3 ms·
It’s not really MS’ fault that crappy SSDs broke, but at the same time it’s only ever Windows that sees these issues. This suggests that this kind of strain on
by cosmic_cheese 1y ago
It’s not really MS’ fault that crappy SSDs broke, but at the same time it’s only ever Windows that sees these issues. This suggests that this kind of strain on the hardware is unnecessary given the task, which then paints a picture of negligent sloppiness in engineering and QA culture at MS.
- gruez 1y ago>It’s not really MS’ fault that crappy SSDs broke, but at the same time it’s only ever Windows that sees these issues see sibling comment for something similar happening on zfs. linux is also filled with workarounds for crappy SSDs, so "SSDs breaking due to software" isn't exactly exclusively a windows problem. It just gets more attention because of the bigger user base. >This suggests that this kind of strain on the hardware is unnecessary given the task, which then paints a picture of negligent sloppiness in engineering and QA culture at MS. "straining hardware" shouldn't be a thing for PC components. If it can't handle a given workload, it should throttle/queue the requests, not brick itself. I can grant some leeway for long term wear (eg. heat damage or electromigration), but that's clearly not what's happening here. Can you imagine a network card that bricks itself if you send too many packets, and you have to baby it with how many packets you send in any given amount of time?
- Ekaros 1y agoGPUs and CPUs control their clock frequency perfectly well depending on load and temperature. I see no reason why every single other component could not do the same.
- recursive 1y agoWindows has a lot of deployments so it makes sense to see it there more often. I don't think Windows has the most hardware compatibility issues.