21–30 of 135 posts
This is the most pretentious article I remember reading in recent history but it seems the author has a few interesting points. Can anyone do a tl;dr in plain english?
http://www.rawrdenim.com/2015/03/william-gibson-interview-bu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mine: > More to the point, this is why the soi-disant-designer snob ... comes across as such a douchebag. It’s not “minimalist” if you buy a new one every two years; it’s conspicuous consumption with chamfered edges.
Weren't we also buying a new laptop every 2 years back when they had removable batteries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other difference is the rate at which the part fails. CPUs basically last forever if you keep them sufficiently cooled. Batteries or screen backlights or keyboards, not so much.
But CPU spring connectors don't last forever. If you want to ensure the CPU stays reliable for a good long time (at today's clock rates), you're going to have to solder it down.
I'm not sure I buy the contrast between old computers and macbooks. The smallest replaceable part on a MacBook is the entire MacBook (excluding any wired or wireless peripherals), but the smallest in a normal computer might be the CPU. The CPU cannot be repaired except by replacing the entire thing. You can't repair a CPU or a MacBook, so it seems the the only real difference is how much it costs to replace the broke…
"The most expensive Pez dispenser sold for $13,000. It was a political donkey made in 1961. Only two were ever made."[1]
[1]: http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/06/smallbusiness/pez-dispenser/ (Warning, autoplay video)
I'm not sure I buy the contrast between old computers and macbooks. The smallest replaceable part on a MacBook is the entire MacBook (excluding any wired or wireless peripherals), but the smallest in a normal computer might be the CPU. The CPU cannot be repaired except by replacing the entire thing. You can't repair a CPU or a MacBook, so it seems the the only real difference is how much it costs to replace the broke…
I had to smile at this. I just handed down my old iPhone 3GS to my daughter to use as she's started secondary school. I bought it in 2009 and it's now on it's fourth owner - Me, my wife, her father and now our daughter so it's been used by three generations of our family. That's only 6 years, but counting. Getting it set up for her reminded me what a great device it is, and it was remarkable to me that it's still very usable even today. It still has a load of photos and videos on it (all backed up into iPhoto already of course) and it was a lot of fun going through them all together on the device they were taken with.
I think it's this last point that relates to the Pez dispenser concern. Computers are still currently highly personal devices that capture and provide access to so much of our lives, but as more of that is persisted to cloud services the devices themselves will becomes less central to the experience.
Can today's Thinkpads still hang with the best of them? (typed on a recently-upgraded late 2006 MBP)
I'm 3 years into a first gen X1 Carbon, it runs perfectly. The only annoyance is that I can't get at the battery to replace it. I'd be a bit happier if it had a 2560x1440 screen since then there would really be no need for an upgrade ever again, but as it stands I expect to be able to use it for at least another 5 years.
Build quality on the newer T series feels like shit to me, but I haven't spent enough time with them to be able to judge and they are so new we don't really have any data yet.
edit: seeing the link to the potential retro thinkpad, that I would get without a second thought
This is the most pretentious article I remember reading in recent history but it seems the author has a few interesting points. Can anyone do a tl;dr in plain english?
Design as crafty/minimalism/apple's aesthetic is irresponsible in that it refuses to acknowledge that things can break. Design which pays attention to the reality of a thing's environment and usage patterns, and which does not prompt conspicuous consumption of every brand new version after even the slightest failure of the old, is better.
I'm not sure I buy the contrast between old computers and macbooks. The smallest replaceable part on a MacBook is the entire MacBook (excluding any wired or wireless peripherals), but the smallest in a normal computer might be the CPU. The CPU cannot be repaired except by replacing the entire thing. You can't repair a CPU or a MacBook, so it seems the the only real difference is how much it costs to replace the broke…
Only, from my experience at least, the CPU is the LEAST likely part to break. If it was the most common or a usually broken part your argument would have some merit.
Besides, he also talks upgrading. An old laptop HD that has 1/4 the space and much less speed than a modern hard disk but can't be replaced, is as good as broken, even when it's not. And then there's also memory that people want to update and can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CPU's have been soldered to the motherboards of most laptops for an age now. Memory is beginning to be soldered to the motherboard too- I'm dubious as to how upgradable or modular the next generation will be.
The “soldered to the motherboard” memory on a $400 computer today costs 10,000 times less than the same quantity of memory in 1995. What’s the point of making something repairable generations down the line when nobody is going to still want it because you’ll be able to buy 10 new ones that are each 100 times better for the same price. The only computer parts from <2000 that are still worth keeping around today are th…
If you're buying stuff for your 1995 laptop, yes, you have a point.
If I want to double the memory of my 2014 laptop and can't, because it's soldered-on 4GB, OTOH, I'm hosed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CPU's have been soldered to the motherboards of most laptops for an age now. Memory is beginning to be soldered to the motherboard too- I'm dubious as to how upgradable or modular the next generation will be.
The “soldered to the motherboard” memory on a $400 computer today costs 10,000 times less than the same quantity of memory in 1995. What’s the point of making something repairable generations down the line when nobody is going to still want it because you’ll be able to buy 10 new ones that are each 100 times better for the same price. The only computer parts from <2000 that are still worth keeping around today are th…
The parent comment said that this would become more relevant as Moore's Law continues to lose effectiveness.