A lot of comments here about the price for older components. But people forget that these guys ( apparently ) spent time and research on figuring out the most secure tech out there to build a laptop. And then probably paying extra to suppliers because of the old tech availability, lower amount of total orders, future RnD....
I mean, how dare they try to make some money, right?
I think they could always save/make money the traditional way:
- reduce engineering costs by adding telemetry to make all your customers debug for you.
- conveniently save all telemetry forever, just in case you can sell it for money.
- pop-up advertising. I think those videos that play at the gas station would look good on the bootup screen. If the bootup is too short, then lock the desktop until it is finished.
- take away features, then sell them back as upgrades. adjustable volume? $5
LOL if they do all what @m463 said, this Librem laptop won't be any different from what you buy anywhere else. Windows 10 junk anyone!? Telemetry!? WTF!
I have an original librem 13. It is quite refreshing. No proprietary drivers, works with every linux distribution without fiddling (I run arch). wifi/bt+mic/camera switches. Barrel jack for power. standard screws, standard memory, standard m.2, standard ssd.
I think most of the criticism is directed at those who would pay more for ideological, not practical freedom.
Especially with hardware the definition of “freedom” is rather nonsensical such as that by the F.S.F.'s definition, which many follow, destroying a microcontroller such that r.w.-memory becomes r.o. can actually make hardware change from not-free into free. — removing functionality from the user to replace proprietary software with free software makes it freer based on the F.S.F's definition that read-only memory is not software, but hardware.
> r.w.-memory becomes r.o. can actually make hardware change from not-free into free.
It's about equal rights. For instance, if the manufacturer can provide security updates, but you can't, they can notify the NSA about security holes first before providing the update. Whereas if it is r.w. for all, anyone can provide security updates.
Not quite. In the F.S.F.'s definition, even if the manufacturer provided a full documentation of the hardware and thus an ability to write free drivers, but none had simply done so and it must thus be shipped with proprietary drivers, then making it r.o. renders the entire hardware “free”.
In fact, a literal reading of the F.S.F.'s definition would make a computer with Windows on it, provided that it be burned into r.o. memory meet the terms of their Respects Your Freedom mark, though perhaps they would refuse in that case due to a clear violation of the spirit of the rules.
The problem is that by the F.S.F.'s definition, one can sidestep it all by simply burning any proprietary software into r.o.m., as then it is hardware, not software.
This paradox is the result of the F.S.F.'s insistence that the world can be neatly partitioned binarily into products that are entirely composed of “free software” and those that are not, and a want of such a binary partition often creates such bizarre paradoxes.
> the F.S.F.'s insistence that the world can be neatly partitioned binarily into products that are entirely composed of “free software” and those that are not, and a want of such a binary partition often creates such bizarre paradoxes.
There is no such insistence by the FSF. They simply chose such boundary for giving their certification. It does not mean we should not go further than that, and FSF would of course encourage you to make even more freedom-respecting hardware.
If FSF would demand absolutely free hardware, there would be no devices to certify.
That is but displacing the problem; the same problem still exists in the sense that devices are certifiable, or not.
Rather, the F.S.F. should offer a description of checkboxes on devices of which important things they do and do not do, allowing users to easily select the devices with the checkboxes they value.
Yes, that is the alternative if one stubbornly choose to believe that the world can binarily partitioned into free and proprietary. — such paradoxes often derive from such a mentality.
Not sure that's the sum total of Purism's case here. The hardware kill switches on the mic and network aren't something that everyone needs or wants, but people who do don't have a whole lot of ready-built options.
I’m less concerned about the prices and more concerned about their support. The L13v3 had a bad hinge. And there’s multiple reports of abysmal support for that, or basic things like batteries and chargers.
My current computer is a Lenovo X200s bought new. So that’s basically the baseline for my expectation of longevity for a linux daily driver
Bigger companies have lower price through high volume and often buying ready made designs from other companies - e.g. many laptops are essentially the same except they have slightly different shell, screen and other peripherals.
The cost of creating a new design from scratch is enormous. It is understandable that small company would like to recover it, but also apply a margin high enough to have funds to work on future models.
Don't forget that the cheap laptops also have factored in your data in their price (e.g. they come with malware and other software that assumes you will sign up and give up your privacy) - the GDPR largely applies only to websites and native applications don't seem to have the same T&C regarding privacy.
You are completely off the mark with regards to gdpr. Gdpr is not only about websites. It is about how you can handle and store any personal data. Whether that's on the web or in your company address book.
It looks nice. But if you ask me to describe what a "linux dream laptop" would have, a 16:10 screen would definitely be up there.
What I'm looking for in a laptop has also evolved, it's no longer (just) raw power but battery life, how noisy the fan is, how hot it gets under load, etc... Not sure how the intel chipset handles all this. I'll wait for more in-depth reviews.
I’d take it a step further and suggest 3:2. Yes, more pixels (for matching X-dimension pixels) means more power draw, but you get a slightly increased height which is valuable real estate. And that small bump won’t be that much more noticeable when watching media full screen compared to 16:10. 4:3 offers much more, but it gets a bit silly and letterboxing would get pretty heavy, and if you want to HiDPI the display at 2x, that’s a ton more pixels compared to the sibling ratios.
4:3 is what you want. That's what all laptops used prior to ~ 2002 or so. You only get "letterboxing" if you view content specifically designed for wide screens; i.e. movies. I don't do that often.
Maybe 1:1 is what you really want, but I've never seen such a laptop :)
Have a few old IBM Thinkpads around the house (courteous of the parents) with 4:3. First things I ever tried Linux on. They’re nice, but they add some depth to the machine that I’m not the biggest fan of (tends to make the device a square). Obviously there are other factors at play, such as the dimensions of the screen in relation to other models choosing different resolution ratios.
Been around a few Surface models, and the 3:2 is pretty nice. I chose to stick with the traditional 16:9 FHD resolution width marker as it’s arguably the most common width for online content in the consumer video space, most common display width, and makes downscaling from 16:9 UDH rather easy. I’d rather have some extra horizontal padding than have the video "squished" or "stretched"(not literally) to fit the display appropriately as it won’t be 1:1 pixels.
Of course, you can always go the Apple/Microsoft way and choose a non-preexisting 16:9 based resolution. But as one who has previously dealt with a lot of video work, I much prefer getting those 1:1 visuals, no resizing needed. Personal preference, and yes, no such display exists to my knowledge in a consumer device. Most people don’t notice or care about this specific topic.
For the longest time I was using a Thinkpad X41 with a 12.1" 1024x768 4:3 ratio screen as basically a glorified web browser, VNC client and ssh terminal, and it worked great
About ten years ago when widescreen was catching on I argued that it's the wrong shape for a computer monitor. I have no idea what the best shape is, but I argued that 4:3 was better. I had a single 5:4 panel myself. When it came time to upgrade it I was forced to go 16:9 as there were simply no affordable options out there. It looks like I was right, though. Hopefully we get some good 3:2, 4:3 or 5:4 panels soon, and ones designed as monitors too, not TVs.
After being used to 1600x1200, going to 1920x1080 seemed to be going backwards, even though its technically more pixels, and this was circa year 2000. Maybe personally preferences are affected by how close or far apart our individual eyes are set relative to one another.
20 years on, and there's no chance I'm buying a 1080p laptop no matter the other ideals behind it. If they're targeting the higher end laptop market with lower end specs, I don't think there's not going to be much of a market for them.
As long as the vertical resolution is good, widescreen just means more space for side by side windows.
I run my 4K 27" desktop monitor at 150% scaling, and usually snap two windows side by side, sometimes up to four windows with corner snapping. It's like having two portrait mode monitors side by side.
On my laptop, the 1366x768 screen lacks the resolution to do this. Vertical resolution is the key, no matter the form factor.
There's a limit to the amount of useful horizontal space, though. I have two 16:9 monitors now and already the far extent of each screen is a bit too far away. If I added a third I'd have to move my chair over to be able to see it. On the other hand, there's plenty of available vertical space that these monitors can't take advantage of.
Sure, you only want to turn your head so far, and two 16:9 screens side-by-side or a single ultrawide monitor seems to be the practical limit, also in regards to desk space.
Swivel/tilt/pivot and multi-monitor brackets make for great flexibility, though. I've seen setups with a 4K monitor flanked by two smaller vertically oriented screens. Or you could stack monitors on top of each other, or a combination.
The biggest setup I've seen at a desk was six 4K monitors, arranged three wide and two tall. When you've got a lot of monitoring to show at once...
i think anything boxy is antiquated. you can always swivel your monitor for more vertical real estate. being able to look at two windows side by side i think is more valuable than increasing vert at the expense of horz.
all this 1x1 and 4:3 business just sounds like hipster nostalgia to me. granted I'm not a programmer, but we're not all programmers either. it's almost as if there's some virtue signaling going on there. oh the desire to be different in a mass produced world.
I always had two windows side by side on my 5:4 screen. On 16:9 I have three windows side by side, which isn't as useful, and I lose several lines of text. It's not a hipster thing. I've been saying widescreen is stupid for monitors since before everyone had them. I have widescreen in my living room, though.
Which resolutions are/were those monitors? I've only ever seen 5:4 monitors in 1280x1024, so a 16:9 monitor at 1920x1080 would give you slightly higher vertical resolution and some nice additional horizontal space.
Two windows side by side on 1280x1024 are 640 pixels wide each, on 1920x1080 three windows are the exact same width each, plus you get an additional 56 pixels of vertical resolution, so in fact more lines of text.
And of course once you go to 2560x1440 or 3840x2160, you either get oodles of space or sharper text, thanks to display scaling.
I miss the old 4:3 laptops. The last one I had was an old Dell Vostro and it was great for software development, since I prefer vertical space for code than side-by-side windows/applications. Nowadays, I rarely use the full width except for watching full screen videos.
Now, I run Linux on a Dell XPS 15 (3840x2400 with a 1.5 fractional HiDPI scale) and it’s acceptable, but still feels a little vertically cramped.
Personally I'd prefer something even wider, maybe 2:1, ideal for viewing two windows side-by-side (my normal working mode). I suspect 16:9 hits a sweet spot for a lot of people, and it's the default for most video (except films, which are usually wider).
More than one lane seems to be ideal. I'm assuming running 3:2 like in the early 2000s, everyone these days is running full screen and alt-tabbing constantly??
I like some things full-screen, like my browser, but vim (ok technically full-screen itself, but split) always 2-3, probably most other things 2 side by side.
But I don't have a square monitor (I think it's 16:9) I don't see why that would be an improvement. If anything surely we want it wider for side by side use, so more 'lanes' can fit?
On my 5:4 screen I would regularly split it into 4: 2 up, 2 down. This was perfect. A lot of inferior window managers seem to restrict splitting to only in one axis, and even two only two windows. It's lame.
I'm on bspwm, so I can split all I want. But split 3 lanes seems to be nice for my workflow right now. But a 3:2? Damn... how skinny are those windows everyone is using, or what fonts!
On 5:4 I would only have two lanes, but I could split vertically as well so I usually still had 3-4 windows at once. On 16:9 I find splitting into 3 lanes makes them slightly too narrow, but it's workable.
As for fonts, I always make my text size as small as possible on every device I own (well, the ones primarily used by me at least).
But doesn’t this make a vertical line right in front of you, making content outside of your central vision? I like my main windows to be right in front, and less important things to both sides of it - that way, I don’t have to constantly turn my head.
Having a split under your nose feels like reading a book but putting the page you’re currently reading past your ears
Hmm.. I guess, but it doesn't matter. With dual screens there is a split right in front of me. My chair swivels so I can adjust my body to make looking left or right comfortable. I've never really thought about it and don't think it's a problem. When I read a book I don't fold it back on itself, both pages are visible at once.
The problem with dream laptops is that dreams change all the time due to marketing and newness. 16:10 screen is better largely because some fancy models today come with 16:10. 5 years ago that same feature wouldn't have mattered. It's just weird.
Just like 1080p vs 1440p. 2k vs 3k vs 4k. Just like the material of the chassis, the brightness of the screen, the weight, the stiffness, the depth of keytravel, the color scheme of the background, the placement of buttons on your window, using usb-c for charging...
I mean, I could ramble for pages about ideal features. Some of those features are important to enjoying a laptop long into the future. But a lot of them are purely whatever the latest craze is. 16:10 screen imo is of the later category.
You need to accept people have other needs than you do.
Brightness of screen is important if you're not always in an optimally-lit environment. I work from home, I like moving around and going to work at cafes for 1-2 hours. My 250 nits thinkpad, for all the great things it has, can be a pain to use in some circumstances.
Telling me I want 16:10 because the fanzy macs have it is belittling. I want 16:10 because I want to see more lines at once when coding on emacs. Depending on what I work on, I even split my windows horizontally.
Even bundling together usb-c for charging with the color scheme of the background is... puzzling. Surely you can see how some people would like to have only one charger to carry around for all their electronic?
If I had to guess, you have a dedicated desk and don't use any computer outside of it. That's a cool setup, but not everybody can or want to do that.
While we're making requests, I'd also love if they got rid of this bizarre keyboard layout where the up arrow key is to the left of the (tiny) right shift.
> battery life, how noisy the fan is, how hot it gets under load
These are also very important factors for me as well. That's the reason I run my laptops with the cpu governor set to battery saving mode. Since for the work I do CPU is rarely the bottleneck, I get better battery life and I can never hear the fans.
I once plugged my Linux thinkpad into a projector via HDMI during a programming interview, and my laptop started smelling like it was burning. Never again!
I had such trouble getting Ubuntu to run in 1920x1080 in my VM, which I found absolutely puzzling, but maybe this is because linux people find 16:9 passé.
I've been using a Matebook X Pro (from Huawei) for the past three years and I have to agree: a 3:2 ratio (at 3000x2000 resolution) is amazing. I've been slowly looking around for a newer machine for work, but honestly most screens suck in comparison.
The HP Spectre x360 14 may be what you’re looking for - it has a 3:2 aspect ratio and options for both an OLED screen (better color, worse battery life) or regular LCD screen (built in electronic privacy filter, better battery life).
I've been pondering getting the 15 inch Spectre, I just can't get over the weird placement of the touchpad and the keyboard including a numeric pad. I know it's silly, but it's just... why make something so pretty then make it asymmetric? It's bizarre.
Interesting link, thanks. I did not see anyone selling devices with disabled PSP. However, neutralizing and disabling are two very different things: https://puri.sm/learn/intel-me/.
In this more recent 2020 thread, they mention the lack of a GPU. When referred to the Apple ARM line, they state that the chip is not available to them;
Impressive specs for a good price. I can’t imagine needing more than 16 gb of ram for a laptop but it is tempting although I imagine that would tax the battery a bit. Does anyone know how compatible pureos is with Ubuntu apps in general?
PureOS is Debian-based, so the packaging is the same, though the repositories are different. It's not a good idea to install Ubuntu packages onto a Debian based system, though they can work.
If you decide you really want Ubuntu, like I did when I got my Librem 13, it's really easy to install. If you want PureBoot that might take some extra doing. I can't tell from a cursory read of the docs whether it works for Ubuntu. Coreboot should work fine though.
I’m really happy with my M1 MacBook, but by god I love what these guys are doing.
When I can afford it I think I’m going to grab one of these to support them. Maybe stuff it in a bug out bag or something.
I was deliberating between this and the M1 MacBook for the longest time. After too many delays I eventually just bought the M1 MacBook, but I really wonder what owning the Librem 14 with Qubes would have been like. It’s basically the perfect Qubes machine.
Same here, but I just couldn't go for the M1. Then again, this is just a home use laptop (no work intensive use) so I can manage with a lower-tier system. Hell, I still use my mid 2011 macbook air and it's fine so I can't imagine the Purism 14 being worse...
It still is a great shame that all of Librem's products only ship with an EN-US keyboard layout. I'm not sure that there are many good privacy-focused or even just Linux-laptop options in Europe – beyond Dell, I'd love to hear your suggestions.
While I can't confirm it to you for sure, I would say that it's very likely the case. Libreboot cannot run on modern hardware, I don't see how Purism laptop could.
Definitely a tangent. But certain Lenovo X1 Carbon models have 3840x2160 displays with integrated intel graphics. (Maybe other Lenovo models too, and quite probably some from other manufacturers, I'm just not familiar with those.)
There are plenty that have 4K screens and no discrete graphics cards, the X1 Carbon from Lenovo is one, I'm pretty certain Dell, LG, etc have similar models as well.
a laptop that starts at $1470 with a 802.11n wireless network interface, in the year 2021? seriously?
Good luck with that when you want to copy some large files, or do anything network intensive, and your speeds max out at 65 Mbps between laptop and AP. As compared to the easily 300-450Mbps you can do in a 40 MHz channel with a 2x2 802.11ac connection. (Not even going to get into 3x3 and 80 MHz channel speeds here).
looking at the librem 14 product specs page I can't even find any details on what exact chipset and antenna configuration it is.
At that price it needs to be 802.11ac/ax 3x3 MIMO dual band.
Overall it makes me wonder what other shoddy stuff might be used as various subsystems/components of the laptop, if I sat down with one and did "sudo lspci -v". For this "Gigabit Ethernet Adapter with Integrated RJ45 Connector" am I going to find a realtek chipset that belongs in a $430 laptop you can buy at Best Buy?
And then they have the gall to sell the power adapter separately from the laptop, for an extra $59? What brand new laptop on earth doesn't come with an AC wall adapter/charger in the box?
No, it hasn't. You're confusing driver and firmware, again. What it has, and what you are showing me, is a free driver.
The former is executed on the main processor of your computer, the second on the various chips of your card / device which can run various forms of code. The second can be loaded either from the main CPU (computer), or from some flash or some (P)ROM located on the board or directly inside the chips.
As far as I know, the PCIe-based Atheros 802.11n cards don't have any firmware at all - just hardware state machines controlled by the open source driver.
I think you're making adequate observations but missing the point.
The Librem line of products are targeting a market niche of Free Software/Hardware, transparency and security.
If you're comparing to the offerings available in Best buy, you're probably not in the target audience.
Not sure why they sell the power adapter separately though. Judging by the Librem 14 page, the adapter is not sold separately, it's something you select while setting up the order..? Cf. https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-14/
I've been using FreeBSD since 1998 on the server side - and currently admin a large amount of Debian based infrastructure stuff - so I'm well aware of the philosophical GPL/LGPL/BSD related issues related to free software.
And I admire what they're trying to do with this laptop. Being a start-up small hardware manufacturer in the same ecosystem with 500 pound behemoths like Microsoft selling Surface Books, and Dells and such, is a really hard position to be in.
But I also believe that on the x86-64 platform, hardware will either stand on its own merits or it won't. There's no glossing over that some components on this thing are really not a good value for the money.
I'd happily pay a premium and accept older hardware if it gives me more openness.
That's not to say that an old, slow wifi card doesn't bother me - but I don't think I will get a new gats wifi card with open firmware unless I pay the people who will work on it.
Aren't you just making yourself a target by ordering from them? I know they have the add-on tamper seals, but if I was any agency, I'd make sure to monitor packages coming out of their warehouse.
> And then they have the gall to sell the power adapter separately from the laptop, for an extra $59? What brand new laptop on earth doesn't come with an AC wall adapter/charger in the box?
This is a good thing IMO, since I already have two AC chargers which are compatible with the Librem 14: One from a Librem 13 and another from a Tuxedo laptop. Chargers stay alive a lot longer than laptops, so it's more sustainable of I can keep using them.
I don’t get why people get so up in arms over splitting out parts from products. Would they rather the price be bumped $49 and the charger come included and people who already have one buy a pointless charger? If you don’t have one then you just factor the cost in to the purchase and if you do have one it comes out cheaper.
Agreed. This article [1], though a bit old, suggests it's for idealist reasons: only these old Atheros chips have open firmware. Given that Intel processors are pretty dependent on close sourced microcode anyway and they're using a i7-10710U, I must admit I don't really see the point.
I really don't see the point either, since I somehow doubt that they have access to the source code of the Intel CPU's integrated graphics firmware. Or of the gigabit ethernet controller they're using. Or the firmware of the SSD. What exactly are they gaining by standing on principle and not using a proper modern 802.11ac/ax interface?
Yes, you are not seeing the point because you are missing it. This laptop is in a niche that's obviously not yours.
Offering as much freedom as possible comes at a price. A price paid in money, in one-generation-older hardware of some components, and in making compromises that some components are not as free as they ideally would be, but which don't have alternatives.
You don't fit that niche, apparently, but just don't go buy it then. Instead of ranting, go buy an overpriced macbook and leave other people to their own choices.
As comparison, it's like saying that current EVs are not totally carbon-neutral, too slow and too expensive so you don't see the point and keep buying cars with ICEs. You are free to have that opinion, but it's not the only one around.
Exactly what freedom is anyone gaining by using an obsolete network interface? Is there actually some profound different level of capability in the open source drivers for a qualcomm/atheros 802.11n chipset from eight years ago?
What GPL zealot freedom is gained on this thing over taking an ordinary reference-design Intel chipset business class laptop (such as from ASUS or MSI) and installing pure debian or arch on it, and never enabling a non-free repo?
"GPL zealot" is an unnecessary term. You make your choices, others make theirs. It's fascinating how much energy you are wasting commenting on an article that follows a philosophy that you seem to reject so strongly.
I don't think it's fair to criticise someone else for taking the time to engage with you in discussion on the internet.
OP wasn't rejecting the basic philosophical underpinnings of the Librem project, but merely noted the inconsistency with which they applied those principles.
Librem could have developed a pure FOSS machine if they'd chosen to do so. However, it'd have a RISK-V based chip and a bunch of other exotic components that would have rendered impractical for regular use.
Instead, Librem took the pragmatic route and chose to adopt a number of proprietary components including an Intel CPU. Despite this, they chose to bypass Intel when choosing a WiFi chip at the cost of being unable to support modern WiFi standards.
If you don't care about that, that's ok you are in majority, but not target audience of this product.
If I still cared about laptops/notebooks I would be interested in this precisely because of it.
And sure intel (and AMD) need to have binary blobs for their cpus. Which obviously is not good.
But if nobody even tries and works toward this goal, nothing will ever get done.
I doubt we will ever see x86 fully open computer.
But now that Apple have led the way with M1, in 3-6 years when the rest of the industry catches up, there is at least chance of librem and others building a decent binary blob free laptop.
You are free to buy it and install it (I sincerely doubt coreboot enforeces a PCI whitelist), And it looks like you will come out $10 ahead.
To be honest, I wish I could buy all of my laptops without a HD, wireless card, RAM, etc and put that all in myself (I did that for my Thinkpad x2100, and I am very happy I did)
> And then they have the gall to sell the power adapter separately from the laptop, for an extra $59? What brand new laptop on earth doesn't come with an AC wall adapter/charger in the box?
I see "Power Adapter Plug", and no option to ship without one. No option is more expensive. I don't think they are only shipping a "Power Adapter Plug" without a "Power Adapter".
Is that the same chipset you have? Because I read it wouldn’t run 802.11ac. But I also read only 4GB of ram was supported and found some fringe thread that had a specific chip that worked fine too.
I’m on the fence about upgrading and have been for years now. The x200s has served me well and I really spend most of my time either in a browser, on a terminal or using audacious...
Ive got paralysis by analysis at this point because the x200s has served me SO well
I take your point, but for reference at 65MbPs you could transfer 10Gb in under 3 minutes. I would imagine that's more than sufficient for the majority of people.
Not weird at all, and here's the rationale: Something based on full "open source" principles will stand on its own merits based on the full details of its specifications and capabilities, or it won't.
Your analogy is also a poor one because it's well known in the "thin and light" class of laptop that all of them use CPU integrated/low TDP graphics, designed first and foremost for 2D desktop performance (plus H264+HEVC encode and decode acceleration), and none of them are particularly capable of playing intensive 3D games.
If you want to game at 1080p and anything close to 60Hz with high texture details it's a fact that no matter what brand/model of laptop you buy, you're going to be buying something thicker, a bit heavier, with a discrete GPU on the PCI-E bus.
Fact is that laptops in the $1300+ class were shipping with 802.11ac 3x3 capable interfaces seven years ago. The wifi performance of a mid-2014 macbook pro will run circles around this thing.
You were told the hardware just isn't available. It's as simple as that. You are surely aware of the concept of tradeoffs. This is one of them. For some, using free/open source software that respects their freedom is more important than convenience.
My main concern for a wifi chip is not the speed. On top of the list I would place the power consumption, then the features (suspend, WoWLAN, monitoring mode, DTLS, DFS, CSA, etc...) and then the speed.
For the two first points, having an Open Source firmware helps a lot.
You can buy it without a wireless network interface. Then it should be fairly easy to get a new wifi card and use that one.
The cost comes from:
- having core boot pre-installed
- CPU backdoors disabled by default
- being guaranteed to run the OS of your choice
Probably someone else knows this better than me. But other than buying this the approach would be to buy an older or slightly older Thinkpad. Maybe upgrade CPU, SSD. Do a lot of complicated and potentially dangerous flashing of BIOS. This would take you weeks in terms of lead times of delivery. Also it would take hours of hours of work, in which you might damage components or even get the wrong one.
I would like to do this, but where am I to find the time. I would also be able to pay someone to do it, but it is not as your local computer shop will be likely to deliver. I bet that if you where
I have also heard the argument that for instance smartphone producers should not ship power adapters. Since all phones can charge via USB. This is by law in the EU at least. This means that there is an enormous waste when you are creating and shipping power adaptors to people who already have four or five at home.
This is not taking other family members into account
Oh, and since on the subject. Physically it is quite easy change the network interface on many computers. What often happens though however is that the BIOS has a whitelist containing certain device IDs. This means that the BIOS will restrict usage to one or two different devices.
So if you where to buy a state of the art laptop today, and would want to change the wifi when there is a new wifi standard. So hypothetically speaking, what if there is a new WPA3 that requires hardware support. Then you wouldn't be able to change it without rewriting and flashing the BIOS. Something that might be next to impossible if the BIOS is signed.
The power adapter is the same for different laptops in their line. Somebody upgrading or for other reasons reusing the old adapter won't need a new one and thereby saves money and trash.
Did you make the same amount of noise when Apple stopped include the phone charger? "What brand new phone on earth..."?
> And then they have the gall to sell the power adapter separately from the laptop, for an extra $59? What brand new laptop on earth doesn't come with an AC wall adapter/charger in the box?
One that's $59 cheaper than if it included a charger?
Then you've clearly never edited video or moved around a disk image of a virtual machine, or anything else that will tax your patience copying 5GB over shoddy wifi (nevermind things much larger than 5 gigs).
Yeah, you're right, he hasn't. Thanks for the reiteration. Not everyone uses a laptop for the same things you do. For the stuff you're talking about I wouldn't dream of doing it away from a desktop computer plugged in to GigE. For me, and many others, the sole purpose of a laptop is portability. I couldn't care less if it can't do what my desktop computer can do.
Although, if you are performing serious work loads like that, why not just take the 10s to plug in the Ethernet cable? It seems like for these use cases you already would be using the laptop with the power cable hooked up.
I mean, how dare they try to make some money, right?