> The Framework 16 weights about 2.2 kg according to my kitchen scale. For comparison, my X1 Carbon weights 1.3 kg. That may not seem like a big difference, but the extra kilogram makes carrying around the Framework 16 more difficult. In particular, I don't feel comfortable carrying it with just one hand while this isn't a problem with the X1.

The author wanted a bigger laptop but the straight goes and compares it to x1 carbon.

Modular ports

> Like the keyboard area the design is a bit janky though, with visible lines/space between the adapters and the case, though this at least is something you won't notice unless you're explicitly looking for it.

Not sure how you can make things like this not to have any lines for what its worth. So not sure what author is going for.

The author doesnt know what he wants and doesn't know what framework provides.

▲

kelnos 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah I never get this complaint about 16" laptops. Hell, I don't really get 16" laptops at all: they're huge! You're making a very strange trade off: they're only barely portable, and you lose a lot of the power and flexibility you'd get with a desktop.

▲

Aurornis 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> they're only barely portable,

Maybe for a very small person or someone who strictly travels light? But I’ve never had any problem with 15” or 16” laptops even while traveling internationally.

> and you lose a lot of the power and flexibility you'd get with a desktop

This isn’t really true any more unless your desktop is a gaming monster or full of multiple drives or something. I can have a 128GB RAM laptop with ultra fast CPU on the go now and it’s not a problem.

▲

heavyset_go 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You lose a lot of potential performance that comes with both efficient cooling and maintaining throughput in sustained loads.

Laptops are thermally inefficient and require throttling even with active cooling, meaning mobile chipsets are programmed to emit less heat over time. You might hit advertised boost speeds for a little bit, but you can sustain them on properly cooled desktops.

Then there's the fact that mobile chips are TDP capped at much lower rates than desktops, both to save power and to limit heat.

Theoretically, your mobile chipset has a better $/Wh rate, but you leave some performance on the table compared to desktops.

	▲	Aurornis 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You lose a lot of potential performance that comes with both efficient cooling and maintaining throughput in sustained loads. So? I can’t carry a full desktop or even Mini ITX build around just in case I need to run a very long sustained load at absolute peak performance. My 16” MacBook Pro has no problem consuming 80W or more at a time. The fans spin up, but it’s fine. It’s basically near desktop level performance for everything I’m actually doing on the go. I think people talking about the sacrifices of laptops are either comparing to extreme high end builds or they’re stuck thinking about laptops from 6 years ago. A 16” MacBook Pro is basically a high end Mac Mini or a base Mac Studio with a battery and screen built in. They only really start to diverge from the bigger machines when you get into the really expensive Mac Studio builds. > You might hit advertised boost speeds for a little bit, but you can sustain them on properly cooled desktops. If you’re looking for sustained high performance computing then a laptop is a bad choice, I agree. But what are we even talking about here? Even for compiling large codebases or exporting a YouTube length video project, you don’t need the full thermal solution of a desktop anymore. Throttling also isn’t a hard stop where the system comes to a halt any more. It just means the system is 60-80% as fast as it could be, which is still very fast. Throttling has become a bogeyman but really, it’s fine. I’ll take the boost for compiling that big project for several minutes. It’s great. I’m guessing some of these comments are coming from people who haven’t experienced modern MacBook Pro level laptops?

▲

dustbunny 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have a 17" XPS and it's great as a computer for that floor of the house. Ie: for sitting at the kitchen table or the couch. I have a 13" for portability which is great because it's so small and light.

MacBook pros these days are really heavy. Having a MBP and an Air is actually a fair inventory but the MBP is just so expensive.

I do like the desktop form factor of keyboard and monitor but the 17"er is nice to use while I'm up making coffee in the morning or while sitting on the couch at night

▲

stevage 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have one. It's my main computer. I can use it on a desk, on my lap, at a cafe.

I find smaller laptops much harder to understand because they compromise the coding experience so much.

▲

CoastalCoder 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My vision gets worse as I age. A larger screen lets me continue working with the same amount of code, etc. as when I was younger with a smaller screen.

▲

kmeisthax 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The majority of 16"+ machines are being made specifically as portable desktops. The target audience is college kids. If you live in a dorm that you have to move in and out of yearly, it is leagues easier to travel with a bulky laptop than even a small form factor desktop machine, because of all the peripherals needed to run it.

▲

orthoxerox 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Not sure how you can make things like this not to have any lines for what its worth. So not sure what author is going for.

Machine them with wire EDM, like these executive desktop toys? Yes, I know the seamless effect is achieved by polishing the two parts together afterwards, but you can still achieve a practically gapless fit.

▲

YorickPeterse 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The author doesnt know what he wants and doesn't know what framework provides.

Indeed, I just pressed a "Buy now" button without a moment's thought. Clearly the fault is all mine.

	▲	MostlyStable 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		All of the complaints you had are extremely reasonable reasons to not want the Framework 16 (or any Framework). While I personally am quite happy with mine, I very much believe that it is not for everyone, and in fact has quite a niche audience. That being said, most of your complaints should have been obvious from viewing images or reading any of the numerous reviews. So yes, I agree with the GP comment that you seem to have bought the computer without knowing what you wanted and/or what the Framework offered/was. Being more expensive, heavier, and worse "fit and finish" is pretty much the tradeoff for upgradeability and repairability. Not everyone values those things to the same degree, and deciding that those tradeoffs are not worth it is completely reasonable. I just don't understand how you could get wind up buying one without knowing those were the tradeoffs you were making. I've read almost every one of these complaints in previous reviews. It's not exactly a secret.
	▲	LarsAlereon 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So basically this article is 50/50 insightful and helpful feedback from a Framework customer, mixed with gripes by someone who bought the wrong laptop for them. Part of the reason this is getting a sour response is that most laptop companies don't even offer the choice of a larger, more expandable model. Framework does, and you bought it despite not actually wanting that, then dinged it for the compromises inherent in the design you chose. It seems like the 13.5" Framework was the obvious fit for your needs? To use a silly food analogy, imagine there's a popular salsa company. The customer base has been clamoring for them to release an extra-hot salsa that also has corn in it, though that's a polarizing combination. A purchaser gives it a bad review because, in addition to some very legitimate critiques of the spice flavors, it's too hot and corn doesn't belong in salsa. People who wanted the extra-hot salsa with corn have a point when they say that person should have reviewed the medium salsa without corn.