, and everyone has had to return their new Mac Pro to Apple -- except for the 51 people on macrumors who have had no problem.Call an organization like this: www.gallup.com or http://pewresearch.org/
This poll (nor flyingscott's I believe) was never meant to be scientific, but it does indicate something to me, personally. I "feel" like this release of the Mac Pro has had more problems than the first Mac Pro in 2006. I simply want to know how other people "feel" about the results of flyingscott's poll.
But speaking of "accurate, large, real, random sample polls" -- how would one go about creating a poll like that?
I know -- My logic was always flawed... as is detailed in many previous posts... but I still feel nervous. I'm going to buy a 2.8 as soon as 10.5.2 comes pre-loaded.90% of the New MacPros have yet to ship. Oops, there went your logic.