Yes that’s a very important, but they weren’t aware of the issue until some users had the more casual use. If everyone was like me, 6 hours a day it would never have been noticed.
I understand the argument, but it is not defective as there was no mention either way, but yes not useful for some users.
My friend has just pointed out it’s like one of those feed my pet games it must be fed daily not put in the wardrobe and ignored for two weeks, it will die.
Why spend a $1000 on a pet you are not going to pet.
That’s children for you, they want the pet but don’t want to look after it.
Even if I had an 11th gen board still, I’d pass on this mod. I have little experience with soldering and what little I have seems insufficient to perform this. This is where repair shops in customer areas can prove their worth. Seems to me that mod, while difficult shouldn’t take more than an hour or two. Shouldn’t be too costly to get it fixed then.
This is where I fall - I’m interested in the modification, but it’s something that I will farm out, as it’s likely beyond my ability to pull off. I have two machines that I may have it done on, depending upon cost.
Maybe ask Louis Rossmann, he’d be certainly able to do such a job easily (and his soldering quality would look much nicer than the example pictures). He also seems to like the Framework and repairability.
Yes this could be an option as well, you could add a small LDO that is rated for 21V input voltage with a diode on the output as shown in step 6 that is tied to the the main battery power rail.
You can attach it on the top side near the right side image shown above of step 6:
Thanks. 9 months ago I penned a letter with queries but this topic has brought answers to just about all. This extra DC to DC was my suggestion.
Still I’m happy as I use the laptop some 6 hours every day and am not likely to suffer the Intel chip and ML1220 dying soon.
I do like my idea as there is less wiring and hence much easier to DIY. If I ever need to I will post, but I still have 13 months of warranty so it’s all just head plans.
Thank you again for your help.
By the way, did Framework ever complain about the CPU spinning out to Intel
We’ve reached out to our repair center partner in Germany to understand why this packaging was used. Given the battery’s classification, it might have required meatier packaging for protection during shipment, but I don’t know for sure.
It’s not necessarily that easy:
“If you are a retailer, your customers can ask for redress under the legal guarantee provided by EU law - if an item:
[…]
doesn’t show the quality and performance normal in products of the same type”
Thus, it is quite possible for a product to be considered defective even if there was no specific, exact, claim that is found unsatisfied. But, of course, the big and massive “IANAL” in this one would be: how do we define whether this is, or is not, “normal” in products of the same type? I’d personally lean towards this going against the normal for laptops, though.
But the basic idea is: if you purchase a door knob, and it breaks the moment you twist it a bit hard, the fact that the manufacturer didn’t specifically say that it could withstand that torque does not matter if the “normal” on the market is that door knobs are fine with that. Imagine the girth of the spec sheets we’d need for basically everything we ever purchase otherwise… (Obviously, might be different in other jurisdictions.)
Anyway, for this whole part of the discussion, I’m reasonably satisfied now. My own case is definitely proof that Framework does, at least most of the time, not balk at issuing replacements. (Though something seems to have gone wrong in the situation you were responding to, for sure.) And the new procedure with supplying known good and known compatible RTC batteries when this is needed is plenty enough to make myself satisfied that FW is doing what is reasonably achievable to sort things out. It’s not optimal, but I don’t think there can be an optimal in this situation.
Consumer protection rules and regs in the UK are not the same as those in the EU and never were, so I can see how US regs may not be compatible with many EU consumers expectations.
But I digress as this topic is about the viability of the ML1220 not that of the possibly inept procedures of the CPU compounded by Frameworks lack of design in having the ML1220 being charged from the main battery.
So the viability is largely down to Frameworks short-sightedness in design compacted by Intel’s in the CPU cut when there is no CMOS battery.
The title of this topic was when the question was rather new, now the topic could be.
The Problems of not having the rechargeable CMOS/RTC battery being charged from the main battery.
That is not relevant though. FW sells to EU customers under EU regulations, to UK customers under UK regulations, etcetera. Setting all of that up properly was part of the reasons for why it takes time to expand availability to more countries.
The alternative would be for customers to be the importer, in which case the customer would be personally liable for import duties and VAT (like would be the case if ordering from System76 in Denver, for example).
