With due respect, your opinion is well taken; yet, if a drive is purchased retail and broken within a time period that is not typical of a new product, I think the manufacturer is responsible for the defect, as the broken unit probably has design flaw, and should replace with a new unit. In my case, the drive was confirmed defected thru a series of diag. tests before sending back. My drive was broken with little use in only 9 weeks roughly! And by the way, how many hardware revision plextor has made to its “kind of quality” 708a drive since TLA#000x? may be at least 2 already. Therefore, if the 708a model was well engineered without major hardware flaw initially, plextor wouldn’t need any hardware revision, instead, concentrating in firmware revisions should be sufficient! Therefore, we, the 708a users, shouldn’t be responsible for plextor’s design flaws, and get penalized for adopting, or rather, supporting its drive early!
And please don’t get me wrong…
1st, I do think they make solid quality cd-r burners in the past.
2nd, if my drive would have broken after, say, 8/9 months of frequent use and it breaks down, then I would have no problem whatsoever taking a refurb. replacement.
If we think that plextor’s rma practice is justifiable, how about just buying refurb. right from the beginning of our purchases? why bother paying a premium just for the “new box” vanity?