4 ms·

Kind of. I mean, sure, I think it would be really neat to be able to replace the L1 cache myself, but this would probably necessitate a less efficient CPU. Is i

Kind of. I mean, sure, I think it would be really neat to be able to replace the L1 cache myself, but this would probably necessitate a less efficient CPU. Is it fair to fault Apple for using an Intel CPU which itself has no mechanism for internal repair/replaceability? I think it is if we were able to apply the same standard to every product (this is where the VAT idea came from); then the repairability becomes the aggregate of all the parts used, and it's the manufacturer's job to pick repairable parts, but how far do you go? Does it make sense to lower the repairability score because I can't replace the L1 cache? If the answer is "no", then what is the difference between an L1 cache replacement and a CPU replacement on a fully integrated motherboard (like Apple's new computers)? The answer in my mind is one of convention. Perhaps the solution to this is to enshrine the Von Neumann architecture as a legal standard. But this solution seems like it could limit innovation.

sharpneli 6y ago
What about smaller components? If we follow this to the logical conclusion we cannot use integrated circuits at all, as each individual transistor must be replaceable. The rules needs to be written in a way that allow things, like integrated circuits, to exist but at the same time prevent intentional preventing of repairability.
zepto 6y ago
> The answer in my mind is one of convention. Perhaps the solution to this is to enshrine the Von Neumann architecture as a legal standard. But this solution seems like it could limit innovation. Right - I think this is the issue. People cite cars as an example, but car architecture evolves much more slowly than computer architecture. Arguably at the present, as we come up against Moore’s law limitations, architectural changes should be expected to increase. Government mandated computer architecture sounds like a great way to completely cede technological advance.

sharpneli 6y ago

What about smaller components? If we follow this to the logical conclusion we cannot use integrated circuits at all, as each individual transistor must be replaceable. The rules needs to be written in a way that allow things, like integrated circuits, to exist but at the same time prevent intentional preventing of repairability.

zepto 6y ago

> The answer in my mind is one of convention. Perhaps the solution to this is to enshrine the Von Neumann architecture as a legal standard. But this solution seems like it could limit innovation. Right - I think this is the issue. People cite cars as an example, but car architecture evolves much more slowly than computer architecture. Arguably at the present, as we come up against Moore’s law limitations, architectural changes should be expected to increase. Government mandated computer architecture sounds like a great way to completely cede technological advance.