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
> understandable

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.

-hh

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
> understandable
> --
> -alien-
> ~ Work like you don't need the money. ~
> ~ Love like you've never been hurt. ~
> ~ Dance like nobody is looking. ~

Your original post was clear as a bell to me. Alan Baker is a total asshole who will try to start an argument with anyone who denigrates Apple and/or its products. Just ignore him. He is psychopathic.

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:
> > > 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
> 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.
>
> -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:
>> 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
>>> understandable
>> 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.
>>
>> -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:
> >> 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
> >>> understandable
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> -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
>
>
> -hh

Reliability? Sources please.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:32:13 PM UTC-5, 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:
> > >> 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
> > >>> understandable
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> -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.

Addendum: Every computer that failed, not owned.

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:
>>>> 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
>>>>> understandable
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> -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.

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 Friday, December 10, 2021 at 9:32:13 PM UTC-7, 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:
> > >> 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
> > >>> understandable
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> -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.

F. Russell would have to have mental illness to be unsure of if he "rarely
had" developed Malwarebytes. Sound like anyone in here? When a guy can not
keep his lies straight and employs fake, self-image saving twaddle later,
it's damn obvious what his trolling is. How much more time does F. Russell's
extremely loser ass (a house fly knows more than F. Russell and is useful)
need to prove their Snit lying accusation with links?

Snit's computer has more hard drives than F. Russell's. Snit wins. F. Russell
loses. Any questions? It's a piece of cake to pick by bragging about a handful
of outliers unrepresentative from what's truly representative. What holds
more weight from an advocacy perspective are the common uses.

--
Puppy Videos
https://search.givewater.com/serp?q=Dustin+Cook+%22functional+illiterate+fraud%22
https://az-gycc.org/category/gycc/
https://v5.yc.edu/webtools/search/srchproc.asp
Dustin Cook: Functionally Illiterate Fraud

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 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:
> >>> 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:
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> -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.
> 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"?

None, but in a meaningful time frame batteries and conventional and solid-state storage are two that do, Asshole.

On 2021-12-11 8:50 a.m., 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:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -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.
>> 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"?
>
> None, but in a meaningful time frame batteries and conventional and solid-state storage are two that do, Asshole.

I see, so your initial statement was bullshit then, right, Idiot?

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:
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> 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

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?

Recent MacBook iFixit repairability scores have been pretty awful. All of that is due to inability to access and replace failed parts that other companies choose to make modular.

In one case I discovered recently a bad M1 Mac SSD led to replacement of the entire motherboard. I have had at least 3 hard drive failures over the years, all of which could have been easily fixed by replacement. Never had a connection failure experience other than a batch workplace of circa 1995 Compaq laptops that had a QC issue with the screen connection cables. Compaq paid to get those fixed with new cabling. YMMV.

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:
>>>>>>> ... 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
>
> 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.

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:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -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.
>> 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"?
>
> 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:
> >> 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
> >
> > 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?

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:
> >>>>> 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:
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -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.
> >> 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"?
> >
> > 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."

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:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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?

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:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -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.
>>>> 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"?
>>>
>>> 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 Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 11:20:39 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
> 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:
> >>>>>>> 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:
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -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.
> >>>> 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"?
> >>>
> >>> 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.

Oh, this Weller?

<https://www.valuetronics.com/product/wxr3002n-weller-soldering-station-new>

MSRP: $2,990.00, discounted to $2,870.40

Granted, I'm sure that there's some soldering stations which cost less than the laptop
in question, but its not generally something that we can reasonably expect for many
home DIY'ers to have laying around in their toolbox...

....nor have the practiced hand (a perishable skill) to have a high success rate, unless
their day job is as an electronics tech doing this kind of work.

-hh

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:
> >> 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:
> >>>>>>>>> ... 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
> >>>
> >>> 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.

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

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:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>> ... 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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
simply something is "sure 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-cards
It'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:
> >> 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:
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
> simply something is "sure 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-cards
> It'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 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:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>> Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
>> simply something is "sure 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-cards
>> It'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.

PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.

USB isn't either.