XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-29 19:14, Gremlin wrote:   
   > Alan  news:10lgehe$1inqr$2@dont-email.me Thu, 29 Jan 2026   
   > 20:05:02 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-01-28 19:24, Gremlin wrote:   
   >>> -hh  news:10l50jn$1jvep$1@dont-email.me   
   >>> Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:59:51 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Just which models were these?  Are they still being sold new, or are   
   >>>> they discontinued?   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you unable to look anything up for yourself? It's well documented.   
   >>> Well known. Which makes it very easy to find with your favorite search   
   >>> engine. Plus, I already shared supporting information concerning this   
   >>> issue in a previous reply to Alan.   
   >>   
   >> If it's so "well documented" and "easy to find"...   
   >>   
   >> ...why didn't you just provide it?   
   >   
   > Er, because I have, already, several times now. You continue to ignore the   
      
   Er, no, you haven't.   
      
   > information or otherwise pretend it doesn't exist. If -hh is following along   
   > in our discussion, he's seen the posts where I shared various video links as   
   > well as google query and search results all supporting what I've been   
   > writing about. As well as a discussions.apple link I shared again, just   
   > yesterday.   
      
   Again: sharing a 30+ minute video without a timestamp isn't citing very   
   well, is it?   
      
   >   
   > Choosing to ignore it doesn't make it go away or in any way water it down,   
   > Alan.   
   >   
   >> The point was (as you conveniently snipped) that someone suggested that   
   >> Macs are somehow more susceptible to a "13V shock", because their SSDs   
   >> are soldered.   
   >   
   > Careful how you try to misrepresent what I've been writing about. :) I've   
   > stated that the SSD is soldered - which is correct. I've also stated that   
   > when the SSD dies, you won't be using external media to boot the machine and   
   > continue using it - Apple thought it was wise to move some much needed   
   > firmware from it's own chip onto the NANDs which makeup the SSD. Lose that   
   > firmware, lose the computer. You can't just desolder those NANDs and replace   
   > them. You won't have a copy of the necessary firmware. Apple doesn't want to   
   > sell you those NANDs. but, they did at one point offer a 1TB kit; you'd just   
   > have to manually remove all of the NANDs by hand and ever so carefully   
   > solder them to the affected board. Then, figure out some way to get the   
   > necessary firmware back into them. This easily turns the repair job into one   
   > that will cost the client 800 or more. Good luck with that.   
      
   What you've yet to show is that Apple's SSDs fail completely in any   
   significant numbers.   
      
   >   
   > The NANDs Apple uses are not standard.   
      
   So you claim without cites.   
      
   > They have some internal issues which   
   > causes them to fail prematurely.   
      
   So you claim without cites.   
      
   > When they do, your computer becomes a   
   > paperweight. You can't get around this fact about them, Alan.   
   >   
   >> Would I prefer that Apple hadn't chosen this setup? Sure.   
   >   
   > I suspect most people would have preferred Apple not do that, had they known   
   > about it prior to purchase.   
   >   
   > I snipped your other paragraph...   
   ...because you're an essentially dishonest person?   
      
   (Oh! Did I snip some of your text there?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)