Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lord_Sirrush t1_jar0atu wrote

Reply to comment by nasanu in LAPTOP?! Yes, laptop. Framework, specifically. by Goldie1822

I would ask you to look a bit at my post history. I'm an electrical engineer who specializes in keeping old equipment up and running. A 20 year life cycle is good but it is still not what I would consider BFL. Even spare parts sitting on a shelf go bad.

Old programs used to work off of punch cards, and before screens outputs would be printed on long sheets of paper. You just don't find parts for that kind of equipment anymore. Instead you scrap it and build an emulator. Look there will be a time when the last mechanical hard drive fails and the last 3.5 inch floppy is forever demagnetized, and that is ok as long as you don't wait to the last minute to transfer essential functions.

0

zombienudist t1_jar3zgd wrote

They don't have a clue how much has changed in the last 20 years. I have worked in IT since the late 1990s and it is laughable to think that a device from even 10 years ago would still be able to be used today and that is just because of advancements in the tech. The pace of change is slower then it was 20 years ago mostly becuase the hardware is so powerful there is not much more an average person can do with a device. So desktop computers are used far longer than they were 20 years ago but I don't have many businesses still running 10+ year old computers even if they are still working fine. I think they are conflating electronics like speakers with computers/tech stuff when those are vastly different things.

1

Walkop t1_jarf64n wrote

It's not them, it's you who doesn't understand the conversation.

The conversation isn't talking about performance. It's talking about how the frames and boards aren't designed to be future proof.

For example, Intel could have designed a CPU interface that had a thousand unused pins. Buses that have massive extra unused width. Then these interfaces would last much longer, and it does not really increase cost of manufacture.

There's no need to constantly be replacing and upgrading interfaces. Interfaces themselves aren't complex to manufacture. They're nothing relative to the chips themselves. The only real reason is planned obsolescence. They could easily be designed to last multiple times longer than they do, and they just don't.

It's the same thing with soldered components. Most components don't need to be soldered, and they don't benefit from it, unless you're in a hypermobile device. The only benefit is to the manufacturer.

1

zombienudist t1_jartzo8 wrote

The boards can't be future proof in the way you believe. They can allow for some forward capability as they usually do. But they don't have a time machine. They can't build something to meet the requirements of tech that doesn't exist yet. That makes zero sense, and you really don't understand how these systems integrate if you believe that. I mean why did people use horses and not just build and make cars. Because the tech to do that didn't exist for that. Do you really believe that the same board they designed 20 years ago could run a modern processor just because they knew things would get faster? Do you not understand that all the tech has to keep pace with that in order for that to work?

0