OSNews

Again, it doesn't change how they are too often replaced before hitting their limits (likewise for desktops of course; NVM how comparative data between the two classes are still missing, or how laptops are also a bit more likely to endure physical hardships, that's not the point)

It's not much of a trade-off when, too often, people aren't very willing to hold on even to working equipment.

When a laptop fails, it means it is used. It does not fail in the trashcan or in the recycling factory.

[citation needed]

Any one person's experience is not statistically relevant. You cannot confirm anything with your experience, even if you were in an industry where you worked with a large number of laptops.

Your experience can lead to a more scientific inquiry to investigate any claim arising from personal experience.

I realise I'm being a bit pedantic, but too many people day in and day out spout similar things about how what they experience, like, prefer is somehow universal, because they are special or something. And, yes, I'd count myself among those. I try not to draw too much conclusions from my own experience, but occasionally its interesting to see some raw unscientific observations as well. Just keep in mind that its not necessarily the case. Computers, people, things, life, existence, the universe, are all complex things with lots of small interacting parts. Its really easy to screw up our understanding of everything. Brilliant people do that everyday.

Here is one citation: www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf
There has been several studies about laptops failure rates. It is confirmed by my experience but I based the numbers I cited on real studies over hundreds of thousands of laptops. Google laptop failure rate for other citations if you need. They all end up with pretty similar numbers.