Understandable. What is unclear is whether or not selling the Chromebook config with a 61Wh battery causes any additional headaches for Framework, or whether it’s just a matter of confirming that the runtime is at least as long as it is with the 55Wh battery.
I’m aware that the i5 configs are all being sold with the 55Wh battery. Yet this is one thing that’s contributing to my inclination to delay a purchase. Maybe once the stock of 55Wh batteries starts to dry up, they will start selling more configs with the 61Wh version.
Probably, although at that point they may switch to yet a higher capacity battery. And I seriously doubt the supply of batteries is going to dry up anytime soon. If stock was expected to last less than a year they likely wouldn’t have bothered with making the low end product have 55Whr. Ultimately it is your money but do you really want to wait that out when you could just buy it now and then upgrade when the battery fails or they introduce alternate uses for it as was alluded to in the presentation?
A chemistry change will not introduce a regression. It isn’t software that enables that extra 11 percent improvement, it’s chemistry. If the battery is compatible across models then Chromebook will get that same 11% uplift.
A Surface-style framework (touchscreen and detachable keyboard) would be my ideal usecase. I already have a setup with split keyboards, mouse & external trackpad. My laptop is folded up and serves as a screen+dock almost all the time.
Hopefully they can bring in atleast a touchscreen + 360 hinge in a couple of years (when I’ll need an upgrade )
Of course; by “headaches for Framework” I meant logistical steps that they have to take to satisfy any Google-related contractual obligations. For example, perhaps the contracts stipulate that if any new components or modifications are introduced, a full qualification suite needs to be re-run, and a new set of documentation provided. If that’s the case, then Framework couldn’t simply just start shipping with a better battery.
I might be inclined to pull the trigger if they’d discounted the 12th-gen Chromebook the same way they’ve discounted the all of the 11th and 12th-generation variants.
The Framework 16 AMD could easily support ECC without needing to ship with it - couldn’t it? The CPUs already support it, but don’t require it. We should be able to add it
What’s holding me back, the sheer number of options.
Before all these new options I had thought I may get a ‘spare’ in the new future but the massive options leave me aghast at what may be around the corner.
I have an 11th Gen and I want the AMD option. I like Framework and want to support them, but buying revision 1 of a product is rarely a good idea. We have brand new AMD chips on a brand new Framework motherboard design. There’s no way there won’t be teething trouble.
I only found out this month that the 11th gen 13" has a hardware fault that will cause the CMOS battery to fully discharge unless the board is connected to power from time to time. I also found that Framework’s fix for this is to tell you (with detailed instructions) to fix it yourself. I understand why, but it highlights “rev 1 is for beta testers” is often true.
There are multiple hardware problems/faults working together.
the Intel CPU won’t boot correctly if the RTC battery is flat, but that affects only some chips
the laptop uses relatively large amounts of power from the RTC battery when powered off
The RTC battery is rechargeable and has a relatively low capacity compared to normal non-rechargeable ones
the RTC battery is used even if the main battery has plenty of power (and it isn’t recharged by it)
the RTC battery will be over-discharged when already empty, which quickly damages it and reduces the overall capacity even more and compounds the above problems
The Intel chip problem isn’t the only fault. Even without it you’d get plenty flat and damaged RTC batteries and you’ll at least lose BIOS settings, system time and so on.
I would have to disagree, the bug you refer to is only exposed because of the other issues stated before by @Jonathan_Haas.
Let us not forget that the laptop requires a charged RTC to boot irrespective of the Intel bug, we are not talking about just loosing BIOS settings/reset clock the machine will not boot.
I wondered the same especially considering how the reason there was no AMD option was because Intel has more capacity to support in board design and development…
With the 16" I started to see all the different parts to the chassis as potential points of failure/being held by magnets again and not screws how flimsy it might all feel.
I hope to be completely wrong and that FW smash it but there is now way there won’t be issues and personally I wouldn’t get either 1st gen AMD or the 1st 16".
At this point, the AMD 13" laptop looks really attractive, but my current laptop still functions relatively well, so I’m waiting for first reviews or customer experiences. Also I’d love if Framework would start a EU based daughter company so hey can give support and ship parts locally and follow EU regulation properly.
What gives you the idea that Framework are flouting EU regulations, which regulation(s) ?
Framework does have an EU marketplace in Germany Since March 2022 but note all laptops and parts still come from Taiwan, so first shipments will come direct from Taiwan. Some replacement parts, and refurbishments, are local, EU or US
EU warranty law for example. According to EU law if you sell in an EU country, you have to provide warranty in the whole EU, but Framework insist to only support chosen countries.
If Framework were an EU based country, you could sell within the whole EU if you followed the regulations of that single country (which of course follows EU law), so a lot of stuff would get probably easier.
You may find that means if you are a EU company then you have to warranty EU as sales in the EU but it makes no sense to try and force a foreign power to conform to ‘Local’ EU legislation.
I can buy anything from anywhere and the seller doesn’t have to warranty my purchase unless they are in the UK in my case. UK law applies to UK vendors not EU or US vendors.
US laws apply to US vendors
You really think EU laws should apply to the US and the UK.
I didn’t vote for BREXIT but with the idea that the EU laws govern businesses out side the EU then I can see why some people wanted out, still I think that is not the case.
Further: You will note that the ‘you’ in the following refers to countries in the EU only and the warranty may different in each one. There is a dropdown menu to select within the EU which nationality the ‘you’ may be to define the expected warranty.
)
