My experience with HIDevolution and why it could be worth considering before purchasing anything from them. Purchased a Leopard GP63 8RE-602 (February 20, 2019) from HIDevolution (Computer Evolution Inc.), looking to upgrade the components, including two separate SSDs, and improve the performance level and reliability I had so far gotten from a Dell XPS L502X, which so far had over 9 years of daily use. In that conversation, Mr. Donald Stratton indicated that since I was not interested in a gaming laptop per se but a good workstation, he recommended and personally owned a Leopard GP63. That the Leopard could easily meet my computing requirements fan noise level and reliability, while never having experienced a problem with his unit. However, during the initial configuration process the laptop exhibited significant performance issues. The machine would suddenly slow-down, heat-up, until it would freeze. Upon re-starting after it cooled, there was no sound system, upon inspection the utility and driver files had vanished. "Fortunately", the problems manifested themselves repeatedly while being examined remotely by one of their technicians. After numerous attempts to fix that and other issues, over a period of three weeks, the unit had to be returned, after having raised the time frame, just a few days short of the 30 day period! What would have happened if the 30 days had elapsed is only a guess, but not a comforting one after experiencing how they managed the rest of the situations. Another unit, same model and configuration, was sent as replacement after they received the first Leopard. Even though adequate and thorough testing is to be expected, management needs to be able to determine if a problem is solvable remotely or not, within a more realistic time frame. Three weeks of frequent and long testing episodes (often for over 3-4 hours), is simply way too much time and effort, on every body's part, but especially an unnecessary burden being placed on the client. Offering to fix a problem, becomes totally incongruous with the concept, when the technician and the client have to spend so much time trying to identify and fix an issue. If the origin of a problem cannot be determined and solved in one or two comprehensive remote testing sessions, the unit should be promptly returned for repair or exchange. The replacement laptop began exhibiting issues the next day it arrived. The first error message occurred right after startup as soon as the desktop screen appeared, from NetBak Replicator, a backup application used in conjunction with a Qnap-NAS, model TS-599 Pro II. That issue alone was quite significant as it rendered the laptop unable to undergo an auto-backup or a scheduled backup session. The laptop I currently work with, a Dell XPS has been using NetBak Replicator with a Qnap-NAS and NetBak Replicator for over 9 years, without any such problems, even after having installed updates for both, the NAS and NetBak, once or twice a year. However, there were also other issues; slow-downs, not as marked as in the first Leopard, but problematic nonetheless. Upon receiving a work load, fans should speed up, not slow down along with screen response time! This is a strong indication that there was a problem (again or still?). On the second day, the unit froze and generated a "blue-screen", likely a Windows issue (also occurred with the first Leopard). Did they send back the same unit with some parts exchanged and a different serial number? They claim it was a "totally new unit". However, the way the replacement unit behaved, makes it a likely and very uncomfortable possibility. Called tech-support to report the issues and after being tested by the same technician, he recommended drive C: be formatted. This is supposedly a new unit; however, I did request the same C: and D: drives purchased for the original laptop be swapped into the "new" unit. They approved the request for the swap and carried it out, as "it was not a software issue". The re-installation of Windows-10 Pro and a third re-configuration procedure was carried out in an attempt to get the second laptop to work. At that point, approximately 2¾ months had elapsed since the initial purchase and I still did not have a properly working laptop. The error message, from NetBak Replicator, continued to materialize, when that had never happened while using the first Leopard! Their tech contacted QNAP tech-support, and the three of us simultaneously connected to the unit in an attempted to find the source and implement a possible solution. The QNAP tech started by commenting that there was no previous record on that error message. Nonetheless, he proceeded to check the NAS, examined logs from the NAS and then from NetBak. He also re-created the error message a number of times by re-starting the Leopard, but could not find anything wrong with NetBak; still, the message kept re-occurring on start-up. He then indicated there must be something going on in that Leopard. The HIDevolution tech commented that it did not seem to be a hardware problem, to which the QNAP tech replied, "maybe not, but something in that Leopard is interacting with Windows-10 and the NetBak to generate that error message". He recommended formatting drive C: and a new installation of Windows, even after mentioning that we had done just that a few hours earlier. After he logged-off, we proceeded to implement his recommendation. This time Windows-10 Pro was downloaded directly from the Microsoft site and installed in a USB, instead of using the Recovery USB for "Factory Restore", which I had purchased with the original laptop, meaning….. the $40 spent purchasing the Recovery USB were lost! The next couple of days were dedicated performing another set of very long sessions (one of them for over 5½ hrs. jointly, plus an additional 3 hrs. on my part), to see if the combination and order in which the apps were being installed in that Leopard could have something to do with at least some of the issues. I even went into the QNAP site to see if there was a newer version of NetBak (but the latest version was already being used) and saw an msi option of the latest NetBak version (a lighter installer form, as opposed to an exe, ) but after installation, it did not help solve the issue. These are exactly the same apps installed in the previous Leopard, down to the version, and it never exhibited that error message. Moreover, QNAP uses the same NetBak app in a number of their computers with configurations that are quite varied, that go from Win-10 to Win-7 (as well as other versions), and operating systems (Mac OSX, Linux, Google Chrome), with no such issues. The tech from HIDevolution finally contacted management and requested an RMA be issued for the replacement unit. (If this was a software issue, why request sending the replacement laptop back for another replacement?) I commented that I simply had no option but to go ahead with the exchange, but that given what had happened and that it had been going on for such a long time, I was not willing to venture testing another Leopard (or possibly the same Leopard again with a different set of components!). Also mentioned that given the extraordinary amount of time that it had already taken, it seemed reasonable to be offered some type of compensation as a gesture of fair-play and good faith from HIDevolution's, for the significant amount of time and effort invested in helping them identify the source of the problem. I went into their website, examined and selected as a possible candidate, a MSI GT63 8RF TITAN-047 which at the time was on sale, but still generated a +$395 difference in price; however, I also wanted to discuss other options. Next day, Mr. Donald Stratton called from HIDevolution, I requested the price difference be absorbed by HIDevolution as fair compensation and gesture of good faith, but the request was rejected. When he asked me to propose another option, I counter-proposed that given the circumstances, they should at least meet the price difference half-way, but it was also unceremoniously rejected. Bottom line, there was not going to be any compensation on their part, even when the amount of money now under consideration, was less than $200, definitely not a significant quantity, more so when considering the amount of time so far invested in helping them during 2¾ months of testing. More importantly, no alternative option or offer was made by HIDevolution, making the situation even more uncomfortable, and I still had a completely paid for, yet non-working laptop to my name and in their possession. After 2¾ months, things had already gone beyond a reasonable time frame and still without a realistic solution and given how things were unfolding, I simply could not afford spending more time testing yet another of their laptops, just to see if it worked. I am writing a book and have a deadline to meet, and to say the least, this was being a major distraction and aggravation. Plus, I felt I was being left holding "the short-end of the stick", with practically no say so in the situation. Utilizing a "Policy" with that much leeway in their favor and against the client is simply not a fair or proper way to conduct business. There was no incentive to continue the business transaction. The RMA had already been requested, approved and when it arrived, the replacement Leopard was shipped back, that very same afternoon (May 13). This was after receiving an email from Mr. Stratton stating that the return time frame had been "extended" to 7 days. The Policy states 10 days after issuance, I got the replacement laptop on April 30th and shipped it back on May 13. However his May 13th email indicates the RMA was issued on the 13th and "We will need it back in our hands in 7 business days." (Where in the Policy is this stated?) I paid $55.41 for a corresponding return UPS-Ground shipping cost (which they also do, not just to save money, but so they are not responsible if anything happens to the unit while in transit!) Yes, it is stated in the Returns and Replacements Policy, but there is also no mention or provision for cases as unusual as this one, which you would think, a responsible business would realistically accommodate, so as not to penalize the client, when the problems arise from equipment they sold. On top of the shipping cost and owing the responsibility for the unit while in transit, I was also charged a 5% restocking fee which was reduced from 10% "to show their appreciation for the regrettable experience". Why a restocking fee, it was not my desire or choice to return the laptops, it was the result of unsolvable problems with both laptops that were sent to me by HIDevolution. (And at that time, I was still open to consider an offer for another exchange; however, for another model.) Again, charges and costs, which given the remarkable set of circumstances and time frame involved, should have simply been waived. This was definitely not a change of mind or a capricious request for return of merchandize on my part. Both units exhibited problems which could not be fixed, even after replacing one of the units. Moreover, the fact that I was not offered a different model or any other alternative, weighed heavily in considering terminating the business relationship and asking for a refund, to in fact, "cut my losses", as by now I was quite concerned with what they could come-up with next. If both laptops would have exhibited the same problems as a result of the apps I had installed, I could consider the apps being a possible source or contributing to it. If the problem was not software related in the first returned Leopard and the same two drives were approved to be swapped into the replacement unit for that same reason, plus their own tech requested the replacement unit to also be replaced, the most likely reason was that there was a problem with the Leopards. Even then, a workable solution should have been offered by HIDevolution, not just left the client in a swim or sink situation. It was HIDevolution who sold the laptops, not the other way around. After installing exactly the same apps and versions, in two different Leopards, the possibility of the installed apps being the source of or contributing to the issues had simply faded out of the realm of possibilities. I have been using the same apps and their respective updates in a Dell XPS, without experiencing those slow-downs and/or error messages, for over 9 years! Furthermore, QNAP claims it was the first time they had heard of such a problem and made the point to indicate that something was possibly not Ok in the laptop. So, there is more than one indication pointing to something in those two laptops being the possible source of the problems and none pointing to the apps being used. Furthermore, regardless of who says what, this is or should be considered an out of the ordinary incident, and when things like these occur, you need to have the assurance that you are dealing with a business whose management exhibits work ethics, attitudes, policies, and a client support program that provides realistic, fair alternatives and solutions, that go hand in hand with the specifics and magnitude of the issue under consideration. This was clearly not the case with HIDevolution. Along the way, when I manifested my concerns of what was going on, for so long, I was told by Mr. Stratton, and rested on his assurance; "Do not worry, you'll be taken care-of", and while testing the replacement laptop, "the tech reported you patiently worked with him for several hours today (5½ hrs.). Were you satisfied with the results, or do you require further action on our part?" However, in the end, I was proven otherwise, ended-up investing a considerable amount of time and effort helping them try to identify and find answers to the problems, not just for me, but aware that others may also experience the same problems, and was literally left to face the hardship on my own, when each of the two laptops they shipped exhibited problems, while factors and conditions on my side remained exactly the same, in all likelihood excluding my computing environment as the possible source of the problems, more importantly, pointing to the Leopard laptops as the possible source of the issues. If you want a client to invest in a business, it needs to have sound and realistic policies in place to effectively tackle those less frequent, unusual, nonetheless real situations. Can't "detect" how adequate and diligent a business is (or not), when the items purchased work OK. Do not take me wrong, it is great that the vast majority of the units they sell are good; however, those units do not provide the opportunity to reveal how far the business is willing to twist a situation in their favor to avoid accepting their responsibilities, leaving the client with the burden and consequences. In the end, after over 3¼ months had elapsed, they lost the business and a client. Meanwhile, I had invested and lost a significant amount of time while working with them (or for them) almost daily for three months (definitely with a dollar value that is much higher than the price of the laptop), and in addition to that; $55.41 in return shipping costs. Besides, HIDevolution retained $178.65 and refunded $1, 994.35 when the agreed upon refund deduction was to de 5% or ($108.65). That brings the total amount of money HIDevolution retained to $234.06. A breakdown of the items and amounts of money retained was never provided by HID evolution. To this day I can only explain the 5% or $108.65 that was retained, but have no idea to what the rest of the retained portion accounted for. After the refund notice had been issued, Mr. Stratton claimed that my concern about the amount of time the "refund" had taken "was not relevant, as this was a negotiation out of policy". From the moment I mentioned I was going to pursue a refund, I was always referred to the Returns and Replacements Policy. At no time was I ever made aware that we were "negotiating out of Policy" until after the refund notice to PayPal had been issued. Besides, the reality is I was never offered anything by HIDevolution, so to the contrary, the fact that after the refund notice had been issued Mr. Stratton claims that we were negotiating out of Policy, is highly relevant. To this day, I have no idea of which set of rules was being used, placing me in an even more disfavorable situation. Even when referring to "answer 3" in their Returns and Refunds Policy, how am I supposed to interpret; "Unless it was due to our error, a 10% restocking fee will apply for all non-damaged item returns." Is sending a laptop, in this case two, which were not fixable, considered an "error" on their part? Is their adjusting of the restocking fee from 10 to 5% an indication and recognition that both laptops were not fixable and had to be returned to their facilities? In which case, even a 5% restocking fee would be unjustified! As an example of the time frame someone might have to endure in a regrettable situation similar to this one, HIDevolution received the replacement laptop back on May 17 at 10:33 AM (Attachment #1, page 6), the refund notice from HIDevolution to PayPal was received May 29, 13 calendar days (9 business days) after they received the laptop. However, PayPal received and released the funds to my account on June 5, 20 calendar days (14 business days) after HIDevolution received the laptop. I finally got the amount HIDevolution refunded, 105 calendar days or approximately 3½ months after the initial purchase in February 20, 2019. In contrast, HIDevolution debited my credit card on February 20, and were in possession of the money no later than February 23. Of main concern is that all these situations could have been totally avoided if HIDevolution had adopted a more proactive and functional client support program which implemented adequate procedures and exhibited dispositions to effectively manage these situations. Not many clients are willing to invest three months of their time and effort to assist a business in their attempt to find a solution to a problem of a product they sold. That is why taking the time to write these incidents was important to me, so others hopefully do not have to endure a similar experience when they purchase a malfunctioning device from HIDevolution, from a business that seems to have managed to find a way to, when consider fitting, wiggle their way out of assuming their responsibility and due diligence. To recapitulate: The first major shortcoming HIDevolution this development points to is them not having adequate testing protocols in place during their assembly and burnout procedures. Sure, a computer is an electronic device and as such, in theory, anything can happen at any time; however, they are unrealistically (and unfairly) using that concept, plus the offer to "fix the problem", along with the image created by the appeal of offering "Lifetime Technical Support", when the reality is that when a client ends up receiving a computer they sold, which does not work properly, it's the customer who likely ends up absorbing the bulk of the burden and negative consequences, including monetarily. The second major issue HIDevolution has is that, regardless of the testing protocols, when situations like these do materialize, a totally different approach and protocol needs to be brought into action to effectively address the reality of the situation. They clearly do not have adequate procedures in these cases or the disposition to implement them, and like testing protocols, it seems they are not willing to put them in place, again shifting burden and hardship to the client who is left to deal with the unfair and unrealistic inconvenience and costs, simply because of what appears to be the client's "audacity" to make an attempt to buy a computer from them. It is a shame because on paper they seem to have a good set of options at reasonable prices, but the company's testing protocol, work ethics and client support program and attitude leave much to be desired…… when there are so many other options out there, with much better standing among clients!