On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> 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.
Which is why I used the word "limited"

On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> 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.
> Which is why I used the word "limited"

Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.

On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> 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.
> > Which is why I used the word "limited"
> Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.

On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:21:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps you use it wrong. Do you not fathom the use of VPN?

What do you get out of lying? I noted specific examples of Bilby focusing
on ego and not tech, focusing on ego and not tech, etc. His response: to
repeat the same nonsense.

Bilby's posts are quite fully dishonest. There's no question that as soon
as any exonerated 'filtered person' does whatever to hurt the little milksop's
feelings that they'll be ignored again. I do not understand that. Denseness
is denseness and there are many who are fine with it. Some are even programmers.

On 2022-01-02 12:05 p.m., STALKING_TARGET_68 wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:21:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> Perhaps you use it wrong. Do you not fathom the use of VPN?
>
> What do you get out of lying? I noted specific examples of Bilby focusing
> on ego and not tech, focusing on ego and not tech, etc. His response: to
> repeat the same nonsense.
>
> Bilby's posts are quite fully dishonest. There's no question that as soon
> as any exonerated 'filtered person' does whatever to hurt the little milksop's
> feelings that they'll be ignored again. I do not understand that. Denseness
> is denseness and there are many who are fine with it. Some are even programmers.
>
> --
> Puppy Videos
> https://gibiru.com/results.html?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+%22NARCISSISTIC+BIGOT%22
> Dustin Cook is a functionally illiterate fraud

On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:13:04 PM UTC-7, 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.

What do you get out of lying? Complete rot by a delusional, tall-tale
telling, agenda driven, tag-teaming fool who couldn't tell the truth if
his life depended on it.

The herd's done a pretty good job with the Viterbi algorithm to regurgitate
texts which are in the form of ones from a previous post in the group.

--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5/pdf/GOVPUB-
GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5.pdf
Dustin Cook the Fraud

On 2022-01-02 10:11 p.m., Snit wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:13:04 PM UTC-7, 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.
>
>
> What do you get out of lying? Complete rot by a delusional, tall-tale
> telling, agenda driven, tag-teaming fool who couldn't tell the truth if
> his life depended on it.
>
> The herd's done a pretty good job with the Viterbi algorithm to regurgitate
> texts which are in the form of ones from a previous post in the group.
>
> --
> This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!!
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot
> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5/pdf/GOVPUB-
> GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5.pdf
> Dustin Cook the Fraud

Go away, Snit.

On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 9:36:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > 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.
> Which is why I used the word "limited"

On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 11:28:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-01-02 10:11 p.m., Snit wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:13:04 PM UTC-7, 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.
> >
> >
> > What do you get out of lying? Complete rot by a delusional, tall-tale
> > telling, agenda driven, tag-teaming fool who couldn't tell the truth if
> > his life depended on it.
> >
> > The herd's done a pretty good job with the Viterbi algorithm to regurgitate
> > texts which are in the form of ones from a previous post in the group.
> >
> > --
> > This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!!
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot
> > https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5/pdf/GOVPUB-
> > GP3-53521b56d37f77e8febfe0902a635dd5.pdf
> > Dustin Cook the Fraud
> Go away, Snit.

On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> 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.
> > Which is why I used the word "limited"
> Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.

On 2022-01-09 9:19 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Which is why I used the word "limited"
>> Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
>
> Lack of response to my request for info on other modular laptops is noted.

On 2022-01-09 9:19 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
>>> Which is why I used the word "limited"
>> Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
>
> Lack of response to my request for info on other modular laptops is noted.

'If you’re any kind of PC enthusiast, you probably know that Framework
is far from the first company to try a scheme like this. Intel has given
modular computers a shot in the past, to little result — its Compute
Card was a commercial failure, and its modular Ghost Canyon NUC (which
had hardware partners on board at launch) still has yet to receive any
new components. Alienware’s original Area-51m also never received its
promised future-proof upgradable parts.'

<https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/25/22299938/framework-laptop-features-upgrade-release-date-price>

'Among PC enthusiasts, a modular notebook computer has been an
unattainable Holy Grail. There have been attempts to build and sell a
laptop with easily interchangeable parts, but most have failed. '

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/dwightsilverman/2021/03/11/laptop-startup-framework-thinks-it-can-succeed-where-many-others-have-failed/>

Except where they say "most", the correct word is "all" when it comes to
consumer laptops.

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-01-09 9:19 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>> Which is why I used the word "limited"
> >> Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
> >
> > Lack of response to my request for info on other modular laptops is noted.
> 'Dell actually introduced a fully modular laptop (more like a desktop
> replacement) in 2019 called the Alienware Area 51M. It's a 17-inch
> behemoth of a device that comes with a desktop-spec processor and GPU.
> Best of all, you can replace these components in the future, provided
> Dell releases a GPU designed for the system.
>
> But after one year, the company stopped releasing new hardware for the
> Area 51M and instead focused on newer, more powerful laptops with a
> fixed processor and GPU.'
>
> <https://www.makeuseof.com/why-the-framework-laptop-is-a-big-deal/>
>
> From the same source:
>
> 'Some laptop makers are selling upgradeable laptops. However, they're
> not what you think. These fully modular devices are designed for
> fieldwork use. So you'll find that these devices are thick and heavily
> protected as well as modular.
>
> According to some reviewers, the Area 51M was an impractical laptop. It
> weighed more than 8 lbs, required two power bricks, one of which weighed
> more than an ultralight laptop, and the fans made a lot of noise.
>
> The classic reason manufacturers can't make a fully modular laptop is
> that space is at a premium when making portable devices. You can't just
> shoehorn a regular processor or GPU into thin and light devices, and if
> you try, you're going to have to compromise on either performance, size,
> or both.'
>
> Also from that source:
>
> 'One big question in everyone's minds is, "Will the company last?" There
> have been attempts to create modular consumer laptops that didn't pan out..'
>
> Let me set that last sentence out for you:
>
> 'There have been attempts to create modular consumer laptops that didn't
> pan out.'

On 2022-01-10 3:01 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-01-09 9:19 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-30 8:36 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Which is why I used the word "limited"
>>>> Expansion tools aren't a modular laptop in ANY sense.
>>>
>>> Lack of response to my request for info on other modular laptops is noted.
>> 'Dell actually introduced a fully modular laptop (more like a desktop
>> replacement) in 2019 called the Alienware Area 51M. It's a 17-inch
>> behemoth of a device that comes with a desktop-spec processor and GPU.
>> Best of all, you can replace these components in the future, provided
>> Dell releases a GPU designed for the system.
>>
>> But after one year, the company stopped releasing new hardware for the
>> Area 51M and instead focused on newer, more powerful laptops with a
>> fixed processor and GPU.'
>>
>> <https://www.makeuseof.com/why-the-framework-laptop-is-a-big-deal/>
>>
>> From the same source:
>>
>> 'Some laptop makers are selling upgradeable laptops. However, they're
>> not what you think. These fully modular devices are designed for
>> fieldwork use. So you'll find that these devices are thick and heavily
>> protected as well as modular.
>>
>> According to some reviewers, the Area 51M was an impractical laptop. It
>> weighed more than 8 lbs, required two power bricks, one of which weighed
>> more than an ultralight laptop, and the fans made a lot of noise.
>>
>> The classic reason manufacturers can't make a fully modular laptop is
>> that space is at a premium when making portable devices. You can't just
>> shoehorn a regular processor or GPU into thin and light devices, and if
>> you try, you're going to have to compromise on either performance, size,
>> or both.'
>>
>> Also from that source:
>>
>> 'One big question in everyone's minds is, "Will the company last?" There
>> have been attempts to create modular consumer laptops that didn't pan out.'
>>
>> Let me set that last sentence out for you:
>>
>> 'There have been attempts to create modular consumer laptops that didn't
>> pan out.'
>
>
> OK, never heard of any of these obscure products.