Comments by "Peter S" (@Peter_S_) on "Louis Rossmann" channel.

  1. 390
  2. 213
  3. 109
  4. 67
  5. 47
  6. 44
  7. 37
  8. 27
  9. 16
  10. 14
  11. 9
  12. 8
  13. 8
  14. 8
  15. 6
  16. 5
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41.  @GlenwingThink  What I said wrong to was your assessment that this is simply "a port stops working due to a bug from a third party company". At that point, to me it's a brick and thus for my work it's "dead" and aren't many failures because of a bug, manufacturing or otherwise, from a 3rd party company? We don't know what hand Lenovo may or may not have in this and we never will unless this turns into a class action lawsuit and even then probably not. I don't know which controller this issue relates to but I used to design Thunderbolt products for a major Mac peripheral company so I do know the larger vendors have the ability to get customized firmware through official channels (every last detail in Thunderbolt design is reviewed and official) and the Apple fork apparently didn't suffer from this self-destruct issue. Is it internal to the Intel Thunderbolt controller firmware?, is it in the PCIe host driver for the controller?, or is it Lenovo firmware that asks the housekeeping routines in the controller or driver to do the damage? The machine is literally physically killing itself as a function of running normally and when you certify a new driver for distribution you need to test it. Any sharp engineer at Lenovo doing the testing should have noticed the constant write activity on the QSPI Flash on the controller. Those pins were always monitored in my lab because we also tinkered with the contents directly to set IDs and other parameters. We had boards jigged up with headers for the purpose. If Lenovo pushed out that driver without proper lab testing, they have some culpability and it is "by design" even if that's an errant design. The code does what the code was made to do, by definition, unless the hardware is faulty. The code that somebody very poorly designed that made its way through testing is "design" even if it's really bad design. Numerous times I've seen Louis rant about Apple over something that was a similar component failure from a component vendor but it turns into 5 minutes of blah blah hate blah blah apple is shit bla bla bla and I'm saying he's being inconsistent. Apple is an evil, shitty company. I think we can all agree there, but when the issue is an Amphenol brand connector failing and "Apple screen fuse" becomes a meme here, people are not following the path laid out by the evidence or reality.
    1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1