You mean the framework Ive been running for the past 4 years or so?

raw_anon_1111 a day ago | parent | next [-]

You mean the same ones that consistently get bad reviews for being hot, with poor battery life, heavy and sub par screens?

https://community.frame.work/t/fw-16-review-the-good-the-bad...

	▲	smj-edison a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's important to distinguish between the Framework 13 and the Framework 16. The Framework 16 is by far the most ambitious of the two, and so it has had a lot more issues. I use a Framework 13, and I've loved it. It's light, has a solid frame, and runs Linux great. The battery life isn't great, and the speakers aren't either, but I've been able to mitigate the latter with EasyEffects.
	▲	mecsred 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If the 16 performs worse in the power efficiency department, that is not great, but it doesnt make my machine run any worse. Calling it heavy is crazy to me, the thing is tiny. If you think it's heavy you'd have trouble using an iPad. The screen thing was a shitty manufacturing issue, they released a kit to fix it, which I luckily didnt need since mine came after they fixed it in production.

▲

plagiarist a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I've got a Framework I am not too upset with, but the battery life (especially during sleep) is definitely one of my gripes. I still have yet to try powertop or other tools to optimize, maybe I would be proven wrong.

▲

dale_glass 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Sleep just ceased to exist in the last few years and got replaced with an always on, low power mode.

I believe the reasoning was partly that suspend to RAM had serious reliability issues due to the complexity of saving the state, partly that people starting expecting cell phone-like performance where eg, mail is always received.

	▲	mixmastamyk 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Depends. The Intel models still support sleep on Linux (at least up to 12 or 13 gen, AMD boards only nap.