Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Framework Laptop 12 review

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 398 posts

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#71

Post by throwaway63467 »

criddell wrote: post #14

Is it unreasonable to think Framework should be able to make a laptop competitive with the 5 years old MacBook Air M1? I get that Framework focuses on making repairable machines, but does that prevent them from making a fanless, hi dpi, good performing, long battery life machine? I wouldn’t expect parity with an M4 machine, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think they should be competitive with the much older M1. I…

Lenovo X9 Aura is pretty great. 80 Wh battery which gives you 6-10 hours of usage, 15’’ 120 Hz 3k OLED screen, new 3 nm Intel CPUs. Only half as fast as my M4 but less than one third the price, with an upgradable SSD and a customer-replaceable battery. My only gripes are the soldered 32 GB of RAM and that they only put one USB C connector on each side, otherwise a tremendously good machine for that price. I think it has a fan, haven’t noticed it yet though.

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#72

Post by perching_aix »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #63
chrismorgan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The baseline of 96ppi is nominal only. Form factor and intended distance from screen matters a lot. In the laptop form factor, you’re aiming for more like 110–125 as 1×. Apple laptops range from 221–254ppi as 2×. 186ppi is designed for 1.5×, an uncomfortable space that makes perfection difficult-to-impossible, yet seems to have become unreasonably popular, given how poorly everything but Windows tends to handle it. (…

Yeah the focus really should be on multipliers. Is it a clean multiple of the typical “normal” DPI resolution for that screen size? You’ve got a great screen. No? It’s a compromise. Simple. 1.5x looks ok mostly (though fractional pixels can cause issues in a few circumstances), but across platforms nothing is handled as well as 2x, 3x, etc is. I have a 1.5x laptop and wish it were either 1x or 2x.

The appropriate display scaling multiplier for this screen is 200% (2x), which is exactly why I regarded it pretty much clearing even this bar. On Windows at least, you can only alter display scaling in 25% increments (this is also why application designers are requested to only feature display elements with pixel dimensions that are cleanly divisible by 4), and so the closest fit for this laptop's PPI will be exactly the 200% preset option.

Using a lower preset than this is trading PPI for screen real estate. I don't think that's reasonable to introduce into the equation here. Yes, you match the relative size of display elements by virtue of (potentially!) being closer to the screen, but in turn you put more of the screen into your periphery, just like with a monitor or a TV. I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. An immersive distance (40° hfov) for this display is at 37.1 cm (a foot and a bit) - I think that's about as close as one gets to their laptops typically already. This is pretty much the same field of view you'd ideally have at your monitor and TV too, so either you use this same preset on all of them, or we're not comparing apples to apples. Or you just really like to get closer to your laptop specifically, I suppose.

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#73

Post by zerocrates »

kesslern wrote: post #4
dima55 wrote: post #2

Is there a single person in the world that LIKES the half-height up/down keys?

I do, but they should be paired with half height Page Up and Page Down keys. It's weird with the left/right keys as full size.

Probably my preference over there is half-height inverted T, with just gaps above left and right: I'm happy to do Fn for page up/page down/home/end, and find this is the easiest layout to use by touch. Of course full-height is good too, but only if all four directions are going to be full height.

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#74

Post by bobthecowboy »

nrp wrote: post #48
weird_trousers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but this is not a real value for certain people.

We saw that there was a gap in the market for laptops that treat Linux as a first-class OS target, and we design our products with that audience in mind. That there are other people in the world who don't need Linux is totally ok.

My kid is a bit young, but this is the laptop he'll be getting in a year or so to replace the garbage Chromebook he's currently using (which has steadily gotten flakier since purchase).

First class Linux support is requirement #1; Framework's repairability on top of that means there's not even anything else to consider. It will be the third Framework in our house. My wife is happily using the second, having easily switched to Ubuntu from Windows 10(?) when the video cable connection in her Dell XPS flaked out and made the screen useless.

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#75

Post by Dylan16807 »

perching_aix wrote: post #69
Dylan16807 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But nobody knows what baseline PPD is (47) and you can't actually specify a laptop screen in PPD, you can only specify it in PPI. So I think it's reasonable and maybe even preferable to use PPI here.

I can understanding finding it reasonable, it's just not getting at the heart of the problem. It also introduces an element of uncertainty: as you say, you can't specify a laptop screen's PPD since that's dependent on viewing distance. But that's exactly the problem: it's dependent on viewing distance. Some people hunch over and look at their laptops up close and personal, others have it on a stand at a reasonable he…

You could say it masks over the uncertainty in some ways, but it doesn't introduce that uncertainty. Asking for a laptop with 100PPD doesn't even make sense.

> the 20/20 visual acuity threshold

The acuity threshold for random blobs of light.

The threshold for sharp edges is much finer, and the things we put on computer displays have a lot of sharp edges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#76

Post by masklinn »

theodric wrote: post #52

> "A sturdy, thoughtful, cute design that just can't compete in its price range." People will pay untold thousands for a Mac, but God forbid when a PC manufacturer charges more than $599 for a laptop. If you're whining about the price, Framework isn't made for you. Go buy that Acer that you really want. The Framework is Sam Vimes' expensive boots that are made to last[1], and I've happily paid in full to get a pair.…

> People will pay untold thousands for a Mac, but God forbid when a PC manufacturer charges more than $599 for a laptop.

The article compares the FL12 to laptops of the same price range, including other framework laptops to note that it falls short.

The FL12 has worse performances and battery life than an M1 Air, for more than an M4.

The point of the article is that the 12 should either be a lot less expensive or it should be a lot better. It's not whatever nonsense you're dreaming of.

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#77

Post by autoexec »

criddell wrote: post #66
encom wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FrameWork is not openly hostile towards right-to-repair, and do not actively sabotage repair efforts. Try calling Apple and ask for spare parts or circuit diagrams. Anything you find is either leaked, cloned/copied or trash-picked. It barely qualifies as spare parts.

They don't have circuit diagrams, but they do sell some replacement parts and do have repair manuals online that are geared towards supported repairs. https://support.apple.com/en-us/122003

They only reluctantly offered those things after their hand was forced https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787336/apple-right-to-...

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#79

Post by losvedir »

> modular, repairable, upgradeable laptops

In terms of phones, I largely disagree with the conventional wisdom that repairable, upgradeable, Androids are better for the environment, more cost effective for the user, etc than iPhones. It's true you can't upgrade the battery yourself, but that's a different quality from whether the battery can be upgraded. And iPhones have a much higher resale value, so they're going to end up in landfills more slowly. I personally bought and use a used iPhone 11 that came with a replaced battery, and it's great! Old iPhones have a long useful life after trade in and resale, even if people buying new models here don't see it.

So I'd love to know how much this is the case for laptops like these as well.

For example, "repairable" is useful to the extent that repairs actually need to happen, and it seems to mean "self" repairable, though again that's a different dimension from whether a service center can do it. And whether you need self repairable is not a thing about longevity, environmental impact (since repair centers suffice for that), but rather convenience and possibly price. But price isn't the factor here because the thing is so damn expensive to begin with.

"Upgradeable" is useful if you want to.... improve a piece of it but not the chassis? Screen? How necessary is this? Do people really do that? I've been happy to use a laptop for half a decade or more, until finally upgrading everything all at once.

Re: Framework Laptop 12 review

#80

Post by danbee »

Gracana wrote: post #70
chrismorgan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The baseline of 96ppi is nominal only. Form factor and intended distance from screen matters a lot. In the laptop form factor, you’re aiming for more like 110–125 as 1×. Apple laptops range from 221–254ppi as 2×. 186ppi is designed for 1.5×, an uncomfortable space that makes perfection difficult-to-impossible, yet seems to have become unreasonably popular, given how poorly everything but Windows tends to handle it. (…

Windows' "real fractional scaling" gives me clipped window borders, maximized windows bleeding onto other screens, and fuzzy-looking applications. I'm curious if Apple's downsampling method works better, because I am not impressed with Microsoft's method.

Yes, it does. It always renders internally at 2x which means that's all applications have to support. Then it downsamples the final framebuffer to the resolution of the display.
Post reply on HN