Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ✧✦Catherine✦✧ (whitequark@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 14:37:16 JST ✧✦Catherine✦✧

   • niconiconi

   @niconiconi I'm not sure I believe iFixit's claims; do you?

   • Embed this notice
     ✧✦Catherine✦✧ (whitequark@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 14:37:15 JST ✧✦Catherine✦✧

     in reply to

     • niconiconi

     @niconiconi isn't this a bad argument? you could just as well say that nobody is going to engineer smartphones for repairability because it's not profitable to do so

   • Embed this notice
     niconiconi (niconiconi@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 14:37:15 JST niconiconi

     in reply to

     @whitequark@mastodon.social Given the facts that Framework picked up AMD's reference design of an existing platform (Strix Halo) that happens to be the only non-HEDT, non-server x86 platform with the fastest memory. Also given that this platform was not designed without socketed memory in mind, asd since reference designs are usually adopted in whole, major technical changes are rarely (if ever) made - The ODM likely doesn't have the technical capabilities required, and the vendor is unlikely to support such as redesign effort, in spite of the possibility in principle. It's more or less a take-it-and-leave-it situation identical to the status of Apple's M-series ARM desktops and workstations. How should it be called then, "vendor lock-in based on one-of-a-kind design"?
     
     Then what's the alternatives?
     
     1. Should Framework get their own SI engineering team capable of making independent platform-level changes? This would be the best, but it's quite a rarity in the industry, for perhaps 90% of the chipusers, so I don't think it's reasonable to blame the ODM for a platform problem.
     
     2. Or, should Framework take the blame of making a product based on a platform that goes against its philosophy just as matter of principle? But since this platform is a genuinely useful accelerator for things such as my numerical simulations, and that the the alternative of GPUs have worst memory lockdowns, it merely kicks the same problem to other ODMs.
     
     3. Or, as end users, to ignore the platform at all? Get a real workstation or server. Just wait until the regular desktops catch up within 10 years?
     
     So what's the reasonable conclusion here? "Just blame AMD instead, just as how people blame Apple for the same non-upgradability" is the only conclusion I can think of, in additional to "pick your poison".

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     niconiconi (niconiconi@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 14:37:16 JST niconiconi

     in reply to

     @whitequark@mastodon.social Of course everything is possible if you play the correct link budget game. If you're willing to use 2.4 mm connectors you can run mmWave through sockets. My read is that I don't believe anyone's going to spend the resource to reengineer a mobile platform (Strix Halo) originally speced without socked memory in mind.