> Realistically usable and proven to be more "future proof" than the MNT Reform Devices.
How is Framework 'proven' to be more 'future proof' than the MNT Reform devices?
> You know, with actual notebooks you might use them, this MNT Reform will be in your "theoretically cool but practically useless open source projects that I will never use and my children will throw into the landfill when i'm gone"-Drawer we all have.
Why should it? I can understand if it doesn't cover your needs, but to me it seems like a decent, functional laptop that might do just fine for a lot of people.
> How is Framework 'proven' to be more 'future proof' than the MNT Reform devices?
Framework has shipped multiple generations of hardware with upgrade SOCs/Mainboards in the same form factor. MNT Reform is already on their second generation case and mainboard form factor with no reasonable upgrade for their first gen in sight.
> Why should it? I can understand if it doesn't cover your needs, but to me it seems like a decent, functional laptop that might do just fine for a lot of people.
I challenge you to do any real work for a week on an RK3588. When your done, you will understand why.
> Framework has shipped multiple generations of hardware with upgrade SOCs/Mainboards in the same form factor. MNT Reform is already on their second generation case and mainboard form factor with no reasonable upgrade for their first gen in sight.
If you're referring to 'MNT Reform' as 'first generation' and 'MNT Reform Next' as 'second generation', I think you might be mistaken. Several processor module upgrades have already been made available for MNT Reform, and you can order one with RK3588 right now. (Can't think of other parts that would really need an upgrade at the moment, but maybe you have an idea?)
I recall them saying the 'Next' is supposed to be more of a 'normal' alternative to the bulky classic Reform, rather than some successor they'll be abandoning the old Reform for.
One could say the Framework is 'more proven to be future-proof', but I don't think calling it 'proven to be more future-proof' is fair on this basis, if I understood your point correctly.
> I challenge you to do any real work for a week on an RK3588. When your done, you will understand why.
Quite the bold assertion! I'm game. I'll let you know once I've had the chance to try and do any real work on an RK3588 for a week at minimum. I feel like my processing needs might be vastly inferior to yours, though, so it'll probably be fine. :-)
I've been doing "real work" on the much slower IMX8 module since the Reform came out. I did an entire Masters degree on this laptop in addition to work.
Anyway, the RK3588 module works in the original Reform; the SoM form factor is shared among all three devices. I don't think you have all the facts here.
> MNT Reform is already on their second generation case and mainboard form factor with no reasonable upgrade for their first gen in sight.
What do you mean? I've upgraded from the i.mx8mq module it shipped with to the a311d module, and the rk3588 module will be compatible with my first-gen Reform as well.
Daily drive the a311d and it's solid. Nothing I wish I could do compute wise with it at the moment that I can't. The RK3588 will be a nice bump in performance though :)
I spend hours on a ThinkPad X230 i5-3320m every day, on OpenBSD, with multithreading disabled (so it's lowered down to 2 cores). Take your gatekeeping elsewhere.
How is Framework 'proven' to be more 'future proof' than the MNT Reform devices?
> You know, with actual notebooks you might use them, this MNT Reform will be in your "theoretically cool but practically useless open source projects that I will never use and my children will throw into the landfill when i'm gone"-Drawer we all have.
Why should it? I can understand if it doesn't cover your needs, but to me it seems like a decent, functional laptop that might do just fine for a lot of people.