Of course, the conclusions are only as good as the data. Take the issue of over-clocking as an example. Do they have data on cooling? Component quality? Compo

Of course, the conclusions are only as good as the data. Take the issue of over-clocking as an example. Do they have data on cooling? Component quality? Component selection? Component handling during the build of the OC system? An over-clocked system with inadequate cooling is definitely more likely to fail. We have several over-clocked systems for FEA/CFD that have been rock-solid since they were built (about three years ago). They generally run nearly 18 to 20 hours per day for weeks and weeks when we have such projects on the table. All of the machines were built by us (I guess they call this "white box" now?). Every single one of them was built in a static-controlled environment. Every single one of them underwent full-load testing when built before being put into service. In most cases this led to identifying memory that failed prematurely. In other cases we've rejected motherboards and CPU's. After a successful two week burn-in period the machines were officially deemed qualified for service. Oh, yes, all of them had fluid-based cooling systems installed and oversized external radiators. I forget what we aimed for in terms of CPU/Memory temperature, but it was definitely nice and cool compared to a normal heatsink setup. Component selection, handling, build quality and burn-in testing are of paramount importance when trying to push the limits. My guess is that most hobbyists don't do any of this and simply go for the shiny new object on the shelf and expect it to work. That being the case, failure rates are sure to suffer. The same applies to non-OC self-built systems. I don't think that I have ever bought a factory built (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) system save laptops. I can't remember ever having any hardware failures in, say, the last twenty years, save maybe one case of a hard drive that refused to spin after a few months of service (backups are golden!). Again, component selection, handling, testing, etc. are of paramount importance when building your own system. The other part of this study that I think needs data is the "quality", for lack of a better word, of the user. How many of these users are Mom, Dad, Grandma, Grandpa and Uncle Fester? How many of these are hackers and computer enthusiast? I, for one, have never enabled the "share crash data" functionality on any of our machines in, again, about twenty years. That's data from a group of users that are smarter than the average bear that MS simply does not have. The data from factory-built systems is probably far more reliable because, well, they are a relatively known quantity. There are still issues to consider, such as the operating environment (air-conditioning, temperature, humidity), air filter condition (full of dust or cleaned every few months), user cabinet incursions (did they install more memory and zap the MB with static?) and more. I did not read the entire report. I don't know if any of these points were covered or not. The conclusions might provide a good approximation of what the average user might experience. Without more data I would be careful about placing excessive weight on these findings.