XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: nobody@haph.org
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=
news:10ljn1q$2iigq$2@dont-email.me Sat, 31 Jan 2026 01:48:42 GMT in
comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2026 15:31:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>
>> He is trying to push what may very well be be real -- that there is
>> a specific tradeoff with a downside that bothers him -- and use it
>> to suggest something: that Macs do not last as long. I have shown
>> where the opposite is true.
>
> Where have you shown this?
He hasn't. Obviously I haven't been trying to push anything. I was
disclosing something about modern Apples that some people may not have
been aware of. As well as the pitfalls for such design decisions.
> There is an old engineering adage: "In any system, complexity arises,
> not so much from the number of components, as from the number of
> potential interactions between them".
I've had this concept drilled into my head since I was a kid when I
started to build my own electronics. Don't do this, keep the power
lines/traces as far away from any traces which won't be happy at those
voltages. Add components to protect the primary circuit in case something
happens. Assume the user might abuse your circuit by a reverse polarity
accidental hookup; do not blow up. Instead, alert the user that they've
goofed and prevent any possible damage which would normally occur when
this is done.
When I started building switch mode power supplies that run on house mains
voltages, I learned the importance of isolation. In the event one fails in
a spectacular manner the last thing I want it to do is deliver house mains
or higher voltages to the output side. There's a lot of designs out there
that aren't properly isolated from the mains voltage and under the right
failure conditions can pass that along to the output side. Cheap supplies
from China are bad about this. Just an FYI.
> This is why engineers are careful to design complex systems in a
> modular fashion, with careful separation between modules and
> carefully-controlled interactions between them.
That's the proper way. Control the failure if one does occur. Don't allow
one component to take out the entire system. That's amateur hour grade
design if it does.
> For "complexity", in Apple's case, read "propensity to failure
> cascades". Apple has sacrificed design modularity for the sake of
> short-term profits. Sure, they will get away with it for the first few
> years, but it will come back to bite them eventually.
>
> Or rather, it will bite their users. But of course Apple will no
> longer care by that point, will it?
Based on their design decisions, I'd have to go with they didn't care when
they designed it.
--
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
