The crux of the matter is that even if one values upgradability and repairability, neither is a frequent need for practically anybody. Reliable machines rarely need repairs outside of owner mistreatment, and most people I know who are technically capable enough to care about upgrading generally do it maybe once every 4-6 years, by which point hardware has usually advanced far enough that buying a new laptop is easy to justify.
So while upgradability and repairability are great to have, their material impact on day to day user experience is minimal, except maybe for people who have a tendency to severely underspec their initial hardware purchases. On the other hand, things like chassis rigidity, cooling performance, fan noise, and battery life being subpar are constant reminders that you spent a pretty penny on a laptop that's not meeting your needs.
The reality may be that wanting a laptop that's well rounded and competent across the board AND repairable+upgradable is akin to having your cake and eating it too, but that doesn't stop people from wanting it anyway.
As an aside, I believe that Framework could probably get closer to that ideal if they unchained themselves from the port module idea. Yes it's cool, but it forces all sorts of design compromises that otherwise wouldn't be necessary, and I'd bet that something like 80-90% of Framework buyers would be just as happy if changing ports required opening up the chassis, swapping out side plates, and doing a little bit of internal wiring.
> The crux of the matter is that even if one values upgradability and repairability, neither is a frequent need for practically anybody.
Judging reparability and serviceability the same way as you do with other features is absurd, to put it charitably! It is one feature that you rarely use, but brings you huge value when you do use it. You don't realize how much savings we used to extract by progressively upgrading the same desktop PC for two to three generations instead of throwing away the whole PC and buying a new one each time. This dismissal of the feature is bizarrely shortsighted.
> The reality may be that wanting a laptop that's well rounded and competent across the board AND repairable+upgradable is akin to having your cake and eating it too, but that doesn't stop people from wanting it anyway.
I talked about this just two days ago. Unlike how you project it, that ideal is entirely feasible if there was enough investment and a large enough market. Instead, OEMs inflict the opposite on the consumers who take it all in without pushing back. These companies choose and spread suboptimal designs that suit their interests and then insist that it is the only viable way forward. It's absurd that consumers also repeat that falsehood.
> You don't realize how much savings we used to extract by progressively upgrading the same desktop PC for two to three generations instead of throwing away the whole PC and buying a new one each time. This dismissal of the feature is bizarrely shortsighted.
The main things I keep long term are the drives and power supply, and those can be kept on most laptops too.
In the medium term I get a lot of use out of separately upgrading CPU and GPU, but most frameworks can't do that. The 16 gets half a point in that category because the options are still very limited.
A Framework lets me keep the same screen which is cool. And it lets me keep the same chassis which is not as beneficial if it's not a particularly good chassis.
If I'm generous, the extra flexibility in a Framework would save me $200 every 5-8 years. Which leaves me in the hole, further if I'm less generous.
I hope they reach a scale where they can price things better, and I'm willing to pay some extra for what they do, but not as much as they currently charge. Looking at Framework's site I can get the same specs as the author for $1800. Lenovo offers a model with a worse screen but otherwise the same specs for $600. Gigabyte has a fully matching model plus bonus GPU for $1150, and for half of November it was on sale for $1000. And if you want an RTX 5070 then Framework is $2500 and Gigabyte is $1350.
> If I'm generous, the extra flexibility in a Framework would save me $200 every 5-8 years. Which leaves me in the hole, further if I'm less generous.
I think this statement is heavily underestimating the value of a repairable /user serviceable computer.
The value proposition of user serviceable equipment is the same as the value proposition for open source for software. It gives you the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make the changes you want to make IF you want to make them.
But as it is with open source software, most users are never going to be directly editing the code for postgres, Linux, or any of the other 1000s of open source software that they use on a daily basis - but IF they choose to do so, they can.
> The value proposition of user serviceable equipment is the same as the value proposition for open source for software. It gives you the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make the changes you want to make IF you want to make them.
This is true to an extent, but I think that's greatly overselling it when phrased that way.
90% of my customization is either during the initial purchase, or it's a RAM/drive upgrade, and I don't need Framework for that. It's only a small portion of customization I lose out on. And in some ways I actually have more ability to customize outside of Framework, for example they only offer two GPU models.
That is my point. Most users - such as yourself, will not make use of the freedom a Framework device provides but there are others who will directly benefit from it. And that freedom is essential.
To use a vehicle analogy - it is the same as getting a car which has parts you can opt to change/replace. Most people may not even be able to do an oil change but this "feature" is nonetheless a VERY important one to have.
My point was that even for people that benefit, the benefit is greatly reduced.
Let's dig in to why it's useful to be able to replace parts on a car. If we analogize the extra flexibility of the Framework to being able to replace all these parts in the engine bay, that sounds really cool, until you realize there are no third party options for the core components and Framework only makes a couple versions. It's still useful in a few circumstances, but it's not this massive unlock of freedom. You can't have a fully customized engine, and the best way to get an engine tailored to your tastes is to abandon the weak after-the-fact customization and go find something that you like from the start.
Even to a user that really values freedom, Framework doesn't properly deliver at this point in time. The Framework freedom is so restricted that in most ways you get more freedom by considering all the non-soldered-RAM laptops from other brands as valid options too.
Edit: And I don't mean this as an indictment of their small company, they're trying, but right now the impact is limited in many ways.
> A Framework lets me keep the same screen which is cool
Probably the last thing I'd want to keep. Screen technology still moves forward at a decent pace. Screens are disposable, backlights fade over time, pixels get stuck, screen burn-in.
The only universal thing I can think of about machines I've upgraded over the years (not laptops, of course) are cases, power supplies, CPU coolers, and as long as the form factor hasn't changed/there hasn't been significant progress, HDD.
Everything else goes with the system. New CPU meant new socket, which also meant new RAM. Need to get rid of that old video card, of course.
I think a major clarification is in order here. I'm not talking about just the framework here. If anything, the problems with framework is the direct result of the absolutely stupid industry-wide product design culture and market tastes. You can see all the major open-ish hardware designers grappling with similar issues - pinephone, System76, Librem... I will explain later why it is so. But here is the point - we need a major shift in both the product design culture and the (non-existent) consumer culture.
Back in the days of modular desktop PCs (which is still alive, but barely holding on and slowly fading away) about a couple of decades ago, there would have been immediate and sharp backlash if any hardware manufacturer pulled the tricks that they do today - soldered-on RAM modules, thermoplastic glue instead of screws, riveted keyboards, irreplaceable ICs that are paired using crypto, permanently locked firmware, etc. That would have shook their sales enough for them to care. Right now, these 'features' lead to short-life hardware (because any broken parts mean everything has to be thrown out), landfills full of e-waste, frequent new purchases, etc. It does nothing good for anyone or the ecosystem, except filling the pockets of trillion dollar MNCs.
The advantage of such consumer pressure is that you'd have a vibrant spare parts market with much more choices. Many people here are complaining about how poor the spare parts market is. Had the consumer choice been more on the side of modularity and reusability, that problem wouldn't have even arisen. It wouldn't be just framework who manufactures such things. In fact, you wouldn't even be able to decide the brand name of the laptop as a whole. Another point is that you're still thinking about laptops as a unit, instead of as a collection of parts. And that would be the case if the industry spent more resources and effort into it. It doesn't have to be bulky as you imagine either. Hardware interfaces, housing and fasteners would have evolved to a more compact, universal and standard form, much like how a dozen different ports were replaced by USB. Right now, you're thinking about how you can transplant parts from your old laptop to the new one. Instead, you could swap parts of a laptop one at a time. Currently, the CPU and GPU cannot be swapped like in a desktop PC. You have to make do with replacing the whole motherboard now. But has anybody demanded replaceable CPUs and GPUs for these? Why are those precluded?
Now about why framework, System76, Librem, Pinephone, etc have problems making such devices. The choices they get is abysmally small. The OEMs and component manufacturers (mostly from China) have created this supply-chain system where they involve in huge-scale exclusive contracts. It's simply too hard to get a fully compatible chipset without signing an NDA that effectively ruins your chances at making open or modular hardware. Those companies are doing an impressive job at making these hardware with what they have.
You may want to dismiss me as too idealistic and dreaming about what could be, instead of dealing with what it is now. But let me point out why we never catch a break. The tech community takes an obstinate and imprudent 'all or nothing' approach to everything. 'Framework is not good because it's too costly, modules are not good enough, GPU cannot be replaced, yada, yada'. Nobody is willing to settle for anything less than perfect. But you need to realize that you are not in the bargaining position here - you don't hold the cards. Your choices are dictated by someone else who is more resourceful and patient in making short-term compromises and playing the long game of shaping the market and making insane profits at the end. The only way to get your way is for everyone to unite and show even more resolve and patience in demanding what you want. That means putting up with some inconveniences for now. But everyone will be rewarded at the end with the perfection you demand.
>about a couple of decades ago, there would have been immediate and sharp backlash if any hardware manufacturer pulled the tricks that they do today - soldered-on RAM modules, thermoplastic glue instead of screws, riveted keyboards, irreplaceable ICs...
That's when this trend started, with Apple's Macbook Pro leading the way, winding up one of the best-selling consumer laptop brands by targeting incoming college freshmen and their grandparents, focusing on cosmetic appeal over dollar cost for performance.
Most buyers don't even know what CPU model their laptop contains, let alone understand the difference between faster or slower processors from different generations. It will always be a tiny segment of the market that appreciates the value of Framework's features.
Apple did not start anything.
PCs are the odd ones, all other 8 and 16 bit home computers were vertically integrated, most expansions were done via external buses connected into one of the sides, usually the back or right side.
With the race for thin margins at any cost, if anything thanks to Apple, is that OEMs realised going back to Spectrum, C64, Amiga, Atari ST kind of hardware designs payed off in their bank accounts.
My point was that soldered RAM and lack of upgradeable components didn't inspire much of a backlash back then. It led to Apple dominating the higher end of the consumer laptop market.
Which was already the way on 8 and 16 bit home computers, for the most part if you wanted an upgrade you would buy the newer model.
The exception being PC clones.
Apple also drove the quest for extreme thinness. Even Lenovo Thinkpad T keyboards are terrible now due to it.
I really want to love the MTNU reform with its Kailh Choc White switches. I wish like there was a laptop that actually had a mechanical keyboard.
That's why I've been thinking of paring my desktop-replacement 16" laptop with a Pocket Reform or something like that.
Oh yeah I didn't know that one. I do know Logitech has some ultra-thin ones too though. Very good keyboards too. They'd do nice in a laptop as well.
I'd very gladly sacrifice thinness for a decent keyboard. The Thinkpads had an OK compromise for a while but since the Thinkpad T14s gen2 or so they have been horrible as well. My old T490s was still serviceable.
One space that I don't think I've seen explored is building a laptop around a tiny, ultra-low-power passively cooled SoC board that can easily fit beside the keyboard instead of under it in a 12"-16" chassis and saves space that'd otherwise need to be dedicated to cooling. That'd buy a substantial amount of Z-budget for a quality keyboard without blowing up chassis thickness.
Naturally this laptop wouldn't be suited for some types of work due to lack of horsepower, but there's always tradeoffs somewhere.
We're kinda there already. Most recent laptops I've seen have a tiny motherboard not even taking up the whole width of the device. Under the keyboard there's usually the battery.
Don't forget a significant part of the weight has to be towards the front edge so you can tilt the screen back without flipping the whole laptop. Some of my cheaper atom based laptops (with tiny motherboard and batteries) even have a metal bar in there for that purpose.
Right, but my idea was to do something like shove the mainboard up into the bezel above the keyboard and battery into the palm rest, with nothing sitting under the keyboard except maybe ribbon cables. That’d get you a laptop with a thickness of under an inch that still has a keyboard that’s not compromised and keeps weight shifted to the front. It’d simplify repairs to some degree too since there’d be very little stacking.
You are just repeating the same unpopular debunked arguments that the industry makes out of vacuum. Why does anybody have to know the internals of any system to get the advantages of reparability and serviceability? What were independent service personnel for? Did everyone know how to open and repair watches, cars, refrigerators, etc? Did that stop them from getting the benefit?
I always enjoy how Thinkpad bros have been badmouthing MacBooks for two decades, when those have had the best battery life, screen, hinge, case, bluetooth, fan noise and other amenities during all of that time. They were the first to have WiFi.
Apple figured out pretty soon that a laptop doesn't need to be a dragster or M1 Abrams, it needs to be a Volvo.
> soldered-on RAM modules
That can have significant performance advantages, though. Which might be hard to overcome due to physics
If you're gaining advantage by changing RAM from sockets to soldered joints, it's probably time to change the system design altogether. It's better to put the DRAM on the same IC/SoC as the processor - on a dedicated die if necessary. Any additional memory requirement can be added as socket based RAM modules. They sure will be slower. But they can be treated as another memory layer, kind of like the optane memory (without persistence) or NUMA. You'd still get significant speed up because a portion of the DRAM is colocated with the CPU now.
This also adds to the core philosophy that I'm trying to push. Modularity and serviceability doesn't necessarily mean sacrificing performance, compactness or security. That's a myth that's too prevalent in the industry.
There is a new system design, it's called LPCAMM. And framework would have used it in the desktop but those CPUs have some flaw that make them not compatible with full speed LPCAMM.
Moving the memory even closer doesn't have all that much advantage. And having super close RAM and sockets is a waste of die space on all those I/O channels. One or other can fit all the needs of any particular CPU.
Worth noting that even Framework's own desktop has soldered-on RAM, for exactly this reason
And that was even after constructive cooperation with amd. Now think about the more common, hostile, interaction many suppliers provide.
It's also worth noting the CAMM2 ram gets about the same performance.
Framework has stated that it asked AMD if there were any way to make the RAM on Ryzen AI Max APUs (like used in the Framework Desktop) socketed, and AMD said no due to the stability hit that’d entail — the physical distance from the CPU that’d be required with RAM sockets reduces signal integrity too much for it to function.
Which is weird. The entire point of [LP]CAMM[2] is to be able to make that work.
The Framework desktop clocks the memory at 8000MHz. That's well within the limits of the interface. Something is flawed or omitted in those CPUs if they can't handle it.
Lamenting market taste and the resulting mass market designs is basically yelling at clouds.
Simple fact is that most people have different priorities than the “make everything upgradable” crowd would like. That’s not going to change. Why would 90% of the market “unite” with 10% who want a totally different set of tradeoffs?
It’s like asking that all car buyers unite and demand manual transmissions in every car. I love manual cars, but I recognize most people do not want that for most of their driving. So why would the majority demand this feature that they don’t actually want, and which would not be a better experience for most?
I was expecting this reply here. But it's still the same old excuse to do nothing. It's as if we deserve nothing better than what the companies impose upon us. That's such a defeatist stance.
I don't think anyone is concerned what anyone deserves in terms of hardware.
Different companies "impose" different tradeoffs upon us. Pick what you like, but expect to pay a premium for a less popular choice.
> Different companies "impose" different tradeoffs upon us.
The "different tradeoffs" those companies offer us are a lie. There are other tradeoffs they won't ever explore. But I won't explain it anymore because I did that practically in every single comment of mine in this thread. Just ignoring it and repeating this trope is hardly a counterargument.
> Pick what you like, but expect to pay a premium for a less popular choice.
The argument about choices is also a lie. They don't exist because the market is a heavily captured and manipulated one. You might as well wait for Santa Claus to deliver it instead. This is again something that's repeatedly ignored. We're just arguing in cycles here.
There are a lot of missing choices in modular, serviceable and repairable market - which is why you see so many little complaints in this thread about a company that's sincerely attempting to offer and improve modular options. It's not that there's no demand for it. But the majority consumers just de-incentivices such products out of the market by following the hype and choosing the harmful options.
At least, the majority of the consumers can be forgiven for their ignorance about those tradeoffs. But that's something that the knowledgeable and expert population can solve. The others respect their opinion. But instead of pushing for the common good, they consistently show apathy. It really isn't that big of a deal. The experts have to be more honest and vocal about their own specialities, and the situation will gradually improve. People have rallied and achieved much harder goals.
But the really frustrating aspect is that some people actively sabotage the commons. At this point, I don't believe that the tech influencers are being honest about the interests they serve. And equally bad are the misguided defeatist arguments raised against advocacy for the commons. I really don't understand the motivation behind such excessively cynical takes.
And yet, you completely ignore the possibility that someone could value portability, lightness or even looks of the device far above any points you hold very dear.
I get it, all that you say I would agree on regarding my stationary hardware.
On the go, I have very different demands. And the hardware sellers are not stupid, they know what sells.
[dead]
> It’s like asking that all car buyers unite and demand manual transmissions in every car. I love manual cars, but I recognize most people do not want that for most of their driving. So why would the majority demand this feature that they don’t actually want, and which would not be a better experience for most?
Um that's like the status quo in Europe lol. We all drive manual here. it's not that unlikely. Automatics are the exception here (and you must learn to drive manual otherwise you get a restricted license)
Driving it is different from demanding it. What percent of people in Europe would pay more for manual?
> I talked about this just two days ago. Unlike how you project it, that ideal is entirely feasible if there was enough investment and a large enough market. Instead, OEMs inflict the opposite on the consumers who take it all in without pushing back. These companies choose and spread suboptimal designs that suit their interests and then insist that it is the only viable way forward. It's absurd that consumers also repeat that falsehood.
Talk is cheap. Reality is a better indicator of what is and isn’t feasible, and it’s not like there haven’t been many attempts towards that ideal, but for whatever reason, Apple’s model is the desirable one, for most.
I've seen it from Netflix, Steam, and several others. People simply love having all their eggs in one basket, and will stubbornly support it long past the state it starts to exploit them. They support security over freedom every time, consistently.
It's a bit crude, but it's also why I'm not surprised AI is catching on so quickly. People will happily outsource their ability to "think" if the product is convincing enough to them. We already spent the last decade or 2 trying to maximize the dopamine hits from social media. Now there's a tech that can (pretend to) understand your individualized needs? Ready to answer to your Beck and call and never makes you feel bad?
Not as cool as thr VR pod dystopia, but I guess I overestimated how much stimulation humanity needed to reject itself.
> People simply love having all their eggs in one basket
It's more accurate to say that people don't like having twelve different interfaces that all do the same thing.
The proper way to do this is, of course, to have a single interface (i.e. a user agent) that interfaces with multiple services using a standard protocol. But every proprietary service wants you to use their app, and that's the thing people hate.
But the services are being dumb, because everyone except for the largest incumbent is better off to give the people what they want. The one that wins is the one with the largest network effect, which means you're either the biggest already or you're better off to implement a standard along with everyone else who isn't the biggest so that in combination you have the biggest network, since otherwise you won't and then you lose.
Yeah, thars a more generous way to put it. People are fine with the illusion of one basket. Thars pretty much how any large website works.
The ideal would be for users to choose their front end and have backends hook into it via protocols. Aka RSS feeds or Email (to some extent). But the allure of being vertically integrated is too great, and users will rarely question it.
>But the services are being dumb, because everyone except for the largest incumbent is better off to give the people what they want.
Yup, agreed. At this point, it's really an issue regulation can fix. Before it's too late.
Even more unimaginative dismissals are not what I wish to debate. I have already explained why this argument is disingenuous at best. Apple's model isn't the best. It just appears so because these companies never put significant effort into better alternatives and the consumers never demanded it. I keep trying to point this out - this is a repeated misdirection tactic employed by these companies and their fans.
I don't think this was understood charitably. The point of the parent is that in practice, when it comes time to update one part, you'll also want to update all or most of the others. So, in practice, you will not see any of these savings.
The potential savings may be significant, but for most people, it may be the case that the actual savings are unlikely. A modular, upgradable laptop may be a niche product for people who want to upgrade each part more frequently, not less.
> I don't think this was understood charitably. The point of the parent is that in practice, when it comes time to update one part, you'll also want to update all or most of the others. So, in practice, you will not see any of these savings.
It's frustrating to have to repeat the same point again and again. That is not correct at all. I have exercised it in practice. What you refer to as in practice are the deliberately crippled and limited options that are available in the market today.
> The potential savings may be significant, but for most people, it may be the case that the actual savings are unlikely. A modular, upgradable laptop may be a niche product for people who want to upgrade each part more frequently, not less.
Completely disagree. That's not what's seen in practice.
> You don't realize how much savings we used to extract by progressively upgrading the same desktop PC for two to three generations instead of throwing away the whole PC and buying a new one each time
Do you actually realise any savings doing that? Pretty sure I never have.
Typically by the time I get around to upgrading, they've changed both the CPU socket and the RAM, so I need a whole new motherboard. And I certainly don't trust a 5-year-old PSU to run a higher-watt load at that point. So most of the time all I'm reusing is the case and maybe a couple of auxiliary SSDs (which aren't a major part of the cost)...
Aren't part of the cost Yet :) actually upgradeable components were priority when motherboards and CPUs were too expensive to upgrade, it was ram ssds and memory that were changed out...
Soon, now actually, it is the inverse. Ram, ssds, high speed network, consumer GPUs, and anything else that needs a modest amount of DRAM.
AMD sockets last nearly a decade, and power supplies come with up to 13-year (or longer) warranties. It's just that it can be difficult to stay the course for the sheer amount of time it would take for you to realize those savings.
> power supplies come with up to 13-year (or longer) warranties
Unfortunately, those warranties don't tend to cover the rest of your components, if the PSU happens to take out a motherboard or GPU as it dies, you are up the proverbial creek.
Having had a couple of older PSUs die spectacularly, I'm not risking re-using a ~$100 component, on the off-chance it fries ~$500 of brand new motherboard/GPU/etc post-upgrade.
Why do people think newer components are more reliable? Is it the same thinking that says newer cars are more reliable? Newer computers? (The answer to all is no.)
Clean the dust out of your PC once a year. It'll last longer than it has any right to.
> Why do people think newer components are more reliable? Is it the same thinking that says newer cars are more reliable?
I'm not making any statement about newer models being more reliable, I'm saying that electronic components age, and hence the risk of failure goes up over time.
If you buy the exact same model of power supply, but one that is manufactured 5 years later, it will (statistically) be more reliable than the unit that's already been in use for 5 years.
Isn’t “reuse the PSU” kind of a tempting trap? I though it was—a cheap part that can take down the rest of your expensive system. I though the advice was to get a new one with each build…
A quality PSU can often last 10 years and multiple builds. Quality in this case just means "has things like over voltage protection, proper wiring included, decent caps, and decent voltage regulation" not "was really expensive". E.g. that $140 85 W Seasonic Focus tier is quality in this regard, the $80 no-name 850 W PSU is what people warn about, and the $400 Seasonic Prime titanium rated PSU is mostly for those scrutinizing VRM designs or wattage limits on the cables to the GPU for their overclock goals.
It's common to upgrade your PSU anyways though as it seems like parts wattages only go up over the years (particularly for the +12v rails) or one may want to cycle out the old system completely for reuse/resale. Generic advice (since most people buy cheapo no name PSUs and upgrade rarely) might be to say to replace just to be on the good side of every situation... but if you're one that knows you got a quality PSU or likes to upgrade your build every other CPU generation, then swapping out the PSU every time is likely a waste.
If the PSU is that crappy, then yes. But these things are supposed to come with over voltage protection, current limiters, resettable fuses etc at the output. Even bad ones are not supposed to cascade their failure to the rest of the system.
But let's think of a better option. What if all spare parts came with an expiry date and a service schedule? On top of giving us a baseline to retire the part, the manufacturer will also be forced to divulge an indirect quality score (useful lifetime) and compete with others on it. If this sounds too fantastic, we sort of had this in operation half a century ago. I don't think a lot of people remember that era.
Oh neat, I was not aware. In the 70’s then, computer parts came with an expiration date? I wonder why they stopped, was it a tradition inherited from car, radio, or appliance parts, or something, where the idea of a wear-part is (or at least was) somewhat more developed?
I've been on the same PSU for I think 13 years now, its currently running my Ryzen 7 3700x and RTX4070 desktop. I suppose if its not a great quality PSU or its already suspected of causing issues then replacing is a good idea.
> hardware has usually advanced far enough
That's not what we're experiencing.
Screens have seen improvements, but not in a significant way within these 4-6 years. Keyboards haven't improved leaps and bounds. Track pads either. Laptop casings haven't seen innovation either.
The only thing that significantly changes is the motherboard, which is not nothing, but replacing it independently makes sense to me.
> port module idea.
That's one of the best idea they have! You might have bought a laptop with 4 USB ports 5 years ago, only to realize you'd be so much happier with two USB-A. Or you realize you never ever use the SD Card slot. Well, you'd fix that easily on a Framework, not on any other laptop.
I wish I could do that right now. The only reason I haven't one of their laptop is their stubborn refusal to ship outside a dozen or so countries.
I’ll contest that on the screens. Mini-LED backlighting is a substantial step up for contrast, backlights in general have gotten brighter, IPS panels have gained notability better color gamuts and contrast, and OLED panels are now widely available even in budget machines. The screens on the M1-M4 MBPs look quite visibly nicer than those MBPs used up until 2019.
Those painfully awful 1366x768 TN panels that used to be commonplace have finally mostly been ousted, too. As a result, chances are that the laptop you buy at nearly any price bracket in 2026 has a screen that’s moderately to dramatically better than was found in laptops in the same bracket up until 2020-2022.
The problems with the port modules are that due to their dimensions, the number of ports you can have on the laptop at once is small and the big voids in the chassis required for them to be able to slot in greatly weakens it and makes it more prone to flexing.
With an alternative design that uses internal port boards (still hooked up via USB-C) with matching exterior side plates, you could easily do something like 3x USB-C, 1x USB-A on the left and 1x Ethernet, 1x USB-C, 1x USB-A, 1x SD/microSD on the right in the same space as would’ve been taken by the modules for half as many ports. This would suit most users perfectly out of the box, precluding the need for swapping for many, but for those who need one side to be full USB-C or multiple NICs or a cell modem or something that’s still possible.
Point taken, I totally see how brighter screens must be a boon for people who actually bring their laptop outdoors.
My personal needs are way smaller so I missed that part completely (on contrast IDK, I recently had a Surface Pro 8 next to a MBP 4 and it didn't strike me, but I might not be sensible enough to that)
> 1366x768
We've had HDPI for a decade now, that's truly awful.
> ports
Agreed, people needing more than 4 ports or caring a lot more about size are kinda SOL with the current modular setup.
Brighter screens is a boon for anyone using a laptop, full stop. If it’s too bright, you can turn the brightness down, obviously doesn’t work this way in the opposite direction.
Besides, the point isn’t even absolute max brightness, but the contrast ratio. OLEDs aren’t the brightest displays, but their contrast ratio blows pretty much everything else out of the water and that’s what makes you go wow when looking at an oled in a dark room. (At least it does for me, still, and I’ve got an oled tv in 2018.)
To me, OLED being self-emissive is a far bigger deal than the contrast ratio. With LCDs, even the laminated ones in MacBooks, you get backlight shimmering, bleed, halos (especially with Mini-LED), and general inconsistency. With OLED, the pixels are a single, nano-thin layer, the display looks directly printed onto the surface (because it is), there are no backlight issues because there's no backlight, and there's no polarization or enclosure to create viewing angle artifacts. (Note: QD-OLED is inferior in this regard, especially with ambient light, but that doesn't bother me that much; WOLED however is trash.)
The OLED iPad Pro is one of the best screens I've ever seen, besides the awful pixel density. Even if deactivated pixels weren't fully dark, it'd still be far superior to any LCD.
OLEDs have a lot of great properties, but I’m still on the fence when it comes to building them into laptops. On phones and tablets where usage is intermittent, usually shortish, and content is constantly moving they’re well suited, but with a laptop screen that in some cases can be turn on for 12+ hours and is displaying the same static content for large chunks of that, I’d be worried about burn in.
Maybe it’s not an issue with tandem OLED and strict binning though.
I have a non-tandem QD-OLED I used as a desktop monitor for some months and it's totally fine. If you're part of the Apple hype cycle and you replace your $7,000+ laptop every year, you'll never see burn-in.
Not necessarily just outdoors, but to any well lit environment.
Including indoors in rooms with large windows that face east, south, or west! This describes a lot of office buildings, as well as my bedroom in a circa-2005 cheaply built mass development home too. On sunny days, it’s brightly naturally lit for basically half the day, and dim displays can struggle in that environment.
Not to mention cafes, libraries, or other large buildings which are many times constructed to let in as much sunlight as possible.
I have a 6 year old high end laptop that I keep as a backup and I disagree about no progress being made on screens. The current screens are very good, especially in high brightness environments.
> The only thing that significantly changes is the motherboard, which is not nothing, but replacing it independently makes sense to me.
Laptop motherboards aren’t like desktop motherboards where you can define a big outline and fit standard parts within it. The laptop design leverages tight co-design with the enclosure for thermal performance. If you’re lucky and leave enough extra space then you can design next generation parts to line up neatly with the thermal solution of last gen, then cap it at the limit of whatever last gen was designed for. However the optimal solution will always be to co-design the chassis, thermal solution, and motherboard together.
> If you’re lucky and leave enough extra space then you can design next generation parts to line up neatly with the thermal solution of last gen, then cap it at the limit of whatever last gen was designed for.
The mobile Ryzen 3/5/7/9 processors from the current year have a configurable TDP up to the same max (54W) as the earliest Ryzen "H" processors from 2017. The first generation mobile Core i7 from 2009 had a TDP up to 55W. The mobile Pentium 4 from 2003 had a TDP up to 76W (which appears to be the high water mark). In any given generation there were also lower end models using less power across a power range that seems to be fairly consistent over time.
Why does the thermal solution need to be redesigned if the heat output hasn't materially changed in decades?
Screens are dramatically better than a few years ago and have been advancing if you care about and shop for the feature. Trackpads are slowly sucking less.
Most people only see this in MacBook Pros, but the other manufacturers have excellent screens that are often hidden behind customization options and complex models/branding.
I have a framework and love it, but it’s a computer made for a specific purpose that doesn’t align with most people. That’s ok - Dell makes like 500 different let laptops and Framework has a totally different proposition.
I have to disagree on trackpads sucking less. This year I walked into a big box electronics store and tried the screen, keyboard and trackpad on every laptop they had on display.
Trackpads were universally abysmal, with the sole exception of the macbooks. They all had the frustrating diveboard design, every single one at every price point from every manufacturer. I’m sure you can buy laptops with decent trackpads online, but they had none in the store, macbooks excepted.
Keyboards were all over the place, but I notice that even some premium models are now carrying generic low end keyboard parts with weak travel, lack of key separation, num lock mashed into the backspace, and awkward arrow key layout. If anything I think keyboards are getting worse.
Screens are the one place where I’ll say things have improved noticeably, especially colors and black levels, although getting over 200 ppi and 500 nits is still a rare treat, and that is my bar for a compromiseless display.
> walked into a big box electronics store
You're comparing Apple to unnamed computers brands you touched at a random place, I'm not sure what to make of it.
For instance how does the Macbook Air compare to the current 13" Surface Laptop ? Is that what you call diveboard design and awkward arrow key layout ?
I didn’t say good just less bad.
Apple obviously produces the only product incorporating a touchpad that applies any significant, deliberate thought about it.
500 nits is not really good enough for laptop that you might use outside.
Luckily they are still improving and we now have Tandem OLED with about double that.
Should a laptop be optimized for indoor or outdoor use?
Given the primary selling point of laptops is their portability (often at the cost of other things), they should be optimized to be highly usable wherever they might end up getting used.
> Trackpads are slowly sucking less
This is an oddity of the PC laptop market I have never understood - Mac trackpads from a decade ago are still better than a top-of-the-line PC trackpad from the current year.
The only thing Apple has done in that decade is make their trackpads slightly bigger (and made the click haptic rather than physical), so it feels like the PC folks should have caught up by now...
Part of it is software (drivers), and that’s something that hardware vendors have traditionally been poor at writing. The bar for a driver is “it technically works and doesn’t bluescreen” rather than “it works well”. It’s just more evident in this case because the continuous-input nature of a trackpad makes the poor functionality much more apparent.
The other is that I don’t think most laptop vendors spend nearly as much on their trackpads. MacBook trackpads have for a long time shared their touch sensitivity hardware with iPhones, which makes them extremely responsive and precise, and this is paired with a high end haptic motor to produce click sensations. Finally, their surface is oleophobic glass which reduces friction. This all combines to produce a great experience, but I’m positive that they cost notably more than the typical plastic diving board fare, and most laptop manufacturers are squeezing out margin with cheaper parts wherever they can.
Apple pours all they have into making their trackpad the best it can be, including working from the OS to the UX to the SDKs.
It's sailant when using the Magic Trackpad on Windows: the acceleration curves don't match, the keyboard combinations are less natural, the gestures clunkier and the overall advantage of the trackpad is I think lesser. Mouses are a better fit on windows in every respects IMHO.
The modules are just inset usb-c dongles.
Handy that you can have them fully encased but there’s nothing really limiting any other laptop on this front. You just use an external dongle and have the same flexibility.
Maybe some people really want the enclosed module so they have fewer things to carry, but that’s a pretty small advantage that I’m not sure many people will value.
I could get something like this ( https://satechi.net/products/undefined/products/pro-hub-slim ) for my MacBook Air and come out ahead on weight and size.
>but there’s nothing really limiting any other laptop on this front. You just use an external dongle and have the same flexibility.
Yeah, but thars another part to lose. I have tons of dongles and expansion bays, and have lost half a ton of them to the tides of school, work, travel, and carelessness. Most lost, some break because it's a huge portrusion out of your core machine. A few borrowed and never returned. One of them stuck at an office I got laid off from but never returned to post pandemic (but the severance hush money was worth more than me raising a fuss as opposed to replacing the $30 bay).
I don't need it to literally be plug and play, but I appreciate a more modular setup that is flush and stuck to the machine.
PS. Your link is 404.
Ah weird the link didn’t work. It looks like their site overrides the url that is set for link sharing.
This one should work, copied it from the address bar instead.
https://satechi.net/products/pro-hub-slim?variant=4019950983...
In wish I could have lived for a month or two with the Framework system to get a better feeling of it.
I'm usually either docked at my primary desk and only need a single USB-C, or moving from place to place and need 2 USB-A and a full size SD reader. I imagine the nice part with the insets is they're flushed so they'less surface to hit when moving the machine around.
I'd actually love to make my own insets that bakes the wireless dongles in them, that sounds doable.
If you have a 3D printer you can print enclosures https://www.printables.com/model/139879-framework-laptop-exp...
https://github.com/LeoDJ/FW-EC-DongleHiderPlus?tab=readme-ov...
I've yet to build one, but this project looks very interesting in that regard.
> You just use an external dongle and have the same flexibility
And with thunderbolt, you get to have one dongle-sized dock, that connects with one cable, and gives you the full gamut of ports. I really love being able to connect 1 cable when I get to my desk, and have multiple monitors, all peripherals, plus power cable instantly.
> That's one of the best idea they have! You might have bought a laptop with 4 USB ports 5 years ago, only to realize you'd be so much happier with two USB-A. Or you realize you never ever use the SD Card slot. Well, you'd fix that easily on a Framework, not on any other laptop.
With all due respect -- meh.
I have a fairly old-ish laptop that I am not bothered to upgrade because a Ryzen 5500U is super capable to this day (and I don't do local LLMs) and it has a 10Gbps USB Type-C port, an HDMI port, and a USB 3.0 Type-A port. And an SD card reader.
I bought a hub. I put the laptop on a stand and plug its Type-C 10Gbps slot in the hub. Job done.
All this clamoring about being able to replace ports surely resonates with many people but to this day I don't view it as a true advantage. If you have to carry your laptop to a dedicated office, a stand and a hub are table stakes anyway. And that's not even touching a proper big display, keyboard and a mouse.
And furthermore, if making the ports flexible leads to too many design compromises then to me that means that I am making a bad deal.
I am periodically inspecting Framework laptops and I still find them lacking. Their appeal to tinkerers has IMO peaked and they should pivot to another pitch or they might not survive. Though I really, really hope they do. We need the competition.
I’d be better off for my work laptop with an even smaller cube that was built expecting a hub to be plugged in. No monitor, keyboard or mouse. I don’t think the keyboard and monitor on it have ever been used outside of diagnosing why the hub isn’t working.
Yeah, that too. And AFAIK many devs do that, they buy mini PCs that are very generously specced and just carry them between home and office, usually plugging every periphery needed (display, keyboard, mouse, Ethernet) by just plugging one high-speed port from the box PC to the hub.
I worry about throwing a box that isn’t meant to be moved a lot into my back back every day
> keyboard and a mouse
That's the part that's hitting me the most.
I have two dongles for the wireless connectivity of both, and the choice is between sticking both in a dock and bring the same huge dock every single place I go, or move them from dock to dock as needed.
Having two USB-A would mean I stick them on the machine itself and never think about it anymore. Then if they could completely disappear inside the port extensions it would be a dream.
TBH I wouldn't be using the Framework as my primary work laptop either way, use cases are very limited and I already have the power and modularity needed with the Z13, but as a personal laptop for way wider use cases it ticks all the right boxes. If only it shipped outside of US and EU.
I understand. I have a mini hub, something like 10x4x1 cm. Works fine for me and it even also has Ethernet.
As mentioned, I'm sure Ftamework has valid usages. To me they command a much higher price premium than I'm comfortable with paying for those valid usages however.
I do love and want a libre booting stack. To me _that_ is the really good stuff. But they need to chill on prices.
This. My idea of a repairable laptop is the Thinkpads up until around 2015. And I absolutely agree that the port modules forces Framework to limit the number of ports to the point that I'd hesitate to purchase one because I'd be swapping ports all the time.
The replacement parts aren't cheap either as Framework has very little used parts market.
I can rehouse a Thinkpad or most other high volume laptops for a quarter or less the cost of a Framework, making the total lifetime cost much lower. Framework will sell you a new housing with screen for $399, but at that point I can buy an 11th gen Thinkpad for half the cost.
I want the economics to work, but even with free labor it makes no sense.
As the owner of a Framework 13, you're exactly right. It only has 4 ports, at least one of which is pretty much always for charging, and let's face it you will always want a USB-A, so that leaves two. If you want to be ready for HDMI output or SD cards, that occupies them both, better hope you didn't want another USB-A or whatever.
Oh, and there's a permanent headphone jack, for some reason.
Compare to my last Thinkpad (a T460), which had a charger jack, three USB-A, HDMI, RJ45, MiniDP, a headphone jack, and an SD slot. I didn't need to swap adapters because everything was just already there. (I never used the MiniDP or the headphone jack, but everything else, yeah.)
If the Framework had 2 or 3 permanent USB-C's in addition to the 4 swappable ports, or just had 6 or 7 swappable ports, I'd be much happier. But as it sits, carrying a baggie of modules in my backpack is just silly.
That said, it can do something super cool: Charge from either side. Because there are USB-C ports on both the left and right, and any of them can be a power inlet, I'm presently laying on my side in bed, with the charger plugged into the "top" side, i.e. the one that's not leaning into the mattress. When I roll over, I'll just move the cord.
When I was shopping for my "next" (present) machine, I was able to find one Ideapad that claimed it had USB-C ports on both sides, but it was eye-wateringly expensive. I couldn't get Lenovo's site to tell me which cheaper models had this, and their support people couldn't produce such a list either. Finally in frustration, I decided to give my money to Framework instead, and the either-side charging is a trick I rely on frequently.
My current load-out is two USB-C and two USB-A, one of each on each side.
I also find the lack of ports in a Framework frustrating.
My Thinkpad has
and a Framework has only half of that.Most of these are used at least once per day.
I'm hoping for third party chassis offerings to solve this.
I feel like folk in this thread haven't used a Macbook Pro from the past ten years or so — which is fine, I don't expect everyone to want to use MacOS (I prefer Linux) but the hardware is genuinely nice.
On my personal 2019 MBP I have four USB C ports, and can charge via any of them. My work M3 MBP only has three, but has a full-size HDMI port too (and a magnetic charging port I've never used). I carry a cheap USB C dongle that works with pretty much anything and gives me a couple of USB A ports, HDMI, a USB C with pass-through charging, and Ethernet. It's great, and it's DP alt mode rather than TB so it works with anything (including Android phones with the right hardware).
Apple definitely aren't perfect (although I do actually like my touch bar) but when they make hardware that works, it really does work well. I wish it were possible for other companies to make things as nicely.
My wife has a recent MBP (a compromise to get away from Windows) and it's slick, fast, and super reliable. But you hit the nail on the head: Linux. There is no substitute. That's one reason why I swear by my Framework 13.
While they aren't the only manufacturer guaranteeing excellent Linux support, that and the upgradeability seal the deal.
Speaking of the MBP, the fixed disk size is really frustrating. Historically this is the one part that was upgradeable on all laptops.
Quite a few laptops support dual side charging fwiw. It’s definitely useful but not all that rare.
Right, but there's no way to search for them, that I've found. Even if a machine has multiple USB-C ports, the only way to ascertain that they're on both sides is to find photos of both sides. It's not like a specific amount of RAM that you can just click a checkbox to filter by.
And then you have to assume that the photos depict the actual model and variant you're getting, which is not always the case. It'd be a hard row to hoe, to return a machine based on "it had all the same ports it claimed, but in different places"...
I first saw that feature on a cheap Chromebook and was a bit surprised. But I suppose the more expensive machines have great battery life (for the first year or so) and the people who own them are too cool to use a cable.
> That said, it can do something super cool: Charge from either side.
Heh, that does sound nice. But for me it's not a problem, because my X230 charges from the rear.
Have you ever tried dealing with Lenovo for parts or repairs ? My only experience with them was bleak and I never heard good stories on this front.
No, I've always gotten my Thinkpads and parts from eBay and other second-hand marketplaces.
>Reliable machines
Maybe one day I'll have that. Meanwhile,
- my first hp laptop had to be sent in twice in 2 years. Then by year 3 I just gave up the ghost (having side income helped)
- 2nd Asus laptop was used and a decent discount, so I didn't complain too much. But it hit screen issues in 2 years.
- then I got a razer blade. Honestly not bad (just really expensive), I simply had the lack of hindsight to realize 3 years later that it wouldn't be compatible with Windows 11. For what reason I will never know. Not too long after the battery simply refused to hold charge as well. I could have spent to repair that, but I was already looking at an upgrade funded by my work perks anyway.
My current Asus has been relatively problem free, but there were still minor things I opened it up for. Typical ram and storage upgrades at first. Spotty wifi chip early on, but I upgraded it to an Intel one for AC support a few months in regardless. Also hate how I discovered that the computer has vents on the front and will freak out if you close the display for secondary monitors no matter how well you cool the rear vents, but I guess that one's on me for not more carefully considering.
So yeah, I'd rather just have something repairable.
On the other hand, we hand down our MacBooks in the family and our old 2018 MacBook Airs are still in daily use without any reliability issues AFAIK. Zero user repairability.
I had an old MacBook Air that I ran until it eventually lost battery function and new software just wouldn’t run well on such old hardware, and I stopped getting updates for the OS which meant apps slowly became incompatible.
Loved that machine. 10+ years of use from the best laptop I ever had.
I would’ve bought a new one when I eventually gave up on it, but the Apple of 2025 is worlds apart from the Apple of 2012.
Experiments with Touch Bars and software escape keys, butterfly keyboards that frankly just suck, thin glass screens that crack, USB-C ports requiring dongles everywhere…
I didn’t buy a new MacBook and migrated away from Apple instead.
You’re describing the Apple of 2018.
Ah sorry, I must be thinking of the Apple of 2025 that still hasn’t added USB-A to their laptops (even though my Framework has 2) and expects me to carry a dongle everywhere, because after all, it’s my fault for not completely rearranging my world to do what Apple wants.
Or I must be thinking about the Apple of 2025 that rolled out Liquid Glass, an OS so disastrously bad I have to toggle accessibility settings just to make it usable.
I’m pretty comfortable saying modern Apple has had a sad and shitty fall from its peak.
China and EU have mandated usb-c for all rechargeable devices, for many years. Usb-a is legacy, together with vga, parallel printer ports and other old and bulky connectors, such connectors should require adapters. This is a good thing.
That’s why apple laptops are using usb-c.
Such a ridiculous sentiment. You can justify all you want, but I still have USB-A on my Framework :) It is not legacy because 1) I am not in China and 2) I want it.
And I noticed you didn’t touch on Liquid Glass… guessing that one is much tougher to explain away…
Additionally, most MacBook USB-C ports are also Thunderbolt 3/4/5 ports which can do a number of things that USB-A ports can't. A laptop with 3x TB ports is substantially more expandable than a laptop with 1x USB-C and 3x USB-A.
Are Frameworks even upgradeable enough to enable the same kind of upgrading in the typical upgrade window as one would get buying a new machine? This means replacing nearly everything except the chassis, keyboard, and screen.
My current 128gb AI 300 started as a 16 GB 12th gen Intel. Unrelated, I also upgraded to the higher resolution screen.
For me anyway, the answer is "yes".
It’s frustrating. A small manufacturer can’t hope to beat out a large one on price. And that’s before we consider that the maintainability that Framework offers means you can’t cut the corners the regular manufacturers do. But even I find things like the weight an unappealing proposition even though I have no idea how you’d build a laptop like Framework’s that appreciably lighter.
I think that what it means one needs to pick their battles, at least early on. Trying to achieve repairable + upgradable + novel expandability all in one go might be somewhat overambitious for a brand new company. Do one thing really, really well instead of five things mediocrely. Once you've got one mastered, move on to the next thing.
But then again, I've never run a hardware company, so maybe I'm wrong.
Also the fact that hardware is pretty stagnant and upgrades aren’t that important anymore for most stuff. I bought an Acer in 2012 and over the next 5 years I upgraded the RAM from 4 gb to 8gb and swapped the hdd for an ssd. Those were enormous upgrades! Then I bought a MacBook Pro with 16gb and an ssd and didn’t need another computer until this year (still didn’t NEED one but I found a good deal on a 4 year old MBP).
Exactly this. Everyone says they want upgradable (stated preference), but when making personal purchasing decisions, a “premium experience” is valued more highly (revealed preference).
“Upgradable hardware on a laptop” is a loud minority.
I want open hardware. I want to know what’s running on my machine. I don’t really give two shits if the RAM is soldered because I will probably upgrade when (if) it becomes a problem.
This is an insane take.
The number of MacBooks I’ve seen shipped back to repair center for weeks, over a single non functional key, is astonishing.
But how common of a problem is this, now that Apple is well clear of the butterfly keyboard mess? I haven’t had to get my MacBooks repaired even once in the past decade and change, and that’s despite two of the machines I’d used during that time being the butterfly/touch bar models!
That being said, yes it’d be better if such a repair were quick and easy, but I’m not sure that it’s so valuable as to justify battery life being around a third what my MacBooks get or wrestling a buggy, immature BIOS and all the issues that come with that. A laptop that’s bad at being a laptop isn’t worth a whole lot…
> I’m not sure that it’s so valuable as to justify battery life being around a third what my MacBooks get or wrestling a buggy, immature BIOS and all the issues that come with that.
It is to me, given my 15 odd years of using Windows and Linux instead of Mac. I'm not even liking windows much these days, but I've never had a situation where I was forced to use a Mac.
You are correct that example has been made very much better.
That was due to a defective keyboard design that the company denied, failed to fix after several revisions, and was ultimately sued for.
I was stuck with one of these at work. I’ve owned or had in my custody probably 30 laptops since 1995. It’s the only one that required keyboard replacement, and ended up needing 3.
As opposed to taking the part out of a Framework laptop, shipping it back to the repair center for weeks, and then reinstalling it when it comes back?
Or if time is of the essence, ordering the brand new part to skip the repair process and then installing it yourself when it arrives later?
Contrast this with the amount of time my coworker spent hauling his laptop charger everywhere and obsessively topping up his laptop battery while traveling because the battery drain during sleep was a problem at that time. This added extra wear and tear on the battery, of course, but I guess he could replace it himself?
You just order a new key, and install it. And not have the downtime. (You can remap key or use an external keyboard.)
And yeah, replacing the battery is easy. Not a Framework, but I replaced a laptop battery some years ago, was glad I had that option, because lithium battery lifetime always decreases eventually.
I’m old enough to remember when many phones and some laptops had removable batteries. Switch to a spare, and boom instantly full, you didn’t need to tether it to a wall.
"The crux of the matter is that even if one values upgradability and repairability, neither is a frequent need for practically anybody."
That is entirely irrelevant.
The product does what it says on the tin. If you don't value that because "repairability isn't a frequent need" then you don't value that (and the reason doesn't matter).
If you* don't value that, then why did you read the tin, buy the thing, and then complain that it is what it said it was going to be?
That is what's annoying to witness.
I can do all that same math about price and features, yet why don't I have any buyers remourse? Do I not know about Dell and Lenovo and Apple? If the value proposition is innately bad, then why aren't I complaining too? Have I been hypnotized into acting against my own priorities and intentions?
The problem is not with the product or it's price.
* not literally you, sorry for how that sounds
As others have pointed out, a lot of us would very much like to buy a Framework laptop but as it is we can’t make it make sense. We’ll be customers if Framework can figure out how to patch up their shortcomings, and by expressing that sentiment hopefully they’re encouraged to try to do that.
We value reparability and upgradability and are willing to pay for it all else being roughly equal.
It’s like for the same price, being given a choice between a hybrid car that’s quiet on the road and gets 45 MPG fuel economy with great torque and responsiveness but needs to be taken to the dealer to service and a car that’s easy to self service but has an annoying rattle at highway speeds, gets 15 MPG, and has a 4-speed automatic transmission. Both technically do the job, but you’d be hard pressed to find people who’d choose the latter over the former.
No major manufacturer is even approaching what Framework is trying to do, so I'm happy to cut them some slack in order to support a product philosophy that I believe in. My 12th Gen Framework 13 is certainly good enough in this respect.
People have bought not so well made electric cars for the same reason (e.g.: Tesla).
Your car analogy does not really hold up though, considering that anything but an absolutely awful car is quite repairable and (in the right hands) upgradable.
> If you* don't value that, then why did you read the tin, buy the thing, and then complain that it is what it said it was going to be?
Because the tin didn't say "repairable and upgradable and poor battery life and shaky case". It only mentioned the benefits but not the drawbacks.
To be fair, I've had plenty a non-repairable laptop with poor battery life and shaky case. I don't know their excuee.
If all the laptop components break at the same time, there's no need for repairability. Then it’s just a somewhat disposable computer by design. For a car analogy, this is how many americans could afford their first car.
The truly bad designs are when one broken component is preventing repairability. Hello apple!
The thing I don't get about the framework upgradability is that, what are you honestly going to do with the old system board or graphics card? I guess you could sell it. Who's going to really buy it?
I tend to upgrade my laptop every 6-8 years and by then there is nothing to upgrade well, frankly the technology has moved on, new PCIe standards DDR screen tech etc. One of the reasons I did not buy a framework (was very close to it) is the screen. I value having a decent screen attached to my laptop. I think some of these newer laptops with Tandem OLEDs will be a real improvement over what was out there previously.
I thought about the port configuration as well, and that's all cool you can have 6 ports that can be anything you like, but really they are just two USB controllers controlling all that. One on either side. What would be my ultimate port configuration? Well probably like some USB-C and an audio port and a HDMI port. The network adapter sticks out so that's going to be super annoying. The newer Lenovo and Dell laptops have replaceable USB ports, which means if I wear one out I can replace it easily.
What I also realized is you can do some really cool things like PCIe passthrough with Thunderbolt that of course you don't get on a Framework. Want to have an awesome GPU? Well you can use an eGPU or perhaps an flash a firmware to your NVMe (you can't do that over USB), but you can over PCIe passthrough where the device shows up as /dev/nvme0. I've always had problems with disks over USB, sometimes they'll drop from the system, and things like eSATAp were always more reliable for 3.5" disks, but that's only available on desktop with a special bracket.
One of the other reasons I ended up not going for the Framework was that it uses Insyde BIOS and they were a bit slow on their Logofail firmware updates. Prompt security updates are important to me. None of them also have vPro or Ryzen Pro models, (so no encrypted RAM) https://fwupd.github.io/libfwupdplugin/hsi.html#dram-memory-... if you want to achieve higher HSI 4 levels. https://fwupd.github.io/libfwupdplugin/hsi.html#hsi4-secure-...
In the end I'm just going to spend a little on a T1g Gen8 probably. I can upgrade the RAM in that because it's CAMM2. It may cost a little more than the framework but on special I should be able to get it for a nice price.
If I had less money I'd probably just go for previous gen.
Drop it into this case to be used as a home server or a set top box!
https://frame.work/products/cooler-master-mainboard-case
I already have a server at home server. I used a MZ32 motherboard with a bunch of disks 3.5" in it as it's mostly a storage server.
My HTPC is an old ATX desktop computer on its side in a Phanteks P400A case. On it's side it just looks like a black speaker grill front to back cooling it has three Noctua NF-A12x25 fans that are barely even visible.
The good thing about using standard parts is if the GPU died I could buy another cheap one to replace it.
But I guess that case is a cool idea if you didn't have those things.
[dead]