The SD card is a big bottleneck on the Pi.
First class Linux support is requirement #1; Framework's repairability on top of that means there's not even anything else to consider. It will be the third Framework in our house. My wife is happily using the second, having easily switched to Ubuntu from Windows 10(?) when the video cable connection in her Dell XPS flaked out and made the screen useless.
* https://asahilinux.org/docs/platform/feature-support/overvie...
If I'm going to throw money away on overpriced underpowered laptops it's going to mnt's pockets. At least that's trying to be open hardware (reform).
I wouldn’t expect parity with an M4 machine, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think they should be competitive with the much older M1.
I have the same complaint with Lenovo (I usually buy ThinkPads). Where are the fast, fanless, hidpi, long battery life laptops?
Kind of unreasonable. I mean which Intel or AMD cpu can be run fanless and perform well?
On the topic of displays, my understanding is that they "kind of use what they can get". That's how there can be a 13 display with rounded corners in a straight edge case.
What you're asking are the things I'm looking for, though still every time I go into their forum I see enough thermal, fan noise issues and AMD firmware bugs, that I'm still on the fence on buying one.
I wish them luck with the 12, for me sounds like a model for "true believers" because it doesn't seem to compete well enough with run of the mill chromebooks (or an Air) that are more established in the students segment.
The problem is that manufacturers don't put much thought into building good cooling systems.
Lenovo, for instance, has so many SKUs that it's really random. A few are great, but some sound like a hairdyer or rev up too aggressively.
Apple gets this. By having a small product line, they usually polish all those details.
I don't follow CPU news and have no idea what lake they're at now, but I'd be surprised if Intel and AMD didn't have a chip competitive with an M1 by now.
When I google "fanless amd intel laptop cpu" I find this old thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31142209 which does suggest some fanless machines exist. That's from 3 years ago so surely there are even more options today, no?
You'll have to wait for Framework to offer a Snapdragon instead of Intel/AMD but they haven't announced anything yet.
Intel's integrated graphics aren't as good, but they are similar in terms of power consumption & CPU performance.
Compared to M4, well, that's a different beast entirely. I'm not sure what's the latest there.
What that really determines is multi-thread performance. Fanless laptop that can dissipate the power of one core? No problem. Fanless laptop that can dissipate the power of all the cores? For that you have to lower the clock speed quite a bit. Which is why you see AMD chips on older TSMC process nodes getting better multithread performance than Apple's fanless ones.
The cost/benefit ratio of adding a fan is extremely attractive. The alternative way of doing it is to add more cores. If you have 8 fanless cores at 2 GHz, how do you improve multi-thread performance by 50%? Option one, clock them at 3 GHz, but now you need a fan; cost of fan ~$5. Option two, get 16 cores and cap them at 1.5 GHz to fit in the same power envelope, but now you need twice as much silicon, cost of twice as many cores $500+.
The number of people who pick the second option given that trade off is so small that hardly anybody even bothers to offer it.
Apple continues to do it because a) then they get to claim "see, they can't do this?" even when hardly anybody chooses that given the option, and b) then if you actually want the higher performance one from them, you're paying hundreds of dollars extra for more cores instead of $5 extra for the same one but with a fan in it.
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cpu_performance_...
What do we see at the top of this chart? TSMC 3nm (M3/M4), followed by TSMC 4nm (Ryzen 7000U/8000U), TSMC 5nm (M1/M2), TSMC 5nm/6nm mixed (Ryzen 7000H), and then finally we find something made on an Intel process node instead of TSMC.
The efficiency has more to do with the process node than which architecture it is.
It's too bad they don't have Epyc on that chart. Epyc 9845 is on TSMC N3E and that thing is running cores at a >2GHz base clock at less than 2.5W per core.
And this benchmark doesn't even include M4, which is even more efficient.
Depends on your metric. A fan makes noise, attracts dirt that needs cleaning, needs more space ...
I really love my fanless devices, even though they never will reach the speed of activly cooled ones.
The number of manufacturers or the number of people? Apple was on the path to laptop irrelevancy before the M series, it doesn't seem clear to me at all that people don't care about noise and heat along with performance.
Anecdotal, obviously, but disabling Turbo-Core [0] on my AMD Framework 13 stopped all of my fan noise and heat complaints, with no noticeable performance impacts. It went from being so loud that my wife on the other side of the room would ask if my computer was okay to quieter than my ThinkPad, and from noticeably hot to just slightly warm.
Kind of ridiculous that it takes messing with an obscure system file to resolve it, but not any more ridiculous than issues I've had with other brands.
[0] It's `echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost` or something like that, and `echo 1` to turn it back on when you want that extra performance.
For example, AMD Ryzen 7 8840U or 7840U can be configured for the same 15W TDP as Apple M1. At 15W, the overall performance going to be about the same as M1.
The article shows a few charts where a Framework laptop is faster than M4 Air both in single and multicore CPU benchmarks.
Their office suite benchmarks puts it at almost 10 hour battery.
See Framework 13 Ryzen AI 9 HX 370.
To me, being able to run native Linux alone is worth its weight in gold, even if it was slower.
Every single chart in the article showed the M4 MacBook Air beating the Framework 12 by a large margin.
I don't know what charts you were looking at.
That the Framework 12 is not extremely lagging behind the M4 (subjective comparison) might lead one to believe that it would be competitive with an five year old M1 Air. Taking a quick look at "Cinebench R23" from 2020 [0], Macbook Air M1 comes in at 1,520 and 7,804, which compares favorably to 2025's "Cinebench R23" in which the Framework 12's i5-1334U scores 1,474 and 4,644.
The answer is it isn't competitive performance-wise. Given the M1 seems to have some native Linux support through Ashai, the Framework's advantages over the 5 year old MBA M1 seem to be user accessible hardware changes, touchscreen and longer hinge throw.
0. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/hands-on-with-the-ap...
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Frame...
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Frame...
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Frame...
And for battery life:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Frame...
It pretty much has that though? 1920x1200 at 12.2" is 185.59 PPI. Standard DPI (PPI) is 96. HiDPI to my knowledge isn't properly defined, but the usual convention is either double that or just more than that - the latter criteria this display definitely clears, and the former (192 PPI) is super super close, to the extent that I'd call it cleared for sure.
It's pretty hard to not clear at least the latter criteria on a laptop anyways. You'd see that on 720p and 768p units from like a decade or two ago.
186ppi is designed for 1.5×, an uncomfortable space that makes perfection difficult-to-impossible, yet seems to have become unreasonably popular, given how poorly everything but Windows tends to handle it. (Microsoft have always had real fractional scaling; Apple doesn’t support it at all, downsampling; X11 is a total mess; Wayland is finally getting decent fractional scaling.)
This might sound like a nitpick but I really don't mean it to be. These are proper well defined concepts and terms, so let's use them.
The bottom line is that I work with text (source code) all day long and I would rather read from a display with laser printer quality than one where I can see the pixels like an old dot matrix printer. Some displays are getting close to 300 DPI which is like a laser printer from 35 years ago.
The brief version is that if someone has a screen real estate concern, they need to look for the PPI, but if they have a visual quality concern, they need to look for the PPD.
Maybe it will be elucidating if I describe a scenario where you will have low PPI but high PPD at the same time.
Consider a 48" 4K TV (where 4K is really just UHD, so 3840x2160). Such a display will have 91.79 PPI of pixel density, which is below even standard PPI (that being 96 PPI, as mentioned).
Despite this, the visual quality will be generally excellent: at the fairly typical and widely recommended 40° degree horizontal field of view, you're looking at 3840 / 40 = 96 PPD, well in excess of the original Retina standard (60 PPD), which is really just the 20/20 visual acuity measure. Hope this is insightful.
It also introduces an element of uncertainty: as you say, you can't specify a laptop screen's PPD since that's dependent on viewing distance. But that's exactly the problem: it's dependent on viewing distance. Some people hunch over and look at their laptops up close and personal, others have it on a stand at a reasonable height and distance. To use PPI is to intentionally mask over this uncertainty, and start using ballpark measures people may or may not agree with without knowing.
To put it in context, for this display, "Retina resolution" (60 PPD), i.e. the 20/20 visual acuity threshold, is passed when viewed from 47.09 cm (18.54 inches, so basically a feet and a half). I don't know about you, but I think this is a very reasonable distance to view your laptop from, even if it's just 12.2" in diagonal. It corresponds to a horizontal field of view of 32°.
> the 20/20 visual acuity threshold
The acuity threshold for random blobs of light.
The threshold for sharp edges is much finer, and the things we put on computer displays have a lot of sharp edges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity
Won't deny, since again, PPD depends on your field of view.
Yes, if you shop for "resolution and diagonal size", you may as well shop for PPI directly. This just doesn't generalize to displays overall (see my other comment with a TV example), as it's not actually the right variable. Wrong method, "right" result.
> The threshold for sharp edges is much finer, and the things we put on computer displays have a lot of sharp edges.
And the cell density is even finer. It was merely an example using a known reference value that lots of people would find excellent; I didn't mean to argue that it's the be-all end-all of vision. It's just 20/20.
It's wrong but it's wrong in a way that causes minimal trouble and there's no better option. And if you add viewing distance explicitly, PPI+distance isn't meaningfully worse than PPD+distance, and people will understand PPI+distance better.
3840x2160@15.3" for example would be a nice even 3.0x display scale, at 287.96 PPI, and 128 PPD at 30° hfov to match the line pair resolving capability of the human eye [0] rather than the light dot resolving of 60 PPD, although of course still far from the 10x improvement over it via hyperacuity that you linked to earlier.
If 960xwhatever is okay at 12 inches, then 1366x768 wouldn't even be the baseline resolution for 15 inch laptops, it would be the baseline resolution for 17 inch laptops. That just sounds silly to me.
Assuming the laptop screen is just 20% closer goes a long way here to figuring out a good resolution. And it gives 720p to 12/13 inch laptops at 1x.
1.5x looks ok mostly (though fractional pixels can cause issues in a few circumstances), but across platforms nothing is handled as well as 2x, 3x, etc is. I have a 1.5x laptop and wish it were either 1x or 2x.
Using a lower preset than this is trading PPI for screen real estate. I don't think that's reasonable to introduce into the equation here. Yes, you match the relative size of display elements by virtue of (potentially!) being closer to the screen, but in turn you put more of the screen into your periphery, just like with a monitor or a TV. I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. An immersive distance (40° hfov) for this display is at 37.1 cm (a foot and a bit) - I think that's about as close as one gets to their laptops typically already. This is pretty much the same field of view you'd ideally have at your monitor and TV too, so either you use this same preset on all of them, or we're not comparing apples to apples. Or you just really like to get closer to your laptop specifically, I suppose.
"Repairable" is a bit of a fool's errand. It really hinges on availability of spare parts, supply chain, etc. They will never sell enough of this niche product to nerds to make that a long-term reality.
An old MBP is far more repairable because so many were made there will never be a shortage of parts on eBay.
While an emphasis on repairability is noble, the false prophet of brick-like pluggable USB modules ain't it.
The newest Apple laptops all have easily replaceable ports that do not require replacing the logic board, so that novelty is even more useless.
Similarly, if I spill orange juice on a Framework, I can just buy a new keyboard and install it in a minute. If it were a Macbook, I'd probably throw away the whole thing, since I'd have to disassemble all of it to get to the keyboard, and it would take me hours, if I even managed to not break something.
So, "Macbooks are more repairable than Frameworks" is quite the take.
Or, upon spilling the juice, realize you can get a Surface Go on sale at Walmart (which this seems to be a clone of) for a bit more than a replacement keyboard and your time (which is way more than a minute) and toss it in the trash anyway.
Framework sells keyboards for the Framework 13 for ~$30. I can find a Surface Go on sale for as low as $500.
No, I don't think anyone's going to throw out a $500-$1000 device because it needs a $30 part and maybe 15 minutes of work (steps here: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Framework+Laptop+12+Input+Cover...) and they could instead replace their laptop with a tablet for a mere $470 more.
So I'm not allowed to disagree? For the record: I think the Framework laptop, while a noble cause, is a foolish endeavor as executed and they will be out of business in 5 years.
I'm assuming you've stocked spare parts because by the time you need a new keyboard, there is a chance they will be out of production (or out of business) and those parts, now rare, will be fetching $100s on eBay.
:shrug: people said the same thing when I first bought my laptop 4 years ago. Parts are readily available today, and I expect them to be so in a year.
If nine years after I bought the laptop I can't get a replacement keyboard, I'll be a bit disappointed that the project failed, but the laptop will easily be net-positive from a cost benefit perspective long before that
Yes
Yes.
I've upgraded and repaired my framework laptop several times over the years. I've very familiar with opening it up and disassembling it.
Replacing the keyboard if I damaged it would absolutely be something I would do.
Also, on a Mac if the memory or storage dies, you need to replace the whole motherboard, that isn't true in a Framework laptop. You can't even say that those parts will be difficult to get in the future because they're off the shelf parts.
I will not even start on the fact that replacing other parts that commonly break in a laptop like the screen or the keyboard are hard to do in a MacBook (needs to disassemble almost the whole laptop) vs doing it in Framework that is much easier and probably takes 20 minutes even without experience.
I don't think that's the case - there are plenty of people who realise that eWaste is a problem, and I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked why a laptop can't just have a "new CPU" fitted to speed it up when everything else works. In reality this means a new system board, but Framework does this.
>An old MBP is far more repairable because so many were made there will never be a shortage of parts on eBay.
That's not comparing like with like. I've done a -lot- of fixing of old (2012-era) macbooks and secondhand parts are always a crap shoot. Plus there are lots of minor changes between otherwise identical-looking parts which mean they don't fit (such as the higher-DPI screen connector between 2011 and 2012 for otherwise identical-looking parts which are indistinguishable until it doesn't quite fit.
>While an emphasis on repairability is noble, the false prophet of brick-like pluggable USB modules ain't it.
That's adaptability and means you can get the IO you need. The computer could be entirely non-repairable and have this, or it could be framework where everything is available brand new as a spare part if you need it.
>The newest Apple laptops all have easily replaceable ports that do not require replacing the logic board, so that novelty is even more useless.
I think you might be misinformed here. Lots of stuff is now serial locked and won't work even if you swap it over. And that's not counting some of the terrible low-level engineering stuff which people like Louis Rossman highlight (such as placement of higher-voltage lines right next to direct-to-cpu lines in display connectors). And I'm sure you know about the simple voltage controller that fails that Apple won't allow the original supplier to sell to anyone else.
Even replacing the battery in my 2022 MBP (which I'm using now and absolutely love) would be a trial compared to the framework. One of the USB ports has always been dicky and I've just left it as is precisely because this is a can of worms.
Watch some dosdude1 repair videos of examples of how much work and skill is needed to do something such as upgrade the storage in a MBP/Air. And compare this to the framework. They are several orders of magnitude different in terms of skill level.
Does the Thinkpad X1 Carbon Gen 13 Aura Edition not meet these requirements? (It does have a fan but runs fairly cool according to reviews.)
And M1 laptops are what about three years from the vintage list? They'll be e-waste at the end of this decade even while other laptops fail to match it.
I’m searching for a new laptop, I want unix, so either linux or macos. I was looking at framework, system76, tuxedo and slimbooks, and mac air. I want an ANSI keyboard, which seems an oddity in Europe (there is English iso, which viscerally hate)
If you want thunderbolt ports, and some good specs, mac air is cheaper. And I’ve heard with arm processors you can tun linux at almost native speeds… I’m almost decided for Mac Air…
If somebody wants to add something to make me change my mind, you are more than welcome.
BTW I’m replacing a 2016 Macbook pro, which was buggy as hell, and I learned to really hate it. Also I’m not a fan of MacOs… but !4$ I cannot beat it.
I never knew they made screens that bad anymore.
For me, they are great, and I plan to continue to support them. But not everyone is interested in the tradeoffs inherent in their philosophy, and that's also fine.
Might still be worth it if they keep producing spare parts for a decade or more, every single time my laptop's battery goes dead it's a after the manufacturer has stopped production of that model entirely and it becomes impossible to buy a new one lol.
My desktop is 11 years old. It's an i5 3.2ghz quad core, 16 GB of memory, SSD machine that I built from individual parts for ~$850 in 2014. It has been running 24/7 since then. It handles 4k and 1440p dual monitors without issues for all of my programming / video editing needs. The only thing it doesn't do is run modern games.
I only say all of that because I've never upgraded individual parts on it. Every X years I build a new machine that lasts. I've been doing that for around 20 years now. The only thing I replaced once (not this machine) was a PSU that got nuked by lightning and not having a surge protector.
Personally if I were going the laptop route I'd much rather get something 80% as fast as the framework but at half the price (or less). There's a ton of laptops in the $600 range that crush my desktop in specs. Things like a Ryzen 7 7730U (16 threads @ 4.5ghz) with 32 GB of memory, 1 TB+ SSD, reasonable display / ports etc..
Memory used by various apps:
docker VM take 8Gb for simple supabase images
Firefox take 5-8GB
BasedPyRight takes 2GB
Nextjs server takes 2GB
Web development has devolved to the point where now you need 32 GB to view a Chinese take-out menu.
Install htop/btop and be more conscious about what your machine is actually doing. Needing more than 32GB RAM to develop a website is absurd
If you use Linux, then you're not stuck pre-dedicating a big block of RAM to a VM to run docker in, you're just using whatever the container is using.
> the Laptop 12 can only fit a single DDR5 RAM slot, which reduces memory bandwidth and limits your RAM capacity to 48GB
According to this post from a Framework team member, a single 64GB SODIMM will work too and just didn't exist yet at the time Intel wrote the 13th Gen spec, so they only advertize 48GB: https://community.frame.work/t/64gb-ram-for-framework-12-sin...
> Old, slow chip isn't really suitable for light gaming
I wish the reviewer would specify what phrases like “light gaming” mean to them. My FW12 is in a later batch that won't ship for a few more months, but I'm coming from a ThinkPad T470s where I already do “light gaming” (mostly TBoI Repentence and Team Fortress 2 with mastercomfig medium-low). I can't imagine the 13th Gen graphics would be worse in that regard than my old laptop's 7th Gen.
Not having Thunderbolt seemed like kind of a bummer to me too, but then again my T470s has it and I can't think of a single time I ever actually used it for anything. I tried one of those external GPU enclosures once, and it was kinda cool just to see that such a thing was possible, but I've never been one to want to tether a laptop with a thicc cable lol
Wait, are 64GB DDR5 SODIMMs finally out? I’ve been monitoring that for ages but almost lost hope.
* https://dogemicrosystems.ca/pub/Sun/media/logos/Sun-Microsys...
People will pay untold thousands for a Mac, but God forbid when a PC manufacturer charges more than $599 for a laptop. If you're whining about the price, Framework isn't made for you. Go buy that Acer that you really want. The Framework is Sam Vimes' expensive boots that are made to last[1], and I've happily paid in full to get a pair.
The article compares the FL12 to laptops of the same price range, including other framework laptops to note that it falls short.
The FL12 has worse performances and battery life than an M1 Air, for more than an M4.
The point of the article is that the 12 should either be a lot less expensive or it should be a lot better. It's not whatever nonsense you're dreaming of.
Repairabilty and modularity come with tradeoffs. Not everyone is going to value those tradeoffs and therefore shouldn't buy a laptop where those are the priority. But some people do value those things, and telling them to "get a MacBook" is just silly.
To repair (or upgrade) a Framework, you buy the part and install it. That's worth something to me!
Incidentally, I also have a last-gen ThinkPad P14s Gen 5 AMD and it's a flimsy POS. Already needed a new motherboard and battery and spent three weeks sitting at the service center while they rounded up the parts. Wish I'd bought another Framework 13.
I guess I'm not the target customer for this. I can see myself tinkering with a desktop, but I'd rather just have a laptop that runs fast and long enough, and stands up to abuse for 3-5 years.
EDIT: I haven't felt the need to spec a programming laptop like that. 16/512 feels fast enough, and 32/512 would have room to bloat... er, I mean grow. But I don't use a local LLM, and I don't know whether the difference between a heavily-quantized thing that fits in 16 GB and whatever you can fit in 48 is significant versus the ones running on absurd data center CPUs.
After reading everyone's comments about price I expected it would be much worse. I might consider it after my current laptop dies.
In terms of phones, I largely disagree with the conventional wisdom that repairable, upgradeable, Androids are better for the environment, more cost effective for the user, etc than iPhones. It's true you can't upgrade the battery yourself, but that's a different quality from whether the battery can be upgraded. And iPhones have a much higher resale value, so they're going to end up in landfills more slowly. I personally bought and use a used iPhone 11 that came with a replaced battery, and it's great! Old iPhones have a long useful life after trade in and resale, even if people buying new models here don't see it.
So I'd love to know how much this is the case for laptops like these as well.
For example, "repairable" is useful to the extent that repairs actually need to happen, and it seems to mean "self" repairable, though again that's a different dimension from whether a service center can do it. And whether you need self repairable is not a thing about longevity, environmental impact (since repair centers suffice for that), but rather convenience and possibly price. But price isn't the factor here because the thing is so damn expensive to begin with.
"Upgradeable" is useful if you want to.... improve a piece of it but not the chassis? Screen? How necessary is this? Do people really do that? I've been happy to use a laptop for half a decade or more, until finally upgrading everything all at once.
Also, I haven't been on Android in a few years, so maybe I'm wrong and this isn't a problem anymore, but it certainly was in the past.
And how many people end up upgrading the battery is yet another quality. I would suspect a small fraction of phones with upgradeable batteries actually gets battery upgrades. Having upgradeable internal components generally correlate strongly with recyclability... however once again, in my pessimistic estimation, only a small percentage of recycling actually amounts to anything.
I only paid $250 for my used iPhone 11, and that's not even as old as they go.
I imagine most of HN is shielded from the flourishing secondary market of old phones because they can easily afford the latest and greatest (counting even a couple years back). But at least where I live in Indiana, there's a pretty thriving ecosystem of yard sales and reuse, and people are not just going to simply throw away a functioning phone. An iPhone that's almost a decade old still has value, and there are repair shops that could put a new battery in it to keep it going for a little while yet.
If you don't think batteries get upgraded, what do you think happens? Do people really just throw their phones in the garbage?
This is the key. Framework 12 is a model aimed at schools and corporations. I wouldn't be surprised to see a ChromeOS version of it appear for schools. Which is great if they can tap into that market.
Where "value" is purely monetary, I think that pretty succinctly sums up my experience/views on the Framework product line.
They make good laptops, but you can generally get more for fewer dollars. If you're shopping on price, you can probably just skip right over their entire product line.
That doesn't mean that their offering doesn't have value. It has value has a vote with your wallet for sustainable, repairable products. It has value as an easily repairable and customizable laptop. It has value in some esoteric use cases it can be customized into (e.g., 4xM.2 NVME slots).
Would love to see some reviews just get this out of the way up front and spend more words on the product itself.
Personally, I'm glad there's a company out there serving a market niche besides being the lowest cost, most value-engineered product. I don't mind paying a bit extra for that in exchange for the other value I get out of it.
(And all that said--at the high end specs their prices get a fair bit more competitive. The price to upgrade a laptop from 16GB -> 128GB on Dell's site is _more than an entire FW16 w/ Ryzen 9 + 96GB RAM_.)
Framework has released fairly consistent upgrades for the Framework 13, but there's no guarantee that they will continue to do so, will release upgrades for the Framework 16, etc.
I think in a few years when they've been in business for closer to a decade than not and released updates across the whole product line, it'd be pretty hard for anyone to make an argument that that _shouldn't_ be factored in.
I love the idea of Framework, but the upgradability seems questionable to me. I base this off my experience with desktops where I've rarely over the decades upgraded more than the hard drive and RAM. When I'm looking at upgrading the motherboard it seems I just end up going all the way and getting a new case/ps/etc at the same time. Maybe that's just me though?
If they stop delivering, ill not buy their next thing, and ill be sad.
One could even allow other manufacturers to offer parts and do certification for a fee.
It should be possible to push down prices and make update paths more appealing.
https://community.frame.work/t/community-market-category/522...
How about in five years from now when all of that is still fine, but you just want to replace the mainboard.
What about when framework comes out with upgrades down the line? The great thing is because they’re so modular you can just buy that and slap it in without having to buy an entirely new machine.
That’s the appeal
And the upgradable internals sound like more of a hassle than a benefit - especially since buying a different device will be cheaper and probably a better experience since they don't have to engineer for replaceability.
Theoretically you'd get the option to plug in stuff not available in other laptops like strix halo - but then they still don't offer that in laptops. So meh.
One of my mentors had the great sentence: "I dont buy laptops- they suck, because they are tailored to transport. I buy desktops- and connect them via internet to flat transportable terminals. And desktops can be upgraded, merged, reused and send to the closet as server at the EOL-"
And he was kind of right. For almost all purposes, even for gaming in a way- a remote desktop is kind of superior. Yes, stadia is dead- but for everything else- this shall do.
I think the comment about the "transporttax" on hardware, ergonomic and cooling still holds up though even in a world where things like steam-deck exist.
Even more so, if you may have lightweight ar-headsets one day, with a glorified cellphone + mouse and keyboard.
I do think the plunge to leveraging a desktop/server across devices does require an understanding of ssh/rdp and tailscale/reverse proxies though, which is why it isn't as popular as it could be.
EDIT: Yes, it looks like matte is an option and they don't charge extra.
They just aren't really delivering on the promise of "Future upgradeability" in any kind of meaningful way so far, and I just can't see the value in purchasing what's undeniably a wildly overpriced machine based on promises that have yet to be delivered upon. They've had plenty of time to communicate when, or even if, new GPUs are coming, yet there's been absolute radio silence from the on this front.
Personally I think they need to focus more on actually delivering on the fundamental promise of the brand, that being future upgradeability, than on releasing new devices, as until they can demonstrate they are committed to delivering on their promises, I won't be buying any of their devices.
Pretty good laptop, the screen is great even, colour-calibrated 2880×1800 IPS configurable to 60 Hz refresh rate. However, the up/down arrow keys are not full size, their height is smaller.
1. Using substandard digitzer tech (something as performant and economical as Wacom EMR is needed). One cannot compromise here. I get that this might also be a licensing issue.
2. Making the device too big. 10.3 inch or smaller is better; the possibility of using the device in a train's or on a plane's fold-away tray table, just to be stashed away in a cross-body or small messenger bag after use, is still a killer feature. More real estate (by way of screens, ultraportable projectors, et cetera) can always be thrown into the mix later.
3. Choosing a wrong, or to be more precise obsolete, form factor. It needed to be a detachable for more modularity and flexibility. So, it's just another, admittedly very maintainable, premium-priced classic convertible. Its attached keyboard is a design-compromising dead weight and/or wasted space whenever not in use, very much like (the unused) maneuvering jets on older VTOL aircraft while in conventional flight.
4. The display is not of primary importance here, but there's no need to make it that bad. Top-notch, wide-color, flicker-free IPS displays do exist.
5. Sturdy but lightweight metal, not plastic.
And so the search for a well-designed, modular SFF general computing device continues. They nailed the colors tho, and hopefully continue to set an example in Linux support. I wish them plenty sales, I'm sure the machine will find its fans.
1. No full AMD options. I don't trust Intel's thermals and performance for several years now. Maybe they have rebounded but I no longer care. For me it's "AMD or get away from me".
2. No backlit keyboard. There is no excuse for this in 2025! I can forgive a lot of things, lack of biometric auth included, but no backlit keyboard is a cardinal sin.
I don't care about price. At this point I am ready to pay extra for libre hardware that is 100% open/free source ready and even working best with it. I would easily pay Macbook prices for a machine. But going for Intel and for no backlit keyboard -- nope.
Hope somebody from Frame.Work is reading. AMD has better thermals! (Or had, a few years ago, again, haven't checked in a while.)
Just about all of them had some kind of issue, which is really fun when your PM has a USB port not work randomly.
Ended up going back to HP laptops, 30% cheaper for the same specs and they just work consistently.
Would love to hear a hobbyist perspective, Frameworks are not a good choice for a business but I would be interested to hear if the replaceable parts / ports provided value for someone. My gut feeling is that something that can't be replaced easily in the Frameworks will die and it'll just end up being cheaper to replace the whole laptop.
dima55•4h ago
browningstreet•4h ago
(Yes, I could map this elsewhere, but I use too many different machines.)
mananaysiempre•4h ago
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fn_key#Fn_and_Control_key_plac...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_9995#Function_keys
gonzalohm•4h ago
gonzalohm•4h ago
Ctrl | Fn | windows | alt
Which matches what one should expect from a desktop keyboard (Ctrl is the left-most key)
soco•4h ago
nucleardog•4h ago
Easily verified with a simple image search for "<brand> laptop keyboard" where "<brand>" is not Lenovo or Apple.
Which is probably also why Lenovo's BIOS has an option to swap the Fn and Ctrl keys.
kej•1h ago
Macha•2h ago
bryanlarsen•4h ago
... as long as the keyboard has the proper layout, with ctrl in the far bottom left. One thing that Apple gets wrong and this keyboard gets right.
numpad0•2h ago
kesslern•4h ago
blacksmith_tb•3h ago
zerocrates•3h ago
mort96•4h ago
I really don't like this design though where the left/right keys are full size (or other designs where they put things like page up/down buttons above the left and right buttons). I don't mind that the arrow keys are a squished inverted T shape, but I really do think they should get to be an inverted T shape. When I do want to use arrow keys, I want to be able to easily locate them by touch without looking down at the keyboard.
EvanAnderson•4h ago
Sharing the arrows w/ Home/End is awful, though. I don't know how anybody could live with having to use a modifier key to get those. I already combine modifiers with Home/End a ton. Having to add 3rd modifier (Ctrl-Shift-Fn-Left) to get "select from here to the top/bottom" sounds like painful hand gymnastics.
numpad0•2h ago
apricot•1h ago
sixothree•1h ago