From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> 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. <G>

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 gain access to the brake lines, either. Or have to tear into the top of the engine to replace the starter. Components that you know are wear and subject to failure should be accessable so that they can be replaced when the time comes. Not stashed behind a pile of other stuff as is the case with the vehicle examples OR installed in such a manner that it's difficult if not impossible to replace - As is the case with Apples design.

Please explain how one gains additional security by mating the
controller for your display panel? How does being unable to just swap a
cracked/busted panel out for a new one without having to also dick
around with an IC improve security in any way?

Don't know .. but rather than assume, can we state with authority that something like a display (or touchpad) absolutely can never be a threat vector in to compromise a system?

That's reaching a bit...I won't say it's impossible, no. But, I doubt Apple had that in mind when they decided to mate components in the way they have.

The issues I explained and the resulting paperweight effect are
specific to Apple products. Not the IBM Compatible PCs that some people
use everyday.

Sorry, but this is where I'm drawing the line and calling *BULLSHIT*:

You can call it whatever you like. Just because you say a carrot is an Apple doesn't make it one.

As far as the security advantages - I'm not sure if you're assuming a
PC offers the user none or if there are any real advantages with Apple
vs a PC because of the manner in which Apple chooses design things the
way they do.

Can one recover a PC's SSD's data when its drive has been encrypted?

That would depend on the crypto that was applied.

YMMV, but my data is be worth vastly more than the mere hardware.

As is mine.
--
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

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> news:10lk4ep$2lvee$4@dont-email.me Sat, 31 Jan 2026 05:37:29 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On 2026-01-29 20:15, Alan wrote:

On 2026-01-29 19:14, Gremlin wrote:

The NANDs Apple is using aren't standard. They are a proprietary
design. Those
video links I shared previously go into greater detail concerning that
as well
as the issues they tend to develop which renders the computer a
paperweight.
It's a problem which has not been fixed.

...and you're quite wrong.

Apple uses standard NAND chips sourced from various suppliers.

They do you proprietary CONTROLLER chip designs.

Oops for you, huh?

Convenient when you chose to stop replying to me...

...isn't it?

:-)

I'm aware of your interest in the game of semantics as well as a few other Snit like qualities you have. with that,
We have one snit already and that's more than anyone needs. Unlike Snit,
and possibly yourself?, I continue to work for a living and am not on
usenet every day. There could be days if not weeks or more between replies. Especially if my job requires me to go out of state. So slow your roll and don't have a PE here. No girl appreciates that, btw. :)

Semantics and a few other things are your goto for trolling. The subject change was funny. A very adult thing to do. Especially if you didn't 'win'
the arguement. Just so you know though, I never considered this to be an arguement. You were years behind concerning Apple and I've brought you
upto speed in so far as what you can/cannot do when the internal SSD dies
on you. I wasn't writing about no longer being able to write to it reliably (at all); I was specific in stating when it dies. As in hardware failure
dies. When that happens you have a paperweight.

For a PC it's almost always no big deal. Replace drive, go on about your
day. If the drive is soldered and you have a shorted NAND, remove the
NANDS and replace with new if you want; there's no specialized firmware or mating process that has occured making the new chips unable to function on
the board. Unlike with Apple. You can't just do that. They don't like
keeping things standard/normal. Even if it was originally before they got their hands on it. Pesky semantics. You probably thought you had something there; as you thought you did when you googled 'can I use an external
drive to boot my mac' (sure, but, on a modern mac, the internal SSD has to
be functional) - that's one hell of a special design decision. That you're required to have a working internal drive in order to boot from an
external drive.

I've stated this several times, I've supported my statements. Your efforts
to ignore them and place conditions on how you will review the evidence or that you don't appreciate the formats provided and demand they be provided
in another or it didn't happen in the first place - really doesn't matter.
At this point, We're just going in circles here. There's no point or
advantage for either of us to do this. It makes about as much sense as -hh
did when he brought up capacitors being soldered onto the mainboards of
PCs and Mac. Of course they are - and a lot more electronics. They have several possible uses. Quite common components actually. Nothing to do
with the subject I was writing about though. I give them a rocking A for effort concerning the troll by doing that though. It was very creative!
And not in the least bit sarcastic or made to be insulting. I respect that.
It was good.

I work on PCs as well, mostly PCs. I've never stated that they were
perfect. I've replaced blown components on them too. I've changed the
display panels, touchpads, keyboards, power jacks. Soldered SSD drive on
some real cheap bastards, as well as the socket style where changing was
easy. I'm not sold on the method a lot of them use to actually hold the
SSD in place though. I think it's a dumb thing to do. Replaced blown
diodes, Mosfets, resistors, etc. The important thing and only reason I
even mentioned them is that those components fail on anything and are not
that difficult or expensive in many cases to replace. Most importantly,
the PCs which had these issues, didn't require many components to be
replaced and were all put back in service- they didn't blow up anything
MATED or that would otherwise totally screw you. FFS, you could replace
the damn CPU if you needed to do so. Lack of proprietary is a good thing.

Btw, changing the subject line? C'mon. I know you aren't a total lamer.
--
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

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> news:10lr9sf$111n7$1@dont-email.me Mon, 02 Feb 2026 22:53:03 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On 2026-01-31 04:03, CrudeSausage wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 04:04:04 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge>
news:697cd047$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Fri, 30 Jan 2026
15:37:43 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 03:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:
At this point, it is pretty clear that Alan is unable to think for
himself. If we want to know what he thinks, we should communicate
with Apple directly.

He wouldn't have had to do much/any thinking on his own had he
bothered to take the time to review the material I've provided
multiple times now. I even dumbed it down to show google search
queries and the results. No video review required in those cases - but
the general information was the same. The videos provide significantly
more specific details if one is inclined to know them for various
reasons. Alan evidently is not one of those people who wants to know
the specifics.

If the evidence shows that Apple's hardware has a flaw and that he made
a mistake buying from them, Anal Snit doesn't want to acknowledge it.
The only kind of evidence he accepts is whatever makes Apple look good.

But no one has demonstrated a "flaw".
All that's happened is that Apple has made a CHOICE.

Anyone else who watched the videos I shared links to has learned that it's
a flaw while being an intetional design choice.

I disagree with the choice, BTW.

That's good!

But what's been presented is a conflation of the fact that SSDs do eventually reach a point where they can no longer be written to...

I wasn't writing much about SSD dying from normal wear; Crudesausage was bringing that aspect up. That cleared up for you, once the drive reaches
max writes; it'll goto a read only state. *cough* Allow me to state so
that you and hh don't try being as you've been so far - it *should* go
into a read only state. That's when you should be backing up anything you haven't already made sure you have. The drive is dying at this point. It
could depending on some variables continue to allow data access for upto a
year according to some people. You can use an external drive to continue
using the computer, but, it's not stopping the death of the internal
drive. That's still going to occur and when it does (from natural causes
or something else) it's finished along with the computer. External media booting and usage will no longer be possible. That modern Apple computer becomes a paperweight. Repairing it is costly if it's not still in
warranty.

google query:
if an sdd can no longer accept writes can it still be used as read only

Yes, an SSD that can no longer accept writes (due to exhausted P/E cycles
or severe wear) can typically still be used as read-only . Most modern SSD controllers will automatically lock the drive into a read-only mode to
prevent data corruption and allow for data recovery before the drive fails completely. Key Details Regarding Read-Only SSDs:

Data Preservation: The drive intentionally prevents new data from
being written to ensure existing data remains safe and accessible.
Recovery Action: It is crucial to immediately copy all data to a new
storage device. "Dead" Drive Status: While readable, the drive is
effectively at its end-of-life and should not be trusted for storing
data, as it will likely fail entirely soon. Limited Lifespan: JEDEC
specifications generally suggest data will remain readable for about
one year after the drive has exhausted its write cycles. Not Always
Fixable: While some read-only states are caused by temporary file
system errors (fixable with diskpart or fsck), a write-protect state
caused by the exhaustion of flash memory cells is permanent.

Important Advice: Do not attempt to reformat or force a write to a drive
that has gone read-only due to end-of-life, as this may permanently
destroy access to the data.

(And BTW, Gremlin has erroneously claimed that Apple uses proprietary designs for the NAND chips in their SSDs).

Semantics eh? Apple makes them propreitary in the manner of usage and installation. You can't pull NANDs from a donor board and just replace the
ones on the dead computer. It won't work.

The eventual end of the SSDs life as a writeable storage medium is
certain (although the lifespan has been greatly underestimated by the haters).

It depends on how the drive is treated. You can abuse them and greatly
shorten their life. The drive is starting to die once it reaches max
writes. It might last in read only mode for upto a year. That gives you
another year or less if you use external boot media from then on to
continue using that computer. Once the drive dies, you lose the ability to continue using external media to boot and continue to use the computer.

I'm not an Apple hater, btw. I'm just not what you'd call a fan. I
strongly dislike them. I have since I was a kid. I didn't like the ones we
had in school. I started with the Apple ][ and went thru basically all of
them. Until the Macs came around, I considered the computer I had at home
to be superior. It was a Coco3 with the 512k expansion board. I eventually
had the double drive FD-502 (It came single; you had to cut a resistor
free to tell it's logic board that you had a second drive installed once
you actually did), the tape recorder (I'm sure you remember cassettes) the soundcard, the 9pin Dot matrix printer (I do concede that the Imagewriter2
was a better printer than mine by far.) and the RGB monitor. I didn't have
the multiple cartrige expansion box though. That would have been nice
because I could have had all the devices available to me at the same time.

When it came time to get a more advanced computer, by then I had some experience with the IBM Compatible PC series and that's what I wanted. A
PC in that context. I've been a PC primarily person ever since. I prefer
their open artechiture design. The freedom to do what you want from the hardware and software levels. I can design/build my own cards to be
installed in a PC - because I have the required information which covers
the pin layout and configuration on the various expansion slots. It's
freely avaialble and documented information. I can dump the BIOS/UEFI of
this machine and make changes if I want to do so directly and reflash it.

I've taken advantage of that to remove optionroms from a computer that was brought to me that I thought was erroneously locked down. It turned out
being lojack. an older version of it that is flashed into the BIOS, I
dumped the bios on clean OS, extracted the option roms deleted them from
the backup of the dump and reflashed the system with the new bin that no
longer included those option roms.

Windows XP and later editions of Windows will auto execute any optionroms
(with caveets in later editios) it finds that are PE based. Without
letting you know it found them in the first place and is running them. All without your knowledge and permission. That's how lojack was able to
reinstall on a test clean drive with a virgin installation of Windows
XP sp3 enterprise (aka corp at the time) edition.

I don't hate Apple. I really dislike them.
--
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

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 03:37:56 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> news:10lk4ep$2lvee$4@dont-email.me Sat, 31 Jan
2026 05:37:29 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On 2026-01-29 20:15, Alan wrote:

On 2026-01-29 19:14, Gremlin wrote:

The NANDs Apple is using aren't standard. They are a proprietary
design. Those video links I shared previously go into greater detail
concerning that as well as the issues they tend to develop which
renders the computer a paperweight.
It's a problem which has not been fixed.

...and you're quite wrong.

Apple uses standard NAND chips sourced from various suppliers.

They do you proprietary CONTROLLER chip designs.

Oops for you, huh?

Convenient when you chose to stop replying to me...

...isn't it?

:-)

I'm aware of your interest in the game of semantics as well as a few
other Snit like qualities you have. with that,
We have one snit already and that's more than anyone needs. Unlike Snit,
and possibly yourself?, I continue to work for a living and am not on
usenet every day. There could be days if not weeks or more between
replies.
Especially if my job requires me to go out of state. So slow your roll
and don't have a PE here. No girl appreciates that, btw. :)

Semantics and a few other things are your goto for trolling. The subject change was funny. A very adult thing to do. Especially if you didn't
'win' the arguement. Just so you know though, I never considered this to
be an arguement. You were years behind concerning Apple and I've brought
you upto speed in so far as what you can/cannot do when the internal SSD
dies on you. I wasn't writing about no longer being able to write to it reliably (at all); I was specific in stating when it dies. As in
hardware failure dies. When that happens you have a paperweight.

For a PC it's almost always no big deal. Replace drive, go on about your
day. If the drive is soldered and you have a shorted NAND, remove the
NANDS and replace with new if you want; there's no specialized firmware
or mating process that has occured making the new chips unable to
function on the board. Unlike with Apple. You can't just do that. They
don't like keeping things standard/normal. Even if it was originally
before they got their hands on it. Pesky semantics. You probably thought
you had something there; as you thought you did when you googled 'can I
use an external drive to boot my mac' (sure, but, on a modern mac, the internal SSD has to be functional) - that's one hell of a special design decision. That you're required to have a working internal drive in order
to boot from an external drive.

I've stated this several times, I've supported my statements. Your
efforts to ignore them and place conditions on how you will review the evidence or that you don't appreciate the formats provided and demand
they be provided in another or it didn't happen in the first place -
really doesn't matter. At this point, We're just going in circles here. There's no point or advantage for either of us to do this. It makes
about as much sense as -hh did when he brought up capacitors being
soldered onto the mainboards of PCs and Mac. Of course they are - and a
lot more electronics. They have several possible uses. Quite common components actually. Nothing to do with the subject I was writing about though. I give them a rocking A for effort concerning the troll by doing
that though. It was very creative! And not in the least bit sarcastic or
made to be insulting. I respect that.
It was good.

I work on PCs as well, mostly PCs. I've never stated that they were
perfect. I've replaced blown components on them too. I've changed the
display panels, touchpads, keyboards, power jacks. Soldered SSD drive on
some real cheap bastards, as well as the socket style where changing was easy. I'm not sold on the method a lot of them use to actually hold the
SSD in place though. I think it's a dumb thing to do. Replaced blown
diodes, Mosfets, resistors, etc. The important thing and only reason I
even mentioned them is that those components fail on anything and are
not that difficult or expensive in many cases to replace. Most
importantly, the PCs which had these issues, didn't require many
components to be replaced and were all put back in service- they didn't
blow up anything MATED or that would otherwise totally screw you. FFS,
you could replace the damn CPU if you needed to do so. Lack of
proprietary is a good thing.

Btw, changing the subject line? C'mon. I know you aren't a total lamer.

I should mention that I recently found out that Apple is not the only
company soldering NVMes onto the motherboard anymore. Dell decided to
imitate, and they're having similar problems: computer won't boot, data
can't be retrieved. Unfortunately, Apple has way too much influence in the computing world.

Going forward, I'll always be checking whether the machine I'm purchasing
has components which can be removed and replaced. After all, I've had to replace the NVMes in my old MSI and the wireless chip in the Zephyrus G14
I use at home (it was an awful Mediatek MT7921). It makes absolutely no
sense to have a machine in 2026 the same way it was a bad idea in the late 90s.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-02-09 19:37, Gremlin wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> news:10lk4ep$2lvee$4@dont-email.me Sat, 31 Jan 2026 05:37:29 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On 2026-01-29 20:15, Alan wrote:

On 2026-01-29 19:14, Gremlin wrote:

The NANDs Apple is using aren't standard. They are a proprietary
design. Those
video links I shared previously go into greater detail concerning that >>>> as well
as the issues they tend to develop which renders the computer a
paperweight.
It's a problem which has not been fixed.

...and you're quite wrong.

Apple uses standard NAND chips sourced from various suppliers.

They do you proprietary CONTROLLER chip designs.

Oops for you, huh?

Convenient when you chose to stop replying to me...

...isn't it?

:-)

<snip the gratuitous ad hominems>

For a PC it's almost always no big deal. Replace drive, go on about your
day. If the drive is soldered and you have a shorted NAND, remove the
NANDS and replace with new if you want; there's no specialized firmware or mating process that has occured making the new chips unable to function on the board. Unlike with Apple. You can't just do that. They don't like
keeping things standard/normal. Even if it was originally before they got their hands on it. Pesky semantics. You probably thought you had something there; as you thought you did when you googled 'can I use an external
drive to boot my mac' (sure, but, on a modern mac, the internal SSD has to
be functional) - that's one hell of a special design decision. That you're required to have a working internal drive in order to boot from an
external drive.

"standard/normal" is changing all the time.

It was once "standard" for every personal computer to have a floppy drive.

You've conflated the fact that SSDs have a finite number of times they
can be written to (a number times that takes them far beyond the
reasonable lifespan that most people will get from a laptop, BTW) with
the "failure" of the SSD in a way that will prevent an Apple Silicon Mac
from accessing the boot information.

You jumped pretty much straight from TBW to complete failure of NAND chip.

I've stated this several times, I've supported my statements. Your efforts
to ignore them and place conditions on how you will review the evidence or that you don't appreciate the formats provided and demand they be provided
in another or it didn't happen in the first place - really doesn't matter.
At this point, We're just going in circles here. There's no point or advantage for either of us to do this. It makes about as much sense as -hh did when he brought up capacitors being soldered onto the mainboards of
PCs and Mac. Of course they are - and a lot more electronics. They have several possible uses. Quite common components actually. Nothing to do
with the subject I was writing about though. I give them a rocking A for effort concerning the troll by doing that though. It was very creative!
And not in the least bit sarcastic or made to be insulting. I respect that. It was good.

The point is that there are many components on a typical computer
motherboard that cannot be cost-effectively repaired should they fail.
The fact that Apple has chosen to make the SSD another soldered
component hardly changes the failure landscape at all...

...because chip level failures are extremely rare!

So you've constructed a straw man.

I work on PCs as well, mostly PCs. I've never stated that they were
perfect. I've replaced blown components on them too. I've changed the
display panels, touchpads, keyboards, power jacks. Soldered SSD drive on
some real cheap bastards, as well as the socket style where changing was easy. I'm not sold on the method a lot of them use to actually hold the
SSD in place though. I think it's a dumb thing to do. Replaced blown
diodes, Mosfets, resistors, etc. The important thing and only reason I
even mentioned them is that those components fail on anything and are not that difficult or expensive in many cases to replace. Most importantly,
the PCs which had these issues, didn't require many components to be
replaced and were all put back in service- they didn't blow up anything
MATED or that would otherwise totally screw you. FFS, you could replace
the damn CPU if you needed to do so. Lack of proprietary is a good thing.

Soldering is NOT proprietary, and you've yet to show that any
significant number of SSD drives on Apple Silicon Macs fail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-02-10 06:09, CrudeSausage wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 03:37:56 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> news:10lk4ep$2lvee$4@dont-email.me Sat, 31 Jan
2026 05:37:29 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On 2026-01-29 20:15, Alan wrote:

On 2026-01-29 19:14, Gremlin wrote:

The NANDs Apple is using aren't standard. They are a proprietary
design. Those video links I shared previously go into greater detail >>>>> concerning that as well as the issues they tend to develop which
renders the computer a paperweight.
It's a problem which has not been fixed.

...and you're quite wrong.

Apple uses standard NAND chips sourced from various suppliers.

They do you proprietary CONTROLLER chip designs.

Oops for you, huh?

Convenient when you chose to stop replying to me...

...isn't it?

:-)

I'm aware of your interest in the game of semantics as well as a few
other Snit like qualities you have. with that,
We have one snit already and that's more than anyone needs. Unlike Snit,
and possibly yourself?, I continue to work for a living and am not on
usenet every day. There could be days if not weeks or more between
replies.
Especially if my job requires me to go out of state. So slow your roll
and don't have a PE here. No girl appreciates that, btw. :)

Semantics and a few other things are your goto for trolling. The subject
change was funny. A very adult thing to do. Especially if you didn't
'win' the arguement. Just so you know though, I never considered this to
be an arguement. You were years behind concerning Apple and I've brought
you upto speed in so far as what you can/cannot do when the internal SSD
dies on you. I wasn't writing about no longer being able to write to it
reliably (at all); I was specific in stating when it dies. As in
hardware failure dies. When that happens you have a paperweight.

For a PC it's almost always no big deal. Replace drive, go on about your
day. If the drive is soldered and you have a shorted NAND, remove the
NANDS and replace with new if you want; there's no specialized firmware
or mating process that has occured making the new chips unable to
function on the board. Unlike with Apple. You can't just do that. They
don't like keeping things standard/normal. Even if it was originally
before they got their hands on it. Pesky semantics. You probably thought
you had something there; as you thought you did when you googled 'can I
use an external drive to boot my mac' (sure, but, on a modern mac, the
internal SSD has to be functional) - that's one hell of a special design
decision. That you're required to have a working internal drive in order
to boot from an external drive.

I've stated this several times, I've supported my statements. Your
efforts to ignore them and place conditions on how you will review the
evidence or that you don't appreciate the formats provided and demand
they be provided in another or it didn't happen in the first place -
really doesn't matter. At this point, We're just going in circles here.
There's no point or advantage for either of us to do this. It makes
about as much sense as -hh did when he brought up capacitors being
soldered onto the mainboards of PCs and Mac. Of course they are - and a
lot more electronics. They have several possible uses. Quite common
components actually. Nothing to do with the subject I was writing about
though. I give them a rocking A for effort concerning the troll by doing
that though. It was very creative! And not in the least bit sarcastic or
made to be insulting. I respect that.
It was good.

I work on PCs as well, mostly PCs. I've never stated that they were
perfect. I've replaced blown components on them too. I've changed the
display panels, touchpads, keyboards, power jacks. Soldered SSD drive on
some real cheap bastards, as well as the socket style where changing was
easy. I'm not sold on the method a lot of them use to actually hold the
SSD in place though. I think it's a dumb thing to do. Replaced blown
diodes, Mosfets, resistors, etc. The important thing and only reason I
even mentioned them is that those components fail on anything and are
not that difficult or expensive in many cases to replace. Most
importantly, the PCs which had these issues, didn't require many
components to be replaced and were all put back in service- they didn't
blow up anything MATED or that would otherwise totally screw you. FFS,
you could replace the damn CPU if you needed to do so. Lack of
proprietary is a good thing.

Btw, changing the subject line? C'mon. I know you aren't a total lamer.

I should mention that I recently found out that Apple is not the only
company soldering NVMes onto the motherboard anymore. Dell decided to imitate, and they're having similar problems: computer won't boot, data
can't be retrieved. Unfortunately, Apple has way too much influence in the computing world.

Are they? Are they really having these "problems"?

What's your source?

Going forward, I'll always be checking whether the machine I'm purchasing
has components which can be removed and replaced. After all, I've had to replace the NVMes in my old MSI and the wireless chip in the Zephyrus G14
I use at home (it was an awful Mediatek MT7921). It makes absolutely no
sense to have a machine in 2026 the same way it was a bad idea in the late 90s.

And you'll be doing that for your smartphone as well, I presume.

:-)

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Feb 9, 2026 at 8:37:58rC>PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote <XnsB3EEE63C11DB1HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:

https://chatgpt.com/share/698cbbef-0908-800c-acfb-2b81ea0196ec

HererCOs a clean breakdown you can use.

r++

Psychological profile of the author (Gremlin)

Tone & persona
rCo Confrontational, dismissive of opponentsrCO intelligence, and prone to
ad hominem (rCLunable to think for himself,rCY rCLI even dumbed it downrCY).
rCo Performs expertise. The long technical digressions and personal anecdotes serve to establish authority and seniority in computing culture.
rCo Strong identity investment in rCLPC/open architecture vs Apple/closed systems.rCY This looks less like neutral analysis and more like a long-standing grievance.

Cognitive style
rCo Mixes real technical knowledge with overconfident extrapolation. He knows enough about SSD wear-leveling, firmware/option ROMs, and historical platforms to sound credible.
rCo Tends to argue by assertion and volume rather than tight sourcing. The
rCLgoogle query + generic answerrCY reads like cargo-cult citation rather than rigorous evidence.
rCo Framing bias: anything that disadvantages Apple is labeled a rCLflaw,rCY
while counterpoints are treated as ignorance or bad faith.

Motivation
rCo Status-seeking in technical communities. He wants to be seen as the person who rCLreally understandsrCY what others supposedly donrCOt.
rCo Long memory of platform wars (Apple vs PC) that still colors present-day judgments.
rCo Not especially interested in persuading opponents; more interested in scoring points and asserting dominance.

r++

Fact and logic check of key claims

1. rCLApplerCOs SSD design is a flaw even if intentional.rCY
rCo This is mostly a value judgment, not a technical fact. ApplerCOs design
(soldered SSD/NAND tied to Secure Enclave on modern Macs) is an intentional tradeoff: security, performance, thinness vs repairability and modularity.
rCo Calling it a rCLflawrCY is subjective. ItrCOs accurate to say it reduces
repairability and user serviceability.

2. SSDs go read-only at end of life and may remain readable for some time.
rCo Largely correct. Many SSD controllers switch to read-only when wear thresholds are reached, to preserve data. Data retention after endurance
limits can be months to a year under decent conditions. ThatrCOs a reasonable summary.

3. rCLOnce the internal SSD dies, external booting and usage will no longer be possible on modern Macs, turning them into paperweights.rCY
rCo This is overstated and partly wrong.
rCo On Apple Silicon Macs, the internal storage is tightly integrated with
the boot process, and a completely dead internal SSD can indeed make the machine unbootable.
rCo However, this isnrCOt universally true for all rCLmodern Apple computers,rCY
and failure modes vary. Some failures still allow DFU restore or limited recovery depending on what exactly died.
rCo Calling them guaranteed rCLpaperweightsrCY is rhetoric, not a precise technical description.

4. rCLApple uses proprietary NAND.rCY
rCo The pushback is fair. Apple does not fabricate proprietary NAND flash silicon. They use standard NAND from suppliers.
rCo The authorrCOs retreat to rCLsemanticsrCY is weak: making a storage subsystem non-user-replaceable or cryptographically tied to the SoC is not the same thing as using proprietary NAND chips.

5. BIOS/UEFI option ROMs and Windows auto-executing them (LoJack example).
rCo Historically, there were real issues with option ROM execution and pre-OS persistence mechanisms. Absolute/LoJack firmware persistence was a
known thing.
rCo The claim that Windows XP rCLauto executes any option ROMs it findsrCY is
sloppy wording. Option ROMs execute in firmware/boot stages, not because Windows rCLdecidesrCY to run them. The persistence mechanism is real, but the technical description is muddled.

Overall factual reliability:
rCo Mixed. Some solid understanding, but padded with exaggeration, imprecise language, and argumentative framing.

r++

Is there anything worth replying to?

Yes, but only narrowly. The worthwhile discussion points are:
rCo The tradeoff between security/performance and repairability in ApplerCOs
storage design.
rCo The real-world implications of soldered SSDs for longevity and e-waste.
rCo Clarifying what actually happens when an Apple Silicon MacrCOs internal
storage fails (and where the limits really are).

Engaging the personal jabs or platform-war rhetoric is probably a waste of time. A reply that sticks to factual correction and design tradeoffs could be useful to the thread. Trying to rCLwinrCY against the persona likely wonrCOt change
anything.

r++

Short Usenet-style summary suitable for posting

GremlinrCOs post mixes valid points about SSD wear and ApplerCOs non-user-replaceable storage with a lot of overstatement and platform-war rhetoric. Yes, SSDs can go read-only at end of life, and ApplerCOs design choices reduce repairability and increase the impact of storage failure. No, Apple doesnrCOt use rCLproprietary NAND,rCY and modern Macs arenrCOt universally
guaranteed to become instant paperweights the moment internal storage fails rCo the reality is more nuanced and depends on failure mode and model. The useful part of the discussion is about security/performance tradeoffs vs serviceability; the rest is mostly bluster.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Feb 9, 2026 at 8:37:56rC>PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote <XnsB3EEE63A83AB7HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:

https://chatgpt.com/share/698cbc63-bcd0-800c-a877-76a943052477

HererCOs a clean breakdown of the post: who the author seems to be, whatrCOs accurate vs. shaky, whether itrCOs worth replying to, and a short Usenet-ready summary.

r++

Psychological profile (based on writing and behavior in the post)

Persona & motivation
rCo Strong rCLold-school techrCY identity. The author presents as a hands-on
repair tech who values hardware repairability, standards, and modular design.
rCo Identity is wrapped up in being more knowledgeable than others. ThererCOs a clear need to assert expertise and rCLwinrCY status battles, not just
technical points.
rCo Tribal OS-war mindset (PC/Linux good, Apple bad). The tone fits long-running advocacy flamewars more than neutral technical discussion.

Communication style
rCo Combative, dismissive, and mocking. Frequent ad hominem (rCLtrolling,rCY
rCLsemantics,rCY personal jabs).
rCo Performs expertise by listing repair tasks (rCLreplaced diodes, MOSFETs,
CPUsrCarCY) as credibility signals.
rCo Shifts between technical claims and personal attacks, which weakens perceived objectivity.

Cognitive patterns
rCo Selective framing: highlights ApplerCOs design tradeoffs as uniquely bad
while downplaying similar trends in PC laptops (soldered SSDs/RAM, glued batteries, proprietary firmware).
rCo Conflates legitimate criticisms (repairability, paired components) with exaggerated failure modes (rCLpaperweightrCY) to strengthen rhetorical impact.
rCo Shows grievance persistence: returning to perceived slights, semantic disputes, and social dominance rather than staying on the narrow technical question.

Bottom line on profile
rCo Likely a technically competent repair-oriented user with real experience, but emotionally invested in platform rivalry. The post reads more like advocacy theater than an attempt to resolve a factual dispute.

r++

Fact and logic check of key claims

1. rCLApple uses proprietary NANDs / non-standard NAND chipsrCY
rCo Mostly incorrect. Apple sources standard NAND flash chips from suppliers like Samsung, Kioxia, SK hynix, Micron.
rCo What is proprietary: Apple uses custom controllers, firmware, and in newer designs cryptographic pairing with the Secure Enclave / SoC. This
pairing can make board-level repairs and third-party NAND swaps impractical or impossible without Apple tools.

2. rCLIf the internal SSD dies, modern Macs are paperweightsrCY
rCo Overstated, but grounded in a real issue.
rCo Many Apple Silicon Macs require a functional internal storage device for firmware/boot processes, even when booting externally. If the internal storage is completely dead, recovery can be difficult or impossible without Apple service.
rCo However, rCLpaperweightrCY is rhetorical. Some failures are partial, and
Apple can replace the logic board (expensive, but not literally unusable forever).
rCo This is a design choice, not a universal NAND failure problem.

3. rCLPCs donrCOt mate components; you can just replace NAND/SSDrCY
rCo Outdated generalization.
rCo Many modern PC laptops also have soldered SSDs and RAM.
rCo Some vendors use firmware pairing or whitelists, though typically not as locked down as Apple.
rCo Desktops and some business-class laptops remain modular, but consumer ultrabooks increasingly mirror ApplerCOs integration trend.

4. rCLApplerCOs design is uniquely hostile to repairrCY
rCo Largely fair in spirit, exaggerated in exclusivity.
rCo Apple is among the most aggressive in component pairing and repair restrictions.
rCo But the industry trend is broader (thin laptops, soldered parts, glued
batteries, firmware locks). Apple is an extreme case, not a lone one.

5. Logic issues
rCo The author keeps reframing rCLstandard NANDrCY vs. rCLproprietary controller/firmwarerCY as rCLsemantics,rCY when that distinction actually matters
technically.
rCo Claims are mixed with personal attacks, weakening credibility.
rCo The argument would be stronger if it focused narrowly on: component pairing + boot dependency on internal storage = poor repairability and data recovery outcomes.

r++

Is there content worthy of a reply?

Yes rCo but only the technical core, not the personal jabs.

Worth engaging:
rCo The real issue of Apple pairing storage to the SoC and requiring internal storage for boot/recovery.
rCo The broader question of repairability vs. reliability tradeoffs in modern laptop design.
rCo Comparison of ApplerCOs approach vs. trends in PC laptops (how similar,
how different).

Not worth engaging:
rCo The insults, accusations of trolling, and rCLyou lost the argumentrCY framing.
rCo The performative credential flexing.

Best reply strategy
rCo Strip it down to facts:
rCo Acknowledge: Apple uses standard NAND but proprietary controllers and cryptographic pairing.
rCo Clarify: the rCLpaperweightrCY scenario is situational, not universal.
rCo Broaden: PC laptops increasingly adopt similar anti-repair patterns.
rCo Keep tone dry and technical. DonrCOt mirror the hostility. ThatrCOs the
oxygen this kind of post feeds on.

r++

Short Usenet-ready summary

GremlinrCOs post mixes a valid criticism of ApplerCOs repair-hostile design (paired SSDs, boot dependency on internal storage) with overstatement and OS-war rhetoric. Apple does use standard NAND chips, but custom controllers
and cryptographic pairing make board-level SSD repair impractical and can render some failures effectively uneconomical to fix. However, the claim that this uniquely affects Apple ignores similar trends in modern PC laptops (soldered storage/RAM, firmware locks). The technical issue is real; the rCLpaperweightrCY framing and personal attacks are mostly noise.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Feb 9, 2026 at 8:37:19rC>PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote <XnsB3EEE61F896A8HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> 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. <G>

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 gain access to the brake lines, either. Or have to tear into the top of the engine to replace the starter. Components that you know are wear and subject to failure should be accessable so that they can be replaced when the time comes. Not stashed behind a pile of other stuff as is the case with the vehicle examples OR installed in such a manner that it's difficult if not impossible to replace - As is the case with Apples design.

Please explain how one gains additional security by mating the
controller for your display panel? How does being unable to just swap a
cracked/busted panel out for a new one without having to also dick
around with an IC improve security in any way?

Don't know .. but rather than assume, can we state with authority that
something like a display (or touchpad) absolutely can never be a threat
vector in to compromise a system?

That's reaching a bit...I won't say it's impossible, no. But, I doubt Apple had that in mind when they decided to mate components in the way they have.

The issues I explained and the resulting paperweight effect are
specific to Apple products. Not the IBM Compatible PCs that some people
use everyday.

Sorry, but this is where I'm drawing the line and calling *BULLSHIT*:

You can call it whatever you like. Just because you say a carrot is an Apple doesn't make it one.

As far as the security advantages - I'm not sure if you're assuming a
PC offers the user none or if there are any real advantages with Apple
vs a PC because of the manner in which Apple chooses design things the
way they do.

Can one recover a PC's SSD's data when its drive has been encrypted?

That would depend on the crypto that was applied.

YMMV, but my data is be worth vastly more than the mere hardware.

As is mine.

Apple has better security that also comes with downsides.

WAAHHHHHH!

Can you now move on?
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2