this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
229 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59578 readers
3120 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not v1 though, it's v4 of the concept. They already made 3 generations of the concept with the framework 13, and it's pretty bad to have these kind of issues after that many attempts.
You do realize the 13 doesn't have the back part for replaceable dedicated GPU right? That means the chassis itself must be redesigned since the hole will make the previous experience in the 13 different enough.
But the entire concept of a modular build with replaceable ports should be well known. They should not have panel gaps, bad alignment with height differences and stability issues with these parts because they've had multiple design iterations of this already. So why have they seemingly not applied any of this knowledge and experience they have from the 13 to the 16? These are the same issues gen 1 of the 13 had, they should not exist on the 16 that uses the exact same design for these parts.
Uhh, does the model 13 have a modular panel? IIRC, they don't. Also, manufacturing modular panel and modular port are very different and the knowledge transfer cannot be that big. The port for example has a looser tolerance since they aren't really that visible most of the time. So being snug but not flush is good enough. I can imagine the panel doesn't have that luxury. Stability issue, that I can agree. But then again, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since they must handle additional assumptions that cannot be made on other laptops. Namely, modular GPU. Writing a firmware with that new assumption could be a PITA.
But the 16 still has issues with the modular ports, this really shouldn't be the case. That stuff should be ironed out by now. By the fourth generation of port modules, they absolutely should fit well, look good and work properly all the time...but they don't
Oh really? I didn't know that once since I only referenced the article. The article had issues with the modular top side, not the port. So I guess we were talking differently from the beginning.
The article also mentions how the ports are not seated well and also talks about how they're unstable in the OS.
I cannot find the reference to the port being flimsy. I did however find the part where the top hotswap component (touchpad and the place where the plate is) is having problems. The only side port that they mention is the charging port. But the again, as I said, the firmware must be redone to account for said removeable dGPU. Now you may be wondering how big of an effect does it make when adding removeable dGPU. Off the top of my head, the motherboard must have the power supply circuitry remade to account for the additional power draw when needed. That alone will make the firmware for power control need to be redone. It can have wide range of effect for other components too because power firmware is really far reaching and may break assumption in other firmware. Not to mention a part of the cooling system is also removeable now. Framework has gone out of their way trying to invent a new standard for removeable dGPU on a laptop.
Btw, here is the quoted article that mentions the side port.