XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com   
      
   On Feb 9, 2026 at 8:37:19 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote   
   :   
      
   > -hh  news:10lkr4u$2q84a$1@dont-email.me   
   > Sat, 31 Jan 2026 12:04:46 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 1/30/26 23:04, Gremlin wrote:   
   >> Sure, but now as Google the same question, but replace "mac" with "PC".   
   >> For this, I got the following fact-check on you:   
   >   
   > I fail to see how this is a fact check on me? I didn't say that only Apple   
   > SSD would die if a single NAND went. I thought it was commonly understood   
   > that's how SSD worked in the first place?   
   >   
   > The important distinction between the two though is that the PC doesn't turn   
   > into a paperweight when the internal SSD dies. The Apple does.   
   >   
   >> Since per this source both Macs & PCs are subject to effectively the   
   >> same failure chain, my conclusion is that you've committed the logical   
   >> fallacy of trying to make a distinction without a difference.   
   >   
   > Incorrect. See above. The PC doesn't turn into a paperweight when and if   
   > this occurs. The Apples do.   
   >   
   >> If a NAND chip (the storage chip) on a PC motherboard or SSD has   
   >> physically shorted to ground, the device is usually considered   
   >> functionally dead ("a paperweight") in terms of immediate operation.   
   >> However, it is not necessarily a permanent loss of data, though   
   >> repairing it is extremely difficult.   
   >   
   > Nice try, but if the SSD on the PC is soldered; you can de solder it and   
   > replace it. It's usually not converted into a propriety package as is the   
   > case with Apple.   
   >   
   >>> I've reposted all of the links I've shared along with a considerable   
   >>> bit from google c/p. I hope this information is satisfactory?   
   >>   
   >> Now that you have, I don't see any particularly strong argument within   
   >> your cites for why you're choosing to criticize one vendor, versus the   
   >> whole industry's design approach.   
   >   
   > PCs don't become bricks if the SSD dies due to hardware failure; the PC can   
   > be fixed. The Apple is generally fucked as is. It'll be replace the computer   
   > or the mainboard for the Apple. And if you opt to replace the mainboard,   
   > don't forget that your touchpad,display panel etc are mated to the old one.   
   > That will have to be corrected *if* it can be corrected.   
   >   
   >>> I'm not sure why it was brought up in the first place concerning   
   >>> protection.   
   >>   
   >> It wasn't raised by me, since I merely pointed it out in my question.   
   >   
   > I didn't raise it either.    
   >   
   >>> I wrote nothing about any protection it would offer vs soldered on. I   
   >>> can't think of any protection off the top of my head from an electrical   
   >>> perspective of that.   
   >>   
   >> Then why was it raised?   
   >   
   > You'd have to ask the person who raised it?   
   >   
   >> Precisely, so then why was it raised?  And associated with this?   
   >   
   > See above.   
   >   
   >>>> I see no logical reason why socket-vs-soldered would make any   
   >>>> difference for that claimed failure mode, so I asked what difference   
   >>>> it would make.   
   >>>   
   >>> I didn't mention it in relation to the failure mode because I too   
   >>> couldn't see a logical reason why it would have made a difference.   
   >>> Which is why I didn't mention it in this context in the first place.   
   >>   
   >> But it was nevertheless mentioned, so in what context was this done?   
   >   
   > You'd have to ask the individual who mentioned it.   
   >   
   >>> We shouldn't have that issue because I didn't make any claims   
   >>> concerning more/less protection if socketed vs soldered. All I've   
   >>> stated (and supported, thanks; sorry Alan) is that the modern Apples   
   >>> effectively become paperweights if the internal soldered on SSD fails.   
   >>   
   >> Contemplate if their SSD had been socketed:  would they still be bricked   
   >> for each of the two failure modes, or not?   
   >   
   > The reason they become paperweights if it's not a hardware failure is due to   
   > firmware that becomes no longer accessable because Apple thought it wise to   
   > store such information on the same NANDs which make up the SSD drive. If the   
   > NAND shorts to ground - you could fix that issue, but the laptop won't come   
   > back to life by doing so. Much more work is involved and the chances of   
   > success aren't that great and it would be expensive. I have the same mindset   
   > when it comes to using a wear part; I won't install a used one to attempt to   
   > repair a system.   
   >   
   > There was (might still be) a 1TB storage drive available. You'd have to pay   
   > for the board (600+) plus a considerable amount of bench time required to   
   > tear the new board apart and manually de solder all of the necessary   
   > components. Then goto the affected laptops mainboard and remove some   
   > specific components and replace them with the ones you harvested. Then, you   
   > have to have some way of getting critical firmware back into them. Once you   
   > deal with the controller IC that doesn't recognize them.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> One doesn't need to reach the max writes on an SSD in Apples case for   
   >>> the machine to die prematurely and fail in a catastrophic manner   
   >>> because of the way in which Apple decided to design it.   
   >>   
   >> Same is true for PCs too.   
   >   
   > Not really. PCs don't have mated components. If I smashed the display panel   
   > this computer is using - I can buy a new one and replace it. There is no   
   > chip that's going to complain that this panel wasn't the one it was using   
   > previously and refuse to let me use it.   
   >   
   > if an SSD goes on a PC it won't usually take the rig down with it. If by   
   > some chance a NAND explodes and somehow shorts the power rail out on the PC,   
   > this is still a fixable condition and the SSD drive can usually be replaced.   
   > If the drive cannot be replaced, it can be removed (the short cleared) and   
   > the PC switched to using external media to boot and function. Modern Apples   
   > cannot; they don't have critical firmware on it's own chip anymore. They   
   > thought it was a better idea to store it on the NANDS themselves. PC's don't   
   > do that.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> One shouldn't have a paperweight if   
   >>> the SSD dies for any reason in the first place, imo. The owner of the   
   >>> gear should be able to replace the drive (or switch to using external)   
   >>> and go about their day. Not do some serious soldering work or replace   
   >>> the mainboard or buy a new computer to resolve the issue. A computer   
   >>> shouldn't die when the internal primary storage drive does.   
   >>   
   >> That's merely your personal opinion on design priorities.   
   >   
   > I don't think it's a good design to have to remove the cab of the truck to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)