Apple Silicon Macs can't boot from external drive if internal drive failed(bombich.com)
bombich.com
Apple Silicon Macs can't boot from external drive if internal drive failed
https://bombich.com/blog/2021/05/19/beyond-bootable-backups-adapting-recovery-strategies-evolving-platform
421 comments
>whatever failure damaged the SSD is statistically likely to compromise the reliability of the rest of the board
Sorry, but how? That's just reads like BS.
SSDs have limited lifespans due to the limited write cycles of the NAND chips. So no, what damages NAND does not damage the rest of the board. The more you write and swap to flash, the faster it wears out, taking your Macbook down with it when it dies.
Granted, I expect the controller to keep moving your data around to the cells with the least ammount of wear and isolate the ones that have worn out, reducing your storage space and speed of the drive over time.
Sorry, but how? That's just reads like BS.
SSDs have limited lifespans due to the limited write cycles of the NAND chips. So no, what damages NAND does not damage the rest of the board. The more you write and swap to flash, the faster it wears out, taking your Macbook down with it when it dies.
Granted, I expect the controller to keep moving your data around to the cells with the least ammount of wear and isolate the ones that have worn out, reducing your storage space and speed of the drive over time.
In practice, exhausting NAND write endurance is usually not what causes SSDs to fail in the field. It is especially unlikely to be the underlying cause of unexpected and seemingly premature catastrophic SSD failure.
Also, it is not possible for an SSD to decrease your usable storage space over time. That would break any partition table format or filesystem that expects an ordinary block device. It also wouldn't win you any significant increase unusable lifespan, because when your drive starts retiring large numbers of blocks, all of your blocks are on the verge of failure. (Though keep in mind that "failure" here is defined as "only able to retain data for one year" for consumer SSDs).
Also, it is not possible for an SSD to decrease your usable storage space over time. That would break any partition table format or filesystem that expects an ordinary block device. It also wouldn't win you any significant increase unusable lifespan, because when your drive starts retiring large numbers of blocks, all of your blocks are on the verge of failure. (Though keep in mind that "failure" here is defined as "only able to retain data for one year" for consumer SSDs).
> It is especially unlikely to be the underlying cause of unexpected and seemingly premature catastrophic SSD failure.
One of my graduate students experienced this, the hard way: writing up his thesis, his mum plugged in "the wrong USB C" charger. I don't know exactly what happened, but the board was utterly fried. The problem with the soldered-to-the-motherboard, everything-utterly-encrypted approach is that it's almost impossible to do data recovery. On the M1+ models, you literally can't do anything except semi-fix the motherboard as the flash and its controllers are integrated and the keys are cryptographically securely stored. This video [1] shows what data recovery is really like -- I don't often link to YT videos, but it is an hour long, involves an awful lot of BGA de-balling and re-balling and the scouring of spare chips from other donor dead machines, as Apple doesn't let manufacturers sell the chips separately and datasheets are all NDA'd.
We're very much in the part of the curve where you'd need a lab and a lot of serious work to get data off these things without either sacrificial macs or luck (e.g. one blow voltage regulator). Of course, the flip side of this is that your data is really, really secure. You just have to be damn sure that you back it up correctly.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=110x5rMHCIw
One of my graduate students experienced this, the hard way: writing up his thesis, his mum plugged in "the wrong USB C" charger. I don't know exactly what happened, but the board was utterly fried. The problem with the soldered-to-the-motherboard, everything-utterly-encrypted approach is that it's almost impossible to do data recovery. On the M1+ models, you literally can't do anything except semi-fix the motherboard as the flash and its controllers are integrated and the keys are cryptographically securely stored. This video [1] shows what data recovery is really like -- I don't often link to YT videos, but it is an hour long, involves an awful lot of BGA de-balling and re-balling and the scouring of spare chips from other donor dead machines, as Apple doesn't let manufacturers sell the chips separately and datasheets are all NDA'd.
We're very much in the part of the curve where you'd need a lab and a lot of serious work to get data off these things without either sacrificial macs or luck (e.g. one blow voltage regulator). Of course, the flip side of this is that your data is really, really secure. You just have to be damn sure that you back it up correctly.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=110x5rMHCIw
I work for my university's helpdesk and a lot of students learn this the hard way every day. We always require users to assume full risk of data loss whenever they check in for a repair. For most computers, if they aren't okay with that, we can just tell them to go to a third party shop and have the drive pulled out and imaged first. For recent Macs we basically just have to tell them it's gone for good if we can't get the machine booting without having to swap the system board.
> soldered-to-the-motherboard, everything-utterly-encrypted approach is that it's almost impossible to do data recovery
Well, that's kind of the point.
> You just have to be damn sure that you back it up correctly.
Exactly. And that's as easy as plugging in an external hard drive occasionally, or storing critical files in the cloud.
Well, that's kind of the point.
> You just have to be damn sure that you back it up correctly.
Exactly. And that's as easy as plugging in an external hard drive occasionally, or storing critical files in the cloud.
>> soldered-to-the-motherboard, everything-utterly-encrypted approach is that it's almost impossible to do data recovery
>Well, that's kind of the point.
Not that I don't appreciate a security-minded platform, it just seems overkill for 99% of the people who'll purchase them, and do nothing but cause heartache when the internal SSD fails. And fail they do. it's rare, but I've had several SSDs (Toshiba and Crucial, if it matters) fail within 1-2 years of moderate usage. No warning there was an issue, the drives just disappeared one day and I was left looking for backups.
>Well, that's kind of the point.
Not that I don't appreciate a security-minded platform, it just seems overkill for 99% of the people who'll purchase them, and do nothing but cause heartache when the internal SSD fails. And fail they do. it's rare, but I've had several SSDs (Toshiba and Crucial, if it matters) fail within 1-2 years of moderate usage. No warning there was an issue, the drives just disappeared one day and I was left looking for backups.
> Not that I don't appreciate a security-minded platform, it just seems overkill for 99% of the people who'll purchase them
No man is an island. If my mom is insecure, then all the messages I sent her are leaked, too, no matter how secure I try to be. If my boss is insecure, then I'm even worse off than that.
Also, if high-security stuff is normalized, then you don't wind up stuck in a place where you have to choose between "the secure option" and "the option that can actually run the apps I need." E2E encrypting the whole world is also the best defense against the government passing laws that make E2E encryption illegal.
No man is an island. If my mom is insecure, then all the messages I sent her are leaked, too, no matter how secure I try to be. If my boss is insecure, then I'm even worse off than that.
Also, if high-security stuff is normalized, then you don't wind up stuck in a place where you have to choose between "the secure option" and "the option that can actually run the apps I need." E2E encrypting the whole world is also the best defense against the government passing laws that make E2E encryption illegal.
>E2E encrypting the whole world is also the best defense against the government passing laws that make E2E encryption illegal.
The government doesn't need to pass laws to ban encryption (at least in America) since they design the encryption standards themselves. It's basically common knowledge at this point that everything NIST cranks out is vulnerable to differential cryptanalysis beyond the domain of public understanding. Apple, Google, Facebook and the other top dogs all help create the illusion of choice in exchange for keeping the SEC off their backs.
The government doesn't need to pass laws to ban encryption (at least in America) since they design the encryption standards themselves. It's basically common knowledge at this point that everything NIST cranks out is vulnerable to differential cryptanalysis beyond the domain of public understanding. Apple, Google, Facebook and the other top dogs all help create the illusion of choice in exchange for keeping the SEC off their backs.
>It's basically common knowledge at this point
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
And what's really annoying is that you are doing a bad job of arguing for a position that I actually kinda agree with. NIST has published a backdoored elliptic curve-based RNG[1]; don't trust them. Encryption algorithms need some sort of verifiable provenance for where those numbers came from.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
And what's really annoying is that you are doing a bad job of arguing for a position that I actually kinda agree with. NIST has published a backdoored elliptic curve-based RNG[1]; don't trust them. Encryption algorithms need some sort of verifiable provenance for where those numbers came from.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
On that note, it's unfortunate that T2 can only create ecdsa-sha2-nistp256 secret keys. Right now I use Secretive but I might resort to a different utility that generates ed25519 and stores it within keychain, if there is one.
> 99% of the people
I think you underestimate this number. Most businesses are going to want security/encryption over ability to recover data to prevent leaking secrets in the case of a lost/stolen laptop.
as for everyone else, backups really need to become the norm for everyone because as you say any HDD/SSD can fail for any reason anytime beyond any possible recovery apple laptop or not.
I think you underestimate this number. Most businesses are going to want security/encryption over ability to recover data to prevent leaking secrets in the case of a lost/stolen laptop.
as for everyone else, backups really need to become the norm for everyone because as you say any HDD/SSD can fail for any reason anytime beyond any possible recovery apple laptop or not.
I recently learned that my hard drive was encrypted with Bitlocker, had I not been attempting to get Genode running off a USB stick, I might have gone on for a year or to in blissful ignorance of how remarkable insecure my stuff was as a result of this.
It took about 12 hours to decrypt it, and restore sanity.
Availability is part of security, if it's encrypted, and you don't (or can't) boot just the way Microsoft wants, all your data is gone.
It took about 12 hours to decrypt it, and restore sanity.
Availability is part of security, if it's encrypted, and you don't (or can't) boot just the way Microsoft wants, all your data is gone.
> it just seems overkill for 99% of the people who'll purchase them
There are many places in the world where information on your laptop even criticising the government can end up in you going missing e.g. China, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar etc.
There are many places in the world where information on your laptop even criticising the government can end up in you going missing e.g. China, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar etc.
> Well, that's kind of the point.
Being able to yoink the SSD from the original machine, plug it into another compatible one, and decrypt the contents with your password, is not a vulnerability, it's a feature.
Being able to yoink the SSD from the original machine, plug it into another compatible one, and decrypt the contents with your password, is not a vulnerability, it's a feature.
I think that’s a joke?
I mean, why even encrypt it in that case?
It’s not like the drive is a web service that will detect and block your password attempts…
I mean, why even encrypt it in that case?
It’s not like the drive is a web service that will detect and block your password attempts…
No it's not a joke. If the password is sufficiently complex, it can't be brute forced in a reasonable amount of time. But it's still a way for you to get your data back having only the SSD on which it is stored.
Or, well, fine, let there be an active element. But let me export the master key then. It's my device, I have root access to it, I should be allowed to do that. And, yes, do still put the SSD into a slot.
> I mean, why even encrypt it in that case?
Yeah because your time machine backup drive that's encrypted with "just" a password (you did encrypt it, right?) is somehow more secure than an internal SSD encrypted in the same exact way.
Or, well, fine, let there be an active element. But let me export the master key then. It's my device, I have root access to it, I should be allowed to do that. And, yes, do still put the SSD into a slot.
> I mean, why even encrypt it in that case?
Yeah because your time machine backup drive that's encrypted with "just" a password (you did encrypt it, right?) is somehow more secure than an internal SSD encrypted in the same exact way.
> But let me export the master key then.
You can do this encryption shindig with the ability to export by not using FileVault and using your own encryption software - Apple just doesn't allow this by default. In fact, why only store it on the computer? Rclone can upload and replicate an encrypted (via a long salt + password) copy of your data to dozens of cloud providers. Your encrypted data could be on 3 cloud providers in 10 physically separate locations on 30 different hard drives at once, possibly even in separate hemispheres. Or chuck it into S3 replication and be in all 81 availability zones if you so wish.
You can do this encryption shindig with the ability to export by not using FileVault and using your own encryption software - Apple just doesn't allow this by default. In fact, why only store it on the computer? Rclone can upload and replicate an encrypted (via a long salt + password) copy of your data to dozens of cloud providers. Your encrypted data could be on 3 cloud providers in 10 physically separate locations on 30 different hard drives at once, possibly even in separate hemispheres. Or chuck it into S3 replication and be in all 81 availability zones if you so wish.
I mean, just turn off encryption if that’s what you want.
I don’t think you grasp how the encryption keys are generated, derived, and stored.
And I doubt you are using a password the length of the key. Well, maybe you create a USB human interface device that fits on your keyring to type it for you. I do have something like that for one time codes, but if that is your sophistication level, then we wouldn’t have this discussion really.
I feel for the “it’s mine, I bought it” logic, and I miss the days when our rights were more absolute. But that’s not today.
I don’t think you grasp how the encryption keys are generated, derived, and stored.
And I doubt you are using a password the length of the key. Well, maybe you create a USB human interface device that fits on your keyring to type it for you. I do have something like that for one time codes, but if that is your sophistication level, then we wouldn’t have this discussion really.
I feel for the “it’s mine, I bought it” logic, and I miss the days when our rights were more absolute. But that’s not today.
There are key-derivation functions like PBKDF2 that are computationally expensive enough that it would make brute-forcing infeasible at best and impossible at worst. Perhaps only if your password is 1234 or qwerty, but even then it would take literal years.
> I don’t think you grasp how the encryption keys are generated, derived, and stored.
And you're wrong.
> I don’t think you grasp how the encryption keys are generated, derived, and stored.
And you're wrong.
If data is not encrypted with a piece of secret information (usually a password) with enough entropy to keep it secret in the face of offline attacks, then it is as good as not encrypted, period. The hope that your hardware design is sufficiently complex and non-repairable to prevent your attacker from disassembling it and performing such an attack is not a replacement for proper encryption.
And if it is encrypted with a secret with sufficient entropy, then making your hardware design non-repairable serves no reasonable purpose.
And if it is encrypted with a secret with sufficient entropy, then making your hardware design non-repairable serves no reasonable purpose.
You can easily limit password attempts by requiring a sufficiently difficult password hashing algorithm and then just use a secure passphrase. Nobody is breaking into my encrypted drives via a guessing attack (other attacks exist, but they ~all also exist on macs).
Encryption is based on math, not on some hardware gimmick. I'd absolutely clone my laptop drive and move it to a new one if I want to, having exactly the same setup.
> > soldered-to-the-motherboard, everything-utterly-encrypted approach is that it's almost impossible to do data recovery
> Well, that's kind of the point.
Great; how do we opt out?
> Well, that's kind of the point.
Great; how do we opt out?
with different machines? The framework laptop doesn't work this way, afaik
Too bad i switched to Mac OS from Linux. The OS matters to me and OS X is still the least annoying.
Apple is not about giving you options. Either you go the Apple way or you leave the ecosystem entirely, and except for the very beginning when Steve Wozniak still had some influence, Apple has always been like that.
It has advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage is obvious: few options. But the advantage is that they can make a consistent ecosystem, with sensible choices, and not dragged down by compatibility issues. It "just works". Not my thing but I totally understand those who love Apple.
The way you do recovery with Apple is via Time Machine backups, use that.
Desktop Linux is the opposite, lots of options, but perhaps because of it, it doesn't have the same polish as Apple, and even Microsoft products, or, using your words "it is annoying".
It has advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage is obvious: few options. But the advantage is that they can make a consistent ecosystem, with sensible choices, and not dragged down by compatibility issues. It "just works". Not my thing but I totally understand those who love Apple.
The way you do recovery with Apple is via Time Machine backups, use that.
Desktop Linux is the opposite, lots of options, but perhaps because of it, it doesn't have the same polish as Apple, and even Microsoft products, or, using your words "it is annoying".
That really just shows that everything has tradeoffs. I'd Love if Windows could run on top of the Linux kernel (as in, nvidia drivers and all the Windows compatibility while being able to do stuff like `lspci` to see my real hardware - WSL2 doesn't do full PCI device passthrough yet) but that's unlikely to happen with how much the Windows team is seemingly trying to simplify their testing infrastructure (removing CPU support and removing user choice).
Back it up to some cloud vendor that also holds the encryption keys... Brilliant bit of security there...
/s
/s
If you don’t want that, back it up to a cloud service that doesn’t hold the encryption keys. Eg, use tarsnap. It’s your computer and your data.
Thanks, I don't remember trying tarsnap. I use $OTHERBIGVENDOR and its been sticky, because I have ~60T of large files (miniDV .mpg captures/4k video/etc) mixed with an insane number of .5k files from git repos/etc.
That combination has broken just about every modern cloud backup application I've tried to use over the ~10 years that meets a short list of minimal features I require (locally stored encryption keys for one). It actually breaks $OTHERBIGVENDOR in its default configuration as well, but I've collected a pile of tweaks/etc that keep it functional although I've managed at one point to cause my account to go into a reindexing mode on the servers that didn't complete for months too.
So, maybe at some point. I've got some experience in the space :) and I've considered writing my own when I eventually give up on $OTHERBIGVENDOR. So many of them are written in "modern" languages and the clients are outrageously slow, or get exponentially slower as the data set grows.
I've looked at tarsnap in passing in the past, but haven't gotten around to trying it because from their description of what appears to be a traditional referenced counted global dedupe. I suspected it of having problems when the hash map need to track 50T+ unique hashes from all those video files across backups.
PS: That doesn't mean there aren't good tools, my local backups are via rsnapshot to an offline USB+RAID I plug in once in a while.
That combination has broken just about every modern cloud backup application I've tried to use over the ~10 years that meets a short list of minimal features I require (locally stored encryption keys for one). It actually breaks $OTHERBIGVENDOR in its default configuration as well, but I've collected a pile of tweaks/etc that keep it functional although I've managed at one point to cause my account to go into a reindexing mode on the servers that didn't complete for months too.
So, maybe at some point. I've got some experience in the space :) and I've considered writing my own when I eventually give up on $OTHERBIGVENDOR. So many of them are written in "modern" languages and the clients are outrageously slow, or get exponentially slower as the data set grows.
I've looked at tarsnap in passing in the past, but haven't gotten around to trying it because from their description of what appears to be a traditional referenced counted global dedupe. I suspected it of having problems when the hash map need to track 50T+ unique hashes from all those video files across backups.
PS: That doesn't mean there aren't good tools, my local backups are via rsnapshot to an offline USB+RAID I plug in once in a while.
If you have 60T of files, then you're already free from the problem since Apple doesn't sell a machine with 60T of soldered on SSD.
the motivation for soldered everything is profit margins and the ripoff prices for upgrades.
Not security. There is no additional security here
Not security. There is no additional security here
Of course there is additional security.
You can't just physically remove the SSD from the machine, place it in another and brute force the encryption.
You can't just physically remove the SSD from the machine, place it in another and brute force the encryption.
of course you can desolder and move the chips - all you need is a hot air station and some flux. It's of course harder but nothing even remotely close to breaking the encryption itself, like orders of magnitude easier - any hobbist can do it.
It's another story, a part of the encryption is stored in yet another place on Macs, which it'd be still stored there if the SSD could be moved in/out.
It's another story, a part of the encryption is stored in yet another place on Macs, which it'd be still stored there if the SSD could be moved in/out.
> or storing critical files in the cloud.
No. I refuse to let my vacation photos, hard drive images or hell, even my wallpaper collection to leave my house.
No. I refuse. My data is my data.
Encrypt it? There are some strong algorithms that allow you to enjoy the most highly secured, fault-resistant buildings on earth without letting the capitalists that own them view your data even if they were to hook your storage up to their entire GPU/ASIC/etc farm.
What if your house burns down?
i keep a copy of my most important files in a safe deposit box
I keep my FLAC collection in a safe deposit box. More important files get stored on HDDs and MLC flash. Storage is cheap.
Nothing stopping you from putting NextCloud on a Raspberry Pi
I don't know about the mac, but I tried to do this for the wife/kids i-devices, and it was an utter failure. 3rd party backup apps are at a huge disadvantage on ios because apparently they can't run in the background long enough to keep things synced unless they also require _GPS_ service notifications (or at least that is how the nextcloud app works around it). Which in turn eats even more battery to work around ios's inability to flag apps as trusted system services and provide extra warnings/whatever during install (or app store acceptance might be a better plan).
> or
There was another simple option. You're free to use that one.
There was another simple option. You're free to use that one.
> You just have to be damn sure that you back it up correctly.
Most somewhat serious NAS appliances offer being a TimeMachine server which is more than enough for most people.
Most somewhat serious NAS appliances offer being a TimeMachine server which is more than enough for most people.
These days I don’t understand why people don’t sync their important files to cloud. Dropbox has a free layer that’s perfectly fit for a theses.
Maybe because not everyone likes to share their most important files with a third party?
Or because of providers scanning files or stuff like: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
If you seriously consider a state actor to be a threat, then you likely make many other compromises to your ability to conveniently perform disaster recovery.
There is not much overlap between these use-cases:
* I need an easy way to recover my family pictures because I didn't make backups
and
* I have state actors interested in my data
If you really have state actor threats, you probably like that M1 Macs are very hard to perform data-recovery from.
There is not much overlap between these use-cases:
* I need an easy way to recover my family pictures because I didn't make backups
and
* I have state actors interested in my data
If you really have state actor threats, you probably like that M1 Macs are very hard to perform data-recovery from.
If you are a state actor you probably love M1 Macs.
You literally can't restore them without phoning home.
Everone should consider state actors as a threat because they are. They maybe are not specifically after you. But every now and then some big box gets popped leaking all kinds of personal information (including yours) and the actors are probably state sponsored. Also it is not state actors scanning your data, many cloud providers do so.
If you have a state actor as threat model you probably want to remove iCloud backups (see link):
"Apple’s iCloud, on the other hand, can be searched in secret. In the first half of last year, the period covered by Apple’s most recent semiannual transparency report on requests for data it receives from government agencies, U.S. authorities armed with regular court papers asked for and obtained full device backups or other iCloud content in 1,568 cases, covering about 6,000 accounts."
Everone should consider state actors as a threat because they are. They maybe are not specifically after you. But every now and then some big box gets popped leaking all kinds of personal information (including yours) and the actors are probably state sponsored. Also it is not state actors scanning your data, many cloud providers do so.
If you have a state actor as threat model you probably want to remove iCloud backups (see link):
"Apple’s iCloud, on the other hand, can be searched in secret. In the first half of last year, the period covered by Apple’s most recent semiannual transparency report on requests for data it receives from government agencies, U.S. authorities armed with regular court papers asked for and obtained full device backups or other iCloud content in 1,568 cases, covering about 6,000 accounts."
Your concerns are not unfounded, but there is a very significant functional difference between being generally concerned about data privacy posed by any third-party bad actor, and having a threat profile that includes specific state actor threats.
If you think it is a realistic scenario that the US would serve a warrant against you, then yes, your iCloud backup will probably be disclosed to the authorities. But if this is a real concern of yours, then you probably have much bigger things to worry about than whether your SSD is soldered to the board or not.
If you think it is a realistic scenario that the US would serve a warrant against you, then yes, your iCloud backup will probably be disclosed to the authorities. But if this is a real concern of yours, then you probably have much bigger things to worry about than whether your SSD is soldered to the board or not.
It feels like you're using "state actor" as a motte and bailey. It usually means targeted espionage affecting very few, with strong motives for why security services are interested in them specifically. Whereas that article is ultimately talking about a dragnet surveillance system, which is technically a state actor but affects literally everyone.
I don't mean anything special by "state actor", I plainly mean: actions taken by a state.
Whether you consider those actions to be a threat would depend on an individual person's or organization's assessment of the impact of those actions.
Whether you consider those actions to be a threat would depend on an individual person's or organization's assessment of the impact of those actions.
Using your loose definition of "state actor" means that every single person who uses mainstream cloud solutions has "state actor" as a threat, whether they acknowledge it or not. It's not just the occasional person super focused on security as you're making it out to be - in fact people less in touch with security have a larger threat from their system being hijacked and used to distribute contraband bits, thereby running afoul of cloud scanning.
No it doesn't mean that, because threat assessments consist of multiple variables, including the footprint, probability, and impact of a potential threat.
That's a fancy way of saying "I've got nothing to hide".
Then use tarsnap or Arq or some other client that encrypts locally and backs up the encrypted files to the cloud.
That’s fair but if someone is concerned about it they should invest into backups. It’s unconscionable to entrust days of someone’s work to a single device.
Seriously. It's 2021, you should have a remote backup. Use backblaze, tarsnap, anything. SSD failure is one of a thousand ways you can lose access to files on your laptop.
You always do backup (another hard drive), GitHub (these days free private repro), Dropbox, iCloud, … etc. Totslly rely upon a hard disk … a big lesson to learn.
> Also, it is not possible for an SSD to decrease your usable storage space over time.
It totally could be possible. For Windows/Linux, you could have a daemon that creates a 'ssd_wear' file which grows in size as the SSD wears out, and messages to the SSD which physical blocks it occupies. Mac could obviously do a deeper integration directly into the OS.
> all of your blocks are on the verge of failure
A failed block still stores some information (in an information entropy sense). It's totally possible to store one blocks worth of information across two, four, or eight failed blocks (with extra error correction information).
Combining these two techniques, an SSD should never fail. Instead it slows down and gets smaller. Sadly as far as I'm aware, no consumer drive vendor has implemented these.
It totally could be possible. For Windows/Linux, you could have a daemon that creates a 'ssd_wear' file which grows in size as the SSD wears out, and messages to the SSD which physical blocks it occupies. Mac could obviously do a deeper integration directly into the OS.
> all of your blocks are on the verge of failure
A failed block still stores some information (in an information entropy sense). It's totally possible to store one blocks worth of information across two, four, or eight failed blocks (with extra error correction information).
Combining these two techniques, an SSD should never fail. Instead it slows down and gets smaller. Sadly as far as I'm aware, no consumer drive vendor has implemented these.
You should read up on Zoned Storage for NVMe SSDs, and some of the more recently added error handling features like Get LBA Status. The gist is that it is only practical for the SSD to be in charge of determining what has failed-not the host, and that retrofitting NAND retirement into the traditional block device/LBA model is not worth the trouble when there are also other reasons to migrate to a different, more flash-friendly abstraction.
I used to work on SSD firmware. I did implement something like the above for a custom solution for caching. When the flash storage is running low on space, it reduced the reported storage capacity and notifies the host which will need to trim some data to bring it below the reported storage capacity. The striping of data across multiple blocks also has been implemented. You could fail an entire NAND die and it would still function though a little slower assuming you still have enough spare blocks.
>> It also wouldn't win you any significant increase unusable lifespan, because when your drive starts retiring large numbers of blocks, all of your blocks are on the verge of failure.
That's not true. Blocks degrade when written to. Most files are written once and read many times.
That's not true. Blocks degrade when written to. Most files are written once and read many times.
You're forgetting that SSDs use virtual addressing so writes are distributed relatively equally over the whole drive. Even data that is written once and never changed logically will probably move around on the SSD due to garbage collection. The virtualization algorithms are kept relatively secret, but I assume good SSDs will move full unchanged blocks around occasionally to distribute write load more equally on the physical blocks.
Yep, wear leveling actually works. On some SSDs, there are SMART indicators to tell you the average, max and min block erase counts, so you can see for yourself that the erase counts are all about the same across the entire drive.
>> I assume good SSDs will move full unchanged blocks around occasionally to distribute write load more equally on the physical blocks.
I hadn't considered that. Make sense. Better to move never-changing data to blocks that are still good but not worn out so those available writes can be utilized.
I hadn't considered that. Make sense. Better to move never-changing data to blocks that are still good but not worn out so those available writes can be utilized.
> Though keep in mind that "failure" here is defined as "only able to retain data for one year" for consumer SSDs
So the M1 Mac lasts a year before the owner has to shell for an apple authorised repair to replace the disk ? Me thinks that may not be the story for apple or dell
What am I missing
So the M1 Mac lasts a year before the owner has to shell for an apple authorised repair to replace the disk ? Me thinks that may not be the story for apple or dell
What am I missing
> In practice, exhausting NAND write endurance is usually not what causes SSDs to fail in the field.
+1. The part that fails on consumer SSDs is typically the controller.
+1. The part that fails on consumer SSDs is typically the controller.
Do you have a point? Linking to a story about an embedded system that experiences flash wearout is not really relevant here. You're trying to make a comparison against a far smaller and lower-quality storage module than typical consumer SSDs, subjected to a vastly different workload. There are no useful conclusions to draw about consumer PCs from that case.
I think you are using old information. Any modern SSD should be good for a few hundred to several hundred TB and may reach a PB. It would be very hard to use a personal computer that heavily. Most people would take 20 years or more.
"Any modern SSD should be good for a few hundred to several hundred TB and may reach a PB."
Actually, even more than that - here are some examples:[1]
Intel SSDSC2KB019TZ01 ("S4520") with 8.8 PB of lifetime writes
Intel SSDSC2KB019T801 ("S4510") with 7.1 PB of lifetime writes
Seagate ZA1920NM10001 ("Ironwolf[2] 110") with 3.5 PB of lifetime writes [2]
Samsung MZ-76P2T0BW ("860 PRO") with 2.4 PB of lifetime writes
[1] https://www.rsync.net/resources/notes/2021-q3-rsync.net_tech...
[2] https://twitter.com/rsyncnet/status/1402397708329967618
Actually, even more than that - here are some examples:[1]
Intel SSDSC2KB019TZ01 ("S4520") with 8.8 PB of lifetime writes
Intel SSDSC2KB019T801 ("S4510") with 7.1 PB of lifetime writes
Seagate ZA1920NM10001 ("Ironwolf[2] 110") with 3.5 PB of lifetime writes [2]
Samsung MZ-76P2T0BW ("860 PRO") with 2.4 PB of lifetime writes
[1] https://www.rsync.net/resources/notes/2021-q3-rsync.net_tech...
[2] https://twitter.com/rsyncnet/status/1402397708329967618
To be fair, those are unusually high-end products compared to typical consumer SSDs, and three out of four are enterprise drives where endurance is measured according to different criteria that inflates the number a bit further.
Those numbers aren't out of reach for consumer SSDs either.
Video editors have workloads that can write a ton for each project in 4k and 8k resolutions, if its pro res even more. First thing they do is grab the largest fastest storage they can work off externally.
That is a fairly write-heavy use case. But SSD endurance is measured in drive writes per day (over a typically 5-year warranty period). Rewriting the entire contents of your drive every workday for 2.5 years is only enough to put a typical consumer SSD out of warranty; actual failure due to write endurance will come much later.
Right -- but work externally is key here. Sure, you often have some stuff you'll do locally, but having external disk arrays is the name of the game if you're doing large volumes of video, not just because you want to be able to have a backup if your internal dies, but because lots of other people often touch your stuff and it just fits a workflow better to use fast networked storage when possible.
I finished the life of a SSD in a single year of regular use; it was great to find it should not happen, but it did.
What drive? What was the end of life behavior you observed? Catastrophic failure, or SMART data showing wearout?
Not the parent but I had this happen to me. It was a top of the line Samsung SSD at the time. Catastrophic failure. Was working fine then one day I rebooted and it never came back. I usually plan for failure of each drive every 2-3 years and buy them on Black Friday. But if that took out my entire 3.5k-4k m1 max laptop I'd be rather disappointed. It's $200 to replace a SSD.
So, that failure mode makes it pretty much impossible to conclusively attribute it to wearing out the NAND write endurance. You probably hit a firmware bug or failure in a different SSD component, otherwise you would most likely have been getting warnings from your OS about impending drive failure based on SMART data.
SSD wrote endurance is an unavoidable ticking time bomb. But it is nowhere near as unpredictable or imminent as many people assume. It's a failure mode that doesn't sneak up on you, and usually takes real effort to trigger. Other failure mechanisms are much more important.
SSD wrote endurance is an unavoidable ticking time bomb. But it is nowhere near as unpredictable or imminent as many people assume. It's a failure mode that doesn't sneak up on you, and usually takes real effort to trigger. Other failure mechanisms are much more important.
I've had two SSD's fail on, both were "here today, gone tomorrow" type failures without warning.
Granted, been a while, but I do nightly full-disk backups due to the first such experience (so was well prepared for the second).
Granted, been a while, but I do nightly full-disk backups due to the first such experience (so was well prepared for the second).
Intel 535. I was showing some alerts and the Intel SSD tool said the remaining life was ~ 5%, then it got to zero so I replaced it.
That model had a known issue with excessively high write amplification, for which Intel published a firmware fix: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/18821/26452...
In general, you should be aware that the "life remaining" indicator may merely be the "warranty remaining" indicator. If the unused reserved block count isn't approaching zero, a drive can usually keep operating long past the official write endurance rating. However, in addition to the above bug, Intel is also known for putting a kill switch in their SSD firmware tied to the "life remaining" counter, so you might have actually experienced the SSD going read-only when that hits zero.
In general, you should be aware that the "life remaining" indicator may merely be the "warranty remaining" indicator. If the unused reserved block count isn't approaching zero, a drive can usually keep operating long past the official write endurance rating. However, in addition to the above bug, Intel is also known for putting a kill switch in their SSD firmware tied to the "life remaining" counter, so you might have actually experienced the SSD going read-only when that hits zero.
You're forgetting swap. Not to mention professionals in domains like photography, design, video, etc. who might chew through big files frequently.
> You're forgetting swap.
8 Gb should be enough for everyone :)
8 Gb should be enough for everyone :)
Swap and other system activity is factored. Most heavy workloads wear other parts of the system as well. As another user pointed out, truly heavy storage and scratch system based workloads want to use large externals anyway, for other reasons.
Yes. Don't RAM-max at your own peril.
That's not how SSD wear works because nobody completely writes to their SSD, erases it, and writes again.
You can't wear-level against blocks that are in use, only blocks that are free.
If every person I've helped socially and professionally is any indication, people keep their storage anywhere between 80% and 95% full.
At 95% full, all your write cycles are focused on just 5% (plus spare provisioned blocks.)
Think about how browsers consume all available memory and then readily push the system into using a lot of swap. I have to restart my browser regularly because of how much ram it uses even if I've closed every tab.
Think about how whole-system file content indexing is the norm, and all the write operations that occur every time a file is added or updated.
Think about how a lot of applications are just electron apps and they routinely update themselves.
Think about all the filesystem metadata changes.
Etc.
You can't wear-level against blocks that are in use, only blocks that are free.
If every person I've helped socially and professionally is any indication, people keep their storage anywhere between 80% and 95% full.
At 95% full, all your write cycles are focused on just 5% (plus spare provisioned blocks.)
Think about how browsers consume all available memory and then readily push the system into using a lot of swap. I have to restart my browser regularly because of how much ram it uses even if I've closed every tab.
Think about how whole-system file content indexing is the norm, and all the write operations that occur every time a file is added or updated.
Think about how a lot of applications are just electron apps and they routinely update themselves.
Think about all the filesystem metadata changes.
Etc.
> You can't wear-level against blocks that are in use, only blocks that are free.
It only takes a bit of arithmetic to prove that this cannot possibly be true, or else all of those 95%-full drives would have long since failed, and QLC SSDs would have been a disaster and never would have been adopted by system OEMs that provide multi-year warranties. (And if it were true, then SSDs prior to TRIM wouldn't have been viable.)
You can include static data in wear leveling, and all SSDs do. It does lead to some write amplification, but that's already factored in to a drive's endurance specs.
It only takes a bit of arithmetic to prove that this cannot possibly be true, or else all of those 95%-full drives would have long since failed, and QLC SSDs would have been a disaster and never would have been adopted by system OEMs that provide multi-year warranties. (And if it were true, then SSDs prior to TRIM wouldn't have been viable.)
You can include static data in wear leveling, and all SSDs do. It does lead to some write amplification, but that's already factored in to a drive's endurance specs.
I did not say SSD wear works that way. All of that is factored into the usage I cited—-swap, system writes, etc. do not wear the drive as much as you appear to think for most users.
How many SSDs have you worn out? I've never managed it.
I've had hundreds of enterprise SSDs fail on my servers, but only a couple had any pre-failure indicators in SMART, including write volume which was pretty low. The post-failure indicator was almost consistently no longer visible through the disk controller.
Failure rate was much less than enterprise spinning disks, but at least with the spinners failed, you could still see them and get most of the data off, if you needed to. And they had reliable pre-failure indications.
TLDR: take regular backups and plan for storage to fail (which for soldered storage means plan to get a new device, I guess)
Failure rate was much less than enterprise spinning disks, but at least with the spinners failed, you could still see them and get most of the data off, if you needed to. And they had reliable pre-failure indications.
TLDR: take regular backups and plan for storage to fail (which for soldered storage means plan to get a new device, I guess)
If your running that big of a shop, I would call your channel partner/support group and bitch until they figure out whats failing. The usual expected failure modes for SSD's should be that they go into read only mode. If that isn't happening its either a firmware bug (probably) or a controller/vr failure which could be a process/heat/etc type of failure.
Particularly for "enterprise" equipment the expectations isn't that it fails, but that the failures are more graceful and understood.
So complain... that is why your paying the "enterprise" tax.
Particularly for "enterprise" equipment the expectations isn't that it fails, but that the failures are more graceful and understood.
So complain... that is why your paying the "enterprise" tax.
This was in managed hosting, we'd open a ticket and get teh SSDs replaced quickly, which was good enough for us. For the most part, the failure rate was about 10% of the rate of the hard drives, and concentrated in the systems with many disks, which were setup to handle disk failures, so it wasn't a big big deal.
Although we did get a couple of bad batches on our single disk systems, almost all of those failed within 2 weeks of install and we had the rest replaced.
I also suspect firmware bugs, but it wasn't convenient to upgrade them, so who knows. I did have to upgrade some of the same disks on single disk systems with low usage; the disks would sometimes timeout for no reason and confuse some of our OSes. The upgrade procedure was more or less PXE boot the manufacturer upgrade utility and hope it worked with whatever disk controller was there (eta: 5 minutes) or let the hoster firmware upgrade script run and hope it upgraded the ssd firmware and didn't mess anything else up (eta: 40 minutes per run, probably run it twice).
Although we did get a couple of bad batches on our single disk systems, almost all of those failed within 2 weeks of install and we had the rest replaced.
I also suspect firmware bugs, but it wasn't convenient to upgrade them, so who knows. I did have to upgrade some of the same disks on single disk systems with low usage; the disks would sometimes timeout for no reason and confuse some of our OSes. The upgrade procedure was more or less PXE boot the manufacturer upgrade utility and hope it worked with whatever disk controller was there (eta: 5 minutes) or let the hoster firmware upgrade script run and hope it upgraded the ssd firmware and didn't mess anything else up (eta: 40 minutes per run, probably run it twice).
[deleted]
Apple SSD module failures on portable Macs are quite common. A buddy has a computer repair shop and they do brisk business replacing them. Mine failed about 5 years in.
SSDs are wear items. Especially when they're quite full, it is very easy to blow through spare writes and brick the drive.
SSDs are wear items. Especially when they're quite full, it is very easy to blow through spare writes and brick the drive.
There was a problem with some of the SSDs where they corrupt themselves on powerloss.
That’s a totally different reason, and afaik, they should be using proper caps to let the controller write/flush their buffers.
My last MacBook Pro was 7 years old, almost always full, and still works fine. Granted I’m not a video editor, but I had quite some write cycles.
That’s a totally different reason, and afaik, they should be using proper caps to let the controller write/flush their buffers.
My last MacBook Pro was 7 years old, almost always full, and still works fine. Granted I’m not a video editor, but I had quite some write cycles.
Did those modules fail readonly, and the SMART data showed that their write limit had been reached?
Or did the entire module electronically fail, as distinct from the SSD "no more writes" case?
Or did the entire module electronically fail, as distinct from the SSD "no more writes" case?
One, small capacity X limited cycles = short life span.
Limited write cycles will produce data corruption, but what the article explains is that Apple is using the Flash in M1 macs in a similar way to other ARM devices, that is, they have the firmware there.
I don’t know how much time do you expect your mac to last, but write cycles on your firmware should not be much of a concern.
I don’t know how much time do you expect your mac to last, but write cycles on your firmware should not be much of a concern.
Right, but I get the impression that the firmware vies for space with the rest of / et al.
Sooo that means the wear leveling had better be ahead of whatever lifetime writes you throw at the system, or...
Sooo that means the wear leveling had better be ahead of whatever lifetime writes you throw at the system, or...
Easy to account for in drive firmware. Not to mention the file system if that were actually being used. Way back when, master boot records were duplicated at know locations for kinda similar reasons.
> So no, what damages NAND does not damage the rest of the board. The more you write and swap to flash, the faster it wears out, taking your Macbook down with it when it dies.
Except as explained by the parent, when the SSD dies on an Intel Mac it can be recovered via Internet Recovery via EFI.
Only way to brick that it is to have a bad flash onto the EFI ROM.
On Apple Silicon when the SSD dies, it cannot be recovered as the firmware is also on the SSD and remains bricked which that is that.
Except as explained by the parent, when the SSD dies on an Intel Mac it can be recovered via Internet Recovery via EFI.
Only way to brick that it is to have a bad flash onto the EFI ROM.
On Apple Silicon when the SSD dies, it cannot be recovered as the firmware is also on the SSD and remains bricked which that is that.
Heh, I wrote pretty much exactly the same thing, should have read all the comments first.
that's true, but it's far more likely for the mainboard to get soaked/smashed than the NAND running out of write cycles.
> That's just reads like BS.
Because it partly is. It's just a lame defence / justification of soldering SSD, RAM and other parts, the major advantage of which is to make modern electronics more complex, hard to repair and prevent upgrades (i.e. "planned obsolescence"). If SSDs were reliable beyond 5+ years, manufacturers would be highlighting that and even offering guarantees for such a period. (Hell, most RAM today come with "lifetime" guarantees, even though RAM modules too fail occasionally).
The modular design for computer hardware was chosen for a practical reason - that hardware can, and do fail. While electronic manufacturing has advanced a lot, minimizing failure rates to a great extent, the pros of replaceable modules absolutely still outweigh any of the alternative hardware designs so far.
Because it partly is. It's just a lame defence / justification of soldering SSD, RAM and other parts, the major advantage of which is to make modern electronics more complex, hard to repair and prevent upgrades (i.e. "planned obsolescence"). If SSDs were reliable beyond 5+ years, manufacturers would be highlighting that and even offering guarantees for such a period. (Hell, most RAM today come with "lifetime" guarantees, even though RAM modules too fail occasionally).
The modular design for computer hardware was chosen for a practical reason - that hardware can, and do fail. While electronic manufacturing has advanced a lot, minimizing failure rates to a great extent, the pros of replaceable modules absolutely still outweigh any of the alternative hardware designs so far.
Except soldering everything on can give you HUGE performance boosts. Like, laptops come with soldered-on RAM that you can't get in a DIMM configuration because the soldered on stuff is so fast it needs a fast path to the CPU, which DIMM slots can't provide. And now with Apple building all system RAM directly into the chip die, it's just a whole new ballgame.
So you can either go modular and have a slow PC, or you can have decent performance and just accept that everything is going to be soldered on and irreplaceable.
So you can either go modular and have a slow PC, or you can have decent performance and just accept that everything is going to be soldered on and irreplaceable.
This argument doesn't work with Apple. They built laptops that could literally just use 50% of their CPU because of insufficient cooling. Not too long ago they released a Macbook with a CPU cooler that doesn't even have direct contact with the CPU. And when LTT modded the cooler to fix it they realised the performance was still not better because the power delivery is insufficient as well.
Also our PCs are not slow, modular or not. In many cases hardware is not the bottleneck.
Also our PCs are not slow, modular or not. In many cases hardware is not the bottleneck.
Maybe that CPU cooler wasn't really a CPU cooler after all, if it didn't have direct contact with the CPU.
Maybe the fan was more of a case fan and it simply ran air through the whole machine INCLUDING the CPU heatsink, which is AFAIK exactly how it worked.
Maybe the fan was more of a case fan and it simply ran air through the whole machine INCLUDING the CPU heatsink, which is AFAIK exactly how it worked.
Sorry, what? Citation please. The speed lost moving a DIMM from a 3cm path-to-CPU to a removable DIMM slot 6cm away is infinitesimal. You would not notice it.
For laptops, soldered vs socketed DRAM is mostly about power, not performance. But it is true that soldering DRAM makes it possible to reach higher bus speeds than are practical to achieve through a DIMM slot; this is why GPUs don't have upgradable RAM.
Laptops that have soldered RAM (including Apple) do not come with overclocked RAM though. I don't even know of any system with soldered RAM that would let you try pushing the speeds in practice, so this advantage is never leveraged.
But we do know how far DIMMs can go. Mainboard memory trace layouts have gotten ridiculously optimized. DDR4-5200 is a totally "normal" XMP spec now, there are even 5400 kits out there I think.
But we do know how far DIMMs can go. Mainboard memory trace layouts have gotten ridiculously optimized. DDR4-5200 is a totally "normal" XMP spec now, there are even 5400 kits out there I think.
Who is saying the soldered ram is never overclocked? You cant overclock changeable ram by default because you don‘t know what the customer will use. But by soldering the ram you know you will use very specific parts, so you could (maybe they do?) tune the settings because it does not have to work with thousands of combinations.
> Laptops that have soldered RAM (including Apple) do not come with overclocked RAM though. I don't even know of any system with soldered RAM that would let you try pushing the speeds in practice, so this advantage is never leveraged.
This is unsurprising given what I already pointed out about power being more important than maximizing performance. Sure, you can overclock the memory controller on a desktop platform and with sufficiently expensive DIMMs and probably a bit of an overvolt for the memory controller/uncore you can reach higher bus speeds than any laptop CPU (though still not anywhere near as high as GDDR used with high-end mobile GPUs).
But take a look at the fastest memory speeds available through SODIMM slots vs the speed of LPDDR4x supported by the same CPUs. Within the constraints of laptop power levels and using standard grade memory parts rather than requiring premium binned chips, soldering currently corresponds to a 33% performance advantage.
This is unsurprising given what I already pointed out about power being more important than maximizing performance. Sure, you can overclock the memory controller on a desktop platform and with sufficiently expensive DIMMs and probably a bit of an overvolt for the memory controller/uncore you can reach higher bus speeds than any laptop CPU (though still not anywhere near as high as GDDR used with high-end mobile GPUs).
But take a look at the fastest memory speeds available through SODIMM slots vs the speed of LPDDR4x supported by the same CPUs. Within the constraints of laptop power levels and using standard grade memory parts rather than requiring premium binned chips, soldering currently corresponds to a 33% performance advantage.
The speed lost due to distance would be infinitesimal, but is that the only speed loss there would be? I'd expect that parasitic inductance and parasitic capacitance would be higher in a socketed system which would impose speed limits.
I've read that nowadays because they effectively have 8-channel or 16-channel RAM, there would just be too many connections to make them removable.
Imagine 8 DIMMs next to each other, and then fitting that into a laptop form factor.
Imagine 8 DIMMs next to each other, and then fitting that into a laptop form factor.
Channel != DIMM. Many small channels is just how LPDDR works, as opposed to DDR which has one big chungus channel. Well DDR5 has now split it in two. The total number of traces is the same.
I have seen many comments parroting this line but none of you provide a source to back this assertion. Your claim that modular PC's RAM is slower is quite ignorant 'cos the bandwidth for the RAM bus has been consistently increasingly (currently DDR5) and remain the same whether it is soldered or modular.
> The SSD is reasonably considered to last the "lifetime" of the product
Except for simply running of out drive space.
So if you want to buy something and have it last 5+ years you need to spec it out from the start to have way more drive space than you think you'll ever use.
Or else when it runs out and you really need that extra space you're forced to upgrade everything in order to get the extra space since you made an initial mistake in specing out the machine when you first bought it.
(I also strongly question the idea that un-removability provides much better lifetime over simply removing the spinning parts. That seems of questionable benefit to the end user, while taking upgradability away creates planned obsolescence that increases someone's financial metrics at apple and takes away consumer freedom).
Except for simply running of out drive space.
So if you want to buy something and have it last 5+ years you need to spec it out from the start to have way more drive space than you think you'll ever use.
Or else when it runs out and you really need that extra space you're forced to upgrade everything in order to get the extra space since you made an initial mistake in specing out the machine when you first bought it.
(I also strongly question the idea that un-removability provides much better lifetime over simply removing the spinning parts. That seems of questionable benefit to the end user, while taking upgradability away creates planned obsolescence that increases someone's financial metrics at apple and takes away consumer freedom).
> Except for simply running of out drive space.
> So if you want to buy something and have it last 5+ years you need to spec it out from the start to have way more drive space than you think you'll ever use.
Yup. When I bought my MBP M1 2020, I foolishly went with 256GB of storage.
Installed Xcode and that was like 15GB of available storage space gone right then and there. The simulators take another few GB on top of that.
Add to that all of the other software that I use, another significant portion of storage space is taken.
And with my own files on top, I routinely have only about 10-15 GB of available space out of the 256 GB, which is quite annoying. And it also means not being able to install some stuff that I use only sometimes, because with the limited amount of space I have I cannot waste it on things that I only rarely use. But that means I don’t get to use those things at all unfortunately.
Not being able to do anything about this is about the only gripe I have with this machine. So all in all I am still very happy with it. But not as happy as I would’ve been if I wasn’t constantly running out of storage space.
And I even thought I was giving myself enough room for everything, because my previous computer was a MacBook Air 2018 model with 128GB storage, where I was also running out of space all the time, so even though I really wanted to buy the 1TB model of MBP M1 2020 I landed on the 256GB thinking that hey it’s still twice what I had so it should be enough right. Well, no, not quite enough as it soon turned out.
> So if you want to buy something and have it last 5+ years you need to spec it out from the start to have way more drive space than you think you'll ever use.
Yup. When I bought my MBP M1 2020, I foolishly went with 256GB of storage.
Installed Xcode and that was like 15GB of available storage space gone right then and there. The simulators take another few GB on top of that.
Add to that all of the other software that I use, another significant portion of storage space is taken.
And with my own files on top, I routinely have only about 10-15 GB of available space out of the 256 GB, which is quite annoying. And it also means not being able to install some stuff that I use only sometimes, because with the limited amount of space I have I cannot waste it on things that I only rarely use. But that means I don’t get to use those things at all unfortunately.
Not being able to do anything about this is about the only gripe I have with this machine. So all in all I am still very happy with it. But not as happy as I would’ve been if I wasn’t constantly running out of storage space.
And I even thought I was giving myself enough room for everything, because my previous computer was a MacBook Air 2018 model with 128GB storage, where I was also running out of space all the time, so even though I really wanted to buy the 1TB model of MBP M1 2020 I landed on the 256GB thinking that hey it’s still twice what I had so it should be enough right. Well, no, not quite enough as it soon turned out.
Yeah I just ordered a 16" MBP M1 and my math was that I routinely run with about 1TB of storage with a lot of fussiness, I would have ordered 2TB, but since it isn't upgradeable I ordered 4TB.
That made someone's numbers at apple like $400 better at least.
And it would probably be better for me financially to wait 4-5 years until I really needed 4TB before upgrading (if I ever needed to, which I might not).
Same thing with RAM. 16GB is proving to simply not be quite enough, so I would have gone with 32GB, but instead I went for 64GB for future-proofing.
I'd much rather have bought 32GB now, and then upgraded to 64GB maybe multiple years down the road when I needed it.
That made someone's numbers at apple like $400 better at least.
And it would probably be better for me financially to wait 4-5 years until I really needed 4TB before upgrading (if I ever needed to, which I might not).
Same thing with RAM. 16GB is proving to simply not be quite enough, so I would have gone with 32GB, but instead I went for 64GB for future-proofing.
I'd much rather have bought 32GB now, and then upgraded to 64GB maybe multiple years down the road when I needed it.
FWIW, a 4TB SSD with the same speed (7GB/sec) is currently $1200 ($750 more than the 2TB). So Apple's price is decent for the current market.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08Q54GHTC/
I'm certainly not enthused about being stuck with current market capacities, but at least I don't feel gouged on price.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08Q54GHTC/
I'm certainly not enthused about being stuck with current market capacities, but at least I don't feel gouged on price.
Yeah but I don't need a 4TB SSD right now. I barely need a 2TB.
At least that extra free space will ensure you have optimal speed (SSD's slow down writes when they close to capacity) and prolong the lifetime of the drive (less write cycles per cell), so it's not for nothing.
I have 2TB of data but use a 1 TB drive and let the OS leave a bunch of files in the cloud, the one I don’t use.
Unless for some reason your vendor (Lenovo) has decided to stick a second M.2 slot in your laptop model and you can just buy an expansion drive in a couple of years when they're cheaper without having to swap out your old one. That was one of the nicer surprises about the ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 2. I'm guessing you can get a configuration that uses both slots from the start, but I didn't see it when I bought mine.
Yup. I just got a M1 Max with the 32-core GPU, 64GB of RAM, etc. The only area I cheaped out, relatively speaking, was with storage. Where I kept it at 1TB. I sort of regret this now (despite having a 2TB SSD in my iMac, a 2TB SSD in my gaming PC, several 1TB external SSDs, and a NAS with 24TB all in my home), but after spending over $4300 with tax/Apple Care, I just couldn't stomach a $400 upsell. But I spent $4300 in the hopes that this will be a five year laptop. I think I'll be fine as far as storage goes, since so much of what I do is on clouds anyway, but I am already having minor "what if" pangs, since I can't upgrade the SSD.
> it is now impossible to brick the system with a bad BIOS/EFI flash
I had to flash the T2 to do a Bug Sur update on my 2018 Mac Mini a couple weeks ago. The flash failed and bricked the machine.
Sent the machine in for service and the entire logic board was replaced under warranty, the machine was at least 2 years out of warranty as far as I know. This makes me think failed flashes are a known issue?
I had to flash the T2 to do a Bug Sur update on my 2018 Mac Mini a couple weeks ago. The flash failed and bricked the machine.
Sent the machine in for service and the entire logic board was replaced under warranty, the machine was at least 2 years out of warranty as far as I know. This makes me think failed flashes are a known issue?
This seems absurd to me, yeah ok the SSD failing could be indicative of a bigger issue. But also now if any single component required to boot the machine fails then I also lose my data.
We've turned several potential failure points resulting in data loss into almost every component on the board failing resulting in data loss.
We all know how much they charge for a full board replacement though and why this change will reflect well in Tim Cook's charts.
We've turned several potential failure points resulting in data loss into almost every component on the board failing resulting in data loss.
We all know how much they charge for a full board replacement though and why this change will reflect well in Tim Cook's charts.
I think that getting people to understand that regular backup are necessary when physical things, that exist around water, other humans, and electricity, are involved, is an impossible task that usually ends in tears.
If you don't back up your data outside of a single entity, you will lose that data eventually.
iCloud is the obvious choice for critical data, within the Apple ecosystem. Outside of one of the cloud services, it's the good old method of having some form of archival media to keep it on, which was the whole draw of the cloud services, when they first came out.
If you don't back up your data outside of a single entity, you will lose that data eventually.
iCloud is the obvious choice for critical data, within the Apple ecosystem. Outside of one of the cloud services, it's the good old method of having some form of archival media to keep it on, which was the whole draw of the cloud services, when they first came out.
As experienced technical people we know that users will never grasp that no matter how many times we tell them, we’ll still be getting handed laptops that can’t boot and the “my only copy of my photos are on there, can you get them off?”
this is like telling someone that if they lose their keys, or if a light bulb inside their house goes bad, they will lose their house and all their possessions, and then say 'you should insure everything you own'.
Its a ridiculous decision by Apple made purely for profit
Its a ridiculous decision by Apple made purely for profit
I'm sorry, but storage devices have a failure rate of exactly 100%. They always have, and always will. Sometimes spontaneously, sometimes slowly. This has never had anything to do with Apple.
The correct approach to data integrity is backups, not trying to scrape bits from something that smoke has escaped from.
If your data is on a single device, you will eventually lose that data. Some people haven't experienced it yet, but it's a known truth that whole industries have processes around.
The correct approach to data integrity is backups, not trying to scrape bits from something that smoke has escaped from.
If your data is on a single device, you will eventually lose that data. Some people haven't experienced it yet, but it's a known truth that whole industries have processes around.
> This setup has a benefit; namely, it is now impossible to brick the system with a bad BIOS/EFI flash, and you'll never need to use a hardware SPI flasher to recover.
T2 could have been designed to store / recover the rom in an SPI flash too. It's just cheaper to store it on the SSD
T2 could have been designed to store / recover the rom in an SPI flash too. It's just cheaper to store it on the SSD
Or, in case of failure, just enable loading the fricking EFI bios from an alternative source. It's amazing the kind of nonsense people write because it's an Apple thing - machines have been able to boot diskless for very obvious reasons and requirements ever since the 8 MiB memory chip, but in 2021 we should go without that?
The amount of justifications for horrid design and engineering choices always touches the extremes when it's about Apple products.
> whatever failure damaged the SSD is statistically likely to compromise the reliability of the rest of the board
I don't believe it. I've had several SSDs fail, and the rest of the system was fine in every case. SSDs can fail for lots of reasons. My wife's laptop had an SSD fail (Hynix). Unclear why it failed but the laptop was less than 2 years old. SSDs have super complicated firmware on them and can get in a permanently bricked state after sudden loss of power (for example). I swapped her SSD out with a WD one and it's been good now for 5+ years.
I don't believe it. I've had several SSDs fail, and the rest of the system was fine in every case. SSDs can fail for lots of reasons. My wife's laptop had an SSD fail (Hynix). Unclear why it failed but the laptop was less than 2 years old. SSDs have super complicated firmware on them and can get in a permanently bricked state after sudden loss of power (for example). I swapped her SSD out with a WD one and it's been good now for 5+ years.
> since whatever failure damaged the SSD is statistically likely to compromise the reliability of the rest of the board
That's a pretty big assumption.
The SSD is the component that is most likely to fail next to the battery.
So effectively this makes the lifetime of the computer the lifetime of the SSD, which is just one shade away from planned obsolescence due to the write limitations of SSDs.
edit: ChuckNorris89 wrote pretty much the same but four hours earlier.
That's a pretty big assumption.
The SSD is the component that is most likely to fail next to the battery.
So effectively this makes the lifetime of the computer the lifetime of the SSD, which is just one shade away from planned obsolescence due to the write limitations of SSDs.
edit: ChuckNorris89 wrote pretty much the same but four hours earlier.
This seems like a failure on a part of M1 systems rather than the T2 chip. I have an intel Macbook Air with the T2 chip for touchid, and I have a bootcamp partition that I boot off of via an external ssd over usb3 no problem.
I think the article is talking about when the internal drive is physically damaged/not working, and not just simple USB booting. USB booting is definitely supported on M1 Macs since I did it last week, but I don't have a machine with an actually broken SSD to test with.
It can be observed that even T2 systems will fail to power up the Intel CPU system if the BridgeOS cannot be read properly. The system will only power up the T2 until it is reflashed through Apple Configurator.
It can be observed that even T2 systems will fail to power up the Intel CPU system if the BridgeOS cannot be read properly. The system will only power up the T2 until it is reflashed through Apple Configurator.
Note that AS Macs still support external boot, just not when the internal drive is dead, since booting relies on the iBoot volume stored on the internal drive.
The article is only saying if the internal drive fails, you can't boot off an external drive, not that you can't boot off an external drive at all.
>This setup has a benefit; namely, it is now impossible to brick the system with a bad BIOS/EFI flash
It is now however possible to brick the system with a failed disk drive, which is vastly more likely
It is now however possible to brick the system with a failed disk drive, which is vastly more likely
>This kind of failure (high voltage parts close to low voltage ones, close to liquid damage prone areas, without any underfilling) is documented by Louis Rossmann. It is, however, not always feasible or possible to entirely prevent.
Why not feasible or possible? Laptops are not even used in any harsh conditions at all, they die off on the most minuscule water ingress. Take a washing machine - full of electronics with proper power lines and microprocessors - lots and lots of vibration and humidity. While washing machine PCBs tend to be silicone potted for instance, yet conformal coating goes a very long way compared to bare copper and solder joints. Putting high voltage power lines next to lower one is a rookie mistake, every single wall charger has an air gap between primary and secondary (or at least it should) and decent creepage distance. Alternatively they could have added protection devices (e.g. MOVs, diodes) to clamp down the voltages.
Why not feasible or possible? Laptops are not even used in any harsh conditions at all, they die off on the most minuscule water ingress. Take a washing machine - full of electronics with proper power lines and microprocessors - lots and lots of vibration and humidity. While washing machine PCBs tend to be silicone potted for instance, yet conformal coating goes a very long way compared to bare copper and solder joints. Putting high voltage power lines next to lower one is a rookie mistake, every single wall charger has an air gap between primary and secondary (or at least it should) and decent creepage distance. Alternatively they could have added protection devices (e.g. MOVs, diodes) to clamp down the voltages.
I think the benefit is marginal since compared to harddrives bios flash memory almost never fails and recovery solutions for a bad update are readily available. So this sounds like a bad excuse again.
I work on embedded systems and even the really cheap memory never fails on quantity of thousands of devices if it isn't regularly written to. I has become extremely reliable. Self-checks are still in place of course.
In any case it should not prevent external booting or if it does Apple should just supply the needed files for sensible restore options.
I work on embedded systems and even the really cheap memory never fails on quantity of thousands of devices if it isn't regularly written to. I has become extremely reliable. Self-checks are still in place of course.
In any case it should not prevent external booting or if it does Apple should just supply the needed files for sensible restore options.
> This setup has a benefit; namely, it is now impossible to brick the system with a bad BIOS/EFI flash, and you'll never need to use a hardware SPI flasher to recover.
Apple-branded SSD module failures are pretty common. Bricked BIOS/EFI images are not.
I've been supporting Mac users for two decades and the only time I've used a hardware SPI flasher was when I needed to pull my firmware image, modify the EFI bootloader to include NVME drivers, and flash it back. It wasn't hard. I attached a clip to the motherboard that connected the chip to a Raspberry Pi.
Seriously, my first mac was an LC. I've never seen a Mac brick itself doing a firmware update.
I had to do that because my Apple SSD died about 5 years into owning the system. That system uses an m2 PCIe port but it's a weird pinout. Apple doesn't sell parts, the local apple authorized shop wanted $250 just for diagnostics, the only thing on ebay were used drives of the same and, and only one company makes an overpriced replacement aftermarket drive for Apple's weird pre-NVME pcie storage connector and they have compatibility issues, underperform compared to much cheaper standard NVME drives, etc.
Thankfully, you can plug in a standard NVME drive via a $10 adapter from ebay.
I was back in business for a fraction of what a used 512GB Apple drive would have cost me, with twice the storage and even more speed over the already fast Apple module. But I had to pull NVME drivers from a later revision of the system and flash them to my ROM.
What pisses me off the most in the whole thing is that Samsung and Apple designed the drive such that when it runs out of write cycles, it completely fails; it doesn't even show up on the PCIe bus.
I'm typing this now on that very system, which is now almost exactly 8 years old. Do you think there will be 8 year old T2 macs? Not if they see daily use.
Repeat after me: user storage for a computer should never be permanently attached.
> This kind of failure (high voltage parts close to low voltage ones, close to liquid damage prone areas, without any underfilling) is documented by Louis Rossmann.
> It is, however, not always feasible or possible to entirely prevent.
It is 100% feasible/possible to entirely prevent.
Don't permanently attach storage on non-mobile devices.
Use conformal coating, something Apple could definitely afford to do with their profit margin on these machines. Even if they just coated the high voltage stuff. In fact, there's no reason T2 mac owners can't buy a can of conformal spray off Digikey or Mouser and do it themselves.
Don't put high voltage components near low voltage ones; especially ones that have user data and are non-replaceable. There's a reason Apple used to have a board for the DC input.
Every T2 mac has a finite lifetime before it becomes completely useless scrap thanks to SSD wear. And it's even worse for the M1 people because reportedly they do a great job of wearing out their SSDs.
This isn't about boot flash reliability or tiny increments in security-for-user-privacy. It's about slowly walling everyone in. Every new update of MacOS, every new hardware update - has put another brick in the wall.
Apple-branded SSD module failures are pretty common. Bricked BIOS/EFI images are not.
I've been supporting Mac users for two decades and the only time I've used a hardware SPI flasher was when I needed to pull my firmware image, modify the EFI bootloader to include NVME drivers, and flash it back. It wasn't hard. I attached a clip to the motherboard that connected the chip to a Raspberry Pi.
Seriously, my first mac was an LC. I've never seen a Mac brick itself doing a firmware update.
I had to do that because my Apple SSD died about 5 years into owning the system. That system uses an m2 PCIe port but it's a weird pinout. Apple doesn't sell parts, the local apple authorized shop wanted $250 just for diagnostics, the only thing on ebay were used drives of the same and, and only one company makes an overpriced replacement aftermarket drive for Apple's weird pre-NVME pcie storage connector and they have compatibility issues, underperform compared to much cheaper standard NVME drives, etc.
Thankfully, you can plug in a standard NVME drive via a $10 adapter from ebay.
I was back in business for a fraction of what a used 512GB Apple drive would have cost me, with twice the storage and even more speed over the already fast Apple module. But I had to pull NVME drivers from a later revision of the system and flash them to my ROM.
What pisses me off the most in the whole thing is that Samsung and Apple designed the drive such that when it runs out of write cycles, it completely fails; it doesn't even show up on the PCIe bus.
I'm typing this now on that very system, which is now almost exactly 8 years old. Do you think there will be 8 year old T2 macs? Not if they see daily use.
Repeat after me: user storage for a computer should never be permanently attached.
> This kind of failure (high voltage parts close to low voltage ones, close to liquid damage prone areas, without any underfilling) is documented by Louis Rossmann.
> It is, however, not always feasible or possible to entirely prevent.
It is 100% feasible/possible to entirely prevent.
Don't permanently attach storage on non-mobile devices.
Use conformal coating, something Apple could definitely afford to do with their profit margin on these machines. Even if they just coated the high voltage stuff. In fact, there's no reason T2 mac owners can't buy a can of conformal spray off Digikey or Mouser and do it themselves.
Don't put high voltage components near low voltage ones; especially ones that have user data and are non-replaceable. There's a reason Apple used to have a board for the DC input.
Every T2 mac has a finite lifetime before it becomes completely useless scrap thanks to SSD wear. And it's even worse for the M1 people because reportedly they do a great job of wearing out their SSDs.
This isn't about boot flash reliability or tiny increments in security-for-user-privacy. It's about slowly walling everyone in. Every new update of MacOS, every new hardware update - has put another brick in the wall.
Some PC motherboards and laptops also have dual BIOSes/BIOS recovery[1] to prevent bricking. You can build a redundant system capable of surviving failures. Apple just doesn't want to spend the cost/volume of a couple 32Mbit roms, or however big iBoot is. Yes, simple is good, but it doesn't need to be this simple at the cost of longevity and upgradeability of the device.
Look at how much TLC NAND has improved in the last ~5 years, and ask yourself if QLC will improve as much. It probably will.
[1] https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000132453/how-to-re...
Look at how much TLC NAND has improved in the last ~5 years, and ask yourself if QLC will improve as much. It probably will.
[1] https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000132453/how-to-re...
》The primary argument against soldering the SSD, or really any other part, down like this tends to be that "Oh, now you can't just save money by upgrading it yourself|replacing it when it breaks
Are you trolling? The primary argument is data recovery. Anything on laptop can die: charging port, motherboard... With soldered ssd your data are gone! You need to resolder SSD into exact same machine type, it may take 5 weeks if you are lucky!
It takes 5 minutes to swap normal SSD into new machine and reboot! Maybe 1 hour if you have to go into shop!
Are you trolling? The primary argument is data recovery. Anything on laptop can die: charging port, motherboard... With soldered ssd your data are gone! You need to resolder SSD into exact same machine type, it may take 5 weeks if you are lucky!
It takes 5 minutes to swap normal SSD into new machine and reboot! Maybe 1 hour if you have to go into shop!
I don't see how data recovery is an issue. You should be backing up off-site and locally anyway. Why would you optimize for the specific case of most of the laptop dying but not the SSD? It's more likely your laptop will get stolen or lost or dunked in water or burned in a fire. The soldering will make no difference in that case. Use backups.
there is ZERO benefit to users of soldering an SSD or any other part. Its done purely for profit.
Stop conflating the issue with backups, the 2 have nothing to do with each other. Even if you take regular backups you can and will lose critical data when any $5 part on your $3-4k machine goes bad.
Amazing how far people will go to defend Apple.
Stop conflating the issue with backups, the 2 have nothing to do with each other. Even if you take regular backups you can and will lose critical data when any $5 part on your $3-4k machine goes bad.
Amazing how far people will go to defend Apple.
Given that the encryption keys for the SSD are stored in the Secure Enclave, moving the SSD elsewhere wouldn't do you any good anyway.
...and that's the second problem they created.
Disaster recovery is not a backup, nor should it supersede physical security in importance. Time Machine solves all of these problems.
For the vast majority of home users, disaster recovery does supersede physical security in importance.
It might, when it's too late. But it still shouldn't, because better options exist that prevent a disaster in the first place.
I think that can be disabled, or encryption key exported for backup.
Anyway, it is stupid argument. It is like saying car does not need spare tire, because wheels are welded to save 10 ounces on bolts.
Anyway, it is stupid argument. It is like saying car does not need spare tire, because wheels are welded to save 10 ounces on bolts.
>since whatever failure damaged the SSD is statistically likely to compromise the reliability of the rest of the board. Any failure is grounds for "rework" of the board on a hardware level if necessary,up to and including repair/replacement of the onboard flash, and not just a simple workaround in my opinion.
This is entirely unfounded. Storage units are expendable, but the rest of the system lasts a lot longer.
This is entirely unfounded. Storage units are expendable, but the rest of the system lasts a lot longer.
I don't understand. The majority of shitty ARM chips in the world come with immutable mask ROM that allows the system to bootload from something like USB. There is nothing you can write here that would make the current situation on Apple Silicon Macs not be an absolute embarrassment and design flaw.
>> and should it fail, I don't consider the inability to externally boot to be a huge problem
…the flying fuck?!
I stopped reading here. I was all for your comment until I heard this nonsense.
…in what world is this acceptable? What computer have you personally purchased between 1980-2010 that could not have had this core essential part simply replaced if it did not function correctly?
I’m not sorry for complaining; either. I’ve been used to the $2k-4k machines I invest in to have replaceable parts that I can fix in the city or town (that may not have an Apple Store) I am in without any excess effort or extended time.
This has been the standard for decades. It is not unreasonable to ask for an offering from this company whom I’ve almost exclusively purchased hardware from for more than 15 years.
It’s a fucking huge deal if I can’t simply boot from an external drive if my main one doesn’t work - mainly because the internal one can’t be replaced!
I mean; I get defending Apple - I’m in their camp - but this is just absolute nonsense. Yes. That’s a huge fucking deal. A deal-breaker; even.
…the flying fuck?!
I stopped reading here. I was all for your comment until I heard this nonsense.
…in what world is this acceptable? What computer have you personally purchased between 1980-2010 that could not have had this core essential part simply replaced if it did not function correctly?
I’m not sorry for complaining; either. I’ve been used to the $2k-4k machines I invest in to have replaceable parts that I can fix in the city or town (that may not have an Apple Store) I am in without any excess effort or extended time.
This has been the standard for decades. It is not unreasonable to ask for an offering from this company whom I’ve almost exclusively purchased hardware from for more than 15 years.
It’s a fucking huge deal if I can’t simply boot from an external drive if my main one doesn’t work - mainly because the internal one can’t be replaced!
I mean; I get defending Apple - I’m in their camp - but this is just absolute nonsense. Yes. That’s a huge fucking deal. A deal-breaker; even.
I don't see why maintaining past expectations is such an important design consideration as you're making it out to be. Expectations change as needs change. Do you still expect to be able to replace your BIOS flash chip, or the controller on your HDD?
Furthermore, do you really believe it's a realistic scenario that a customer would be buying a top-of-the-line flagship device for which portability is a main selling feature, only to be carrying around some aftermarket storage everywhere to boot it with when it begins to fail?
Furthermore, do you really believe it's a realistic scenario that a customer would be buying a top-of-the-line flagship device for which portability is a main selling feature, only to be carrying around some aftermarket storage everywhere to boot it with when it begins to fail?
I want to get my job done! When I have had a drive fail in the past, I boot off my periodic clone drive and keep going. With the no external boot scenario, I have to keep a backup computer rather than a backup drive.
I don't travel constantly, just occasionally. I am typically close to my external clone. If I was going to be on extended travel, yes, I would bring the external clone SSD with me.
I don't travel constantly, just occasionally. I am typically close to my external clone. If I was going to be on extended travel, yes, I would bring the external clone SSD with me.
The software fails before the hardware with apple products in my experience.
I have an ipod touch 16GB from 2013, that I still use to play music, and itunes still supports it. But I can't browse the internet on it.
Consider options like Framework laptops that let you actually own your hardware, and repair it.
Silly idea in tech, the hardware will be long outdated before someone look for parts which are going to be overpriced, and the company might be gone forever. You can buy common business laptops such as thinkpad and swap the parts easily and cheaply. People aren’t swapping their 2011 i3 for a 2011 i7 if they care about performance; they’re getting an i5 from 2018.
None of these swappable parts are unique aside from the processor (mine is soldered), I can replace all my parts and my laptop cost under $200.
None of these swappable parts are unique aside from the processor (mine is soldered), I can replace all my parts and my laptop cost under $200.
I disagree. My thinkpad x230t is still going strong nearly 10 years later (extreme example). With 16GB of ram and an SSD it's still a decently capable machine.
If you're the type of person that needs the _fastest_ computer then yeah obviously you're upgrading every year. Or if you work on large codebases, etc.
But if you don't care about that, you can easily go 4+ years with your laptop. Yes computers have gotten faster, but the internet is still usable on a 10 year old machine.
I've replaced my battery once already, but consider your keyboard/screen are likely things to break at any point in time with accidents.
And we're comparing this to apple, a company that has been basically DRM'ing components - even if you can buy the replacement you can't use it without it being "programmed" by apple.
EDIT: Also note that the bare minimum models from 10 years ago are likely too slow nowadays, I mean to compare this to the medium-upper range devices of the time, potentially with relatively low cost upgrades like an SSD.
If you're the type of person that needs the _fastest_ computer then yeah obviously you're upgrading every year. Or if you work on large codebases, etc.
But if you don't care about that, you can easily go 4+ years with your laptop. Yes computers have gotten faster, but the internet is still usable on a 10 year old machine.
I've replaced my battery once already, but consider your keyboard/screen are likely things to break at any point in time with accidents.
And we're comparing this to apple, a company that has been basically DRM'ing components - even if you can buy the replacement you can't use it without it being "programmed" by apple.
EDIT: Also note that the bare minimum models from 10 years ago are likely too slow nowadays, I mean to compare this to the medium-upper range devices of the time, potentially with relatively low cost upgrades like an SSD.
I still use a ThinkPad T420 running Linux for some projects. It's a tank, practically everything is replaceable (unlike in my MBP, which has already had one Butterfly Keyboard failure...) and Sandy Bridge CPUs are honestly still modern enough that I'd honestly say most complaints about modernity are artificial consumerist nonsense.
We're at the point where computers, cars and phones are good enough and commoditized to the point where they should be lasting 10+ years. Instead, we're moving toward a 4-year maximum with everything sealed up and soldered, so you can throw it on the e-waste pile and replace it to keep "infinite" growth chugging. The iMac is particularly offensive.
What Foundation is doing should be the norm, by law.
We're at the point where computers, cars and phones are good enough and commoditized to the point where they should be lasting 10+ years. Instead, we're moving toward a 4-year maximum with everything sealed up and soldered, so you can throw it on the e-waste pile and replace it to keep "infinite" growth chugging. The iMac is particularly offensive.
What Foundation is doing should be the norm, by law.
> ...and Sandy Bridge CPUs are honestly still modern enough that I'd honestly say most complaints about modernity are artificial consumerist nonsense.
Just because you don't personally see any benefit to the advancements being made doesn't mean others don't. They're certainly still performant enough to be useful but even something like h.264 decoding puts a huge strain on my haswell laptop, which is a trivial task to newer ones thanks to advancements in chips. This isn't even an uncommon task. Anyone who watches videos online probably benefits from this, especially when it comes to laptops which are concerned with battery life.
> We're at the point where computers, cars and phones are good enough and commoditized to the point where they should be lasting 10+ years.
Cars do last 10+ years. I'm driving around in a 17 year old vehicle and it works just fine. But I don't think that means we should halt all progress in vehicles. It's still using gasoline and not running on electric motors, after all. At some point down the road perhaps we'll see commoditization of batteries in the auto industry but that's not where we're at today, where the vast majority of vehicles on the road still run on gas.
> Instead, we're moving toward a 4-year maximum with everything sealed up and soldered, so you can throw it on the e-waste pile and replace it to keep "infinite" growth chugging. The iMac is particularly offensive.
If the iMac is offensive to you, then don't buy it. All these environmental arguments on this website always come off as extremely disingenuous when they pair it with their solution being imposing restrictions rather than creating a superior product.
> What Foundation is doing should be the norm, by law.
I can't stand these authoritarian takes. No one is forcing you to partake and there are options available to people that hold certain ideologies. The idea that you must impose that on everyone by law is absurd.
Just because you don't personally see any benefit to the advancements being made doesn't mean others don't. They're certainly still performant enough to be useful but even something like h.264 decoding puts a huge strain on my haswell laptop, which is a trivial task to newer ones thanks to advancements in chips. This isn't even an uncommon task. Anyone who watches videos online probably benefits from this, especially when it comes to laptops which are concerned with battery life.
> We're at the point where computers, cars and phones are good enough and commoditized to the point where they should be lasting 10+ years.
Cars do last 10+ years. I'm driving around in a 17 year old vehicle and it works just fine. But I don't think that means we should halt all progress in vehicles. It's still using gasoline and not running on electric motors, after all. At some point down the road perhaps we'll see commoditization of batteries in the auto industry but that's not where we're at today, where the vast majority of vehicles on the road still run on gas.
> Instead, we're moving toward a 4-year maximum with everything sealed up and soldered, so you can throw it on the e-waste pile and replace it to keep "infinite" growth chugging. The iMac is particularly offensive.
If the iMac is offensive to you, then don't buy it. All these environmental arguments on this website always come off as extremely disingenuous when they pair it with their solution being imposing restrictions rather than creating a superior product.
> What Foundation is doing should be the norm, by law.
I can't stand these authoritarian takes. No one is forcing you to partake and there are options available to people that hold certain ideologies. The idea that you must impose that on everyone by law is absurd.
>even something like h.264 decoding puts a huge strain on my haswell laptop.
I never had that problem even before haswell. They have hardware decoding built in, thats probably caused by another issue. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Hardware_video_acceleration
I agree about not enforcing viewpoints on others. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
I never had that problem even before haswell. They have hardware decoding built in, thats probably caused by another issue. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Hardware_video_acceleration
I agree about not enforcing viewpoints on others. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Apologies, I think I may be thinking of h.265 and vp9. At any rate, the point is that particular laptop cannot play back any youtube video beyond 720p30 without protesting. very loudly.
This is a tangential question. I adore my Thinkpad x230t but it has a whopping ~1 hour battery life at this point. Do you leave yours permanently plugged in or do you have some sort of modern battery solution for our ancient beast with an amazing keyboard?
You can hack the bios to remove the DRM and use 2012 aftermarket batteries, or replace the cells. I dumped my x230, not worth the horribly priced aftermarket (if you break your screen it’s almost as expensive as another laptop and you’ll need to repair it). I love my newer x250 with no DRM for WiFi, 2x SSD slots, cheap batteries that can hotswap, cheaper 1080p IPS replacement screens, and 11hr+ battery life. The x230 already lost the classic keyboard, the new one is fine, and the speakers are retardedly still on the bottom but it’s much louder.
Ah yeah, the unlock to do this is called "1vyrain", right? https://github.com/n4ru/1vyrain/ Friend was telling me about it as he accidentally ordered a non-Lenovo battery and was considering sending it back but also considering trying this "unlock".
That looks very nice, before you had to flash the bios yourself, I never heard of it. I just got lazy and never flashed the bios, I'll set time to use this. Makes the battery replacement much less painful, thank you!
No problem! Yeah it looks a bit scary to me so I'll only try it if I can really dedicate some time and focus on it, and only if I really want to install the mod. I think this same mod is needed if you want to use X220 keyboard on the X230.
Thinking of how the MNT Reform designed their battery solution[0], I wonder if it's possible to build a "battery enclosure" where you can just drop in a bunch of LiFePo4 cells, so you can just purchase commodity batteries. It seems super wasteful to buy a complete new battery every time because it's just the cells inside that lose energy capacity...
[0] https://mntre.com/reform2/handbook/parts.html#battery-packs
[0] https://mntre.com/reform2/handbook/parts.html#battery-packs
Wonder what the benefit of battery packs are? Why not just have 18650s directly insert into the laptop?
I've had the same issue, I've replaced the battery once but I've found that if you're running any type of workload then ~1 hour is the best you can hope for. Luckily I rarely need it mobile for more then an hour, but I might look into modding the battery.
That's the reason I jumped to the T430. Same CPU, but can get a 70++ battery for 6-9 hours worth of battery, but kinda the same concept. The only bad thing, you need to mod the keyboard for an t420 for the vintage thinkpad experience.
I ended up just buying a new battery for my t540p. I was reluctant to because I didn't think it could possibly last much longer with the abuse it's been subjected to, but, it's still going strong a year later.
They’re so much cheaper than the 2013 ones. I love the new battery platform.
I just carry spare batteries in my bag and swap them as needed. I'm hoping to be able to do the same with my next phone.
Coincidentally I just bought a ThinkPad X230T this past weekend and it's powered on next to me at this moment! It runs great. I actually bought a couple, and a regular X230. Such nice machines, and very repairable. I am observing the fate of modern computing and trying to get a few easily-repairable machines to hopefully last a long time, rather than weird difficult-to-repair stuff. I have absolutely zero interest in brand new machines that are increasingly locked down with impossible-to-repair and "you don't really own this computer" features.
The X230 was having some weird power/sensor issue so I ordered a replacement motherboard for like $40 CAD in case it dies. It could be years before I need it, but like, this stuff costs peanuts and I am so much more comfortable using a computer I know I can easily maintain (and has excellent performance to boot).
The X230 was having some weird power/sensor issue so I ordered a replacement motherboard for like $40 CAD in case it dies. It could be years before I need it, but like, this stuff costs peanuts and I am so much more comfortable using a computer I know I can easily maintain (and has excellent performance to boot).
I highly suggest you return them since the upkeep is very expensive. The repairs for screens is ridiculous, the batteries are horrible (the x220 has more longevity since the bios is DRM free), the cards are on a whitelist (only approved ones allowed). It is so bad I have some that are in disrepair until I can find parts for them again. The x240 to x270 will have modern parts that are cheap, the batteries internal and external are under $30, the screen aren't almost/more than the price of the same laptop. The TN screens on the x230 may not break, but you won't be happy using them, and to modify it with modern parts needs an expensive $60 screen adapter, and you can't control the backlight. The x250 is the best since there is no wifi whitelist, unofficial screens are fine in linux, the trackpad is good by default, and the battery market is so good sometimes they give you 2 6 cells instead of one, whereas the x230 ones are now going for $80.
Ah yeah, luckily the X230T I will mostly only use plugged in. I do agree, the energy efficiency (and battery cost) is one criticism of mine. That said, I'm not too worried about WLAN allowlist since I can supposedly remove that with 1vyrain (same with battery allowlist), if I even cared about it. Same with displays, the TN in the X230 is pretty sub-par but totally fine for me. Yeah, for now stuff is pretty easily available here, but I wonder how long that will last. Lots of people selling these machines for parts, so I can totally hoard some extra stuff if I want to... haha
With the cheaper batteries it’s still only an ok usage if you already have it. Official batteries will cost the same as the unofficial ones for these older devices and the screens remain expensive, and there aren’t any good IPS ones. If you don’t care about it being used as a laptop you can replace them with screens that are larger in size, but it won’t close properly anymore. I personally never looked back since the x250 was better in every way, the default screen is IPS.
>And we're comparing this to apple, a company that has been basically DRM'ing components - even if you can buy the replacement you can't use it without it being "programmed" by apple.
Bit of a devil's advocate here, but by doing this they prevent themselves getting blamed when low quality replacement parts are cranked out on the cheap by companies who don't care if their customers' customers die in a fire.
The headline if an iPhone with a third party battery exploding and injuring someone will be "This iPhone Exploded, You Won't Believe Her Injuries", not "iPhone with Knock Off Battery Explodes".
Apple wouldn't be as profitable as they are if they weren't anticipating things like this and planning for it years in advance.
Bit of a devil's advocate here, but by doing this they prevent themselves getting blamed when low quality replacement parts are cranked out on the cheap by companies who don't care if their customers' customers die in a fire.
The headline if an iPhone with a third party battery exploding and injuring someone will be "This iPhone Exploded, You Won't Believe Her Injuries", not "iPhone with Knock Off Battery Explodes".
Apple wouldn't be as profitable as they are if they weren't anticipating things like this and planning for it years in advance.
On the other hand, my x200t, which isn't that much older, is minimally functional for the web and is effectively nonfunctional for YouTube.
I keep it around because it works as a kiosk in my recording studio, but that's about it.
I keep it around because it works as a kiosk in my recording studio, but that's about it.
mpv with --script-opts=ytdl_hook-ytdl_path=yt-dlp allows to watch Youtube videos with a fraction of the system load that Youtube demands in a browser.
That's a neat trick, thanks! That said--I want to use a browser, because that's how to get to the thing in the way with the least friction. So while in a pinch that definitely helps, it's not (to me) reasonable for daily use, which constrains the internet usage on that machine a lot.
Yeah, the manual way is certainly the long way around, though there are (or used to be, anyway) addons for Firefox to directly send Youtube and friends to mpv. Another snag is that you can't directly switch between video qualities, though you can put --ytdl-format into the config with the appropriate formats for your screen size.
The only issues I’ve run into with older laptops are limited wifi speed/range, the inability to decode HD video streams efficiently, and battery life, which is mostly solved by a new battery, though efficiency isn’t always great with older devices.
The heat is terrible too. You had no heat issues? All the laptops I had will cook you alive if you tried using them on your lap.
That is because laptop is a misnomer. While technically possible, most of them have some sort of vents for either air intake or outlet there. Which is then blocked. And makes it cook. Even if they vent backwards/sideways only, they still cook because the little free space between bottom and table(or whatever surface) is still blocked.
You agree with all my points and the fact we both have thinkpads, what do you disagree with?
The thinkpads esp batteries from 2013 suck them most. DRM, and expensive, 2012 has no DRM and 2014 and up has way cheaper aftermarket.
The thinkpads esp batteries from 2013 suck them most. DRM, and expensive, 2012 has no DRM and 2014 and up has way cheaper aftermarket.
It's not just about upgrades, in fact it's not even mainly about upgrades. It's about being able to understand the machine, repairing it when necessary and ultimately being able to rely on it. Otherwise your device might be a candidate for the bin after the warranty expired, which can be surprisingly quick.
> a candidate for the bin after the warranty expired, which can be surprisingly quick
All my all Macs sold for great value after I was done with them or got a better one, even with an expired guarantee. It took like a week or two to sell them. I'm still stuck with Thinkpads because the used market is shit.
My last Thinkpad I got kinda impulsively as a workstation for Ableton is my deepest regret. It was a year ago, the Intel MacBooks where not cutting it, it's a great machine and was like 2600 and now I want to go back to an M1 MacBook Pro and it's impossible to sell it anywhere, I feel I just threw away money. A four year old MacBook Pro is worth more on the Apple exchange program than my Thinkpad, it's really sad.
All my all Macs sold for great value after I was done with them or got a better one, even with an expired guarantee. It took like a week or two to sell them. I'm still stuck with Thinkpads because the used market is shit.
My last Thinkpad I got kinda impulsively as a workstation for Ableton is my deepest regret. It was a year ago, the Intel MacBooks where not cutting it, it's a great machine and was like 2600 and now I want to go back to an M1 MacBook Pro and it's impossible to sell it anywhere, I feel I just threw away money. A four year old MacBook Pro is worth more on the Apple exchange program than my Thinkpad, it's really sad.
Which one did you get?
It's a P53 with 32gb ram, 1tb SSD, an i7-9750H and a Quadro. It's a beast. It smokes my one year newer similar MacBook Pro because it actually runs at clock rate because it doesn't get as hot. But no one wants it because it's a niche market to have an ugly workstation on your desk. If I could sell it for something like 1600 I would buy an M1 Mac in a brim but it's really though. They go from 600 to 900 on Craigslist, it's insane, I feel really dumb for buying it, a MacBook with half the RAM and SSD goes for 1400 to 1600 and the GPU sucks.
I'm thinking about plugging it to the TV and using it as a Steam console or something like that, my girlfriend games. But it's a fucking expensive console.
I'm thinking about plugging it to the TV and using it as a Steam console or something like that, my girlfriend games. But it's a fucking expensive console.
Install hackintosh on it and sell the MacBook.
Yeah it already runs Hackintosh. The MacBook is not mine, it's my work laptop. What I'm saying is instead of the Thinkpad if I had bought anything Apple with similar performance, like an iMac Pro or a Mini Pro, I would be up around 1000 and now that money just disappeared into nothingness because the used market for PCs suck.
This weird OCD obsession with wanting to be able to piece apart a device just like it's a car is just strange. The device is a complete package. You don't re-solder and reflash busted chips on a motherboard do you? So why do you want to be able to replace the higher level parts rather than the whole device?
This isn't like a desktop where all the parts are bought from different manufacturers and assembled by an OEM or by you. The laptop is a complete kit made by a single manufacturer.
This isn't like a desktop where all the parts are bought from different manufacturers and assembled by an OEM or by you. The laptop is a complete kit made by a single manufacturer.
But why does it have to be that way? They ship off-the-shelf RAM and SSDs in the Framework fully or partially assembled kits. They released CAD files and drawings for their module system. They actually sell replacement parts for other components, much like an OEM automaker does. If my touchpad dies I'd rather be able to swap it out with a new $100 part than buy a whole new $1500 laptop.
It's a new company and have not been tested yet in terms of backwards-compatibility and ongoing inventory. But just because you can't swap parts in most laptops doesn't really imply that you shouldn't be able to.
It's a new company and have not been tested yet in terms of backwards-compatibility and ongoing inventory. But just because you can't swap parts in most laptops doesn't really imply that you shouldn't be able to.
The thinkpad trackpads are $15 new. If you want to get repairable laptops just get business laptops.
Don’t be fooled by the marketing, many Dell, HP and Lenovo laptops have those benefits on top of a huge aftermarket which framework doesn’t have and can’t leverage. You can way cheaper buy a broken laptop of the same model and fix yours with it whereas framework will only have their niche market which won’t be cheaper.
Don’t be fooled by the marketing, many Dell, HP and Lenovo laptops have those benefits on top of a huge aftermarket which framework doesn’t have and can’t leverage. You can way cheaper buy a broken laptop of the same model and fix yours with it whereas framework will only have their niche market which won’t be cheaper.
Broke my t480s screen, found a replacement from a german online store, ordered it and it came to my address in croatia in a day or two. Went to a local repair shop and had it installed in less than 20 minutes. Imagine doing the same with a macbook, lol.
You can do it yourself next time in under 7 even for a first time. Its very easy. I did it in 3 minutes my first time.
I bought a T470 used, replaced RAM, SSD, display, battery, and now I’ve got 16GB DDR4-3200 RAM, 2TB NVMe SSD, a 1080p 400 nits 105% sRGB display, and over 20h battery life in performance mode. For 460€.
I put some of the old parts together with some old desktop SSD in my old E540 and gave it my gf, who previously used an x220 with upgraded SSD and RAM. The E540 already has a new display, too.
I do replace and change and upgrade all these parts to be able to use a cheap laptop over many years, just like I do with a desktop.
I put some of the old parts together with some old desktop SSD in my old E540 and gave it my gf, who previously used an x220 with upgraded SSD and RAM. The E540 already has a new display, too.
I do replace and change and upgrade all these parts to be able to use a cheap laptop over many years, just like I do with a desktop.
>This weird OCD obsession with wanting to be able to piece apart a device
suggesting that people who embrace "right to repair" have a psychopathology is the only psychological blindspot I see here.
wanting to enlarge your memory or your drive storage is completely normal in the present day as these devices increase in size dramatically well within the lifetime of a notebook computer
suggesting that people who embrace "right to repair" have a psychopathology is the only psychological blindspot I see here.
wanting to enlarge your memory or your drive storage is completely normal in the present day as these devices increase in size dramatically well within the lifetime of a notebook computer
> People aren’t swapping their 2011 i3 for a 2011 i7 if they care about performance
I beg to differ. I swapped my 2011 i5-2500k for a 2012 i7-3770 and it was a nice and cheap upgrade.
Used hardware is cheap, there is no reason to not upgrade it all the way.
I beg to differ. I swapped my 2011 i5-2500k for a 2012 i7-3770 and it was a nice and cheap upgrade.
Used hardware is cheap, there is no reason to not upgrade it all the way.
You’re really depending on your mobo to not blow a cap and using way more energy. A used older ryzen 5 is comparable and much better, and the mobos are current. Even a newer intel F processor isn’t much more the 3770K is way overpriced for its performance.
the 3770 was 30€ on ebay and given the rising TDP numbers on Intels latest desktop platforms, I really doubt it uses any more energy than a recent system.
"It's a silly idea in tech, my computer does the same thing".
Framework may not be for the purpose of upgrading a laptop incrementally for ten years, but it has the core competency of intending to let you repair every component of your laptop as needed, while having the profile of a slim but powerful machine. They are the anti-apple from that perspective.
Your $200 laptop is not as good as the Framework laptop. You either bought a Chromebook, or you bought used meaning someone else ate depreciation, or you're comparing apples to oranges.
Framework may not be for the purpose of upgrading a laptop incrementally for ten years, but it has the core competency of intending to let you repair every component of your laptop as needed, while having the profile of a slim but powerful machine. They are the anti-apple from that perspective.
Your $200 laptop is not as good as the Framework laptop. You either bought a Chromebook, or you bought used meaning someone else ate depreciation, or you're comparing apples to oranges.
I use a used business laptop. My programs don’t care if their being run off depreciated hardware. Even if you bought a new one you’d still have access to all these cheap replacement parts and common skus. It’s still better for replacing parts cheaply and easily.
If you want a repairable device for cheap, you aren’t going to buy new devices from new unknown companies that have a monopoly over the parts production. The aftermarket for iPhone batteries is so good it doesn’t matter if they’re proprietary batteries over open batteries nobody has. Even PinePhone piggybacks off Samsung batteries.
I'm using a MacBook Air 2015 and it's basically still a fast, perfectly usable machine. Quad core i7, 8GB RAM, SSD. However, I wish I could replace the battery, I wish the SSD was more easily upgradeable, and it would be nice to double the RAM.
Not to be overly pedantic, but Apple didn't release any quad-core MacBook Airs in 2015.(see https://support.apple.com/kb/sp714?locale=en_US) Intel didn't even have quad-core ULV CPUs available until late 2017-2018.
I only comment because the jump between dual & quad core is a pretty big one, as is the presumed jump to newer chips with 6, 8, and 16 core processors in modern machines.
Dual core has remained surprisingly usable for light tasking though. Whether it is a well-loved MacBook or a battle-scarred ThinkPad from that era, Intel's dual core CPUs have held up well (even if it means they didn't feel the need to push their CPU design as much in the subsequent years.)
I only comment because the jump between dual & quad core is a pretty big one, as is the presumed jump to newer chips with 6, 8, and 16 core processors in modern machines.
Dual core has remained surprisingly usable for light tasking though. Whether it is a well-loved MacBook or a battle-scarred ThinkPad from that era, Intel's dual core CPUs have held up well (even if it means they didn't feel the need to push their CPU design as much in the subsequent years.)
You're right this is a dual core, with two way hyperthreading, so 4 logical cores.
It is very easy to replace a 2015 MacBook Air battery:
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Early+2015+...
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Early+2015+...
We have a compute cluster made mainly of Westmere-generation Xeons from 2011, which has been the workhorse for research publications from our group for a decade. They are still running fine, the (non soldered, replaceable) ECC DRAM chips are failing before anything else.
Being able to replace memory and storage is very critical for anything that will see a lot of use. Both of these are certainly not "lifetime" items.
I never had to replace either, although I don't want them non replacable. External/cloud storage can take care of space, and memory corruption is a fear, but nothing I worry about, batteries are worst than both combined.
I don't think I ever had a single machine where I stayed with the storage it came with.
As for memory, DRAM doesn't really have a particularly long lifetime (iirc design life is something like 75k hours), and that certainly shows in servers - memory modules start to fail a lot after the four year mark. And here I don't think I ever had a machine where I didn't upgrade memory at least once.
As for memory, DRAM doesn't really have a particularly long lifetime (iirc design life is something like 75k hours), and that certainly shows in servers - memory modules start to fail a lot after the four year mark. And here I don't think I ever had a machine where I didn't upgrade memory at least once.
Mine came with a 500GB SSD, the older one I had I swapped it since it came with an HDD. I never had computer ram ever fail me, ever in my lifetime, have you? Unless you bought it with low specs, it isn't useful is it? I'd add ram to low spec computers, but my current one came with one slot and 8GB, no change to it for me.
> I never had computer ram ever fail me, ever in my lifetime, have you?
Yes.
Yes.
That sucks, I never once replaced failing ram, just low ram.
And the used 2011 i3, that wouldn't become garbage if it were repairable would get sold to someone less performance / price consciousness? Now it gets trashed.
Nope, nobody wants it. You can try to sell it though. People don’t want even a free processor that needs an expensive mobo they’ll need to buy our own when they can get a much better ryzen board and a cheap processor that will trounce it. Nobody wants these old processors, many are so useless they’re being drilled for keychains.
While I certainly can't speak for everyone - I've had a 2011 Dell Inspiron that I upgraded from the i5-2450m to an i7-2670qm a couple years ago. Additionally the RAM and HDD were upgraded/swapped for SSDs.
The computer now lives with my mom, who needs a simple but reliable device. The i5 was sold on ebay for a few bucks to some lad or lasse who may have needed it for a cheap laptop build. Decade old computers aren't vastly different from today in terms of day to day use. Capabilities and high performance is one thing, but using devices longer, and upgrading entire systems less frequently is both better for your wallet, and better for the environment.
The computer now lives with my mom, who needs a simple but reliable device. The i5 was sold on ebay for a few bucks to some lad or lasse who may have needed it for a cheap laptop build. Decade old computers aren't vastly different from today in terms of day to day use. Capabilities and high performance is one thing, but using devices longer, and upgrading entire systems less frequently is both better for your wallet, and better for the environment.
I agree, performance hasn’t changed much. But they’re relying on old motherboards which are way more fragile.
How often does your mother use that computer? Did the performance matter to her at all? Even if you swapped it back to the old i5 with the SSD I doubt much of a difference would be noticed.
How often does your mother use that computer? Did the performance matter to her at all? Even if you swapped it back to the old i5 with the SSD I doubt much of a difference would be noticed.
[deleted]
The other comment points it out correctly, no one wants it price conscious or not.
Between the fact that many of them work without issue for years, and the fact that an new equivalent to your 2011 i3 becomes exponentially cheaper over time, repairing it will never be worth it.
A Raspberry PI 4 is a functional computer but costs less than just the CPU of that i3 based machine while trouncing it in performance and power efficiency.
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i3-2100 https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/16396722
Between the fact that many of them work without issue for years, and the fact that an new equivalent to your 2011 i3 becomes exponentially cheaper over time, repairing it will never be worth it.
A Raspberry PI 4 is a functional computer but costs less than just the CPU of that i3 based machine while trouncing it in performance and power efficiency.
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i3-2100 https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/16396722
At some point, the CPU is almost irrelevant. A huge issue is software locked to a certain motherboard. And the fact that your Raspberry Pi isn’t going to be running x86 software flawlessly and doesn’t come with nearly the same peripherals as a typical laptop (without a lot more cost… but even then, a 1:1 replacement isn’t possible).
The assumption that tech gets exponentially cheaper over time, ie Moore’s Law, only applies to a portion of the hardware, one the CPU, GPU, RAM, and storage. It doesn’t apply to the glue that holds it all together, the integrated display, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc. In fact, a lot of webcams are actually worse than they were 10 years ago. AND Moore’s Law has significantly slowed. Apple Silicon is a big improvement, but this is a step change, and it’s not likely to be a continuation of the 18 Month Moore’s Law doubling time of years past.
The assumption that tech gets exponentially cheaper over time, ie Moore’s Law, only applies to a portion of the hardware, one the CPU, GPU, RAM, and storage. It doesn’t apply to the glue that holds it all together, the integrated display, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc. In fact, a lot of webcams are actually worse than they were 10 years ago. AND Moore’s Law has significantly slowed. Apple Silicon is a big improvement, but this is a step change, and it’s not likely to be a continuation of the 18 Month Moore’s Law doubling time of years past.
Even if it’s not cheaper, the devices aren’t really desirable. Most people don’t want a desktop, they want mobile devices. Lots of people still use old computers and significant upgrades don’t happen in the same generation which is the issue with upgrading Intel CPUs.
x86 isn’t what it was, MS made Windows 11 be able to run android apps, consumers don’t care about x86 software anymore. That’s been true since ChromeOS had been used more often since browsers mattered more than programs that only ran on windows.
x86 isn’t what it was, MS made Windows 11 be able to run android apps, consumers don’t care about x86 software anymore. That’s been true since ChromeOS had been used more often since browsers mattered more than programs that only ran on windows.
It’s funny. I literally just had a long conversation with a fellow researcher still running a laptop from the late 00s, dual booting windows (XP!) and Linux. He is super happy with how reliable and effective it is, plenty of ports without a lot of software cruft. He does a lot of hardware instrumentation interfacing with it.
Do developers typically use ChromeOS to do development? I don’t think it can run, say, LabView or Matlab (the latter it MIGHT be able to, with some extra work, but not natively). It’s all a pretty big headache to use a device for serious work that is optimized for passive consumption and web browsing and social media. Everything you want to do that isn’t in a web browser is a pain.
Do developers typically use ChromeOS to do development? I don’t think it can run, say, LabView or Matlab (the latter it MIGHT be able to, with some extra work, but not natively). It’s all a pretty big headache to use a device for serious work that is optimized for passive consumption and web browsing and social media. Everything you want to do that isn’t in a web browser is a pain.
Yes, they use it for SSH and programming without worrying about taking care of their hardware. Chromebooks aren't a pain, but I doubt your researcher can run those easily either with such old hardware my 1.6ghz atom netbook probably smokes it and still I wouldn't use it for that.
Most people don't need to run those programs, they're niche, and the normal consumer doesn't care.
Most people don't need to run those programs, they're niche, and the normal consumer doesn't care.
Right. Chromebooks are somewhere between a full actual laptop and a tablet or phone. Good for consumers.
The Pi is just an example, $250 Laptops today have performance that cost $700 a few years ago
And the "extras" you mention also get cheaper due to economies of scale. 4k 30hz monitors used to run just under $1000. Now 4k 60hz monitors run just over $200.
-
At the end of the day you cannot compete with how much better we get at making things over time right now.
Broken hardware is only a leading cause of replacing smartphones, and even the most repair unfriendly device can generally be fixed in 30 minutes at your local mall.
And the "extras" you mention also get cheaper due to economies of scale. 4k 30hz monitors used to run just under $1000. Now 4k 60hz monitors run just over $200.
-
At the end of the day you cannot compete with how much better we get at making things over time right now.
Broken hardware is only a leading cause of replacing smartphones, and even the most repair unfriendly device can generally be fixed in 30 minutes at your local mall.
The cost for many of those parts and if they're glued will give you problems with reassembly.
It's true with electronic devices in general. I've tried to pass down (still in support) older tablets, Chromebooks, etc. through a friend who has some nieces and nephews. Basically, to quote my friend, "no one's interested in your old electronic crap."
Now I'm sure there are families with less money who might think differently but it's definitely not straightforward in general to hand down old computer-related stuff.
Now I'm sure there are families with less money who might think differently but it's definitely not straightforward in general to hand down old computer-related stuff.
They already have phones. They’re not interested in your slower than their phone computers either.
And it was almost completely made from recyclable parts. It gets recycled, not trashed.
TBH until very recently with the apple M1 archtecture CPU perf peaked about 7 years ago and laptops never really had a good GPU story. Improvements have been fairly incremental since then. Yes lower nm processes reduce energy usage, but we are even starting to approach a wall with that too now.
Personal laptops and desktops have become things you replace at car intervals now. And phones are starting to approach that too.
Personal laptops and desktops have become things you replace at car intervals now. And phones are starting to approach that too.
M1 is just a continuation of the same, it’s just fanless, cooler, less energy usage and optimized for a few types of uses (very useful for web). CPUs really haven’t had a jump since sandy/ivy bridge, and GPUs got much better with the nvidia models in 2016, but it didn’t show up in the real world as much as it did in running machine learning algorithms. Gaming laptops existed with good if overly hot and expensive GPUs.
If you can't buy parts from 3rd parties e.g. you can't source chips or connectors etc. on Mouser, then I can't see how this is much different from Apple. Just because manufacturer sells parts themselves (thus avoiding spending money on good repair service), probably won't save you much money considering you will have to spend your own time and make effort to fix it yourself.
Nonetheless, any move into more repair friendly product is welcome.
Framework's hardware is entirely open source (https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/ExpansionCards) so you can buy parts from any third-party that wants to produce them.
They have open sourced a development toolkit for making expansion card modules but the motherboard itself is not open source. You can, however get schematics if you are a "repair shop", under NDA, however they define that.
I hope the schematics leak, just like they do for many other laptops.
That just reminds me of Alienware’s open modular GPU cards or the open nanoSD cards from Huawei, both of which are open and nobody wants to make or use in their own products. It’s open but there isn’t any incentive for anyone else to make some niche parts for a single laptop brand.
Entirely? That's just for expansions which are essentially USB-C dongles.
I agree with your point, but I think it slightly misses the potential and (I believe) intent of Framework: they have opened their design specs and encouraged even DIY participants, making it possible for a cultural movement of innovation & right-to-repair to exist. It reminds me of revered machines like the Commodore 64 that didn't just create hardware (although they did that very well)--they enabled social clubs, the demoscene, and a many hobby programmers and hardware hackers who went on to become professionals.
Opening them doesn’t mean it’ll be taken up. Everyone had a commandore so there was enthusiasm for it. This is another generic very niche laptop that has no defining benefits over others and so will find it hard to convince anyone to make some niche parts that doesn’t have a large install base.
"Very niche laptop"
It's largely a laptop aimed at being a general computer, just like a Dell or HP.
With two exceptions: - Freedom of choice over operating system - Freedom of choice over repair components
From the looks of it, there doesn't appear to be much of a detriment to it over other laptops.
With two exceptions: - Freedom of choice over operating system - Freedom of choice over repair components
From the looks of it, there doesn't appear to be much of a detriment to it over other laptops.
The parts are niche, they don’t work anywhere else. Nobody will touch making niche parts for repairing one with a niche marketshare. You don't expect anyone to take up custom parts to a WilyFox phone even though its a much larger marketshare device do you? So why do you think they will for this laptop nobody has? Yes, it’s a general computer, nothing unique in computing to choose it over the other.
Dell and HP have plenty of aftermarket parts and don’t limit my OS either.
They start at $999 and the base is 8GB, 256GB SSD, with an i5 and you need to wait with a deposit and it only has 1 year of warranty with no strong aftermarket products. None of these are incentivizing for performance, for repairable, or for cost.
Dell and HP have plenty of aftermarket parts and don’t limit my OS either.
They start at $999 and the base is 8GB, 256GB SSD, with an i5 and you need to wait with a deposit and it only has 1 year of warranty with no strong aftermarket products. None of these are incentivizing for performance, for repairable, or for cost.
They do have good repair as well. It saves you a ton of money because the devices are so common and the parts are cheap, I don’t go to Lenovo.com, I buy some junk devices and take the parts off them.
You’re stating effort like it’s hard to unscrew a laptop and seat in a new part, which you’ll need to do for framework too.
You’re stating effort like it’s hard to unscrew a laptop and seat in a new part, which you’ll need to do for framework too.
I just had to check. But I have replaces the drive on every computer I've owned. Not because of failure, but because the size and speed vs cost steadily improves over time. But most of the other parts don't change as much.
(eg I can put a 2TB ssd in my 2015 macbook pro for $400, which I doubt I could've done in 2015)
Thinkpads are owned by Lenovo, a known bad actor who installed, for example, rootkits on their own hardware.
I give them a pass because their actions seem come from stupidity rather than maliciousness.
Also while this was going on, they never did any of this to Thinkpads.
Also while this was going on, they never did any of this to Thinkpads.
If something comes preinstalled with Windows on it, it's going to be rootkitted anyways. There's also an argument to be made where we assume all commercial OSes are backdoored, but I think at this point playing the "muh security" card is a bit of a ruse. If you care about the stuff, you've already installed LTSC/Linux/BSD/Some special Windows distro.
it wasn't about pre-installed windows software, it was about software embedded in UEFI that reinstalled itself on windows even with a clean fresh non-lenovo provided installation of windows.
Never the thinkpad.
My AMD Turion 2 based laptop has a "new" SSD and it rocks.
When you upgrade the cpu on a framework laptop, you upgrade the board as well. So Framework owners can upgrade to a 2018 i5 or an AMD or even an ARM cpu if Framework offers it.
At that point I am sure it'll be much cheaper and faster to buy another laptop on sale instead of waiting for framework to make the motherboard with the CPU you want (if they do it at all), and pay extra for custom parts that only fit their latop, therefore locking you into their hardware ecosystem, no different from Apple except the parts are all generic x64 and you don't gain anything other than having in fit in the form factor of their device. The case is not so unique or special that someone would be unwilling to have another device, pay extra for some CPU/mobo laptop combo that only fits in one laptop, and never want another laptop casing again keeping as many of the old part as possible includuing to choose to keep the used chemical batteries in the framework laptop rather than have another cheaper computer with all new parts.
People get attached to their machines. It's like a car.
Haven't ever seen that myself ever, most people don't care, they just don't want to replace the machine if it still works if that counts, but nobody is using a classic all original parts device or seeks a classic HDD for their old computer. If you present them with a better one though, I bet most would be jumping for joy, but you have to make sure its "better" to them.
Some older machines just have a "look" that is different than anything made today due to a different design language being used.
It also means that you can keep the same shell while changing other components to upgrade it, yknow, like desktops.
I have the same shell/case.
Assuming you want to do repair, I have no interest in repairing anything. In fact I'll happily part with my money to not have to deal with repairing stuff. Same applies to my car.
Do you have a threshold for this?
I assume that if your laptop wasn't working and all you had to do was take a single screw out then you'd do it, rather than taking it to a repair shop or buy another.
Or if the repair cost was extreme, but it was relatively easy to fix it yourself.
Your point of view is valid of course. At the same time I believe many people don't have sufficient money to allow them the luxury of never repairing anything themselves.
Having hardware that is repairable is rarely a problem for the end-user who doesn't want to repair it themselves. For users who DO want to repair it themselves, having hardware that's designed to be hard to repair is a huge burden.
I assume that if your laptop wasn't working and all you had to do was take a single screw out then you'd do it, rather than taking it to a repair shop or buy another.
Or if the repair cost was extreme, but it was relatively easy to fix it yourself.
Your point of view is valid of course. At the same time I believe many people don't have sufficient money to allow them the luxury of never repairing anything themselves.
Having hardware that is repairable is rarely a problem for the end-user who doesn't want to repair it themselves. For users who DO want to repair it themselves, having hardware that's designed to be hard to repair is a huge burden.
There's the old joke about a plumber to charges $100 to fix a hot water heater by hitting it once with a hammer. The home owner, incensed by such a bill for a simple action, demands the plumber justify it. The breakdown is: $1 hammer strike, $99 choosing correct location.
Even a decade ago, the rewards for being able to repair computers were pretty substantial. Your computer was likely to have routine failures and you could probably save a lot of money doing piecemeal replacements. I think those things are still true for people who are trying to stay on the bleeding edge of computer hardware or use unusual setups, but for 95%+ of folks it is probably going to be a net loss.
For most people performing most tasks, they are better off taking the "one-screw" computer into the shop because it would take them hours and hours to do the research figuring out if it really is a "one-screw" problem. If you are wrong you could seriously damage your hardware. In addition, because hardware that is sufficient for most purposes and inexpensive is widely available - there is very limited utility in learning those skills otherwise.
If you want to learn about and repair computers as a hobby that's great! I do it and I enjoy it. But it's not a "smart financial decision."
Even a decade ago, the rewards for being able to repair computers were pretty substantial. Your computer was likely to have routine failures and you could probably save a lot of money doing piecemeal replacements. I think those things are still true for people who are trying to stay on the bleeding edge of computer hardware or use unusual setups, but for 95%+ of folks it is probably going to be a net loss.
For most people performing most tasks, they are better off taking the "one-screw" computer into the shop because it would take them hours and hours to do the research figuring out if it really is a "one-screw" problem. If you are wrong you could seriously damage your hardware. In addition, because hardware that is sufficient for most purposes and inexpensive is widely available - there is very limited utility in learning those skills otherwise.
If you want to learn about and repair computers as a hobby that's great! I do it and I enjoy it. But it's not a "smart financial decision."
Exactly this. The amount of time, effort, labor, sourcing tools, parts, coupled with education, or making a costly mistake, etc... The warranty or repair person is actually cheaper if you're able to put a price on your time. They also do better work in most cases.
I just leave it to the professionals because it saves me money/time. I have no doubts I could do my own repair but from this vantage point it's just not a sound investment.
I just leave it to the professionals because it saves me money/time. I have no doubts I could do my own repair but from this vantage point it's just not a sound investment.
That's fair enough. Everyone has a different cost/benefit analysis based on their own situation.
Some people have more money than time, some have more time than money. And there are a million other factors too.
Some people have more money than time, some have more time than money. And there are a million other factors too.
The problem is knowing what's actually broken in the first place. A friend of mine took their laptop to Geeksquad and they told my friend the power circuit was broken and the motherboard needs replacing. I checked the charger and realized the charger was broken and told them to buy a new one and what do you know it works fine. Most people are generally incapable of figuring out what actually is broken and will go to a repair place anyway. Or if the device is old enough they will just buy a new one. These days devices last a long time if you take care of them physically so by the time something starts failing it's likely already time for an upgrade for most people.
So the actual DIY repairability of laptops just doesn't matter for the vast majority of people. What Framework is doing is awesome amazing though and I hope it does encourage companies to make easier to repair computers to lower the actual cost of repairs.
So the actual DIY repairability of laptops just doesn't matter for the vast majority of people. What Framework is doing is awesome amazing though and I hope it does encourage companies to make easier to repair computers to lower the actual cost of repairs.
Yes, many people don't know what's broken in the first place.
My minimum threshold for reaching out to a repair technician is 1) the problem must not have a solution that is easily found through an internet search, and 2) the solution must require more time and effort than the time to get it to and from the repair shop.
What saddens me is how few people will do the internet search before giving up.
Yes, I'm tech-savvy so I'm speaking from a position of privilege, but if you're looking for "What's wrong with this thing?" how can you NOT think to search the internet?
My minimum threshold for reaching out to a repair technician is 1) the problem must not have a solution that is easily found through an internet search, and 2) the solution must require more time and effort than the time to get it to and from the repair shop.
What saddens me is how few people will do the internet search before giving up.
Yes, I'm tech-savvy so I'm speaking from a position of privilege, but if you're looking for "What's wrong with this thing?" how can you NOT think to search the internet?
> Do you have a threshold for this?
Not OP but I have a really high threshold for this. I don't want to own a house and rent because of this.
Not OP but I have a really high threshold for this. I don't want to own a house and rent because of this.
Hire from taskrabbit. ;)
I don't want to repair my laptop either but I want to upgrade my laptop a year or two down the line. The modern laptop can go much further with a simple upgrade like RAM or SSD HD.
Apple's laptop is really limited in this way. The older generation of Apple's laptop allowed you to upgrade RAM and HD.
Apple's laptop is really limited in this way. The older generation of Apple's laptop allowed you to upgrade RAM and HD.
Apple is targeting the population that has no need for upgrades.
Watching videos, browsing internet, sharing pictures and videos, video calling and basic spreadsheet/word processing needs no upgrades.
I use a 2015 MacBook Air and I don’t need an upgrade, and I probably do more on my laptop than 80% of people.
Watching videos, browsing internet, sharing pictures and videos, video calling and basic spreadsheet/word processing needs no upgrades.
I use a 2015 MacBook Air and I don’t need an upgrade, and I probably do more on my laptop than 80% of people.
> Apple is targeting the population that has no need for upgrades.
And also those who very frequently do backups, because restoring the data from a failed SSD would be problematic.
And also those who very frequently do backups, because restoring the data from a failed SSD would be problematic.
Yes, Apple is also probably not targeting the population of people who cannot backup to iCloud and also not backup regularly to a NAS or USB via Time Machine.
Time Machine takes hourly backups. Setup consists of selecting a target and checking a box.
well what about macbook pro series? professionals constantly WANT to have ability to upgrade devices down the road, but Apple simply denies it.
Harder to repair products are more expensive to repair. This is the main reason Apple locks down everything so much and fights independent repair shops at every corner. Repair monopolies are profitable too.
It doesn't matter whether you want to repair it or not, in the long term you can only lose when you don't care how hard it is to repair.
It doesn't matter whether you want to repair it or not, in the long term you can only lose when you don't care how hard it is to repair.
As soon as they make it possible to install free firmware such as coreboot.
We're comparing to Apple. Have fun freebooting that.
It happened before: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc2NTU
Although, true, I suspect their modern stuff will never reach the same point.
Although, true, I suspect their modern stuff will never reach the same point.
Then the M1 trounces this laptop in power and energy usage and there’s no contest.
You do not actually own a Framework, though. Unlike say a Raptor Talos II -- the only example I know of, albeit not a laptop.
https://community.frame.work/t/free-the-ec-and-coreboot-only...
https://community.frame.work/t/free-the-ec-and-coreboot-only...
Any PC will let you boot from an external drive if the internal drive fails (or even if it doesn't).
If only they were available in the UK
I'm in the UK too, finding myself unwilling to pay the new Mac prices and getting impatient for the framework. So, recently I've been considering a StarBook Mk V from https://starlabs.systems/
They publish a full disassembly guide[0], so I'm reasonably sure the whole thing is repairable and upgradable if necessary. Lots of options for custom build at order time including coreboot. I'm a bit hesitant about a 1920x1080 display but otherwise extremely tempted.
[0] https://support.starlabs.systems/kb/guides/starbook-mk-v-com...
They publish a full disassembly guide[0], so I'm reasonably sure the whole thing is repairable and upgradable if necessary. Lots of options for custom build at order time including coreboot. I'm a bit hesitant about a 1920x1080 display but otherwise extremely tempted.
[0] https://support.starlabs.systems/kb/guides/starbook-mk-v-com...
I hadn't come across this laptop before, thanks for sharing!
It looks almost perfect, but only having a single USB-C port is a disappointing choice :(
It looks almost perfect, but only having a single USB-C port is a disappointing choice :(
Perhaps you can consider this one instead: https://puri.sm/products/librem-14.
Looks like all their laptops use Intel processors? Do they let you control and disable Intel's management engine on that CPU? If not then I don't see how one really "owns" the hardware.
Dell allows you to disable it (but it’s not really repairable) system76 and librem I think has it removed (but they’re not worth it for the specs).
s76 blogged that they're working towards manu of their own laptop machines soon rather than the clevo stock, so that value might change soon.
Then again, their tower is exorbitant, so...maybe not.
Then again, their tower is exorbitant, so...maybe not.
I for one will, if they were to make a 15" :)
Article is from May but received no attention, and I believe most people are unaware of this; the Mac needs an iBoot on the internal drive in order to boot from any volume, and thus cannot boot from an external drive if the internal one has failed.
Once again Apple is showing how to do things stupidly. They won't allow you to boot from an external HDD/SSD if the internal one fails. On top of that they make it extremely difficult to replace the internal disk on your own. Carbon Copy Cloner has been my number one program all these years, but I think that Apple is pushing us loyal and technical competent people away. They just want "simple" users.
They want you to take the device to the dealership.
Perhaps, but there’s a security angle to this as well. iBoot is stored on the internal SSD. If you want to bypass the internal SSD entirely for the boot process, you must now trust that any external drives plugged in have non-evil versions of iBoot installed, as the Mac will now have to go to every external device and say “can you tell me how to boot?”. If the internal drive is the only place to get iBoot it makes the security strategy way easier (since the only way to write to it is via DFU connected to Apple Configurator). We know only people with the keys can modify the internal drive, so we don’t have to keep certificates or something else around to verify it is trustworthy. Who knows where the external drive’s copy of iBoot is from.
You could make it so there’s a break glass copy of iBoot on another chip, but then that’s something they can’t update if there’s a bug.
You could make it so there’s a break glass copy of iBoot on another chip, but then that’s something they can’t update if there’s a bug.
[deleted]
The SSDs of 2015-2017 macbooks start failing and they are soldered on the board. I have a 12" that I can only boot from external now otherwise the device would be dead. With the M1 models you don't even have the chance to do this. Apple won't even change the failed ssds they will sell you a new logic board for the prize of a new machine. It's infuriating and the only reason I won't buy a machine until they make user replaceable storage the norm again.
I noticed that AppleCare, which use to be a one-time purchase of 3-year coverage, is now offered as an annual purchase that can be renewed indefinitely. Presumably this means that, as long as I pay my $150 rent, they will replace my logic board, with its failed SSD, for free?
Maybe a deductible, but otherwise I have to assume yeah. That’s not cheap though.
I suspect they began soldering it because the cable connecting the disk drive had a lot of problems in older MacBooks. Soldering may have been an easy fix for that.
I hate the soldering, too. I'm just offering an explanation that may make some sense given the context.
I hate the soldering, too. I'm just offering an explanation that may make some sense given the context.
What cable? As far as I can recall, everything not directly soldered since about 2013 was ssd mounted to motherboard using either M.2 or a similar proprietary connector. I suspect it was Cook-ish financial engineering and that trademark Apple hubris (that they finally got over to re-add ports in the most recent MBP).
Here's an older thread on the cable: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7794520
This was pre-2013. So perhaps the proprietary connector was a reaction to the cable?
This was pre-2013. So perhaps the proprietary connector was a reaction to the cable?
I like your Ockham razor reasoning, but given the history of this company, it would be very difficult to defend this claim. Soldering the SSD and memory made the device unupgradeable (in contrast to pre-2013 models where I have currently have 2x2TB!).
pcie and nvme ssds use ports that are similar to ram slots there is no more cable involved.
And 2.5 inch drives can and often do have ports directly mounted on the laptop motherboard. If you don't want to use a cable, then you simply don't use a cable. Nothing else changes.
It's less the cable than the connector, so, similar trouble with nvme ports (and ram slots, for that matter). I've barely had exposure to supporting laptop hardware, and have seen "thing shimmied loose" or "contact corroded" as the root cause of problems more than once.
I don't think it will be the price of a new machine, it will be the price of a flat rate repair which is a fixed price for any sort of work past a certain point (as far as the genius bar worker described to me at least). For my 2020 laptop it could explode in a fireball and Apple will repair it for $418 before tax, my flat rate for this laptop.
[deleted]
680 Euros quoted from the apple store in berlin for a 2012 macbook.
Everything apple is vastly more expensive in europe, can't be compared to US contexts. You pay a few hundred more at least for iphones too. Seriously, a good population of people actually fly to Portland to stock up on apple gear, and fly back to Europe or India or other places. No sales taxes in Oregon too so you save even more, sometimes its enough to pay for airfare compared to buying in California even with 10% sales taxes being somewhat typical there.
I don't think it would turn out a plus if I fly over to get it serviced.
> Once again Apple is showing how to do things stupidly.
To be fair if you or your company are dumb enough to buy these devices your probably also of a mind to take it in for expensive repairs.
Its perfect business logic from the fruity chaps.
To be fair if you or your company are dumb enough to buy these devices your probably also of a mind to take it in for expensive repairs.
Its perfect business logic from the fruity chaps.
This is old information and no longer the case - https://shirtpocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.htm...
I'm not sure your link disproves this article. The first paragraph just says bootable backups are supported (they are by CCC too), and the rest of the page hasn't been changed in years.
The SuperDuper blog says:
> Note that, as I indicated above, M1 Macs can't readily boot from external drives. There are things you can do, if you have an external Thunderbolt 3 drive (USB-C isn't sufficient), but even that won't work if the internal drive is dead. Unless things change, bootable backups are basically a thing of the past on M1-based Macs. [0]
in a January article, and I haven't seen anything that contradicts it in more recent articles. Mind linking?
(Note that booting from USB-C is now supported on AS Macs, but booting when the internal drive is dead is not)
[0]: https://www.shirtpocket.com/blog/index.php/shadedgrey/commen...
The SuperDuper blog says:
> Note that, as I indicated above, M1 Macs can't readily boot from external drives. There are things you can do, if you have an external Thunderbolt 3 drive (USB-C isn't sufficient), but even that won't work if the internal drive is dead. Unless things change, bootable backups are basically a thing of the past on M1-based Macs. [0]
in a January article, and I haven't seen anything that contradicts it in more recent articles. Mind linking?
(Note that booting from USB-C is now supported on AS Macs, but booting when the internal drive is dead is not)
[0]: https://www.shirtpocket.com/blog/index.php/shadedgrey/commen...
The blog entry you're referencing is old. Please follow the link I had provided - https://shirtpocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.htm... - note the recent version number and its respective description.
Again, bootable backups work fine on Apple Silicon, but not when the internal drive has failed, since booting requires an iBoot volume stored on the internal drive. I believe there's a misunderstanding, and SuperDuper hasn't found any workaround for this.
[deleted]
Though who knows what types of experimentation, trial and error SuperDuper went through to make it work.
I know that David Nanian and co worked with Apple to address the issue(s) that prevented them from providing a bootable backup.
The ability to create bootable backups on external drives as you describe, does not necessarily conflict with the inability to boot from external drives as the post link describes.
I get that for people from IT it sounds surprising, but from a hardware perspective I would say it’s a good change.
Instead of having a SPI flash memory with the firmware they’ve gone ahead and merged that into a single flash memory.
It’s weird because we are used to see disks as independent modules, but for these devices that’s simply a useless distinction, something that we keep for legacy reasons, not because it provides any meaningful advantage.
Instead of having a SPI flash memory with the firmware they’ve gone ahead and merged that into a single flash memory.
It’s weird because we are used to see disks as independent modules, but for these devices that’s simply a useless distinction, something that we keep for legacy reasons, not because it provides any meaningful advantage.
Being able to swap disks is a meaningful advantage. After all, it's the part most likely to fail first, and often first limitation people hit on a machine.
Storage tech is still advancing at a decent clip. In 5 years, there will probably be 4-6TB drives on the market with 2-4x the throughput for the same price as 1TB drives today.
Storage tech is still advancing at a decent clip. In 5 years, there will probably be 4-6TB drives on the market with 2-4x the throughput for the same price as 1TB drives today.
But that’s another different battle, and has nothing to do with this change. Disks were already soldered down, and that’s a tradeoff.
I get that for some people swappable disks are great, but those people couldn’t really use pre-M1 macs. The only change is that instead of two different interfaces for non volatile storage, now there’s one.
I get that for some people swappable disks are great, but those people couldn’t really use pre-M1 macs. The only change is that instead of two different interfaces for non volatile storage, now there’s one.
We keep on hearing about folks needing to swap out disks out that are broken who ALSO don't have apple care AND are out of warranty? I mean, how many people is this vs the millions / billions of idevices out there? Apple simplifies / integrates like crazy - that is a focus for them. No separate bios flash - my guess is others start copying them personally.
Because apple products hold value so well, I just sell me 2 year old stuff and it can really knock down cost of the new stuff.
Because apple products hold value so well, I just sell me 2 year old stuff and it can really knock down cost of the new stuff.
And the people buying your used devices have no apple care and are out of warranty, so they’ll complain if they can’t repair it.
Apple devices will stop holding value so well the less repairable they get, which in turn will also increase your costs.
Apple devices will stop holding value so well the less repairable they get, which in turn will also increase your costs.
The "unrepairable" apple devices have far FAR higher resale value and lifetimes than most the Huawei / OPPO / etc used phones out there.
This is really the proof point.
This is a combination of apples total system engineering and software update story. You don't need applecare to get updtes on an iphone.
For example, looking at recently sold items on Ebay - Iphone 5S 32GB is going for $100. That's an 8 year old phone.
Take your 8 year old HTC - nothing close to that.
This is really the proof point.
This is a combination of apples total system engineering and software update story. You don't need applecare to get updtes on an iphone.
For example, looking at recently sold items on Ebay - Iphone 5S 32GB is going for $100. That's an 8 year old phone.
Take your 8 year old HTC - nothing close to that.
The 8 year old iPhone has such high value because it can still be repaired.
A 2021 iPhone will hold less of its initial value in 2029 than the mentioned 5S holds today.
A 2021 iPhone will hold less of its initial value in 2029 than the mentioned 5S holds today.
I was an original iphone user, and have been hearing about how unrepairable and how battery can't be swapped since then. I'll believe the iphone is unrepairable when I see it.
For those of your who suspect that these types of claims are a lie, they basically are. If you have elderly relatives, they often DO NOT want to upgrade their phone once they've got it working. A great gift is actually to take it into an apple store and pay for the "impossible" battery replacement for them.
It's $49-$69. You get a fresh new battery, all labor as well. OEM parts. My wife also doesn't care about the new phone, this is a nice and pretty cheap way to keep her old one ticking over.
Happy to do a comparison in 6 years on a Huawei vs Apple phone in terms of resale.
One thing to be careful of. I've been burned by used apple phones with second hand batteries in them. Apple now gives you a warning - worth checking for that if you buy used.
For those of your who suspect that these types of claims are a lie, they basically are. If you have elderly relatives, they often DO NOT want to upgrade their phone once they've got it working. A great gift is actually to take it into an apple store and pay for the "impossible" battery replacement for them.
It's $49-$69. You get a fresh new battery, all labor as well. OEM parts. My wife also doesn't care about the new phone, this is a nice and pretty cheap way to keep her old one ticking over.
Happy to do a comparison in 6 years on a Huawei vs Apple phone in terms of resale.
One thing to be careful of. I've been burned by used apple phones with second hand batteries in them. Apple now gives you a warning - worth checking for that if you buy used.
The price of screen repair through Apple increased from the old iPhones at 50€ to the new iPhones with worse repairability at 75€
Screen repair increased from 150€ to 360€.
Independent repair shops even used to offer these services at 25-60€ (old iPhones, screen repair) to 25-50€ (old iPhones, battery replacement).
Going from 60€ to 360€ for a screen repair is a steep ask and significantly harms resell value.
Screen repair increased from 150€ to 360€.
Independent repair shops even used to offer these services at 25-60€ (old iPhones, screen repair) to 25-50€ (old iPhones, battery replacement).
Going from 60€ to 360€ for a screen repair is a steep ask and significantly harms resell value.
There is still a SPI chip from Winbond on board. Also the NVRAM contains variables like "boot-volume". Question is if you can easily change it.
Isn't the case described here the exact reason to keep the separation? To prevent a single point of failure?
The only lens I care about these days is the impending climate disaster. Technology like this, that embodies a lot of carbon and has a built-in expiration date, is getting more and more upsetting to me.
I don't need a faster computer, I need air that will still be breathable in 20 years. My next computer will likely be whatever 5-10 year old laptop I can snatch up on it's way to the landfill. It definitely won't be an M1.
I don't need a faster computer, I need air that will still be breathable in 20 years. My next computer will likely be whatever 5-10 year old laptop I can snatch up on it's way to the landfill. It definitely won't be an M1.
Landfill and the environment are legitimate concerns.. i’m just gonna quote the website
> The new MacBook Pro has been carefully designed with the environment in mind. The enclosure is now made with 100% recycled aluminum. And we use recycled rare earth elements in all the magnets in the product. MacBook Pro is free of numerous harmful substances and all the virgin wood fiber in our packaging comes from responsibly-managed forests.
Other notable objectives: 1. full carbon neutrality across their supply chain and services by 2030, inclusive of the use of the device. 2. Recycling and refurb program 3. Circular sourcing (e.g reclamation.)
You concerns are valid, but the princess is in another castle.
> The new MacBook Pro has been carefully designed with the environment in mind. The enclosure is now made with 100% recycled aluminum. And we use recycled rare earth elements in all the magnets in the product. MacBook Pro is free of numerous harmful substances and all the virgin wood fiber in our packaging comes from responsibly-managed forests.
Other notable objectives: 1. full carbon neutrality across their supply chain and services by 2030, inclusive of the use of the device. 2. Recycling and refurb program 3. Circular sourcing (e.g reclamation.)
You concerns are valid, but the princess is in another castle.
That's all fine and good, but once any single component of that block of embodied carbon fails the whole thing is now e-waste. Which means I guess apple is buying up carbon offsets in order to recycle that e-waste back into a new M2 or M3 mac? How much faith do you have in carbon offsets? The aluminum and rare earth elements are recycled - what about the rest of it?
A modular design means a failed SSD only sends the SSD - not the entire product - into the waste (recycle?) chain.
Apple has a lot of engineering resources, and the fact that they are not spending those resources to make a computer that will still be in service in 10, 15, or 20 years is the problem.
A modular design means a failed SSD only sends the SSD - not the entire product - into the waste (recycle?) chain.
Apple has a lot of engineering resources, and the fact that they are not spending those resources to make a computer that will still be in service in 10, 15, or 20 years is the problem.
they release a document which outlines exactly what they do:
https://www.apple.com/environment/
But just something else to keep in mind: at mass production scales certain choices that may seem less useful for repair, often greatly enhance reliability. eg soldered on componentry - such things don’t present an issue to the official refurbishment programme however they present a challenge to the incredibly small % of people who want to open their laptop for amateur repair.
But just something else to keep in mind: at mass production scales certain choices that may seem less useful for repair, often greatly enhance reliability. eg soldered on componentry - such things don’t present an issue to the official refurbishment programme however they present a challenge to the incredibly small % of people who want to open their laptop for amateur repair.
I agree that choices at scale might not make intuitive sense. I just don’t believe that Apple has a true motive to minimize climate impact, and thus their choices at scale are all suspect. They certainly want to appear as tho that is one of their goals - but as long as the impact of a choice is hidden they have no reason to make the right choice.
I'm going to call very large amounts of BS on #2 -- Apple devices are infamous in electronics refurbishing circles. Thousands of very functional devices are being scrapped instead of being reused because they are soft-bricked due to never being deregistered from iCloud accounts, for various legitimate reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam (and shouldn't be the responsibility of the end user in any case).
Many solutions have been repeatedly suggested to Apple to mitigate the e-waste damage from this without compromising their supposed dedication to iCloud-locking to prevent theft; they have fallen on deaf ears.
Many solutions have been repeatedly suggested to Apple to mitigate the e-waste damage from this without compromising their supposed dedication to iCloud-locking to prevent theft; they have fallen on deaf ears.
If I take a box of old apple devices and accessories to the Apple Store from any point in the history of the company, they will put them through their own recycling program. A box of old PCs will go to my municipal e-waste program and end up in an incinerator (which is the best case scenario, but we know what happens to e-waste in a lot of jurisdictions).
That iPhone torturing robot [0] that they demoed a few years back may have seemed a bit silly, but I don't think any other electronics manufacturer is concerned about finding a const-effective way of separating the screws from other metals before recycling everything.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bu-gl7v-P8
That iPhone torturing robot [0] that they demoed a few years back may have seemed a bit silly, but I don't think any other electronics manufacturer is concerned about finding a const-effective way of separating the screws from other metals before recycling everything.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bu-gl7v-P8
The question is what percentage of the material that enters their recycling program actually cycles back into new things, and how much carbon is burnt doing that.
I'm glad apple is exerting engineering resources to make their products recyclable and out of recycled materials - but I also can't ignore that linking the lifespan of the entire computer to the lifespan of the SSD is going to result in many unnecessarily discarded computers.
If 75% of the materials are recycled (generous, I couldn't find recent numbers but in 2010 they were recycling 28%) that means one landfilled mac for every 4 recycled. If a machine is killed by it's SSD, that's at LEAST a quarter of a mac in the landfill.
I'm glad apple is exerting engineering resources to make their products recyclable and out of recycled materials - but I also can't ignore that linking the lifespan of the entire computer to the lifespan of the SSD is going to result in many unnecessarily discarded computers.
If 75% of the materials are recycled (generous, I couldn't find recent numbers but in 2010 they were recycling 28%) that means one landfilled mac for every 4 recycled. If a machine is killed by it's SSD, that's at LEAST a quarter of a mac in the landfill.
The SSD being the thing that takes down a computer seems like a theoretical concern (for most users). They certainly typically have longer lifespans than spinning drives. I wouldn’t be too surprised if my parents’ hermetically sealed fanless MacBook Air is still sipping power a decade from now.
And that’s to say nothing of the extra materials that would be required to house a socket for a separate SSD board which 90% of users would never avail themselves of.
They have for sure increased the recycling rate massively since 2010. Lisa Jackson went from head of the EPA to Apple in 2013, and that’s also when they started to really focus on device longevity, and fostering the pass your old phone down to your kids or up to your parents plus trade-in and refurbish models.
And that’s to say nothing of the extra materials that would be required to house a socket for a separate SSD board which 90% of users would never avail themselves of.
They have for sure increased the recycling rate massively since 2010. Lisa Jackson went from head of the EPA to Apple in 2013, and that’s also when they started to really focus on device longevity, and fostering the pass your old phone down to your kids or up to your parents plus trade-in and refurbish models.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssds-fail-almost-as-often-...
> After taking into account drive age and equalizing it between SSDs and HDDs, we can see that the results have changed significantly. SSDs aren't that far behind hard drives in failure rate, with a 1.05% annualized failure rate compared to 1.38%.
But it hardly matters. If the failure rate is 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 - either way there are a staggering amount of M1 macs that will be trashed every year because of failed SSDs.
You are right, the standard on-board connectors are extra material. It'd be a fun engineering challenge to reduce the non-recyclable material cost of standard connectors.
> After taking into account drive age and equalizing it between SSDs and HDDs, we can see that the results have changed significantly. SSDs aren't that far behind hard drives in failure rate, with a 1.05% annualized failure rate compared to 1.38%.
But it hardly matters. If the failure rate is 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 - either way there are a staggering amount of M1 macs that will be trashed every year because of failed SSDs.
You are right, the standard on-board connectors are extra material. It'd be a fun engineering challenge to reduce the non-recyclable material cost of standard connectors.
[deleted]
> If you were making your backups bootable in case of hardware failure, then that's an extra logistical chore that you can now retire from your backup strategy.
That's some premium-quality snark, right there.
That's some premium-quality snark, right there.
I bought an iMac in 2008. When it started getting slow, I bought an external SSD and booted over FireWire 800. It gave my machine many more years of life, and in fact it still works just fine! It's not my daily driver, but I'm glad that I can boot it from an external drive.
Too bad my next Mac won't be so flexible!
Too bad my next Mac won't be so flexible!
I'd be curious what Marcan (Asahi Linux founder/hacker) would have to say about this. Perhaps there's a workaround?
He’s talked about this quite extensively in the past. Here’s a link to the Asahi project docs: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/M1-vs.-PC-Boot
> iBoot is the main bootloader on M1 machines. It is small. It cannot understand external storage. It does not support USB. It does not have a UI. All it can do is boot from internal storage, and show an Apple logo, a progress bar, and a few error messages.
IIRC he’s said before that iBoot doesn’t even have keyboard support; it can tell if you’re holding down the power button to enter recovery mode, but that’s it. There is no workaround for this; it is not possible to boot over USB if the bootloader does not speak USB.
> iBoot is the main bootloader on M1 machines. It is small. It cannot understand external storage. It does not support USB. It does not have a UI. All it can do is boot from internal storage, and show an Apple logo, a progress bar, and a few error messages.
IIRC he’s said before that iBoot doesn’t even have keyboard support; it can tell if you’re holding down the power button to enter recovery mode, but that’s it. There is no workaround for this; it is not possible to boot over USB if the bootloader does not speak USB.
>In fact, they do not support external boot disks at all, by design.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26114417
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26114417
I've always treated a laptop as essentially disposable - by which I mean that in no way do I rely on it to store my data. It's the device I use to manipulate data. Not only could it break, it could get stolen or damaged at any time.
The bigger issue is that when the drive breaks, they are essentially unrepairable. The only option is getting Apple to swap out the motherboard with another one. On other devices, I'd just swap an M.2 drive. So it's more of a cost issue.
The bigger issue is that when the drive breaks, they are essentially unrepairable. The only option is getting Apple to swap out the motherboard with another one. On other devices, I'd just swap an M.2 drive. So it's more of a cost issue.
So if a "Standard Backup" contains all your files, but the machine cannot boot because the internal drive has failed, what is the plan forward? $4k for a new laptop and restore from the backup to the new machine? Kinda makes me glad I'm broke.
Good to know that when I get a Mac I should remember to never store user data on it as primary. Must have active sync as primary. The local storage should really be seen as only a cache.
This article caused a bit more research summarised as: When that SSD dies the system is dead along with its contents. No particular recovery feasibly possible.
So, yeah, that SSD is a cache of the user data for editing local and a disposable boot device. The whole machine is a disposable client device with a built-in obsolescence time line.
Good to know.
(Add it to the list of other machines with the same design goals)
This article caused a bit more research summarised as: When that SSD dies the system is dead along with its contents. No particular recovery feasibly possible.
So, yeah, that SSD is a cache of the user data for editing local and a disposable boot device. The whole machine is a disposable client device with a built-in obsolescence time line.
Good to know.
(Add it to the list of other machines with the same design goals)
Never had any SSD fail in my life ever. This is a worry for some, but its not a realistic fear. You can write TB daily to most SSDs and it'll still not wear out. What's your current SSD's usage written in S.M.A.R.T.?
The plural of anecdotes is not data, but in my relatively small experience, I've had two SSDs die. And when they die, there's usually no warning.
One was a windows box with a generic Kingston 480GB.
The other was in a 2014 MacBook Air.
In both cases, both completely dead with no data recovery possible.
One was a windows box with a generic Kingston 480GB.
The other was in a 2014 MacBook Air.
In both cases, both completely dead with no data recovery possible.
I never liked those kingstons, thats too bad about the MacBook Air. What did you end up doing with it?
Just replaced the SSD with another one :-). My kid uses it now.
You're misunderstanding. It's not about the wear. It's about failure of the SSD. Any failure.
I've had a SSD fail and it was covered under warranty. Wasn't wear related and it was barely used. A month or so old.
So yeah, SSD failure is realistic for me as an issue.
YMMV
I've had a SSD fail and it was covered under warranty. Wasn't wear related and it was barely used. A month or so old.
So yeah, SSD failure is realistic for me as an issue.
YMMV
I don't disagree with backing up, but you don't think that will repeat again do you? What brand was it? It sounds like one of those cheap $19-$25 128GB ones with no cache and made with the worst quality, was it one of those? Cheap SSDs are notoriously low quality and unreliable.
Samsung 256gb. It failed.
I'm not sure what else to say. I know that SSD fail from direct experience. This doesn't mesh with you. I get it.
So yeah a Mac or other device with a soldered SSD is less trustworthy.
I'm not even talking backup as best practice or some good idea. I'm actually saying that due to this pattern of unreplaceable SSDs, the cloud copy IS the primary copy. The local copy on SSD is now just a cached file. That is a very big difference.
This isn't even an Apple thing. But they are one of the first.
I'm not sure what else to say. I know that SSD fail from direct experience. This doesn't mesh with you. I get it.
So yeah a Mac or other device with a soldered SSD is less trustworthy.
I'm not even talking backup as best practice or some good idea. I'm actually saying that due to this pattern of unreplaceable SSDs, the cloud copy IS the primary copy. The local copy on SSD is now just a cached file. That is a very big difference.
This isn't even an Apple thing. But they are one of the first.
I'm very suprised, I believe you, but I never had such an occurance happen ever to me, and I never worried once about it. Not even my cheap free android phone NAND failed in such a way, and I was given a microSD that had write disabled but had all the data left to read off it (not my data didn't care about it), but I never had any bad experinces with flash memory in my life.
Don't forget external drives for data!
Don't forget external drives for data!
I never cared about bootable backups. What is more of a concern is getting data off a non-bootable Mac that has a viable drive, since Apple often replaces the drive as part of servicing.
Isn't the drive encrypted anyway, with the key in T2?
Yes. The only real solution is to backup regularly. (And, if you travel, it probably makes sense to regularly copy any critical work in process to an SD card.)
Not backing up regularly is eventual (potentially massive) data loss even with a machine that doesn't have the limitations mentioned in the linked page. It may not be as common but SSD controllers for example can and do fail sometimes, and in that situation no amount of flexibility on the host computer's part is going to save you.
The SSD on all new Macs is soldered into the board. If a single component on the board breaks, they replace the whole thing.
Not really knowledgeable of the specifics: Is it really currently unfeasible for a repair shop to figure out how to re-solder a new SSD, and "flash" the T2 chip?
Apple Silicon macs lack T2 chips, and you cannot "resolder the SSD" on modern Macs, really, you'd need to resolder 8-16 chips on the actual main board, make sure they are the right kind of chips (not something Apple will tell you), and then pray it works --- did it fail because there's a proprietary process of pairing SSD chips to the motherboard, or because one BGA ball on one of the chips didn't sit correctly? Or because it was the controller that died? It's a nightmare to test and pinpoint, you're better off replacing the thing.
There was a video of Louis Rossmann where he explained why he didn't want to do component level repairs on new macs if it was RAM or SSD. I trust his expertise on the matter.
There was a video of Louis Rossmann where he explained why he didn't want to do component level repairs on new macs if it was RAM or SSD. I trust his expertise on the matter.
Great answer, thank you :)
Does that apply to PXE or the Mac equivalent?
I wonder how they will run their diagnistics in the Apple Store if they can't boot their diagnostics tool.
I wonder how they will run their diagnistics in the Apple Store if they can't boot their diagnostics tool.
Bummer. This is solely how I keep alive my old iMac. You know why? Because of the near-impossible-to-replace drive inside of it!
Is this also why you can’t install Monterey on a non-Apple SSD? I haven’t seen an article acknowledging this problem but others are experiencing it in various forums.
My 2013 Mac Pro had an SSD failure so I replaced it with a standard M.2 drive and an adapter. Can’t upgrade.
My 2013 Mac Pro had an SSD failure so I replaced it with a standard M.2 drive and an adapter. Can’t upgrade.
I replaced the Fusion Drive in my 2017 iMac with an off-the-shelf Samsung SSD and had no problems at all upgrading to Monterey.
Remiluke(1)
Theofelix(1)
Coragerard(1)
i get that their business is at risk, but i've literally never had a macbook disk fail on me in 12 years of dealing with half a dozen laptops (oldest one still in use today). this will get way more attention than it deserves.
Not sure how this is relevant in any way. I've seen dozens of MacBooks where the hard drive had failed. Not to say that they fail any more than other laptops, but unless Apple has come up with some magical technology that makes their hard drives never fail, this is a terrible, terrible change. Water is wet, the moon circles the earth and hard drives fail (eventually, some sooner than others).
are you talking about actual hard drives or ssds though?
Both. SSDs also fail (yes, it's true). I'm not sure why people seem to think they last forever or that they never fail. They do not last forever. They do fail.
I've had two sudden, total failures of my 2012 Macbook Air drive: once in warranty where it got replaced, once out of warranty. I have indeed been using a USB3 external SSD drive for the OS ever since. Inconvenient, but it works quite well.
Sounds like something a software update could fix. Probably a scenario that was never tested.
Intending to support it but never testing it would be a surprise. If I were designing laptop hardware I'd probably spend a lot of time booting it from external media as part of the design process. It would accidentally be the most tested feature of the hardware aside from maybe turning it on.
Maybe or maybe not. It depends a lot on how the chip's boot ROM is designed.
So, in other words, it is actually possible to brick an Apple Silicon Mac computer.
Cool!!
Cool!!
[deleted]
I get that the memory bandwidth and performance of the SoC is intimately tied to the CPU, GPU and memory being on the same silicon (grossly vulgarizing the approach).
However, there is no reasonable justification (as far as I can tell) for why the SSD would have to be soldered onto the same SoC, and even less reasonable justification for why the iBoot stuff couldn't be located on an EEPROM or something of the sort, like a secondary BIOS/UEFI.
It just boggles my mind why Apple would go so far to limit storage options and even make a straight up bad architectural decision (SSD gone ? You can't boot the 4k€ machine. What ? You bought it 4 years ago ? Well, tough luck.)
However, there is no reasonable justification (as far as I can tell) for why the SSD would have to be soldered onto the same SoC, and even less reasonable justification for why the iBoot stuff couldn't be located on an EEPROM or something of the sort, like a secondary BIOS/UEFI.
It just boggles my mind why Apple would go so far to limit storage options and even make a straight up bad architectural decision (SSD gone ? You can't boot the 4k€ machine. What ? You bought it 4 years ago ? Well, tough luck.)
Does anyone laugh a bit at these types of comments?
Using these "stupid" and "unjustifiable" approaches, apple has delivered highly reliable / fast machines to lots of users. They come with applecare if you want, which gets you walk in fix/replace at their stores.
Note, they've already don't this on iphones - millions shipped.
They are going for as much reliability / speed out of this for the 90%+ of users who are not going in to manually swap out SSDs. They are also huge on part simplification, they probably got rid of the bios flash and are just using the SSD flash.
My own predication, as in many other areas others will COPY this "stupid" design - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. My guess is others will also stop shipping another set of chargers with everything (again copying apple).
They now also sell indefinite applecare, by getting normal breakage down low enough you can keep apple care as long as you want if you keep paying.
Using these "stupid" and "unjustifiable" approaches, apple has delivered highly reliable / fast machines to lots of users. They come with applecare if you want, which gets you walk in fix/replace at their stores.
Note, they've already don't this on iphones - millions shipped.
They are going for as much reliability / speed out of this for the 90%+ of users who are not going in to manually swap out SSDs. They are also huge on part simplification, they probably got rid of the bios flash and are just using the SSD flash.
My own predication, as in many other areas others will COPY this "stupid" design - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. My guess is others will also stop shipping another set of chargers with everything (again copying apple).
They now also sell indefinite applecare, by getting normal breakage down low enough you can keep apple care as long as you want if you keep paying.
You are arguing without any arguments.
1) I agree that some integration is intimately tied to how well the machines performs. I also referenced this in my comment. What I don't agree to is the SSD being soldered on. It uses the same PCIe lanes it would use if it was swappable ! As for the "stupid" approach, it really doesn't make much sense to tie the capability of the machine FUNCTIONING to a storage that you cannot change (and that is bound to break eventually from wear & tear, because it's an SSD).
2) The iPhone are a different story. It's a different requirement all together. You have to fit EVERYTHING in a couple of mm2 of surface. That's a very tough requirement, and everyone understands that you can't have the ability of swapping an SSD and having the portability that the iPhone offers at the same time. The same is simply not true for a professional laptop.
3) I sincerely don't see how an iBoot-inspired design would replace UEFI anytime soon. The latter is more powerful as far as I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong).
4) The "support" plan you're describing is in my eyes extortion. If I can buy an SSD for 100€ on Amazon, and replace it down the line 5 years from now, it really doesn't compare to paying 200€ / year for an insurance, when all it covers is bringing your laptop to its original state. A swappable SSD can be expanded down the line when storage gets denser / cheaper.
All-in-all, I do agree and fully support a degree of integration that's backed by technical motives (i.e. Otherwise unattainable performance), but when the motives start turning into more lock-in and sell-up motives, that's where my support ends.
I genuinely do not understand how you could view this as a "good" thing. As for the 90% users who are not going to manually swap out SSDs, it would still be the same ! They won't have to touch them !
1) I agree that some integration is intimately tied to how well the machines performs. I also referenced this in my comment. What I don't agree to is the SSD being soldered on. It uses the same PCIe lanes it would use if it was swappable ! As for the "stupid" approach, it really doesn't make much sense to tie the capability of the machine FUNCTIONING to a storage that you cannot change (and that is bound to break eventually from wear & tear, because it's an SSD).
2) The iPhone are a different story. It's a different requirement all together. You have to fit EVERYTHING in a couple of mm2 of surface. That's a very tough requirement, and everyone understands that you can't have the ability of swapping an SSD and having the portability that the iPhone offers at the same time. The same is simply not true for a professional laptop.
3) I sincerely don't see how an iBoot-inspired design would replace UEFI anytime soon. The latter is more powerful as far as I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong).
4) The "support" plan you're describing is in my eyes extortion. If I can buy an SSD for 100€ on Amazon, and replace it down the line 5 years from now, it really doesn't compare to paying 200€ / year for an insurance, when all it covers is bringing your laptop to its original state. A swappable SSD can be expanded down the line when storage gets denser / cheaper.
All-in-all, I do agree and fully support a degree of integration that's backed by technical motives (i.e. Otherwise unattainable performance), but when the motives start turning into more lock-in and sell-up motives, that's where my support ends.
I genuinely do not understand how you could view this as a "good" thing. As for the 90% users who are not going to manually swap out SSDs, it would still be the same ! They won't have to touch them !
Your assumption is incorrect. The SSD on any Mac with a T2/M1 is not like an NVME SSD you'd pick up from the store. The soldered modules themselves are just NAND storage, the T2/M1 is the actual storage controller. They're literally non-functional otherwise.
My impression was they were also going to try and move the T2 off being a separate (potentially replaceable) chip and integrate it with the M1 - did that happen yet or still to happen? But one thing you get on a mac is basically hardware level security for the SSD.
Bad news, data recovery will be hard / impossible. Good news, if you sell the thing on pretty unlikely next person will get your data or can remove the "drive" and try to crack it offline. Not sure how imaging a mac drive works these days either?
Bad news, data recovery will be hard / impossible. Good news, if you sell the thing on pretty unlikely next person will get your data or can remove the "drive" and try to crack it offline. Not sure how imaging a mac drive works these days either?
Yep on M1 macs there is no T2, it's already been integrated.
You are not in the business of shipping a million+ devices.
* Any connector is a potential failure point. Generally with a connector you double the connection points (ie, SSD -> Connector -> now soldered to board). So if you are soldering anyways, and can solder to board directly, then you save yourself both a part and a bunch of connection points. This is good news for everything (signal loss, noise / RFI / durability etc). When you warranty and offer applecare on expensive devices, you want these warrenty claims to be low.
* Apple's mode has been to integrate / tighten things up - that is their design philosophy. They are going to integrate as many chips into one as they can (ie, you won't be even able to unsolder a T2 chip because there won't be one). There stuff, again, is meant to be used as an integrated whole, there is no mix / match here.
* They are going to solder memory as well down - you won't be able to replace that either. Then they are going to try and integrate memory into same package as CPU / GPU. I realize this makes folks mad, but it's what they do and it's been very successful for them. I think some of their LPDDR stuff only comes in a solder on format (and M1 is going towards even more integration - I actually like mix and match on my desktops so don't use macs so not following so closely but I know they were thinking of literally not even soldering but integrating fully).
* I saw first hand a number of claims BTW where replacement batteries had been put into macbooks and iphones as part of resales and people then went and complained to apple or about apple online when those batteries had problems. I think even when replaceable, they've added warnings in these cases. But it goes to show the quality in the mix and match department is hit and miss.
Frankly, it's probably 95%+ of their millions / billions of devices that won't get an upgrade. They've done same with airpods, no removable batteries. A ton of companies, again, or COPYING these designs.
* Any connector is a potential failure point. Generally with a connector you double the connection points (ie, SSD -> Connector -> now soldered to board). So if you are soldering anyways, and can solder to board directly, then you save yourself both a part and a bunch of connection points. This is good news for everything (signal loss, noise / RFI / durability etc). When you warranty and offer applecare on expensive devices, you want these warrenty claims to be low.
* Apple's mode has been to integrate / tighten things up - that is their design philosophy. They are going to integrate as many chips into one as they can (ie, you won't be even able to unsolder a T2 chip because there won't be one). There stuff, again, is meant to be used as an integrated whole, there is no mix / match here.
* They are going to solder memory as well down - you won't be able to replace that either. Then they are going to try and integrate memory into same package as CPU / GPU. I realize this makes folks mad, but it's what they do and it's been very successful for them. I think some of their LPDDR stuff only comes in a solder on format (and M1 is going towards even more integration - I actually like mix and match on my desktops so don't use macs so not following so closely but I know they were thinking of literally not even soldering but integrating fully).
* I saw first hand a number of claims BTW where replacement batteries had been put into macbooks and iphones as part of resales and people then went and complained to apple or about apple online when those batteries had problems. I think even when replaceable, they've added warnings in these cases. But it goes to show the quality in the mix and match department is hit and miss.
Frankly, it's probably 95%+ of their millions / billions of devices that won't get an upgrade. They've done same with airpods, no removable batteries. A ton of companies, again, or COPYING these designs.
Laughing at other peoples' opinions doesn't make you more correct. Corporations copying each other to increase profit does not prove this is the right thing to do for all users.
The point is having separate eeproms, separate bios flash memory, separate storage controller in SSD drive etc etc - apple focuses very hard on NOT doing any of that.
They are CONSTANTLY pushing down part counts.
The claim that there is "no reason" for this is ridiculous. There are at least 10 good businesses reasons, from part count / inventory complexity, to assembly time, to durability to get rid of parts, connectors, ribbon cables etc etc.
The best part is no part.
And yes, it makes folks putting in (often crap) replacement parts and reselling things (without disclosure) harder too. Does apple care about that? No. And there is a good business reason for them not to care, their users want a trusted device. Apple brand strength is at record highs.
As speeds scale, bus speeds scale, frankly apple is going to have the advantage if they can tie things in better. At some point you can't run PCI full speed over things like a replaceable cable, the tolerances are too tight (16GT/s etc).
On HN it's like reading of folks who are used to stone blocks, very modular and stackable and replaceable, yes, complain about something like concrete with rebar in it.
You really realize the mentality advantage apple has when you come here. While other companies are dumping tons of parts, connectors, EEPROM flash ships (which BTW can brick the system if the update doesn't work) Apple is streamlining and integrating.
They are CONSTANTLY pushing down part counts.
The claim that there is "no reason" for this is ridiculous. There are at least 10 good businesses reasons, from part count / inventory complexity, to assembly time, to durability to get rid of parts, connectors, ribbon cables etc etc.
The best part is no part.
And yes, it makes folks putting in (often crap) replacement parts and reselling things (without disclosure) harder too. Does apple care about that? No. And there is a good business reason for them not to care, their users want a trusted device. Apple brand strength is at record highs.
As speeds scale, bus speeds scale, frankly apple is going to have the advantage if they can tie things in better. At some point you can't run PCI full speed over things like a replaceable cable, the tolerances are too tight (16GT/s etc).
On HN it's like reading of folks who are used to stone blocks, very modular and stackable and replaceable, yes, complain about something like concrete with rebar in it.
You really realize the mentality advantage apple has when you come here. While other companies are dumping tons of parts, connectors, EEPROM flash ships (which BTW can brick the system if the update doesn't work) Apple is streamlining and integrating.
[deleted]
Maybe others will also take after apple selling $99 stands and $7 small microfiber cloths.
Unsurprising.
Given the countless times I have warned about the risks of going 'all in' on an Apple Silicon Mac and now they realise.
Good luck with your files if the internal hard drive is dead. Consider creating regular backups otherwise your can say goodbye to your files.
No thanks and absolutely no deal to that.
Given the countless times I have warned about the risks of going 'all in' on an Apple Silicon Mac and now they realise.
Good luck with your files if the internal hard drive is dead. Consider creating regular backups otherwise your can say goodbye to your files.
No thanks and absolutely no deal to that.
How is this any different than any other computer? If a hard drive fails, recovering data is either impossible or very expensive. Everyone who uses a computer ought to have some sort of backup, either another drive, cloud service, etc.
Yes, if you have anything of even moderate importance on a computer, not backing up is foolish and will eventually result in loss of data. If plugging in an external drive and letting something like Time Machine or Carbon Copy Cloner run from time to time is too much trouble there's even options like Backblaze which makes automated incremental backups entirely transparent and effortless. There's no good reason to not backup.
Surely everyone on HN does regular backups of some kind? Most of us probably have two or three different kinds of backups, if I'm to believe what I read here (e.g. I have everything I care about on cloud storage, also backed up by Time Machine, and backed up by Backblaze).
If my MBP fails, I'll walk into the Apple Store and swap for a new one, hook up my TM backup and be back working in an hour or so.
I've always, always assumed that the internal drive can fail at any moment and take every last byte of data with it.
If my MBP fails, I'll walk into the Apple Store and swap for a new one, hook up my TM backup and be back working in an hour or so.
I've always, always assumed that the internal drive can fail at any moment and take every last byte of data with it.
I can't see any scenario on any hardware in which I would not strongly advise to make regular backups.
Beside theses laptop are designed to be used (if configured so) with full disk encryption using a strong key stored inside a secure enclave on the cpu. If something is amiss the data is lost, they could almost say it's a feature (but they probably won't as is would be seen as a bug by the majority of people hence this thread).
Beside theses laptop are designed to be used (if configured so) with full disk encryption using a strong key stored inside a secure enclave on the cpu. If something is amiss the data is lost, they could almost say it's a feature (but they probably won't as is would be seen as a bug by the majority of people hence this thread).
[deleted]
[deleted]
This setup has a benefit; namely, it is now impossible to brick the system with a bad BIOS/EFI flash, and you'll never need to use a hardware SPI flasher to recover. Just like the iPhone, you can enter Boot ROM DFU mode, which can't easily be overwritten, and restore all of the firmware on the system that's writable.
This is great for restoring systems to a known good firmware state, including SSD, EFI, BridgeOS, RecoveryOS. On a normal system, there is plenty of non volatile storage that is difficult to recover or reset.
The primary argument against soldering the SSD, or really any other part, down like this tends to be that "Oh, now you can't just save money by upgrading it yourself|replacing it when it breaks". On the other side, these machines are engineered as appliances that should achieve a certain degree of reliability. The SSD is reasonably considered to last the "lifetime" of the product, and should it fail, I don't consider the inability to externally boot to be a huge problem, since whatever failure damaged the SSD is statistically likely to compromise the reliability of the rest of the board. Any failure is grounds for "rework" of the board on a hardware level if necessary,up to and including repair/replacement of the onboard flash, and not just a simple workaround in my opinion. Note that they don't force you to actually USE the internal SSD - you can still netboot or USB boot I think. It just has to work.
Trivia: -At least on T2 systems, the flash memory itself (the NAND chips) on the mainboard can actually be swapped between units after a DFU restore by unsoldering them and transferring them.
The person that did this on YouTube notes that a common reason for SSD failure on T2 machines is due to SSD power regulator circuitry being located close to the intake vents on the side of the MacBook Pro. They recommend that users of these machines open them and clean the dust out often, since dust buildup on the actual power regulator combined with moisture sometimes causes a short circuit, sending high voltage to the SSD and damaging it.
This kind of failure (high voltage parts close to low voltage ones, close to liquid damage prone areas, without any underfilling) is documented by Louis Rossmann. It is, however, not always feasible or possible to entirely prevent.