<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326804672059672565</id><updated>2011-04-21T16:51:52.639-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Kartupelis</title><subtitle type='html'>Quality, Usability, Always searching for the best.</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><author><name>edg</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/11676676859976855754</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>4</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326804672059672565.post-3530233773154144749</id><published>2009-01-27T17:35:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-01-27T17:42:53.341-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Undo works too often</title><content type='html'>I hate how in many applications "Undo" feature is so powerful, that I actually start to trust it. Today, I was using PowerPoint and hit "Ctrl+N" instead of "Ctrl+B". My presentation suddenly goes empty, and I instinctively hit "Ctrl+Z". Nothing happens and an hour of work flees down my spine... If you're going to make "Undo" not work for an action, make it a less scary one, not the "New..." command! :/&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/326804672059672565-3530233773154144749?l=kartupelis.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/feeds/3530233773154144749/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2009/01/undo-works-too-often.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default/3530233773154144749'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default/3530233773154144749'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2009/01/undo-works-too-often.html' title='Undo works too often'/><author><name>edg</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/11676676859976855754</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326804672059672565.post-6919992454794849441</id><published>2008-11-30T22:27:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2008-11-30T22:51:04.899-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Using Google to search quality</title><content type='html'>&lt;span style="font-style: italic;"&gt;This post is a continuation to the previous post.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What bothers me is that &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;CryptLoad wouldn't&lt;/span&gt; even &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;appear on Google&lt;/span&gt; "rapidshare downloader" &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;search first page&lt;/span&gt;. Live.com didn't have CryptLoad on the first page either, but it did have RDown. It's a bad Firefox add-on neither Google nor Yahoo found worth mentioning. Maybe better so? Live also was the only service which showed two linux-based applications on the first page. I thought it belonged to Microsoft...&lt;br /&gt;CryptLoad did appear on the Yahoo first page along with bad results.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It's even &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;worse for JDownloader&lt;/span&gt;. Yahoo had a link to JDownloader only on the 18th page! How can two of the best applications be so low?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I started to play with google search to find out, what searches can help find &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;more relevant results&lt;/span&gt;. All I do is writing down the Google result count.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It's important for these Rapidshare downloaders, that they adapt to Rapidshare changes. If an application was good yesterday, it doesn't mean it's good today. So I chose &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;Google option "past month"&lt;/span&gt;. Now JDownloader has twice as many hits as the runner-up, and't it's good.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre&gt;  Name (all time) (by month)&lt;br /&gt;CryptLoad 834000 37200&lt;br /&gt;JDownloader 405000 29900&lt;br /&gt;Rapidshare Plus 320000 16400&lt;br /&gt;Raptor 367000 14400&lt;br /&gt;RapGet 346000 10100&lt;br /&gt;letolto 167000 5140&lt;br /&gt;RapidLeecher 62400 2900&lt;br /&gt;RapiDown 46800 1180&lt;br /&gt;Unlimited File Downloader 40300 994&lt;br /&gt;Downloader.NET 28600 904&lt;br /&gt;Rapget.RS 26200 171&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:130%;"&gt;Quality level&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I found that COUNT_MONTH(rapidshare [application]) / (COUNT(rapidshare [application] doesn't work) + COUNT(rapidshare [application] error)) represents quality good. There's some sense in it - we want to count bad comments and at the same time make sure the development has not stalled. We need active changes but few mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre&gt;letolto 2,887640449&lt;br /&gt;JDownloader 1,811023622&lt;br /&gt;CryptLoad 1,429669485&lt;br /&gt;Unlimited File Downloader 1,39020979&lt;br /&gt;Rapidshare Plus 1,237735849&lt;br /&gt;Rapget.RS 0,501466276&lt;br /&gt;RapidLeecher 0,464&lt;br /&gt;RapGet 0,326649418&lt;br /&gt;RapiDown 0,234872611&lt;br /&gt;Raptor 0,161254199&lt;br /&gt;Downloader.NET 0,03623537&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don't think letolto is accurate because a lot of complaints about it must be in gibberish, it's native language. All else seems right. Notice how "Unlimited File Downloader" is high. &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;Spywares/Trojans/etc can have very good quality&lt;/span&gt;, so I also try to measure, how good the application is for users - praise level.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:130%;"&gt;Praise level&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It's not straightforward to filter out praising comments, I'll stick with the word "awesome". So praise level is COUNT(rapidshare [application] awesome) / COUNT(rapidshare [application] doesn't work)&lt;br /&gt;Error is not included in praise level, because people can enlist errors yet like the application. In fact, for very bad applications, the reaction is less specific.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre&gt;Rapidshare Plus  4,613953488&lt;br /&gt;Downloader.NET  2,256756757&lt;br /&gt;RapiDown  1,641242938&lt;br /&gt;JDownloader  1,628272251&lt;br /&gt;Raptor  1,608&lt;br /&gt;CryptLoad  1,19941349&lt;br /&gt;RapidLeecher  1,068965517&lt;br /&gt;RapGet  0,817343173&lt;br /&gt;letolto  0,621052632&lt;br /&gt;Rapget.RS  0,316770186&lt;br /&gt;Unlimited File Downloader  0,059815951&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here "Unlimited File Downloader" has plummeted down, noone praises it. Rapidshare Plus despite it's lacking quality really seemed praised a lot on the internet. I have no idea why RapiDown is so high or CryptLoad so low. I think I'm &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;seriously lacking&lt;/span&gt; in my praise level estimation &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;formula&lt;/span&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:130%;"&gt;Final ranking&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can't come up with a good formula for this one. I'd just &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;use quality ranking&lt;/span&gt; and ditch the lower part of praise ranks completely.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:180%;"&gt;1. JDownloader&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:130%;"&gt;2. CryptLoad&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;3. Rapidshare Plus&lt;br /&gt;4. RapidLeecher&lt;br /&gt;5. RapGet&lt;br /&gt;6. RapiDown&lt;br /&gt;7. Raptor&lt;br /&gt;I can't put letolto anywhere in this ranking due to it's internationality problems.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/326804672059672565-6919992454794849441?l=kartupelis.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/feeds/6919992454794849441/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/using-google-to-search-quality.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default/6919992454794849441'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default/6919992454794849441'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/using-google-to-search-quality.html' title='Using Google to search quality'/><author><name>edg</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/11676676859976855754</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326804672059672565.post-2594074089050555799</id><published>2008-11-30T22:11:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2008-11-30T22:47:58.559-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Best Rapidshare downloader</title><content type='html'>I was trying out various Rapidshare downloaders to find the best one.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;font-size:130%;" &gt;Total and absolute failures&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" &gt;RapidShare Unlimited File Downloader 1.0.0.1&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rating 1.5 of 5 in download.com is way enough to label this crap and skip downloading. Well, what can you expect from &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;a trojan&lt;/span&gt;...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;RapGet v.1.41&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;Doesn't work&lt;/span&gt; and doesn't give a damn! How stupid is it to count errors, yet not tell what the errors are? Works with megaupload, sure, but not rapidshare. Shouldn't the name imply the opposite?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;RapidShare Downloader.NET v2009 Preview&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My love for &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;unhandled exceptions&lt;/span&gt; is but an epic fail.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;Raptor 1.1b&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is only one negative aspect to this app - it &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;doesn't work&lt;/span&gt;! After downloading few-KB html files and renaming them as the expected result, Raptor feasts in belief of a work well done.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;Rapidshare Plus&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Is &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;hanging up&lt;/span&gt; a feature now? When not hanging up, it simulates Raptor in it's entirety.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;RapidLeecher 5.1&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I've had nightmares better than this application... And, no, it &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;doesn't wor&lt;/span&gt;k.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;RapiDown&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;People tell it's a &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;trial, spyware&lt;/span&gt;, and cannot be uninstallable. Do I want to install? Some other day.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;Rapget.RS v0.9.7.1&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;Doesn't work&lt;/span&gt;. Has status "ready" for hours, never progressing. And, yes, I did press the "Download" button.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;font-size:130%;" &gt;Working applications&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;RapidShare letolto 2.4&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;OMG, the interface, the horror... It really looks functionally good, but the interface is ass. First, the default language is &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;gibberish&lt;/span&gt; (of course), so you have to be a real magician to find out where to change it to english. Too bad whenever you really need english, the text is left untranslated!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;CryptLoad v1.1.5&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nevermind the fact that it takes forever to load and eats 70MB of RAM when idle, this one actually works. It's &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;simple enough&lt;/span&gt;, and I couldn't find major faults. It dislikes spaces in file names. But it's &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;auto-updating&lt;/span&gt;, so whenever RapidShare changes, this program will make sure to update itself (much unlike other crap). The link collecting feature is also nice. On the bad side - why doesn't it allow leaving files in list after downloading? I mean - this app is &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;still crap&lt;/span&gt;, but it works.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;JDownloader 0.3668&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It took me ages to find this app's homepage! You thought writing "rapidshare jdownloader" in Google should show the homepage as the first result? Nope. And after I went through the &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;trouble(!) of downloading&lt;/span&gt; the latest version, I find out that... it's &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;quite good&lt;/span&gt;. It has &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;auto-updating&lt;/span&gt;, link collecting, nice interface and doesn't remove files from list after downloading. Man I must be testing too much crap, if I call this one good...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;P.S. It appeared to me that all(?) of the apps used the URL to identify the service. Whenever a &lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt;link changing&lt;/span&gt; service is used (such as &lt;a href="http://linkto.net/"&gt;linkto.net&lt;/a&gt;), these applications&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt; fail miserably&lt;/span&gt;!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:180%;"&gt;Summary:&lt;/span&gt; If your computer is not aging, &lt;span style="font-size:180%;"&gt;get JDownloader&lt;/span&gt; (my favorite) or CryptLoad. Otherwise, you can try "RapidShare letolto". Everything else is even worse!&lt;application&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/application&gt;&lt;/application&gt;&lt;/application&gt;&lt;/application&gt;&lt;/application&gt;This&lt;span style="font-weight: bold;"&gt; post continues&lt;/span&gt;: &lt;a href="http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/using-google-to-search-quality.html"&gt;Using Google to search quality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/326804672059672565-2594074089050555799?l=kartupelis.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/feeds/2594074089050555799/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/best-rapidshare-downloader.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default/2594074089050555799'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default/2594074089050555799'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/best-rapidshare-downloader.html' title='Best Rapidshare downloader'/><author><name>edg</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/11676676859976855754</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326804672059672565.post-1524357478183507567</id><published>2008-11-23T22:44:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2008-11-24T13:39:49.569-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Washing machine brand reliability</title><content type='html'>I wanted to buy a &lt;span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;"&gt;washing machine that&lt;/span&gt; has only two things:&lt;br /&gt;1) &lt;span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;"&gt;Works&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;2) Cheap&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It's actually not easy, because cheap washing machines fail a lot. And so do expensive ones! There's no use for features when the device doesn't work...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I believe that generally companies either produce qualitative product or crap. It's &lt;span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;"&gt;all about brand&lt;/span&gt; names and factories. So I googled to find which washing machine brands are &lt;span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;"&gt;the most reliable&lt;/span&gt;. Example queries:&lt;br /&gt;"worst washing machines"&lt;br /&gt;"washing machine worst brands"&lt;br /&gt;etc.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Whenever some site had a strong opinion about a brand, I put a plus or a minus for the brand. Whenever it had strong opinions about multiple models of the same brand name, same thing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre&gt;AEG            +++&lt;br /&gt;Ardo&lt;br /&gt;Ariston&lt;br /&gt;Atlant&lt;br /&gt;Baumatic       -&lt;br /&gt;Beko           -&lt;br /&gt;Blomberg&lt;br /&gt;Bosch          +++++-++&lt;br /&gt;Brandt&lt;br /&gt;Candy&lt;br /&gt;Cda            -&lt;br /&gt;Creda&lt;br /&gt;Daewoo&lt;br /&gt;Dyson          ---&lt;br /&gt;Electrolux     +&lt;br /&gt;Fagor&lt;br /&gt;Frigidaire     -&lt;br /&gt;GE             +--&lt;br /&gt;Gorenje        +&lt;br /&gt;Haier          -&lt;br /&gt;Hansa&lt;br /&gt;Hoover         -----&lt;br /&gt;Hotpoint       -+------&lt;br /&gt;IFB            +&lt;br /&gt;Indesit        --+-&lt;br /&gt;Kaiser&lt;br /&gt;Kenmore        ++--&lt;br /&gt;LG             ++---&lt;br /&gt;Mastercook&lt;br /&gt;Matsui         -&lt;br /&gt;Maytag         ++----&lt;br /&gt;Miele          ++++++++&lt;br /&gt;Neff           +&lt;br /&gt;Onida          -&lt;br /&gt;Philco         -&lt;br /&gt;RCA            -&lt;br /&gt;Samsung        ---&lt;br /&gt;Servis         ---&lt;br /&gt;Siemens        +++&lt;br /&gt;Taurus&lt;br /&gt;Tecnik         -&lt;br /&gt;Tricity Bendix +&lt;br /&gt;Videocon       +&lt;br /&gt;Whirlpool      ++-++---&lt;br /&gt;Zanussi        ++++-+&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;The "who owns who" game... Quality reviews for a 3 year old washing machines don't neccessarily represent current quality. I didn't keep track of dates (though ignored the "have it for &gt;5 years" reviews), so I'll pretend all reviews are for recent models.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Current situation:&lt;br /&gt;Electrolux brand names: AEG, Electrolux, Frigidaire, Kenmore, Tricity Bendix, Zanussi&lt;br /&gt;Whirlpool brand names: Kenmore, Maytag, Whirlpool&lt;br /&gt;Candy brand names: Candy, Hoover&lt;br /&gt;Indesit brand names: Ariston, Hotpoint, Indesit&lt;br /&gt;GE brand names: GE, Hotpoint, RCA&lt;br /&gt;Arcelik brand names: Beko, Blomberg&lt;br /&gt;Fagor brand names: Brandt, Fagor, Mastercook&lt;br /&gt;BSH brand names: Bosch, Neff, Siemens&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Popular brands grouped by owners:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="font-weight: bold; display: inline;"&gt;Miele&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;          ++++++++&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="font-weight: bold; display: inline;"&gt;Bosch&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;          +++++-++&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="font-weight: bold; display: inline;"&gt;Siemens&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;        +++&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="font-weight: bold; display: inline;"&gt;Neff&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;           +&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="font-weight: bold; display: inline;"&gt;Electrolux&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;     +&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="font-weight: bold; display: inline;"&gt;AEG&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;            +++&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="font-weight: bold; display: inline;"&gt;Zanussi&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;        ++++-+&lt;br /&gt;Kenmore        ++--&lt;br /&gt;Tricity Bendix +&lt;br /&gt;Frigidaire     -&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;Whirlpool      ++-++---&lt;br /&gt;Kenmore        ++--&lt;br /&gt;Maytag         ++----&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;LG             ++---&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;Indesit        --+-&lt;br /&gt;Hotpoint       -+------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;GE             +--&lt;br /&gt;Hotpoint       -+------&lt;br /&gt;RCA            -&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;Dyson          ---&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;Samsung        ---&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;Servis         ---&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;pre style="display: inline;"&gt;(Candy)&lt;br /&gt;Hoover         -----&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Miele is the most reliable, noone seems to even doubt it. Bosch-Siemens group follows. Hoover is the worst brand. Lack of positive reviews for Samsung surprises me. All else is visible in &lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;the list above&lt;/span&gt;. And, no, there is no conclusion.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/326804672059672565-1524357478183507567?l=kartupelis.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/feeds/1524357478183507567/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/washing-machine-brand-reliability.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default/1524357478183507567'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/326804672059672565/posts/default/1524357478183507567'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://kartupelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/washing-machine-brand-reliability.html' title='Washing machine brand reliability'/><author><name>edg</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/11676676859976855754</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry></feed>
