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

I'm returning my Framework 16

yorickpeterse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 621 posts

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#571

Post by dngray »

wkat4242 wrote: post #567
nachopa wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that soldered RAM and lack of upgradeable components didn't inspire much of a backlash back then. It led to Apple dominating the higher end of the consumer laptop market.

Apple also drove the quest for extreme thinness. Even Lenovo Thinkpad T keyboards are terrible now due to it.

I really want to love the MTNU reform with its Kailh Choc White switches. I wish like there was a laptop that actually had a mechanical keyboard.

That's why I've been thinking of paring my desktop-replacement 16" laptop with a Pocket Reform or something like that.

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#572

Post by goku12 »

grim_io wrote: post #553
goku12 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was expecting this reply here. But it's still the same old excuse to do nothing. It's as if we deserve nothing better than what the companies impose upon us. That's such a defeatist stance.

I don't think anyone is concerned what anyone deserves in terms of hardware. Different companies "impose" different tradeoffs upon us. Pick what you like, but expect to pay a premium for a less popular choice.

> Different companies "impose" different tradeoffs upon us.

The "different tradeoffs" those companies offer us are a lie. There are other tradeoffs they won't ever explore. But I won't explain it anymore because I did that practically in every single comment of mine in this thread. Just ignoring it and repeating this trope is hardly a counterargument.

> Pick what you like, but expect to pay a premium for a less popular choice.

The argument about choices is also a lie. They don't exist because the market is a heavily captured and manipulated one. You might as well wait for Santa Claus to deliver it instead. This is again something that's repeatedly ignored. We're just arguing in cycles here.

There are a lot of missing choices in modular, serviceable and repairable market - which is why you see so many little complaints in this thread about a company that's sincerely attempting to offer and improve modular options. It's not that there's no demand for it. But the majority consumers just de-incentivices such products out of the market by following the hype and choosing the harmful options.

At least, the majority of the consumers can be forgiven for their ignorance about those tradeoffs. But that's something that the knowledgeable and expert population can solve. The others respect their opinion. But instead of pushing for the common good, they consistently show apathy. It really isn't that big of a deal. The experts have to be more honest and vocal about their own specialities, and the situation will gradually improve. People have rallied and achieved much harder goals.

But the really frustrating aspect is that some people actively sabotage the commons. At this point, I don't believe that the tech influencers are being honest about the interests they serve. And equally bad are the misguided defeatist arguments raised against advocacy for the commons. I really don't understand the motivation behind such excessively cynical takes.

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#573

Post by cindyllm »

goku12 wrote: post #572
grim_io wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is concerned what anyone deserves in terms of hardware. Different companies "impose" different tradeoffs upon us. Pick what you like, but expect to pay a premium for a less popular choice.

> Different companies "impose" different tradeoffs upon us. The "different tradeoffs" those companies offer us are a lie. There are other tradeoffs they won't ever explore. But I won't explain it anymore because I did that practically in every single comment of mine in this thread. Just ignoring it and repeating this trope is hardly a counterargument. > Pick what you like, but expect to pay a premium for a less popul…

[dead]

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#574

Post by goku12 »

bee_rider wrote: post #452
goku12 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The crux of the matter is that even if one values upgradability and repairability, neither is a frequent need for practically anybody. Judging reparability and serviceability the same way as you do with other features is absurd, to put it charitably! It is one feature that you rarely use, but brings you huge value when you do use it. You don't realize how much savings we used to extract by progressively upgrading t…

Isn’t “reuse the PSU” kind of a tempting trap? I though it was—a cheap part that can take down the rest of your expensive system. I though the advice was to get a new one with each build…

If the PSU is that crappy, then yes. But these things are supposed to come with over voltage protection, current limiters, resettable fuses etc at the output. Even bad ones are not supposed to cascade their failure to the rest of the system.

But let's think of a better option. What if all spare parts came with an expiry date and a service schedule? On top of giving us a baseline to retire the part, the manufacturer will also be forced to divulge an indirect quality score (useful lifetime) and compete with others on it. If this sounds too fantastic, we sort of had this in operation half a century ago. I don't think a lot of people remember that era.

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#575

Post by goku12 »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #433
goku12 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The crux of the matter is that even if one values upgradability and repairability, neither is a frequent need for practically anybody. Judging reparability and serviceability the same way as you do with other features is absurd, to put it charitably! It is one feature that you rarely use, but brings you huge value when you do use it. You don't realize how much savings we used to extract by progressively upgrading t…

I don't think this was understood charitably. The point of the parent is that in practice , when it comes time to update one part, you'll also want to update all or most of the others. So, in practice , you will not see any of these savings. The potential savings may be significant, but for most people, it may be the case that the actual savings are unlikely. A modular, upgradable laptop may be a niche product for pe…

> I don't think this was understood charitably. The point of the parent is that in practice, when it comes time to update one part, you'll also want to update all or most of the others. So, in practice, you will not see any of these savings.

It's frustrating to have to repeat the same point again and again. That is not correct at all. I have exercised it in practice. What you refer to as in practice are the deliberately crippled and limited options that are available in the market today.

> The potential savings may be significant, but for most people, it may be the case that the actual savings are unlikely. A modular, upgradable laptop may be a niche product for people who want to upgrade each part more frequently, not less.

Completely disagree. That's not what's seen in practice.

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#576

Post by goku12 »

nachopa wrote: post #403
goku12 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a major clarification is in order here. I'm not talking about just the framework here. If anything, the problems with framework is the direct result of the absolutely stupid industry-wide product design culture and market tastes. You can see all the major open-ish hardware designers grappling with similar issues - pinephone, System76, Librem... I will explain later why it is so. But here is the point - we nee…

>about a couple of decades ago, there would have been immediate and sharp backlash if any hardware manufacturer pulled the tricks that they do today - soldered-on RAM modules, thermoplastic glue instead of screws, riveted keyboards, irreplaceable ICs... That's when this trend started, with Apple's Macbook Pro leading the way, winding up one of the best-selling consumer laptop brands by targeting incoming college fres…

You are just repeating the same unpopular debunked arguments that the industry makes out of vacuum. Why does anybody have to know the internals of any system to get the advantages of reparability and serviceability? What were independent service personnel for? Did everyone know how to open and repair watches, cars, refrigerators, etc? Did that stop them from getting the benefit?

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#577

Post by goku12 »

wqaatwt wrote: post #394
goku12 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a major clarification is in order here. I'm not talking about just the framework here. If anything, the problems with framework is the direct result of the absolutely stupid industry-wide product design culture and market tastes. You can see all the major open-ish hardware designers grappling with similar issues - pinephone, System76, Librem... I will explain later why it is so. But here is the point - we nee…

> soldered-on RAM modules That can have significant performance advantages, though. Which might be hard to overcome due to physics

If you're gaining advantage by changing RAM from sockets to soldered joints, it's probably time to change the system design altogether. It's better to put the DRAM on the same IC/SoC as the processor - on a dedicated die if necessary. Any additional memory requirement can be added as socket based RAM modules. They sure will be slower. But they can be treated as another memory layer, kind of like the optane memory (without persistence) or NUMA. You'd still get significant speed up because a portion of the DRAM is colocated with the CPU now.

This also adds to the core philosophy that I'm trying to push. Modularity and serviceability doesn't necessarily mean sacrificing performance, compactness or security. That's a myth that's too prevalent in the industry.

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#578

Post by cosmic_cheese »

dngray wrote: post #570
jdujfkhllhl wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that was even after constructive cooperation with amd. Now think about the more common, hostile, interaction many suppliers provide.

It's also worth noting the CAMM2 ram gets about the same performance.

Framework has stated that it asked AMD if there were any way to make the RAM on Ryzen AI Max APUs (like used in the Framework Desktop) socketed, and AMD said no due to the stability hit that’d entail — the physical distance from the CPU that’d be required with RAM sockets reduces signal integrity too much for it to function.

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#579

Post by cosmic_cheese »

LoganDark wrote: post #555
baq wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brighter screens is a boon for anyone using a laptop, full stop. If it’s too bright, you can turn the brightness down, obviously doesn’t work this way in the opposite direction. Besides, the point isn’t even absolute max brightness, but the contrast ratio. OLEDs aren’t the brightest displays, but their contrast ratio blows pretty much everything else out of the water and that’s what makes you go wow when looking at a…

To me, OLED being self-emissive is a far bigger deal than the contrast ratio. With LCDs, even the laminated ones in MacBooks, you get backlight shimmering, bleed, halos (especially with Mini-LED), and general inconsistency. With OLED, the pixels are a single, nano-thin layer, the display looks directly printed onto the surface (because it is), there are no backlight issues because there's no backlight, and there's no…

OLEDs have a lot of great properties, but I’m still on the fence when it comes to building them into laptops. On phones and tablets where usage is intermittent, usually shortish, and content is constantly moving they’re well suited, but with a laptop screen that in some cases can be turn on for 12+ hours and is displaying the same static content for large chunks of that, I’d be worried about burn in.

Maybe it’s not an issue with tandem OLED and strict binning though.

Re: I'm returning my Framework 16

#580

Post by Dylan16807 »

goku12 wrote: post #577
wqaatwt wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> soldered-on RAM modules That can have significant performance advantages, though. Which might be hard to overcome due to physics

If you're gaining advantage by changing RAM from sockets to soldered joints, it's probably time to change the system design altogether. It's better to put the DRAM on the same IC/SoC as the processor - on a dedicated die if necessary. Any additional memory requirement can be added as socket based RAM modules. They sure will be slower. But they can be treated as another memory layer, kind of like the optane memory (wi…

There is a new system design, it's called LPCAMM. And framework would have used it in the desktop but those CPUs have some flaw that make them not compatible with full speed LPCAMM.

Moving the memory even closer doesn't have all that much advantage. And having super close RAM and sockets is a waste of die space on all those I/O channels. One or other can fit all the needs of any particular CPU.

Post reply on HN