XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: crude@sausa.ge
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 03:14:49 -0000 (UTC), 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 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.
>
> Choosing to ignore it doesn't make it go away or in any way water it
> down, Alan.
At this point, it is pretty clear that Alan is unable to think for
himself. If we want to know what he thinks, we should communicate with
Apple directly.
>> 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.
>
> The NANDs Apple uses are not standard. They have some internal issues
> which causes them to fail prematurely. When they do, your computer
> becomes a paperweight. You can't get around this fact about them, Alan.
I thought it was the bug in MacOS which caused the NVMes to be used
extensively for swap which caused them to fail prematurely, not the
hardware design itself. What you're saying is even worse than I thought.
>> 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; We're just going around in circles at
> this point. I've more than backed up my position. It's upto you what you
> do with the information I've shared. If you wish to continue ignoring
> it, that's on you.
>
>> Do I still want to continue using Macs despite that choice? Absolutely.
>
> I'm not trying to convince you not to use them. I don't care what you
> use anymore so than you should care about what I use. I was just letting
> people who wanted to know about some issues Apple has with their lovely
> walled off garden designs.
So repairing a Mac is a lot more complicated than it needs to be yet the
computer also costs more than comparable hardware with an operating system
which manages less than the competition. Wow, what a deal!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
