[Deliberate Linux/Windows X-post, this is about hardware.]

Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/framework-laptop-16-review-modular-pc-keyboard-port-graphics-card

Prices for something actually working start at around £1,699 / €1,919 /
$1,699 / A$2,819.

Anyone tried this or anything similar?

As I have some old laptops - Dell Precision M6300s - of which I
particularly like the large fairly good quality screens, but they
struggle to run modern OSs without making a really unpleasant noise from
their ageing fans, to change which requires a near complete dismantling
of the entire laptop, I am intrigued by the possibilities of a modular
design like the above linked.

Constructive comments welcome, especially if based on actual experience.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/02/2024 13.01, Java Jive wrote:
> [Deliberate Linux/Windows X-post, this is about hardware.]
>
> Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/framework-laptop-16-review-modular-pc-keyboard-port-graphics-card
>
> Prices for something actually working start at around £1,699 / €1,919 /
> $1,699 / A$2,819.
>
> Anyone tried this or anything similar?
>
> As I have some old laptops  -  Dell Precision M6300s  -  of which I
> particularly like the large fairly good quality screens, but they
> struggle to run modern OSs without making a really unpleasant noise from
> their ageing fans, to change which requires a near complete dismantling
> of the entire laptop, I am intrigued by the possibilities of a modular
> design like the above linked.
>
> Constructive comments welcome, especially if based on actual experience.
>
I do get the idea behind it, but much of the exchangeable parts are just
attached to a usb hub and the motherboard seems to not be as modular
(for example no cpu on socket for easy cpu exchange), limited graphics
board option. No battery options (battery is based on cpu option) and
not easy to swap. No options on displays.
For a modular laptop, I think it's still too limited, so for me this one
ain't end up on my lap, the none modular Tuxedo Laptop would more likely
be my next personal Laptop.

One more thing, you would be just looked into buying replacement parts
from Framework, of course with a 3D printer and a bit reconstruction you
should be able to make your own modules.

--
//Aho

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote

| Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
|
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/framework-laptop-16-review-modular-pc-keyboard-port-graphics-card
| | Prices for something actually working start at around £1,699 / €1,919 /
| $1,699 / A$2,819.
|

Doesn't this really depend on what you need/want? And what's
it got to do with Linux? This is a Win11 device for playing high end
video games at Starbucks. Are you thinking of dual-booting Linux?
What would be the point of that? You're asking a question out of
context, with no indication of what you need, aside from wanting
a quieter fan.

I bought an Asus 19" awhile back, mostly to use for online sites
that require Win10. It's OK. $500. It accommodated an extra SSD.
I wouldn't think of using a laptop without a real mouse, so there's
also that cost. No DVD drive. I had to buy a $35 USB -> Ethernet
adapter.

Recently I was in Staples and they had HPs for $300. I could
hardly afford not to buy one! But then it occured to me that I'd
have to spend another $100 for powered USB hubs, ethernet,
mouse, etc. They keep the price down by reducing ports. But
giving you the extra ports is worth $100, not $1000. And why
would anyone do intensive gaming on a laptop?

So it really all depends on what's important to YOU. To my mind
this is grossly overpriced lipstick on a pig. Yet for someone who
dislikes desktops and wants to play the latest GTA on their commute
to work... Maybe it's ideal. But all the swappable factors just look like
gimmicks to me. You won't need them. If you did, you can buy your
own USB extenders. Rueing your old fans that are not replaceable is
not a reason to buy an overpriced device merely for replaceability
options.

I ended up building a new desktop, for about $400 total. I hardly
use my laptop, so I certainly didn't need two. And that crappy HP
laptop was going to cost the same as building a real computer, by
the time I bought the add-ons to give it enough ports. And of
course, desktops support all kinds of replaceability. That's never
been yhe point or the forte of laptops. They're liimited and not at
all ergonomic. Their only reason for existing is portability.

On 28/02/2024 13:05, Newyana2 wrote:
>
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
>
> | Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
> |
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/framework-laptop-16-review-modular-pc-keyboard-port-graphics-card
> |
> | Prices for something actually working start at around £1,699 / €1,919 /
> | $1,699 / A$2,819.
>
> Doesn't this really depend on what you need/want? And what's
> it got to do with Linux? This is a Win11 device for playing high end
> video games at Starbucks.

No, it's a laptop capable in principle of running any OS, and two of my
laptops dual-boot into Linux & Windows. You may not like Linux, that's
up to you, but I didn't cross-post to a Linux group just to give anyone
an excuse to start a pointless flame war between adherents of the two
OSs. Please keep your remarks to the hardware under discussion.

> [snip]
>
> So it really all depends on what's important to YOU. To my mind
> this is grossly overpriced lipstick on a pig. Yet for someone who
> dislikes desktops and wants to play the latest GTA on their commute
> to work... Maybe it's ideal. But all the swappable factors just look like
> gimmicks to me. You won't need them. If you did, you can buy your
> own USB extenders. Rueing your old fans that are not replaceable is
> not a reason to buy an overpriced device merely for replaceability
> options.
>
> I ended up building a new desktop, for about $400 total. I hardly
> use my laptop, so I certainly didn't need two. And that crappy HP
> laptop was going to cost the same as building a real computer, by
> the time I bought the add-ons to give it enough ports. And of
> course, desktops support all kinds of replaceability. That's never
> been yhe point or the forte of laptops. They're liimited and not at
> all ergonomic. Their only reason for existing is portability.

Now you're seeming to want to start a flame war between adherents of
desktops and laptops. FWIW, my last attempt, over a decade ago after
having done it successfully for many years previously, at building my
own desktop encountered a myriad of unexpected problems, including but
by no means confined to ...
- A motherboard that fried itself when a fan stopped working [*];
- Mismatched memory [*]
- The only locally available make of modern PSU with enough grunt
for the new motherboard having leads too short for my tower case;
- Others I have long since forgotten
.... and, even all those years ago, as I recall the cost of that mess was
considerably more than your $400.

* Both from the same supplier who, despite having a goodish reputation
at the time, turned out to be dodgy, and would not replace
non-functioning parts with like for like. Needless to say, I've not
used them since.

As with Linux & Windows, both desktops & laptops have their strengths &
weaknesses, and their uses, so let's stick to the hardware under discussion.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/02/2024 12:44, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 28/02/2024 13.01, Java Jive wrote:
>> [Deliberate Linux/Windows X-post, this is about hardware.]
>>
>> Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/framework-laptop-16-review-modular-pc-keyboard-port-graphics-card
>> [snip]
>> Constructive comments welcome, especially if based on actual experience.
>
> I do get the idea behind it, but much of the exchangeable parts are just
> attached to a usb hub and the motherboard seems to not be as modular
> (for example no cpu on socket for easy cpu exchange), limited graphics
> board option. No battery options (battery is based on cpu option) and
> not easy to swap. No options on displays.
> For a modular laptop, I think it's still too limited, so for me this one
> ain't end up on my lap, the none modular Tuxedo Laptop would more likely
> be my next personal Laptop.

Fair comment, I think.

> One more thing, you would be just looked into buying replacement parts
> from Framework, of course with a 3D printer and a bit reconstruction you
> should be able to make your own modules.

Yes, that's a very good point. Modularity on its own is not enough,
what is needed also is interchangeability of parts for different makes
of laptop, so that, to return for convenience to the fan example, a fan
module will be not only easy to replace, but the same as those for other
makes of laptop, which would mean that it would be economically
worthwhile to provide replacement modules of reasonably quality, which
is definitely not the situation at present.

What is really needed is for the manufacturers to agree interchangeable
laptop component standards such as used to exist, but perhaps less so
now if my last build-your-own experience was anything to go by, for
desktops.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In message <urnb3f$3t284$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:05:49,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
>
>| Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
>|
>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/framework-laptop-16-r
>eview-modular-pc-keyboard-port-graphics-card
>|
>| Prices for something actually working start at around £1,699 / €1,919 /
>| $1,699 / A$2,819.
>|
>
> Doesn't this really depend on what you need/want? And what's
>it got to do with Linux? This is a Win11 device for playing high end
>video games at Starbucks. Are you thinking of dual-booting Linux?
>What would be the point of that? You're asking a question out of
>context, with no indication of what you need, aside from wanting
>a quieter fan.

He was I think asking about the _concept_ of a modular laptop - which
surely is a valid question in both camps. I agree, this particular one
is expensive and has some limitations, but I think the general question
is valid in both camps.
>
> I bought an Asus 19" awhile back, mostly to use for online sites
>that require Win10. It's OK. $500. It accommodated an extra SSD.
>I wouldn't think of using a laptop without a real mouse, so there's
>also that cost. No DVD drive. I had to buy a $35 USB -> Ethernet
>adapter.

It wouldn't occur to me that a mouse was a _necessity_ - but even if it
did, the cost is negligible, unless you're looking at a very
high-performance one; I've seen ones for less than a pound that are more
than adequate for general use.

I bought an external CD/DVD drive three laptops ago; by the time I was
on this machine (second-hand; I wanted something with W7 on it - and it
_does_ have an optical drive), I was down to using the optical drive
about three or four times a year, if that. I think I've used the
ethernet port once.
>
> Recently I was in Staples and they had HPs for $300. I could
>hardly afford not to buy one! But then it occured to me that I'd
>have to spend another $100 for powered USB hubs, ethernet,
>mouse, etc. They keep the price down by reducing ports. But

I agree, some economy laptops have laughably few USB ports, given

>giving you the extra ports is worth $100, not $1000. And why
>would anyone do intensive gaming on a laptop?

Don't assume everyone uses their computer(s) in the same way you do! For
some people, their laptop is their main - possibly only - machine.
>
> So it really all depends on what's important to YOU. To my mind
>this is grossly overpriced lipstick on a pig. Yet for someone who
>dislikes desktops and wants to play the latest GTA on their commute

You _are_ dismissive of others' lifestyles, aren't you! They don't
necessarily want to play GTA - or any other game; they might want
advanced processing for graphics or scientific purposes. (Though if they
want gaming, there's nothing wrong with that!)

>to work... Maybe it's ideal. But all the swappable factors just look like
>gimmicks to me. You won't need them. If you did, you can buy your
>own USB extenders. Rueing your old fans that are not replaceable is
>not a reason to buy an overpriced device merely for replaceability
>options.

I agree, this _particular_ laptop is expensive - but then part of that
is that it hasn't crossed the bulk threshold, so can't be cheap enough -
sadly, that will probably remain the case; lots of things that _should_
be a lot cheaper than they are have the same problem. I have a personal
interest in equipment for the visually handicapped - whose prices make
your eyes water (basic machines are in the 3000-5000 range for anything
half-way usable).

(I also agree the Framework machine isn't as versatile as its designers
would wish. Whether that's because they've deliberately tried to make
money out of those who _want_ a modular laptop, or because - for the
reasons above - this is the best they can do towards that goal, I'm not
sure; I _lean_ towards believing it is an honest attempt, but then I
often err on the side of generosity.)
>
> I ended up building a new desktop, for about $400 total. I hardly
>use my laptop, so I certainly didn't need two. And that crappy HP
>laptop was going to cost the same as building a real computer, by
>the time I bought the add-ons to give it enough ports. And of

You must sit at home a lot. (That's not intended as a criticism, just an
observation.) I like to have my computer with me when I visit other
places - friends' and relations' homes, holiday, hotel (which I couldn't
really do with a desktop-plus-monitor) ... but each to his own.

>course, desktops support all kinds of replaceability. That's never
>been yhe point or the forte of laptops. They're liimited and not at
>all ergonomic. Their only reason for existing is portability.
>
I agree to _some_ extent; when I bought this one I went for one big
enough to have a near-normal keyboard (numeric keypad), for example. And
obviously their _main_ reason for existence _is_ portability, but they
also - perhaps just as a side-effect of designing for that - often have
better integration of functionality.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]
On 2024-02-28, Java Jive wrote:
> [Deliberate Linux/Windows X-post, this is about hardware.]
>
> Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
> [...]
> Anyone tried this or anything similar?

I have one of their original 13" models (11th gen Intel CPU). Great
machine, and SUPER easy to work in / on. If I was in the market for an
entire machine, I'd definitely have the 16" as a contender (against the
13", so ... decisions, decisions)

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

In message <urndrc$3tjcf$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:52:44,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
[]
>What is really needed is for the manufacturers to agree interchangeable
>laptop component standards such as used to exist, but perhaps less so

(I don't remember them ever doing so for laptops, apart from plug-in
cards for one slot [and even that had at least two incompatible
versions].)

>now if my last build-your-own experience was anything to go by, for
>desktops.
>
I fear that, without legislation, such things happen more rarely than
otherwise: there's little incentive for manufacturers to agree on such
standards, and plenty for them to be incompatible. I continue to be
surprised when such a standard does arise _and is implemented widely_ -
such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that last has so many connectors
that it's lost its early attraction).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He hasn't one redeeming vice." - Oscar Wilde

On 2024-02-28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> [...]I continue to be surprised when such a standard does arise _and
> is implemented widely_ - such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that
> last has so many connectors that it's lost its early attraction).

There are ... 5 total (6 if you count the short-lived "USB-3 Micro-B
Connector"), over the span of 25 years. That's honestly not very bad at
all, and a far sight better than earlier options where everything was
different. Nowadays, it's all converging back to USB-C, so ...

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 2/28/2024 8:52 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 28/02/2024 12:44, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 13.01, Java Jive wrote:
>>> [Deliberate Linux/Windows X-post, this is about hardware.]
>>>
>>> Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/framework-laptop-16-review-modular-pc-keyboard-port-graphics-card [snip]
>>> Constructive comments welcome, especially if based on actual experience.
>>
>> I do get the idea behind it, but much of the exchangeable parts are just attached to a usb hub and the motherboard seems to not be as modular (for example no cpu on socket for easy cpu exchange), limited graphics board option. No battery options (battery is based on cpu option) and not easy to swap. No options on displays.
>> For a modular laptop, I think it's still too limited, so for me this one ain't end up on my lap, the none modular Tuxedo Laptop would more likely be my next personal Laptop.
>
> Fair comment, I think.
>
>> One more thing, you would be just looked into buying replacement parts from Framework, of course with a 3D printer and a bit reconstruction you should be able to make your own modules.
>
> Yes, that's a very good point.  Modularity on its own is not enough, what is needed also is interchangeability of parts for different makes of laptop, so that, to return for convenience to the fan example, a fan module will be not only easy to replace, but the same as those for other makes of laptop, which would mean that it would be economically worthwhile to provide replacement modules of reasonably quality, which is definitely not the situation at present.
>
> What is really needed is for the manufacturers to agree interchangeable laptop component standards such as used to exist, but perhaps less so now if my last build-your-own experience was anything to go by, for desktops.
>

You're asking this in the Win7 group.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-9-7940HS-Processor-Benchmarks-and-Specs.680599.0.html

"OS support is limited to 64-bit editions of Windows 11 and Windows 10 and of course to Linux.
the chip ... is ... soldered down" <=== irrelevant for a module

"TSMC 4 nm process"
"Ryzen AI" "AVX-512"

This is a reassuring Powerpoint for Ryzen AI, without knowing the dimensions
of the module inside the CPU.

https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/images/illustrations/2333002-rzyen-ai-npu-cpu-gpu.jpg

It's Microsoft Pluton status is unknown. It claims to be "compatible",
which is a somewhat weaker statement than the Ryzen 6000 laptop processor "having one".

It's a bit advanced for Windows 7 and might not have a graphics driver for that purpose.

*******

As long as there is only one supplier of parts, they can charge
anything they want for some "future" module.

In consumer purchases, there is only the "here and now". Promises to
finish a driver, or deliver a feature, aren't worth a thing to you.
"Self driving" would be a contemporary example.

After being burned on more than one consumer purchase like this,
one thing I learned is I should not "bank on the ethereal". Only
the item in front of me, with the one driver it comes with,
that's the "real" part of what I bought. Anything else is
a gravy of unknown availability.

If a "big company" made a bet on modular computers (let's say Google
did it), we would not know anything about when they would shut down
the business.

If a "small company" makes a similar bet, and really is dedicated to
the concept, then the question would be, does it have the financial legs
to succeed. And we all know what the failure rate of tech companies is.

Paul

On 28/02/2024 17:45, Paul wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 8:52 AM, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 12:44, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2024 13.01, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> [Deliberate Linux/Windows X-post, this is about hardware.]
>>>>
>>>> Framework Laptop 16 review: the ultimate in modular PCs
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/framework-laptop-16-review-modular-pc-keyboard-port-graphics-card [snip]
>>>> Constructive comments welcome, especially if based on actual experience.
>>>
>>> I do get the idea behind it, but much of the exchangeable parts are just attached to a usb hub and the motherboard seems to not be as modular (for example no cpu on socket for easy cpu exchange), limited graphics board option. No battery options (battery is based on cpu option) and not easy to swap. No options on displays.
>>> For a modular laptop, I think it's still too limited, so for me this one ain't end up on my lap, the none modular Tuxedo Laptop would more likely be my next personal Laptop.
>>
>> Fair comment, I think.
>>
>>> One more thing, you would be just looked into buying replacement parts from Framework, of course with a 3D printer and a bit reconstruction you should be able to make your own modules.
>>
>> Yes, that's a very good point.  Modularity on its own is not enough, what is needed also is interchangeability of parts for different makes of laptop, so that, to return for convenience to the fan example, a fan module will be not only easy to replace, but the same as those for other makes of laptop, which would mean that it would be economically worthwhile to provide replacement modules of reasonably quality, which is definitely not the situation at present.
>>
>> What is really needed is for the manufacturers to agree interchangeable laptop component standards such as used to exist, but perhaps less so now if my last build-your-own experience was anything to go by, for desktops.
>>
>
> You're asking this in the Win7 group.
>
> https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-9-7940HS-Processor-Benchmarks-and-Specs.680599.0.html
>
> "OS support is limited to 64-bit editions of Windows 11 and Windows 10 and of course to Linux.
> the chip ... is ... soldered down" <=== irrelevant for a module
>
> "TSMC 4 nm process"
> "Ryzen AI" "AVX-512"

Yes, I posted it there because Linux & W7 are still what I use for most
things, so, although I do have W10 builds for some of my machines, I
don't subscribe to any W10 or W11 ngs.

> As long as there is only one supplier of parts, they can charge
> anything they want for some "future" module.

Yes, as others have pointed out, the dangers of being locked in at
exorbitant cost, which is why it would be better if the manufacturers
agreed to some common standards and stuck to them.

> If a "big company" made a bet on modular computers (let's say Google
> did it), we would not know anything about when they would shut down
> the business.

Yes.

> If a "small company" makes a similar bet, and really is dedicated to
> the concept, then the question would be, does it have the financial legs
> to succeed. And we all know what the failure rate of tech companies is.

Again also, yes.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote

| > Doesn't this really depend on what you need/want? And what's
| > it got to do with Linux? This is a Win11 device for playing high end
| > video games at Starbucks.
| | No, it's a laptop capable in principle of running any OS, and two of my
| laptops dual-boot into Linux & Windows. You may not like Linux,

It's not about liking Linux. What I'm questioning is
whether you need a powerful laptop for whaty you're
doing. If you boot to Linux then the answer is no. If
you want to play GTA then maybe the answer is yes.
You askid this in Linux and Win7, yet it's a Win11 laptop.

| Now you're seeming to want to start a flame war between adherents of
| desktops and laptops.

You're a bit touchy. All I'm saying is that people want and need
different things, and you're asking about whether a particular device
is a good deal without any indication of what you expect to use
it for. You could ask whether a Lexus is a good car. Well, that depends.
Do you have that much money to spare? Do you rarely drive more
than 30 miles? Do you need to haul lumber? (And no, I'm not trying
to start an EV "flame war".)

| FWIW, my last attempt, over a decade ago after
| having done it successfully for many years previously, at building my
| own desktop encountered a myriad of unexpected problems, including but
| by no means confined to ...
| - A motherboard that fried itself when a fan stopped working [*];
| - Mismatched memory [*]
| - The only locally available make of modern PSU with enough grunt
| for the new motherboard having leads too short for my tower case;
| - Others I have long since forgotten
| ... and, even all those years ago, as I recall the cost of that mess was
| considerably more than your $400.

It can be risky. I once had a problem where either the MB or
CPU was faulty, and Microcenter refused to accept a return.
I suspect that quality control is not great with these things.
So you just have to hope you don't get lemons. In that respect,
something like a Dell is a safer bet. But I enjoy building them,
and in the long run they're cheaper.

In message <slrnutuqfl.mun.dan@djph.net> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:14:29,
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes
>On 2024-02-28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> [...]I continue to be surprised when such a standard does arise _and
>> is implemented widely_ - such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that
>> last has so many connectors that it's lost its early attraction).
>
>There are ... 5 total (6 if you count the short-lived "USB-3 Micro-B
>Connector"), over the span of 25 years. That's honestly not very bad at
>all, and a far sight better than earlier options where everything was
>different. Nowadays, it's all converging back to USB-C, so ...
>
>
Type A - the default you get on PCs/laptops. Type B - the almost square
one you get on printers and _some_ scanners. At least three small
non-turn-over-able ones (at least two of which I always feel are
susceptible to easy damage). Type C. That's just the mechanical ones,
before you get into the extra connections, varying speeds, varying power
capabilities..

But at least it's _sort of_ a standard, in that - even though it may
limit you to the lowest speed/power - you can use adapters. Not like the
multiple _incompatible_ variants of say video, and ISA/PCI/whatever.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I finally got my head together, and my body fell apart.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote at 02:59 this Thursday (GMT):
> In message <slrnutuqfl.mun.dan@djph.net> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:14:29,
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes
>>On 2024-02-28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> [...]I continue to be surprised when such a standard does arise _and
>>> is implemented widely_ - such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that
>>> last has so many connectors that it's lost its early attraction).
>>
>>There are ... 5 total (6 if you count the short-lived "USB-3 Micro-B
>>Connector"), over the span of 25 years. That's honestly not very bad at
>>all, and a far sight better than earlier options where everything was
>>different. Nowadays, it's all converging back to USB-C, so ...
>>
>>
> Type A - the default you get on PCs/laptops. Type B - the almost square
> one you get on printers and _some_ scanners. At least three small
> non-turn-over-able ones (at least two of which I always feel are
> susceptible to easy damage). Type C. That's just the mechanical ones,
> before you get into the extra connections, varying speeds, varying power
> capabilities..
>
> But at least it's _sort of_ a standard, in that - even though it may
> limit you to the lowest speed/power - you can use adapters. Not like the
> multiple _incompatible_ variants of say video, and ISA/PCI/whatever.

I have never seen type b.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2/28/2024 8:14 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
>
> | > Doesn't this really depend on what you need/want? And what's
> | > it got to do with Linux? This is a Win11 device for playing high end
> | > video games at Starbucks.
> |
> | No, it's a laptop capable in principle of running any OS, and two of my
> | laptops dual-boot into Linux & Windows. You may not like Linux,
>
> It's not about liking Linux. What I'm questioning is
> whether you need a powerful laptop for whaty you're
> doing. If you boot to Linux then the answer is no. If
> you want to play GTA then maybe the answer is yes.
> You askid this in Linux and Win7, yet it's a Win11 laptop.
>
> | Now you're seeming to want to start a flame war between adherents of
> | desktops and laptops.
>
> You're a bit touchy. All I'm saying is that people want and need
> different things, and you're asking about whether a particular device
> is a good deal without any indication of what you expect to use
> it for. You could ask whether a Lexus is a good car. Well, that depends.
> Do you have that much money to spare? Do you rarely drive more
> than 30 miles? Do you need to haul lumber? (And no, I'm not trying
> to start an EV "flame war".)
>
> | FWIW, my last attempt, over a decade ago after
> | having done it successfully for many years previously, at building my
> | own desktop encountered a myriad of unexpected problems, including but
> | by no means confined to ...
> | - A motherboard that fried itself when a fan stopped working [*];
> | - Mismatched memory [*]
> | - The only locally available make of modern PSU with enough grunt
> | for the new motherboard having leads too short for my tower case;
> | - Others I have long since forgotten
> | ... and, even all those years ago, as I recall the cost of that mess was
> | considerably more than your $400.
>
> It can be risky. I once had a problem where either the MB or
> CPU was faulty, and Microcenter refused to accept a return.
> I suspect that quality control is not great with these things.
> So you just have to hope you don't get lemons. In that respect,
> something like a Dell is a safer bet. But I enjoy building them,
> and in the long run they're cheaper.

But the Dell came from a factory too.

You're probably thinking that Sparkle Ponies live
in a Dell factory.

Sadly, all factories are the same.

Dell is unlikely to run its own PCB factory. Like
HP, they would get a motherboard from Trigem or
Pegasus or Mitac or Compal or some other ODM.

Anandtech had a video once, of the Asus motherboard
"two minute functional test". This is the test before
the motherboard is put in the ESD bag. It covers the
main slots, the CPU socket, some memory slot. Most
of the two minutes, is the time needed to plug in the
test items. The actual test runtime is pretty short.

The reason the test is short, is it takes 2 minutes :-)
Times the 3 million to 5 million motherboards per month
receiving the same test. The result is five hundred tables
with a person at each table, plugging in shit and testing.
It is labor intensive. If any part of the process slows
down... it result in a "need for more tables" :-) I think
you can see the dynamic tension involved in the topic.
If they plugged in all the USB ports, they would need
a thousand tables. That's why we have the joke about
the test time being short because it's short. Because it's short.

Naturally, the overall production loop, includes statistical
product inspection, which is outside of our little functional
test table fiasco. Every one of N items are pulled aside for
thorough examination. If there's a problem, it could mean
pulling pallets of stuff back from the production area, for
rework or correction of systematic mistakes.

But ultimately, for "fatal" errors, the pile of material
to be shredded and put in the dumpsters out back, that's
huge. Most of the product 99 44/100 percent of it, *must*
go out the door, or the tipping fee and wasted materials
take all the fun out of it.

At some point, things defy logic. If a motherboard retails
for $40 (which might be a clearance price for all I know),
there isn't money for test. There should be some price point,
where only statistical process control ensures product quality.
This calls for six sigma ICs. Jelly bean TTL logic of years
ago, that wasn't being tested (only statistical test, if that).
That's well before someone thought the word "sigma" should
be involved.

While we have expectations of a test strategy, remember that
every factory is a dirty grubby place filled with morons.
You can have 99 employees of normal intelligence, and the
moron running the facility, spoils it for everyone else :-)
Every plant has a weakest link. Plants have unions. Etc.

Paul

On 2024-02-29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <slrnutuqfl.mun.dan@djph.net> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:14:29,
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes
>>On 2024-02-28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> [...]I continue to be surprised when such a standard does arise _and
>>> is implemented widely_ - such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that
>>> last has so many connectors that it's lost its early attraction).
>>
>>There are ... 5 total (6 if you count the short-lived "USB-3 Micro-B
>>Connector"), over the span of 25 years. That's honestly not very bad at
>>all, and a far sight better than earlier options where everything was
>>different. Nowadays, it's all converging back to USB-C, so ...
>>
>>
> Type A - the default you get on PCs/laptops. Type B - the almost square
> one you get on printers and _some_ scanners. At least three small
> non-turn-over-able ones (at least two of which I always feel are
> susceptible to easy damage). Type C. That's just the mechanical ones,
> before you get into the extra connections, varying speeds, varying power
> capabilities..

Yeah, thought you were talking about the mechanical connectors moreso
than "well, we have USB1.1, USB2, USB3[.n] ... ". At least it's mostly
all backwards-compatible down to USB1.1 on the protocol side :)

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

In message <urouta$b5q8$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 29 Feb 2024 03:50:02,
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
writes
>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]

Why?

>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote at 02:59 this Thursday (GMT):
>> In message <slrnutuqfl.mun.dan@djph.net> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:14:29,
>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes
>>>On 2024-02-28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> [...]I continue to be surprised when such a standard does arise _and
>>>> is implemented widely_ - such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that
>>>> last has so many connectors that it's lost its early attraction).
>>>
>>>There are ... 5 total (6 if you count the short-lived "USB-3 Micro-B
>>>Connector"), over the span of 25 years. That's honestly not very bad at
>>>all, and a far sight better than earlier options where everything was
>>>different. Nowadays, it's all converging back to USB-C, so ...
>>>
>>>
>> Type A - the default you get on PCs/laptops. Type B - the almost square
>> one you get on printers and _some_ scanners. At least three small
>> non-turn-over-able ones (at least two of which I always feel are
>> susceptible to easy damage). Type C. That's just the mechanical ones,
>> before you get into the extra connections, varying speeds, varying power
>> capabilities..
>>
>> But at least it's _sort of_ a standard, in that - even though it may
>> limit you to the lowest speed/power - you can use adapters. Not like the
>> multiple _incompatible_ variants of say video, and ISA/PCI/whatever.
>
>I have never seen type b.

Have you never had a USB printer (or earlier scanner)? It was very
common.

Here's an A to B cable ("USB printer cable"):
<https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEKwGQOStaYLEOJz
6tWjum11FD64d2Rs9kAY63QzK2SpIKlvPD2Pqm_jS9JfhG0ty_GtbxMIQJVKO83QPcbHmAPjm
XOK31tBM9gvI1pNwvOHV2q1XOPIl2>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

as St Augustine says, feeling resentment is like drinking poison and waiting
for the other person to die. Ed Stourton, in RT 2023/1/21-27

On 2/29/2024 7:25 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <urouta$b5q8$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 29 Feb 2024 03:50:02, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> writes
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]
>
> Why?
>
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote at 02:59 this Thursday (GMT):
>>> In message <slrnutuqfl.mun.dan@djph.net> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:14:29,
>>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes
>>>> On 2024-02-28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> [...]I continue to be surprised when such a standard does arise _and
>>>>> is implemented widely_ - such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that
>>>>> last has so many connectors that it's lost its early attraction).
>>>>
>>>> There are ... 5 total (6 if you count the short-lived "USB-3 Micro-B
>>>> Connector"), over the span of 25 years.  That's honestly not very bad at
>>>> all, and a far sight better than earlier options where everything was
>>>> different.  Nowadays, it's all converging back to USB-C, so ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Type A - the default you get on PCs/laptops. Type B - the almost square
>>> one you get on printers and _some_ scanners. At least three small
>>> non-turn-over-able ones (at least two of which I always feel are
>>> susceptible to easy damage). Type C. That's just the mechanical ones,
>>> before you get into the extra connections, varying speeds, varying power
>>> capabilities..
>>>
>>> But at least it's _sort of_ a standard, in that - even though it may
>>> limit you to the lowest speed/power - you can use adapters. Not like the
>>> multiple _incompatible_ variants of say video, and ISA/PCI/whatever.
>>
>> I have never seen type b.
>
> Have you never had a USB printer (or earlier scanner)? It was very common.
>
> Here's an A to B cable ("USB printer cable"):
> <https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEKwGQOStaYLEOJz
> 6tWjum11FD64d2Rs9kAY63QzK2SpIKlvPD2Pqm_jS9JfhG0ty_GtbxMIQJVKO83QPcbHmAPjm
> XOK31tBM9gvI1pNwvOHV2q1XOPIl2>

You can find bigger connectors than that.

https://www.amazon.ca/StarTech-com-USB3SAB10BK-SuperSpeed-USB-Cable/dp/B003WV5DN8

Imagine how big the USB4 connector on a printer would be...

Paul

On 2/29/2024 5:25 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On 2024-02-29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <slrnutuqfl.mun.dan@djph.net> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:14:29,
>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes
>>> On 2024-02-28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> [...]I continue to be surprised when such a standard does arise _and
>>>> is implemented widely_ - such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that
>>>> last has so many connectors that it's lost its early attraction).
>>>
>>> There are ... 5 total (6 if you count the short-lived "USB-3 Micro-B
>>> Connector"), over the span of 25 years. That's honestly not very bad at
>>> all, and a far sight better than earlier options where everything was
>>> different. Nowadays, it's all converging back to USB-C, so ...
>>>
>>>
>> Type A - the default you get on PCs/laptops. Type B - the almost square
>> one you get on printers and _some_ scanners. At least three small
>> non-turn-over-able ones (at least two of which I always feel are
>> susceptible to easy damage). Type C. That's just the mechanical ones,
>> before you get into the extra connections, varying speeds, varying power
>> capabilities..
>
> Yeah, thought you were talking about the mechanical connectors moreso
> than "well, we have USB1.1, USB2, USB3[.n] ... ". At least it's mostly
> all backwards-compatible down to USB1.1 on the protocol side :)

Since nobody buys all these things, we'll never know :-)

"Backward Compatibility

Another significant change with USB4 V2 is backward compatibility.
The new standard will be compatible with the original version of
USB4, USB 3.2, USB 2.0, and Thunderbolt 3. Thanks to this new feature,
you can get the best performance possible across all your devices with one system.
"

USB 1.1 likely has too high of a signal swing, to work with the new stuff.

https://www.analog.com/en/resources/analog-dialogue/articles/switching-in-usb-consumer-applications.html

USB 1.1 USB 2.0
Single-Ended Amplitude 0 V to 3.3 V 0 V to 400 mV

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a single table indicating
what things you could mix ?

Paul

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote at 12:25 this Thursday (GMT):
> In message <urouta$b5q8$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 29 Feb 2024 03:50:02,
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
> writes
>>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]
>
> Why?

I thought it was proper nettiquete to set it.

>>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote at 02:59 this Thursday (GMT):
>>> In message <slrnutuqfl.mun.dan@djph.net> at Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:14:29,
>>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes
>>>>On 2024-02-28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> [...]I continue to be surprised when such a standard does arise _and
>>>>> is implemented widely_ - such as ISA, ATX, PCI, and USB (though that
>>>>> last has so many connectors that it's lost its early attraction).
>>>>
>>>>There are ... 5 total (6 if you count the short-lived "USB-3 Micro-B
>>>>Connector"), over the span of 25 years. That's honestly not very bad at
>>>>all, and a far sight better than earlier options where everything was
>>>>different. Nowadays, it's all converging back to USB-C, so ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Type A - the default you get on PCs/laptops. Type B - the almost square
>>> one you get on printers and _some_ scanners. At least three small
>>> non-turn-over-able ones (at least two of which I always feel are
>>> susceptible to easy damage). Type C. That's just the mechanical ones,
>>> before you get into the extra connections, varying speeds, varying power
>>> capabilities..
>>>
>>> But at least it's _sort of_ a standard, in that - even though it may
>>> limit you to the lowest speed/power - you can use adapters. Not like the
>>> multiple _incompatible_ variants of say video, and ISA/PCI/whatever.
>>
>>I have never seen type b.
>
> Have you never had a USB printer (or earlier scanner)? It was very
> common.
>
> Here's an A to B cable ("USB printer cable"):
><https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEKwGQOStaYLEOJz
> 6tWjum11FD64d2Rs9kAY63QzK2SpIKlvPD2Pqm_jS9JfhG0ty_GtbxMIQJVKO83QPcbHmAPjm
> XOK31tBM9gvI1pNwvOHV2q1XOPIl2>

Nope, I didn't really use em back in the day.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

|
| But the Dell came from a factory too.
| | You're probably thinking that Sparkle Ponies live
| in a Dell factory.
|

:) I figure that Dell doesn't want returns, so they're probably
doing a lot of testing with components, to make sure they're
making a stable choice. I'm making a slightly educated guess
and hoping for the best.

| Sadly, all factories are the same.
| | Dell is unlikely to run its own PCB factory. Like
| HP, they would get a motherboard from Trigem or
| Pegasus or Mitac or Compal or some other ODM.
| | Anandtech had a video once, of the Asus motherboard
| "two minute functional test". This is the test before
| the motherboard is put in the ESD bag. It covers the
| main slots, the CPU socket, some memory slot. Most
| of the two minutes, is the time needed to plug in the
| test items. The actual test runtime is pretty short.
| | The reason the test is short, is it takes 2 minutes :-)
| Times the 3 million to 5 million motherboards per month
| receiving the same test. The result is five hundred tables
| with a person at each table, plugging in shit and testing.
| It is labor intensive. If any part of the process slows
| down... it result in a "need for more tables" :-) I think
| you can see the dynamic tension involved in the topic.
| If they plugged in all the USB ports, they would need
| a thousand tables. That's why we have the joke about
| the test time being short because it's short. Because it's short.
| | Naturally, the overall production loop, includes statistical
| product inspection, which is outside of our little functional
| test table fiasco. Every one of N items are pulled aside for
| thorough examination. If there's a problem, it could mean
| pulling pallets of stuff back from the production area, for
| rework or correction of systematic mistakes.
| | But ultimately, for "fatal" errors, the pile of material
| to be shredded and put in the dumpsters out back, that's
| huge. Most of the product 99 44/100 percent of it, *must*
| go out the door, or the tipping fee and wasted materials
| take all the fun out of it.
| | At some point, things defy logic. If a motherboard retails
| for $40 (which might be a clearance price for all I know),
| there isn't money for test. There should be some price point,
| where only statistical process control ensures product quality.
| This calls for six sigma ICs. Jelly bean TTL logic of years
| ago, that wasn't being tested (only statistical test, if that).
| That's well before someone thought the word "sigma" should
| be involved.
| | While we have expectations of a test strategy, remember that
| every factory is a dirty grubby place filled with morons.
| You can have 99 employees of normal intelligence, and the
| moron running the facility, spoils it for everyone else :-)
| Every plant has a weakest link. Plants have unions. Etc.
| I'm not really expecting thorough testing. What can we expect,
really, given that these are advanced components for relatively
cheap prices? But in all the machines I've built (maybe 15?) only
one has been a lemon. I just figure that as part of the cost.

On 2/29/2024 10:03 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
> |
> | But the Dell came from a factory too.
> |
> | You're probably thinking that Sparkle Ponies live
> | in a Dell factory.
> |
>
> :) I figure that Dell doesn't want returns, so they're probably
> doing a lot of testing with components, to make sure they're
> making a stable choice. I'm making a slightly educated guess
> and hoping for the best.

Dell is a box-assembler.

This means they want "modules" of some sort, tested to some level.

The brute force test you're thinking of ("test all the USB ports
just before computer goes into cardboard box"), is only one of the
ways of attaining equivalent product quality. There are other ways to
do it. And the field defect database, keeps track of how good a
job you're doing. If you are using statistical inference, then
that should be reflected in the defect database.

Even if a guy tests all the ports, before the computer is boxed,
it still doesn't have to work when you get it (infant mortality).

*******

A year ago, I bought three WD Black 1TB hard drives. One of the
three drives, the motor would not spin. Took it back to the
store, the guy in the computer assembly area handles returns,
and he could not get it to spin either. What's wrong with that ?
The motor has to spin, for the drive to be manufactured. It's
an integral part of the process. The crates drives ship in,
are "designed" crates. They're not random cardboard boxes.
They're meant to prevent shocks of more than a certain amount.
It's when a drive comes out of a crate, that when its "shock life" begins.

And that's my first "out-of-the-box" hard drive failure.

Paul