XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com   
      
   On Jan 25, 2026 at 2:08:45 PM MST, "Alan" wrote   
   <10l60ot$1urjh$2@dont-email.me>:   
      
   > On 2026-01-24 16:49, Gremlin wrote:   
   >> Alan  news:10krnnr$2hee6$5@dont-email.me Wed, 21 Jan 2026   
   >> 23:33:15 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-01-20 19:14, Gremlin wrote:   
   >>>> Alan  news:10kp5t3$1mfma$1@dont-email.me Wed, 21 Jan   
   >>>> 2026 00:16:34 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 2026-01-20 15:17, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> I just find it unfortunate that Anal is still replying to me. I am so   
   >>>>>> tired of his zealoty that I just put him in the killfile. No matter   
   >>>>>> what Apple does, it's always right in the minds of these people. Even   
   >>>>>> when their MacBook self-destruct when the TBW is reached, this is a   
   >>>>>> good thing.   
   >>>>> Still waiting for proof that:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 1. SSDs die all at once because some storage locations die.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If one of the NAND chips which together make up the SSD dies - the SSD   
   >>>> is done.   
   >>>   
   >>> So the whole CHIP needs to die.   
   >>   
   >> Are you expecting half a chip? Maybe a quarter of it?    
   >   
   > I'm expecting that as an SSD ages, CELLS of the SSD die.   
   >   
   > TBW doesn't mean the death of entire chips...   
   >   
   > ...and actual usage of personal computers seems to me to show that a   
   > user will want a new machine long before the TBW limit is reached.   
   >   
   > As an anecdotal example, I just downloaded a utility to check my M3   
   > MacBook Air's drive health (DriveDX), and it reports that my 1TB SSD has   
   > only used 3% of it's "SSD Lifetime Left Indicator".   
   >   
   > I've had the machine for 22 months, so at that rate, the SSD will be   
   > good for another 59 years.   
   >   
   > I actually checked with two utilities and they both agree.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Is that what actually happens?   
   >>   
   >> Usually. Sometimes the NAND dies on it's own, other times the power control   
   >> IC is responsible for the failure. These aren't the only ways this result   
   >> can happen though. Apple has all kinds of ... interesting little circuit   
   >> designs under the hood that can fail in spectacularly catastrophic ways. I   
   >> don't know what their QC focuses on as much, but, I'm reasonably certain   
   >> it's not internal circuit design or layout. I don't think they care much   
   >> about that as long as it works - going by some of the things I've seen.   
      
   > Yeah... ...you keep saying this, but you've yet to back it up.   
      
   And it is contrary to what is generally understood about Apple. They are   
   generally considered to have excellent board design. They do focus on making   
   things compact over repairable, and that understandably irks some people.   
      
      
      
   --   
   It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with   
   you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)