Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.
John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.
It will be supported for 8 to 10 years. It will last way longer than that. I have a 2014 Mac Mini (Intel i5, 8GB RAM, 500GB SSD) that runs the current MacOS. I also have a 2003 Power Mac G4 Mirror Drive Door that
still works fine. I had the power supply repaired a couple years ago by a guy on eBay.
I have a few iPod Classics (click wheel, various models) that are going on 15 years old. I have replaced the batteries (of course) and replaced the hard drives with 64GB, 128GB and 256GB SSDs. All are working fine.
Isn’t it just AMAZING how known Apple haters here have nothing but problems with Apple products. 🙄
John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.It will be supported for 8 to 10 years. It will last way longer than
that. I have a 2014 Mac Mini (Intel i5, 8GB RAM, 500GB SSD) that runs the current MacOS. I also have a 2003 Power Mac G4 Mirror Drive Door that
still works fine. I had the power supply repaired a couple years ago by a guy on eBay.
I have a few iPod Classics (click wheel, various models) that are going on 15 years old. I have replaced the batteries (of course) and replaced the hard drives with 64GB, 128GB and 256GB SSDs. All are working fine.
Isn’t it just AMAZING how known Apple haters here have nothing but problems
with Apple products. 🙄
John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.
It will be supported for 8 to 10 years. It will last way longer than that. I have a 2014 Mac Mini (Intel i5, 8GB RAM, 500GB SSD) that runs the current MacOS. I also have a 2003 Power Mac G4 Mirror Drive Door that
still works fine. I had the power supply repaired a couple years ago by a guy on eBay.
I have a few iPod Classics (click wheel, various models) that are going on 15 years old. I have replaced the batteries (of course) and replaced the hard drives with 64GB, 128GB and 256GB SSDs. All are working fine.
Isn’t it just AMAZING how known Apple haters here have nothing but problems with Apple products. 🙄
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life
and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it
is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3
or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my
past experience.
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life
and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it
is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3
or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my
past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life
and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it
is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3
or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my
past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in Macbook Pro.
On 2021-12-03 11:53 a.m., John wrote:
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today >>>> and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did. >>>>
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life >>>> and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it >>>> is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3
or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my
past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in
Macbook Pro.
Nice...
I think I was offered about $500CAD for mine when I checked.
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life
and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it
is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3
or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my
past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in Macbook Pro.
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today >>>> and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did. >>>>
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life >>>> and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it >>>> is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3
or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my
past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Macbook Pro.
Wow, that was very generous of Apple. How old is old??? I got a pretty good trade for my 6S when I bought the SE 2020. That's a nice program when it works for you.
Boo-hoo, Apple offered to recycle my 4 year old HP Envy. :)
On 2021-12-03 11:53 a.m., John wrote:
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today >>> and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did. >>>
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life >>> and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it >>> is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3
or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my
past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in Macbook Pro.Nice...
I think I was offered about $500CAD for mine when I checked.
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:55:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-03 11:53 a.m., John wrote:
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:Nice...
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today >>>>> and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did. >>>>>
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life >>>>> and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it >>>>> is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3 >>>>> or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my >>>>> past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in
Macbook Pro.
I think I was offered about $500CAD for mine when I checked.
He is obviously dishonest, he got called out on it and he's doing the expected
role-reversal buffoonery taught in Trolling 101 as he makes an effort to
hang on to a smattering of honor... but it won't work.
The Linux CD Digger Thomnson mentioned is read-only media. It's not possible to copy new information to it. What is your evidence? In Digger Thomnson's case, I, and a whole list of "hackers", had pointed to things Digger Thomnson said and did, he rejected the idea. What Digger Thomnson couldn't deny was people actually posting what I noted, which is how he ended up with his list, of course. Ha! Right, Digger Thomnson is trying to retail a programming interface
reference, which anyone can get in 5 seconds, that allows him to flood multiple
groups. If he wasn't so slow he would figure out how stupid he sounds.
On 2021-12-03 1:29 p.m., Dustin the dude with the stuck floppy wrote:
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:55:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-03 11:53 a.m., John wrote:
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:Nice...
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today >>>>> and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did. >>>>>
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life >>>>> and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it >>>>> is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3 >>>>> or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my >>>>> past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in >>> Macbook Pro.
I think I was offered about $500CAD for mine when I checked.
He is obviously dishonest, he got called out on it and he's doing the expected
role-reversal buffoonery taught in Trolling 101 as he makes an effort to hang on to a smattering of honor... but it won't work.
The Linux CD Digger Thomnson mentioned is read-only media. It's not possible
to copy new information to it. What is your evidence? In Digger Thomnson's case, I, and a whole list of "hackers", had pointed to things Digger Thomnson
said and did, he rejected the idea. What Digger Thomnson couldn't deny was people actually posting what I noted, which is how he ended up with his list,
of course. Ha! Right, Digger Thomnson is trying to retail a programming interface
reference, which anyone can get in 5 seconds, that allows him to flood multiple
groups. If he wasn't so slow he would figure out how stupid he sounds.
Go away, Snit.
On 12/3/2021 11:55 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-03 11:53 a.m., John wrote:
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today >>>> and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did. >>>>
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life >>>> and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it >>>> is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3 >>>> or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my >>>> past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in
Macbook Pro.
Nice...
I think I was offered about $500CAD for mine when I checked.Might be able to get a little more if I sold it myself but I figure it
just isn't worth much anymore with the superior M1 Max now on the market.
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 4:38:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-03 1:29 p.m., Dustin the dude with the stuck floppy wrote:
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:55:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-03 11:53 a.m., John wrote:
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:Nice...
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did.
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life
and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it
is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3 >>>>> or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my >>>>> past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in >>> Macbook Pro.
I think I was offered about $500CAD for mine when I checked.
He is obviously dishonest, he got called out on it and he's doing the expected
role-reversal buffoonery taught in Trolling 101 as he makes an effort to hang on to a smattering of honor... but it won't work.
The Linux CD Digger Thomnson mentioned is read-only media. It's not possible
to copy new information to it. What is your evidence? In Digger Thomnson's
case, I, and a whole list of "hackers", had pointed to things Digger Thomnson
said and did, he rejected the idea. What Digger Thomnson couldn't deny was
people actually posting what I noted, which is how he ended up with his list,
of course. Ha! Right, Digger Thomnson is trying to retail a programming interface
reference, which anyone can get in 5 seconds, that allows him to flood multiple
groups. If he wasn't so slow he would figure out how stupid he sounds.
Go away, Snit.Good luck with that. Really, good luck.
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 2:43:45 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 4:38:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-03 1:29 p.m., Dustin the dude with the stuck floppy wrote:Good luck with that. Really, good luck.
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:55:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Go away, Snit.
On 2021-12-03 11:53 a.m., John wrote:
On 12/3/2021 11:24 AM, Thomas E. wrote:Nice...
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:29:22 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
Just saw that my custom Macbook Pro 16 M1 Max finished production today
and is preparing to ship. Hopefully it will last longer than Toms did. >>>>>>>>
Sure would hate to have to get a Dell laptop with half the battery life
and an obnoxious fan.
Suppose it will take another week and a half to get it with how slow it
is to ship out of China and all. Sometimes orders bounce around for 3 >>>>>>>> or 4 days before it ever gets out of China. At least that has been my >>>>>>>> past experience.
Congratulations! You will really enjoy it. Worth the price.
Especially since Apple gave me 1420 bucks in trade in for my old 16 in >>>>>> Macbook Pro.
I think I was offered about $500CAD for mine when I checked.
He is obviously dishonest, he got called out on it and he's doing the expected
role-reversal buffoonery taught in Trolling 101 as he makes an effort to >>>> hang on to a smattering of honor... but it won't work.
The Linux CD Digger Thomnson mentioned is read-only media. It's not possible
to copy new information to it. What is your evidence? In Digger Thomnson's >>>> case, I, and a whole list of "hackers", had pointed to things Digger Thomnson
said and did, he rejected the idea. What Digger Thomnson couldn't deny was >>>> people actually posting what I noted, which is how he ended up with his list,
of course. Ha! Right, Digger Thomnson is trying to retail a programming interface
reference, which anyone can get in 5 seconds, that allows him to flood multiple
groups. If he wasn't so slow he would figure out how stupid he sounds. >>>>
Usenet is a sovereign non-organization based on an honor system. It was Ixchel who stated that he and his students used to lie to strangers all
the time and it was free entertainment. And in response you have nothing
but a crack to start a troll-fest. Being an open format as it is, bulletin boards will never go away but it'll never be what your grandfather would
use.
What do you get out of lying? Of course, the only concern that concerns Ixchel is being "the winner", and if he can not have that he will do more research to actively slap Snit down... he's been that way forever.
I don't agree with that. Darkness is darkness and there are all kinds of people who are OK with it. Several are even lawyers.
--
This broke the Internet!
https://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
Dustin Cook the functionally illiterate fraud
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the stuff supposedly on RAM.
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 12:40:12 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote: <snip>What in the world are you blathering about?
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first
generation of anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little
longer until any teething issues with the new machines are
discovered. When I do buy, I usually max out anything that
can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, sadly, probably
RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons.
For a RAM that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for
local storage, it is just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so
apple should make sure their system is not too dependent on the
local storage for the stuff supposedly on RAM.
It's called VM - when stuff that would normally be in RAM gets
written to storage. Or, it's about the fact that you cannot upgrade
Apple's SSD space. Or, maybe both. No wonder you can't figure out
that I was not talking about increasing battery durability by putting
in a new battery. You can't read simple English, Asshole. And, you
obviously don't know much about computers.
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:What in the world are you blathering about?
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >>>> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM >>> that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is >>> just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should >>> make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the >>> stuff supposedly on RAM.
Ishtar lies so much that he has a terrible time keeping track of his dishonesty.
Or his forgeries and other crap. Ishtar wants to hurt the whole group: If
he and his shills can't be the focus here then his flooding crap will.
Almost all regulars in this forum do programming either as a necessity or
as a job, so I doubt Ryan Sullivan thinks of automation to be "impossible". The herd members value the lowest common denominator in both their lives
and their computer systems. ChromeOS is based on Linux. End of Story.
On 2021-12-05 3:29 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 12:40:12 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote: <snip>What in the world are you blathering about?
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first
generation of anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little
longer until any teething issues with the new machines are
discovered. When I do buy, I usually max out anything that
can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, sadly, probably
RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons.
For a RAM that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for
local storage, it is just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so
apple should make sure their system is not too dependent on the
local storage for the stuff supposedly on RAM.
It's called VM - when stuff that would normally be in RAM gets
written to storage. Or, it's about the fact that you cannot upgrade Apple's SSD space. Or, maybe both. No wonder you can't figure out
that I was not talking about increasing battery durability by putting
in a new battery. You can't read simple English, Asshole. And, you obviously don't know much about computers.
Yes, Idiot.
I know what VM is.
And what he's written is still nonsense.
He's suggested that the lacking the ability to upgrade the local storage will somehow make the system "too dependent on the local storage for
stuff supposedly on RAM".
And that makes no sense at all.
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:What in the world are you blathering about?
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >>>> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM >>> that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is >>> just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should >>> make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the >>> stuff supposedly on RAM.
You're like a full moon on a cloudless night. We all see you there and
wonder how you can be so stupid. And you're so stupid you keep repeating
it.
Just Wondering's essentially snowing Troll Killer Snit to keep feeding
him by trying to 'build circuits', specifically, his clueless efforts
and Troll Killer Snit's efforts to help him become a better scripter.
He needs recognition, and as long as you are willing to continue play
his game, he'll remain. The teller of untruths does it every time. Then
the flood begins. Because the milksop just has to run to other groups.
How Just Wondering decides when to use the stupid flood script for maximum impact http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood.
--
Puppy Videos!!
http://cityrecord.engineering.nyu.edu/data/1910/1910-01-11.pdf https://swisscows.com/web?query=dustin%20cook%20%22functionally%20illiterate%20fraud%22
https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot Dustin Cook the Fraud
On 2021-12-06 2:35 p.m., Michael Glasser wrote:
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:What in the world are you blathering about?
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually >>>> max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM >>> that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the >>> stuff supposedly on RAM.
You're like a full moon on a cloudless night. We all see you there and wonder how you can be so stupid. And you're so stupid you keep repeating it.
Just Wondering's essentially snowing Troll Killer Snit to keep feeding
him by trying to 'build circuits', specifically, his clueless efforts
and Troll Killer Snit's efforts to help him become a better scripter.
He needs recognition, and as long as you are willing to continue play
his game, he'll remain. The teller of untruths does it every time. Then the flood begins. Because the milksop just has to run to other groups.
How Just Wondering decides when to use the stupid flood script for maximum impact http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood.
--
Puppy Videos!! http://cityrecord.engineering.nyu.edu/data/1910/1910-01-11.pdf https://swisscows.com/web?query=dustin%20cook%20%22functionally%20illiterate%20fraud%22
https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot Dustin Cook the Fraud
Just go away, Snit
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?You're like a full moon on a cloudless night. We all see you there and
wonder how you can be so stupid. And you're so stupid you keep repeating
it.
Just Wondering's essentially snowing Troll Killer Snit to keep feeding
him by trying to 'build circuits', specifically, his clueless efforts
and Troll Killer Snit's efforts to help him become a better scripter.
He needs recognition, and as long as you are willing to continue play
his game, he'll remain. The teller of untruths does it every time. Then
the flood begins. Because the milksop just has to run to other groups.
How Just Wondering decides when to use the stupid flood script for maximum impact http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood.
--
Puppy Videos!!
http://cityrecord.engineering.nyu.edu/data/1910/1910-01-11.pdf https://swisscows.com/web?query=dustin%20cook%20%22functionally%20illiterate%20fraud%22
https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot Dustin Cook the Fraud
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 6:07:10 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-06 2:35 p.m., Michael Glasser wrote:
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:What in the world are you blathering about?
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually >>>> max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
You're like a full moon on a cloudless night. We all see you there and wonder how you can be so stupid. And you're so stupid you keep repeating it.
Just Wondering's essentially snowing Troll Killer Snit to keep feeding him by trying to 'build circuits', specifically, his clueless efforts and Troll Killer Snit's efforts to help him become a better scripter.
He needs recognition, and as long as you are willing to continue play his game, he'll remain. The teller of untruths does it every time. Then the flood begins. Because the milksop just has to run to other groups.
How Just Wondering decides when to use the stupid flood script for maximum
impact http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood.
--
Puppy Videos!! http://cityrecord.engineering.nyu.edu/data/1910/1910-01-11.pdf https://swisscows.com/web?query=dustin%20cook%20%22functionally%20illiterate%20fraud%22
https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot
Dustin Cook the Fraud
Just go away, SnitThe person you are referencing is in my shit list.
Is Snit envious about Jeff Relf having six web sites warning people
about what he is, vs the single one he earned? Narcissistic Bigot Steve Carroll strikes again. Now that nobody is replying to Jeff Relf, he's
making it sound like he's achieved some great victory -- when in fact, people are just beating him at his own game.
We're all sorry Jeff Relf's a paranoid, narcissistic, delusional liar
but that's not gonna change anything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You! <https://www.truepeoplesearch.com/details?phoneno=4234911448&rid=0x0&Diesel&Gremlin&Dustin_Cook>
Dustin Cook the functionally illiterate fraud
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >>> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should >> make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 2:50:03 AM UTC-7, Stefen Petruzzellis wrote:
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 6:07:10 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-06 2:35 p.m., Michael Glasser wrote:
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:What in the world are you blathering about?
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
You're like a full moon on a cloudless night. We all see you there and wonder how you can be so stupid. And you're so stupid you keep repeating
it.
Just Wondering's essentially snowing Troll Killer Snit to keep feeding him by trying to 'build circuits', specifically, his clueless efforts and Troll Killer Snit's efforts to help him become a better scripter. He needs recognition, and as long as you are willing to continue play his game, he'll remain. The teller of untruths does it every time. Then
the flood begins. Because the milksop just has to run to other groups.
How Just Wondering decides when to use the stupid flood script for maximum
impact http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood.
--
Puppy Videos!! http://cityrecord.engineering.nyu.edu/data/1910/1910-01-11.pdf https://swisscows.com/web?query=dustin%20cook%20%22functionally%20illiterate%20fraud%22
https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot
Dustin Cook the Fraud
Just go away, SnitThe person you are referencing is in my shit list.
Is Snit envious about Jeff Relf having six web sites warning people
about what he is, vs the single one he earned? Narcissistic Bigot Steve Carroll strikes again. Now that nobody is replying to Jeff Relf, he's making it sound like he's achieved some great victory -- when in fact, people are just beating him at his own game.
We're all sorry Jeff Relf's a paranoid, narcissistic, delusional liarTranslation: "Shadow" is now *entirely* powerless to shield his puppet usage. Michael Glasser Snit can create a virtual machine. Rips what that
but that's not gonna change anything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You! <https://www.truepeoplesearch.com/details?phoneno=4234911448&rid=0x0&Diesel&Gremlin&Dustin_Cook>
Dustin Cook the functionally illiterate fraud
Mac can do to shreds! And you do, of course realize that it isn't impossible for Shadow to be doing this, or working with one of his old students who knows what they are doing. Just about everything Shadow says about Michael Glasser Snit is a lie. Who isn't aware of this by now?
Pro tip: You won't go into a party, quaff all the firewater, sexually assault all the wives, nab the wine and hurl in the bathroom without being loathed.
--
Live on Kickstarter https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22FUNCTIONAL%20ILLITERATE%20FRAUD%22 https://swisscows.com/web?query=steve%20carroll%20%22narcissistic%20bigot%22 Narcissistic Bigot Steve Carroll
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >>> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM >> that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is >> just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should >> make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the >> stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
Sorry for the late reply.
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is
different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >>> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM >> that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is >> just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should >> make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the >> stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
Sorry for the late reply.
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is
different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
--
-alien-
~ Work like you don't need the money. ~
~ Love like you've never been hurt. ~
~ Dance like nobody is looking. ~
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually >>> max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM >> that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the >> stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
Sorry for the late reply.
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do, it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more understandableWhile we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor >> which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething >>>>>> issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually >>>>>> max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM >>>>> that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is >>>>> just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the >>>>> stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage >>> which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is
different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do, >>> it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a >>> problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate >>> SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here >>> means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not
volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less >>> and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought
people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact >> at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
...
While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is
different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a
problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not >>> volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought >>> people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM, not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually >>>>>> max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is
different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do, >>> it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a >>> problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate >>> SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not >>> volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less >>> and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought >>> people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
...
While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time.
There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube
b) reduced costs
c) increased reliability
-hh
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>>>>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually >>>>>>>> max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>>>>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is
different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do, >>>>> it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a >>>>> problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate >>>>> SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not >>>>> volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less >>>>> and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought >>>>> people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM, not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is
different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a
problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not >>> volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought >>> people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM, not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
...
While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time.
There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube
b) reduced costs
c) increased reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
On 2021-12-10 8:32 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>>>>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>>>>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is >>>>> different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a
problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not >>>>> volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought >>>>> people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM, not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.Can you not read what you write, Idiot?
Let me help:
"Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time"
Now tell me:
What parts DON'T "wear out over time"?
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:02:52 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-10 8:32 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can you not read what you write, Idiot?
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>>>>>>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>>>>>>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is >>>>>>> different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a
problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not >>>>>>> volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought >>>>>>> people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM, not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.
Let me help:
"Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time"
Now tell me:
What parts DON'T "wear out over time"?
None, but in a meaningful time frame batteries and conventional and solid-state storage are two that do, Asshole.
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
...
While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time.
There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube
b) reduced costs
c) increased reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering?
Well, there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that
the EE-centric teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts
(each side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) —— sj —— (Part B)
…where:
“sj” = solder joint interface
“cp” = connector pin interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan
wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hhEvery part wears out over time, Idiot.
wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will affect the
product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good
point that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1
designs will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its
users will probably be the determinant for when its
useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed
become a disposable item at that point, and while Apple
does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear will
become another criteria (or already is) by which they
adjust their trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to
wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you
want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in the
trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, there’s
the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric teams use on
TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as provisioning
a removable connector adds two parts (each side of the connector),
a solder joint, plus the reliability hit from the connector pin
connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) —— sj ——
(Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. since 1<5,
1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is that you
know that some parts are more likely to fail from normal use. Do you
accept the small chance of an easily replaceable part's connection
failing versus the making that junction more reliable at the expense
of making the failed part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a
soldered SSD lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of
equipment?
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:02:52 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-10 8:32 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can you not read what you write, Idiot?
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote:
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factor
On 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of >>>>>>>>>> anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but, >>>>>>>>>> sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is >>>>>>> different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a
problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not >>>>>>> volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought >>>>>>> people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more
understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM, not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.
Let me help:
"Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time"
Now tell me:
What parts DON'T "wear out over time"?
None, but in a meaningful time frame batteries and conventional and solid-state storage are two that do, Asshole.
On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan
wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hhEvery part wears out over time, Idiot.
wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will affect the
product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good
point that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1
designs will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its
users will probably be the determinant for when its
useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed
become a disposable item at that point, and while Apple
does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear will
become another criteria (or already is) by which they
adjust their trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to
wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you
want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in the
trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, there’s
the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric teams use on
TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as provisioning
a removable connector adds two parts (each side of the connector),
a solder joint, plus the reliability hit from the connector pin
connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) —— sj ——
(Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. since 1<5,
1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is that youCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
know that some parts are more likely to fail from normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily replaceable part's connection
failing versus the making that junction more reliable at the expense
of making the failed part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of
equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
On 12/11/2021 8:50 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:02:52 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-10 8:32 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can you not read what you write, Idiot?
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote: >>>>>>> Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factorOn 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is >>>>>>> different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a
problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not
volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought
people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more >>>>>>> understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM, not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.
Let me help:
"Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time"
Now tell me:
What parts DON'T "wear out over time"?
None, but in a meaningful time frame batteries and conventional and solid-state storage are two that do, Asshole.With modern tools it is not as much harder as you would think to
unsolder and extract a component for replacement.
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan
wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hhEvery part wears out over time, Idiot.
wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will affect the
product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good
point that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1
designs will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its
users will probably be the determinant for when its
useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed
become a disposable item at that point, and while Apple
does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear will
become another criteria (or already is) by which they
adjust their trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to
wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you
want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in the
trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, there’s
the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric teams use on
TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as provisioning
a removable connector adds two parts (each side of the connector),
a solder joint, plus the reliability hit from the connector pin
connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) —— sj ——
(Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. since 1<5, >>>> 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is that you
know that some parts are more likely to fail from normal use. Do you
accept the small chance of an easily replaceable part's connection
failing versus the making that junction more reliable at the expense
of making the failed part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a
soldered SSD lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of
equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 2:35:14 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
On 12/11/2021 8:50 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:02:52 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:With modern tools it is not as much harder as you would think to
On 2021-12-10 8:32 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can you not read what you write, Idiot?
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factorOn 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is >>>>>>>>> different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a
problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not
volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought
people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more >>>>>>>>> understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM, not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.
Let me help:
"Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time"
Now tell me:
What parts DON'T "wear out over time"?
None, but in a meaningful time frame batteries and conventional and solid-state storage are two that do, Asshole.
unsolder and extract a component for replacement.
Really? https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/06/m1-mac-ram-and-ssd-upgrades-possible/ "The RAM and SSD components on Apple's M1 Macs are soldered in place, making the procedure extremely challenging, and there is reportedly a high chance of failure. This invasive unofficial upgrade also undoubtedly breaches Apple's warranty."
On 12/25/2021 4:07 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 2:35:14 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
On 12/11/2021 8:50 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:02:52 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-10 8:32 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can you not read what you write, Idiot?
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:45:48 AM UTC-5, alien wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
While we also know that the degree of SSD overprovisioning is another factorOn 2021-12-05 2:05 a.m., alien wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
<snip>
I've always tried to avoid buying/installing the first generation of
anything, so I think I'll keep if for a little longer until any teething
issues with the new machines are discovered. When I do buy, I usually
max out anything that can't be upgraded later (RAM on this one, but,
sadly, probably RAM and storage on the next one).
My only problem with Mac nowadays is just for storage reasons. For a RAM
that cannot be upgraded is still make sense, but for local storage, it is
just crazy.
Local storage is local storage, it is not volatile memory, so apple should
make sure their system is not too dependent on the local storage for the
stuff supposedly on RAM.
What in the world are you blathering about?
I am talking about the availability of upgrading or replacing your storage
which nowadays is SSD.
SSD has a limited lifetime because of the write operation, which is
different from RAM. RAM is not cared how much write operation it will do,
it will not be broken because of it.
Meanwhile, the storage is not upgradeable or replaceable it will become a
problem.
macOS nowadays uses a lot of virtual memory or VM, which will deteriorate
SSD fast. That is why I wrote that Apple should make sure their system here
means macOS not to depend on VM too much since it is an SSD, it is not
volatile memory here means RAM.
That is what the second paragraph means.
If they made it like this, the sustainability of the MacBook will be less
and less and quickly become another e-waste.
Sorry for the confusion and made my post without explanation, I thought
people will easy to understand it. I hope now it will be more >>>>>>>>> understandable
which will affect the product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good point
that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs will have an impact
at some point in the product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its users
will probably be the determinant for when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed become a disposable item
at that point, and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear
will become another criteria (or already is) by which they adjust their trade-in
price offer is a good question.
-hh
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Total BS! Every computer that I have ever owned failed due to a hard drive. Not RAM,
not the screen, not the motherboard, not the screen, not the battery, not anything but the storage media.
You are a liar.
Let me help:
"Apple should not solder in parts known to wear out over time"
Now tell me:
What parts DON'T "wear out over time"?
None, but in a meaningful time frame batteries and conventional and solid-state storage are two that do, Asshole.
With modern tools it is not as much harder as you would think to
unsolder and extract a component for replacement.
Really? <https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/06/m1-mac-ram-and-ssd-upgrades-possible/>
"The RAM and SSD components on Apple's M1 Macs are soldered in place, making the
procedure extremely challenging, and there is reportedly a high chance of failure.
This invasive unofficial upgrade also undoubtedly breaches Apple's warranty."
Modern solder rework stations such as the Weller WR3002 make this
process simple.
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas E.
wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, Alan
wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, -hhEvery part wears out over time, Idiot.
wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will affect the
product's useful lifetime, it is nevertheless a good
point that the "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1
designs will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of its
users will probably be the determinant for when its
useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does indeed
become a disposable item at that point, and while Apple
does offer trade-ins, the degree to which SSD wear will
become another criteria (or already is) by which they
adjust their trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts known to
wear out over time. There is no reason to do so unless you
want to limit a product's useful life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in the
trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, there’s >>>> the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric teams use on
TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as provisioning >>>> a removable connector adds two parts (each side of the connector),
a solder joint, plus the reliability hit from the connector pin
connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) —— sj ——
(Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin >>>> interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. since 1<5, >>>> 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is that you
know that some parts are more likely to fail from normal use. Do you
accept the small chance of an easily replaceable part's connection
failing versus the making that junction more reliable at the expense
of making the failed part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a
soldered SSD lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of
equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating more
ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum tubes?
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5,Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
-hh wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree
to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to
do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at
all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in
the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well,
there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric
teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin >>>>>> interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points….
since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that
junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD
lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above
a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not
likely to fail.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30It's been tried before.
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5,Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
-hh wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree
to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to
do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at
all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in
the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well,
there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric
teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin >>>>>> interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points….
since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that
junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD
lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes aboveNope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than simply something is "sure to fail".
a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not likely to fail.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cardsIt's been tried before.
How's that worked out?
:-)
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5,Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
-hh wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree
to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to
do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at
all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in
the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well,
there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric
teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin >>>>>>>> interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points….
since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that
junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD
lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above
a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not
likely to fail.
simply something is "sure to fail".
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Which is why I used the word "limited"
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree
to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to
do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well,
there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that
junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD
lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not
likely to fail.
simply something is "sure to fail".
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
USB isn't either.
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Which is why I used the word "limited"
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than >>>> simply something is "sure to fail".
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin >>>>>>>>>> interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>>>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>>>> likely to fail.
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
USB isn't either.
On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Which is why I used the word "limited"
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than >>>> simply something is "sure to fail".
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating >>>>>> more ways for the whole system to fail?
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>>>>>>>>> E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overprovisioning is another factor which will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its users will probably be the determinant for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed become a disposable item at that point, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful >>>>>>>>>>>>>> life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each >>>>>>>>>> side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is >>>>>>>>> that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from >>>>>>>>> normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed >>>>>>>>> part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment? >>>>>>>> Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum >>>>>> tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>>>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>>>> likely to fail.
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
USB isn't either.
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree
to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to
do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well,
there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that
junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD
lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not
likely to fail.
simply something is "sure to fail".
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
USB isn't either.
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:21:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than >>>> simply something is "sure to fail".
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin >>>>>>>>>> interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>>>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>>>> likely to fail.
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
USB isn't either.
Perhaps you use it wrong. Do you not fathom the use of VPN?
What do you get out of lying? I noted specific examples of Bilby focusing
on ego and not tech, focusing on ego and not tech, etc. His response: to repeat the same nonsense.
Bilby's posts are quite fully dishonest. There's no question that as soon
as any exonerated 'filtered person' does whatever to hurt the little milksop's
feelings that they'll be ignored again. I do not understand that. Denseness is denseness and there are many who are fine with it. Some are even programmers.
--
Puppy Videos https://gibiru.com/results.html?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+%22NARCISSISTIC+BIGOT%22 Dustin Cook is a functionally illiterate fraud
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5,Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
-hh wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree
to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to
do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at
all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in
the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well,
there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points….
since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that
junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD
lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes aboveNope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than simply something is "sure to fail".
a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not likely to fail.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cardsIt's been tried before.
How's that worked out?
:-)Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:13:04 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hhCan you really not read simple English, Idiot?
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5,Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
-hh wrote:
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree
to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to
do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at
all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in
the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well,
there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin >>>>>>>>> interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points….
since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that
junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD
lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above
a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not
likely to fail.
simply something is "sure to fail".
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
What do you get out of lying? Complete rot by a delusional, tall-tale telling, agenda driven, tag-teaming fool who couldn't tell the truth if
his life depended on it.
The herd's done a pretty good job with the Viterbi algorithm to regurgitate texts which are in the form of ones from a previous post in the group.
--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!! https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5/pdf/GOVPUB-
GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5.pdf
Dustin Cook the Fraud
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than >> simply something is "sure to fail".
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>>>>>>> E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs >>>>>>>>>>>>> will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>> its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful >>>>>>>>>>>> life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment? >>>>>> Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>> likely to fail.
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
USB isn't either.Which is why I used the word "limited"
On 2022-01-02 10:11 p.m., Snit wrote:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:13:04 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than >>> simply something is "sure to fail".
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>>>>>>>> E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD
overprovisioning is another factor which will
affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its users will probably be the determinant for
when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
indeed become a disposable item at that point,
and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria
(or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful >>>>>>>>>>>>> life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment? >>>>>>> Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>>> likely to fail.
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
What do you get out of lying? Complete rot by a delusional, tall-tale telling, agenda driven, tag-teaming fool who couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.
The herd's done a pretty good job with the Viterbi algorithm to regurgitate
texts which are in the form of ones from a previous post in the group.
--Go away, Snit.
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!! https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5/pdf/GOVPUB-
GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5.pdf
Dustin Cook the Fraud
On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Which is why I used the word "limited"
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than >>>> simply something is "sure to fail".
On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating >>>>>> more ways for the whole system to fail?
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>>>>>>>>> E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overprovisioning is another factor which will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its users will probably be the determinant for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed become a disposable item at that point, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful >>>>>>>>>>>>>> life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each >>>>>>>>>> side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is >>>>>>>>> that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from >>>>>>>>> normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed >>>>>>>>> part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment? >>>>>>>> Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum >>>>>> tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>>>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>>>> likely to fail.
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
USB isn't either.
Which is why I used the word "limited"Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
Lack of response to my request for info on other modular laptops is noted.
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Which is why I used the word "limited"
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than >>>>>> simply something is "sure to fail".
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating >>>>>>>> more ways for the whole system to fail?
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>>>>>>>>>>> E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overprovisioning is another factor which will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its users will probably be the determinant for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed become a disposable item at that point, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or already is) by which they adjust their
trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as >>>>>>>>>>>> provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each >>>>>>>>>>>> side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is >>>>>>>>>>> that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from >>>>>>>>>>> normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed >>>>>>>>>>> part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment? >>>>>>>>>> Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum >>>>>>>> tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>>>>>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>>>>>> likely to fail.
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
USB isn't either.
Lack of response to my request for info on other modular laptops is noted.
On 2022-01-09 9:19 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Which is why I used the word "limited"
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>>>>>>>>>>> E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overprovisioning is another factor which will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the product's useful lifetime, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have an impact at some point in the
product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its users will probably be the determinant for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when its useful life has been curtailed.
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed become a disposable item at that point, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or already is) by which they adjust their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trade-in price offer is a good question.
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as >>>>>>>>>>>> provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each >>>>>>>>>>>> side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is >>>>>>>>>>> that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from >>>>>>>>>>> normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily >>>>>>>>>>> replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed >>>>>>>>>>> part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment? >>>>>>>>>> Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of >>>>>>>>> replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail? >>>>>>>> Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating >>>>>>>> more ways for the whole system to fail?
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum >>>>>>>> tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above
a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>>>>>> likely to fail.
simply something is "sure to fail".
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30 >>>>>>> billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
USB isn't either.
Lack of response to my request for info on other modular laptops is noted.'Dell actually introduced a fully modular laptop (more like a desktop replacement) in 2019 called the Alienware Area 51M. It's a 17-inch
behemoth of a device that comes with a desktop-spec processor and GPU.
Best of all, you can replace these components in the future, provided
Dell releases a GPU designed for the system.
But after one year, the company stopped releasing new hardware for the
Area 51M and instead focused on newer, more powerful laptops with a
fixed processor and GPU.'
<https://www.makeuseof.com/why-the-framework-laptop-is-a-big-deal/>
From the same source:
'Some laptop makers are selling upgradeable laptops. However, they're
not what you think. These fully modular devices are designed for
fieldwork use. So you'll find that these devices are thick and heavily protected as well as modular.
According to some reviewers, the Area 51M was an impractical laptop. It weighed more than 8 lbs, required two power bricks, one of which weighed more than an ultralight laptop, and the fans made a lot of noise.
The classic reason manufacturers can't make a fully modular laptop is
that space is at a premium when making portable devices. You can't just shoehorn a regular processor or GPU into thin and light devices, and if
you try, you're going to have to compromise on either performance, size,
or both.'
Also from that source:
'One big question in everyone's minds is, "Will the company last?" There have been attempts to create modular consumer laptops that didn't pan out.'
Let me set that last sentence out for you:
'There have been attempts to create modular consumer laptops that didn't
pan out.'
On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-09 9:19 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:replacement) in 2019 called the Alienware Area 51M. It's a 17-inch
On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Which is why I used the word "limited"
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than >>>>>>>> simply something is "sure to fail".
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
Can't you understand that at least you have the option of >>>>>>>>>>> replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail? >>>>>>>>>> Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating >>>>>>>>>> more ways for the whole system to fail?On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>>>>>>>>>>>>> E. wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
... While we also know that the degree of SSD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overprovisioning is another factor which will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the product's useful lifetime, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless a good point that the
"SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have an impact at some point in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its users will probably be the determinant for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when its useful life has been curtailed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pragmatically, the design is such that it does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed become a disposable item at that point, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or already is) by which they adjust their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trade-in price offer is a good question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known to wear out over time. There is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life.
So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
reliability
Reliability? Sources please.
Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each >>>>>>>>>>>>>> side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
reliability hit from the connector pin connection too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Graphically:
(Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
vs
(Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
sj —— (Part B)
…where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
interface
It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points…. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
-hh
All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily >>>>>>>>>>>>> replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that >>>>>>>>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed >>>>>>>>>>>>> part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD >>>>>>>>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment? >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS. >>>>>>>>>>>
Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum >>>>>>>>>> tubes?
Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above >>>>>>>>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not >>>>>>>>> likely to fail.
It's been tried before.
Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30 >>>>>>>>> billion or so vacuum tubes.
Check this out:
https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
How's that worked out?
:-)
Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
USB isn't either.
Lack of response to my request for info on other modular laptops is noted. >> 'Dell actually introduced a fully modular laptop (more like a desktop
behemoth of a device that comes with a desktop-spec processor and GPU.
Best of all, you can replace these components in the future, provided
Dell releases a GPU designed for the system.
But after one year, the company stopped releasing new hardware for the
Area 51M and instead focused on newer, more powerful laptops with a
fixed processor and GPU.'
<https://www.makeuseof.com/why-the-framework-laptop-is-a-big-deal/>
From the same source:
'Some laptop makers are selling upgradeable laptops. However, they're
not what you think. These fully modular devices are designed for
fieldwork use. So you'll find that these devices are thick and heavily
protected as well as modular.
According to some reviewers, the Area 51M was an impractical laptop. It
weighed more than 8 lbs, required two power bricks, one of which weighed
more than an ultralight laptop, and the fans made a lot of noise.
The classic reason manufacturers can't make a fully modular laptop is
that space is at a premium when making portable devices. You can't just
shoehorn a regular processor or GPU into thin and light devices, and if
you try, you're going to have to compromise on either performance, size,
or both.'
Also from that source:
'One big question in everyone's minds is, "Will the company last?" There
have been attempts to create modular consumer laptops that didn't pan out.' >>
Let me set that last sentence out for you:
'There have been attempts to create modular consumer laptops that didn't
pan out.'
OK, never heard of any of these obscure products.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:13:15 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,750 |