Watch Dog PC repair tonight

[Websitehandyman]

BBC Watch setup a "fault" to catch a company out, fair enough they do seem a bit iffy but so is the "fault" they presented.

What they did is introduce a second hard drive and switch the jumper so the machine would no which hard drive to boot from. They didn't tell the PC repair bloke that they had installed a new hard drive they just said "it started to go slow then wouldn't come on at all".

Now, jumper switches don't actually physically jump from one place to another inside a seal pc so how the hell was the PC repair bloke suppose to guess that was the problem. It just didn't seem fair to me and if I had come across the same thing I would suspect the pc needed a new hard drive because they error is the same "can't find boot ..." - this is what the repair bloke said - although he was over charging at £200.

 

[S-Marketing]

With my limited IT knowledge I had exactly the same thought as you.

He does seem a bit slimey though, and not actually that bright.

 

[andygambles]

I have to agree. Pulling out the IDE/SCSI cable out would have been a better thing to do.

 

[Websitehandyman]

The company concerned is a slimy company and not to be trusted but BBC should also play fair. Similar with the hard disk, the customer was sold a formatted disk and in normal use no data would be seen. Yet the BBC claim they sold hard disks with private data no because they (the bbc) could find that data with deep scan software. If your buying and selling second hand PCs and parts you are under no obligation to fully clean drives unless your being paid to or agree to. The company has no charge to answer in my opinion. Rubbish reporting BBC.

 

[jdbcomputing]

Generally speaking you ought to at least check the drives out physically and try them in another system though. £200 is ridiculous, too, unless including windows licensing.

 

[maxine]

But on a side note the marketing with "local engineers" and recruitment process for qualified technicians was also ropey!

 

[Websitehandyman]

The over charging is an interesting point, most IT companies I know need to trim their prices right down to get work and sales. The thought that these engineers could get the company work by over charging everyone by at least £120 is bizzar.

It might be a good tactic to get people to work for minimum wages but it's now basis to build a business on so I think the might be a lot of filming we didn't see.

 

[seemly]

Generally speaking you ought to at least check the drives out physically and try them in another system though. £200 is ridiculous, too, unless including windows licensing.

Agreed. This is the route I personally take on personal PC's, so this would be my first port of call if it was my day job.

 

[Posilan]

Regardless of how they set up the fault, the "engineer" didn't seem to attempt any diagnostics at all.

The way the fault showed up could have been anything from a corrupt boot sector to a physical fault.

When looking at a client's PC's, we always expect the unexpected and always start with the basics.

Yes, it's unusual for a second drive to suddenly appear, but I've also seen a case a few years ago when a customer added an extra drive themselves because the old one became corrupt/damaged, They didn't disconnect the old one - a few months later the old drive sprang back to action and tried to boot causing all sorts of problems

Steve

 

[jdbcomputing]

Agreed. This is the route I personally take on personal PC's, so this would be my first port of call if it was my day job.

I haven't actually watched the episode in question, just going from the thread.

My rule is to take the disks out and attach them via caddy to my Ubuntu laptop, back the drive up, then work on it and attempt to figure the problem out.

 

[mit74]

BBC Watch setup a "fault" to catch a company out, fair enough they do seem a bit iffy but so is the "fault" they presented.

What they did is introduce a second hard drive and switch the jumper so the machine would no which hard drive to boot from. They didn't tell the PC repair bloke that they had installed a new hard drive they just said "it started to go slow then wouldn't come on at all".

Now, jumper switches don't actually physically jump from one place to another inside a seal pc so how the hell was the PC repair bloke suppose to guess that was the problem. It just didn't seem fair to me and if I had come across the same thing I would suspect the pc needed a new hard drive because they error is the same "can't find boot ..." - this is what the repair bloke said - although he was over charging at £200.

wow really? That's not a fault that's delibrately changing the configuration of the hardware and then lying about it. That's seriously unfair and would catch many people out. And the £200 isn't grossly over-priced if he reinstalls windows etc. A new drive can cost £70+.

If they said they put a new drive in but it wasn't performing probably then fair enough but if they made out the drive WAS working then suddenly broke without interference then clearly that would indicate a drive failure. Although they still should have opened it to check any leads weren't displaced and then they would have seen the double drive and should have diagnosed one at a time. When you say jumper was it the IDE jumpers or simply the wrong SATA slot?

 

[PrestonLad]

I know little about computer hardware... but it was clear to me that it was totally unfair.

The standard of reporting seems to have really fallen in recent years.

 

[Talay]

My solution to PC problems is to chuck it out and get a new one. Not worth getting some clown to look over it if you cannot work out what is wrong from some years of using computers and an hour or two on google.

 

[ccsleedsltd]

The issue with this is that the "expert", i.e. the one that moved the jumper (which couldn't have happened accidentally as already pointed out) commented that the drive was making some whining noises.

Mr PC repair noted this, and it was a reasonable quick diagnosis in house to hear a chattery/whiny drive and assume it was toast. Of course once back in the "shop" it should have quickly been identified as the drives were removed and tested alone or in another system.

However I do think the "expert" was an ass, as dislodging the IDE cable or even disabling the drive in the BIOS (something a user might have conceivably done while tinkering) would have been a more realistic fake fault.

 

[Posilan]

My solution to PC problems is to chuck it out and get a new one. Not worth getting some clown to look over it if you cannot work out what is wrong from some years of using computers and an hour or two on google.

Wow!

I guess you could say the same about any professional trade - a few hours on Google and you could be an accountant, builder, plumber, electrician, brain surgeon........

That's assuming your PC works ok to be able to Google (and the type of people that get ripped off like this will unlikely to have an alternate)

Steve

 

[Websitehandyman]

When you say jumper was it the IDE jumpers or simply the wrong SATA slot?

They introduced a second drive to the PC and moved the jumper on the drive, the little black plugs at the back of the drive. It's clear that is not a fault it's a misconfiguration but the actor they used was an old man and his words to the chap who turned up to look at the PC was "it started getting slow and then stopped altogether". That in itself is a total lie if the jumper was set wrong.

They could have just left a cable hanging but what we don't know is how many time they tried to catch the company out. Perhaps they had done all the easy things and they didn't fall for it.

The company offer free inspections nationwide. To my mind it was this aspect that they looked like they were iffy. The boss told his staff start your quotes at £120 and you'll be ok for you commission. All staff were on minimum wage + commission earned. So £80 for a new drive is reasonable and £120 to cover other cost that they incur on average is the con.

 

[andygambles]

It does make you think how much you can now trust Watchdog to have put in place a suitable 'sting'

 

[pcproblems]

Just to add that I totally agree with the comments that that fault was totally unfair. Mind you, the guy could have rebooted it from a live linux CD to put the customer's mind at rest about his data.

 

[amich]

Happened to see this episode myself (although I don't watch it normally) and had exactly the same thoughts: an unfair sting. With that said based on the other footage of how the company operates, it is fair to say that they don't make a good impression.

Watchdog is too up itself nowadays, just trying to be argumentative for the sake of entertainment. If you also saw the piece about the Fairtrade chocolate you will have heard Anne Robinson repeatedly trying to NOT understand how the Fairtrade logo on a bar of chocolate means that an equivalent amount of Fairtrade cocoa was used even if the bar itself doesn't contain any Fairtrade chocolate itself. A perfectly reasonable way for the Fairtrade people to operate the scheme. It would be different with an "organic" certification where the content of the bar is of direct importance.
But Anne will go on...and on... and on...and in the process treating guests very poorly. The net result for me is that she (and the show) looses all credibility.

 

[ccsleedsltd]

A perfectly reasonable way for the Fairtrade people to operate the scheme.

No I'm sorry, to an un-informed consumer, the logo implies the contents of the bar are made with fair-trade cocoa. That is just not the case....

 

[Websitehandyman]

Happened to see this episode myself (although I don't watch it normally) and had exactly the same thoughts: an unfair sting. With that said based on the other footage of how the company operates, it is fair to say that they don't make a good impression.

Watchdog is too up itself nowadays, just trying to be argumentative for the sake of entertainment. If you also saw the piece about the Fairtrade chocolate you will have heard Anne Robinson repeatedly trying to NOT understand how the Fairtrade logo on a bar of chocolate means that an equivalent amount of Fairtrade cocoa was used even if the bar itself doesn't contain any Fairtrade chocolate itself. A perfectly reasonable way for the Fairtrade people to operate the scheme. It would be different with an "organic" certification where the content of the bar is of direct importance.
But Anne will go on...and on... and on...and in the process treating guests very poorly. The net result for me is that she (and the show) looses all credibility.

Fairtrade is in itself a con, western scheme to enable substandard produce find a marketing edge. It's moved on a lot since then I know but in general if you buy Fairtrade your buying lower quality at an higher price with a large cut going to the marketing company.

 

[ScottishInvestments]

I must admit, I was annoyed at being mislead about the Cadbury's chocolate. I thought the whole bar was fairtrade, not just SOME. I'm an ethical person, so I certainly won't be buying their chocolate until it's 100% fairtrade.

I also hate when companies/spokespeople who come on TV after rehearsing a lot of tripe and not answering questions. Just hold your hands up and change your damned policy!

ScotInvest

 

[PrestonLad]

I must admit, I was annoyed at being mislead about the Cadbury's chocolate. I thought the whole bar was fairtrade, not just SOME. I'm an ethical person, so I certainly won't be buying their chocolate until it's 100% fairtrade.

I also hate when companies/spokespeople who come on TV after rehearsing a lot of tripe and not answering questions. Just hold your hands up and change your damned policy!

ScotInvest

Unless you believe that fairtrade beans are physically different from on-fairtrade ones, then Fairtrade's stance on this is perfectly acceptable - it's the communication of it that needs improving. And your boycott of Cadbury products might even be counter-productive.

It is surely impractical to expect a massive company like Cadbury to go from zero to 100% fairtrade in the space of a single year or two. I expect it would take some work to set up contracts for sufficient fairtrade cocoa beans available for a start, let alone all the other issues.

So if they move to 20% Fairtrade supply... then surely they should be able to label 20% of their chocolate as Fairtrade. Which specific bars are marked makes zero difference to the farmers involved - they'll just be delighted that such a massive player is moving in that direction. And to expect Cadbury to ringfence specific cocoa beans for specific bars, would just introduce a whole load of unnecessary expense... which would make them less competitive... so lose market share to non-fairtrade brands.

If the company see that the "Fairtrade" label leads to more sales - they'll be encouraged to move from 20% up to 40 - 60 - 80 - 100%.

By boycotting, it seems like you're cutting your nose off to spite your face on this one. As someone else said... if this issue surrounded labelling non-vegetarian bars as vegetarian.. or 'organic' when they're not... then that would be scandalous. But this Fairtrade issue makes zero difference in practice.

I agree that she (the spokesperson) would have been better holding her hands up to say that they wished they'd made their policy clearer to the public... and thanked Watchdog for the opportunity to do this.

 

[ScottishInvestments]

Unless you believe that fairtrade beans are physically different from on-fairtrade ones, then Fairtrade's stance on this is perfectly acceptable - it's the communication of it that needs improving. And your boycott of Cadbury products might even be counter-productive.

It is surely impractical to expect a massive company like Cadbury to go from zero to 100% fairtrade in the space of a single year or two. I expect it would take some work to set up contracts for sufficient fairtrade cocoa beans available for a start, let alone all the other issues.

So if they move to 20% Fairtrade supply... then surely they should be able to label 20% of their chocolate as Fairtrade. Which specific bars are marked makes zero difference to the farmers involved - they'll just be delighted that such a massive player is moving in that direction. And to expect Cadbury to ringfence specific cocoa beans for specific bars, would just introduce a whole load of unnecessary expense... which would make them less competitive... so lose market share to non-fairtrade brands.

If the company see that the "Fairtrade" label leads to more sales - they'll be encouraged to move from 20% up to 40 - 60 - 80 - 100%.

By boycotting, it seems like you're cutting your nose off to spite your face on this one. As someone else said... if this issue surrounded labelling non-vegetarian bars as vegetarian.. or 'organic' when they're not... then that would be scandalous. But this Fairtrade issue makes zero difference in practice.

I agree that she (the spokesperson) would have been better holding her hands up to say that they wished they'd made their policy clearer to the public... and thanked Watchdog for the opportunity to do this.

That's complete nonsense.

The point is, someone could walk into the shop for a bar of chocolate like me, notice that Cadbury's have the fairtrade logo and buy it on that basis thinking they have just helped a farmer across the world, when In fact there could be ZERO fairtrade goodness in it.

I could never get away with selling my beef mince from my farm claiming it could be 20% organic or in fact, zero.

It's a major problem for ethical people like me. I'm very conscious when it comes to buying things. My clothes, food, energy etc have to be ethical and it shall not exploit anyone. It's safe to say I shall be buying the Cooperatives 100% ethical chocolate from now on!

ScotInvest

 

[amich]

Unless you believe that fairtrade beans are physically different from on-fairtrade ones, then Fairtrade's stance on this is perfectly acceptable
.
.
I agree that she (the spokesperson) would have been better holding her hands up to say that they wished they'd made their policy clearer to the public... and thanked Watchdog for the opportunity to do this.

Exactly.

With that said, if you look at the accompanying text on products bearing the Fairtrade (cocoa) logo, it doesn't specify that the content of the specific item is 100% Fairtrade. People may just be assuming this to be the case based perhaps on other certifications. The details are fairly clearly explained such that an interested consumer could inform himself.

Like I said, Anne just doesn't want to understand - purely for entertainment purposes.

buy it on that basis thinking they have just helped a farmer across the world, when In fact there could be ZERO fairtrade goodness in it.

What is Fairtrade goodness? It is not a physical characteristic of the Fairtrade marked product. If you have bought a Fairtrade marked item, then you have indeed helped a farmer across the world (in so far as the scheme allows).
Look, the Fairtrade operators have since issued a statement about the Watchdog piece, reiterating their standpoint. Well worth a read.

I could never get away with selling my beef mince from my farm claiming it could be 20% organic or in fact, zero.

Yes and rightly so, because an organic certification affects the physical properties of the product. It should mean that it is artificial pesticide/fertilizer etc. free. The product will often (in my experience) taste different too.

 

[ScottishInvestments]

Exactly.

With that said, if you look at the accompanying text on products bearing the Fairtrade (cocoa) logo, it doesn't specify that the content of the specific item is 100% Fairtrade. People may just be assuming this to be the case based perhaps on other certifications. The details are fairly clearly explained such that an interested consumer could inform himself.

Like I said, Anne just doesn't want to understand - purely for entertainment purposes.



What is Fairtrade goodness? It is not a physical characteristic of the Fairtrade marked product. If you have bought a Fairtrade marked item, then you have indeed helped a farmer across the world (in so far as the scheme allows).
Look, the Fairtrade operators have since issued a statement about the Watchdog piece, reiterating their standpoint. Well worth a read.


Yes and rightly so, because an organic certification affects the physical properties of the product. It should mean that it is artificial pesticide/fertilizer etc. free. The product will often (in my experience) taste different too.

The fairtrade goodness is that, fairtrade. It's completely misleading and it should be changed. How the fairtrade foundation accept this, is beyond belief.

Anne was doing her job, getting answers (or at least trying with this poorly scripted woman). She was only asking the questions the consumer wanted her to answer. The public have a right to be outraged. Clearly led up the garden path!

ScotInvest

 

She was only asking the questions the consumer wanted her to answer. The public have a right to be outraged.
ScotInvest

Nope she asks the questions that upset the public the most.

Its called show business,not to be confused with reality.

 

[JustJohn]

I never watched the program, but was taught early on in my career to interview the customer as part of the diagnostic steps.

If the customer misleads you (on purpose) and you waste time, that may be reflected in the labour price.

 

[JoyDivision]

From watching this myself the fault was very unfair, but £200 is expensive for a hard drive repair. Second hand IDE drives are peanuts (that is what he sold!).

And also I do believe you have to completely wipe the drive to comply with DPA laws before selling a used drive.

These cowboys give us all a bad name sadly

 

[RelyOnIT]

Yup for £200 I'd be chucking it out and buying a new PC for £250. PC's are relatively cheap these days and for most people they only need a machine to surf the internet and email

Just my opinion

 

[MrCloser]

Watchdog did something on a seemingly dodgy London motor trader, the 'death trap' car (that they had been filmed driving around in) was still taxed last time I checked.

Journalistic quality of reporting on watchdog is very sub BBC standard now.