There has always been a trade-off between modularity and size. Each card is effectively a USB-C/Thunderbolt dongle, so they need to be big enough to fit a reasonable amount of electronics (like 1TB of NAND, or an Ethernet IC) plus the shell and connectors. If your needs are basic (just USB, 3.5mm, 1x HDMI etc.) then you should get the Thinkpad. But if you want modularity for special cases (e.g. triple HDMI, double Ethernet, or triple MicroSD readers) or if you like to move your ports to alternating sides of your laptop, then the Framework's expansion system is for you. Framework is inherently a compromise between thickness and modularity (also why I assume it uses an internal battery) in a 14" portable laptop. Perhaps a new generation could shoehorn in a non-card USB-C port, although that would break their design rule that all ports support Thunderbolt.

> Perhaps a new generation could shoehorn in a non-card USB-C port, although that would break their design rule that all ports support Thunderbolt.

And that is what frustrates me so much. Sure, have an expansion slot on each side, they seem cool and I get the benefits. But give me more ports in a motherboard I can replace. This didn't seem like a technical decision or one grounded in values of repairability and sustainability, it seems like they made a design decision that is objectively worse.

> But give me more ports in a motherboard I can replace.

They might simply be bandwidth-constrained. Driving 4 individual Thunderbolt 4 channels requires an insane amount of IO bandwidth, more than even the M1 or M2 can provide.

If they added another port, it probably wouldn't be any faster than USB 2.0.

I have it, and love it. Plus they double as regular dongles for my pos M1 macbook

At least one USB-C should be standard (not modular) though. That way you can always charge it easily without the modules installed.

The modules themselves connect to the laptop via USB-C ports, so if you don't have a USB-C module you can still charge it by removing another module.

Depends on your power adapter. My bog-standard one I use with my Framework is a Best Buy standard. It is just a little too thick to fit into the recessed USB-C when the adapter is removed.

I'm really surprised that there isn't (yet) a 2-4 port hub option. Or a larger expansion rail of some sort - it can have limits to it (no thunderbolt or whatever's high bandwidth), that can act as a dock for multiple modules.

Maybe they're hoping a 3rd party does it (it's effectively a regular hub in a specific form factor).

> triple HDMI, double Ethernet, or triple MicroSD readers

Is that really the niche that Framework is targeting? I thought it was meant to be a generally appealing laptop with expansion options like laptops used to have.

How much physical space does 1TB of NAND really take up anyway?

Framework is just making a laptop that is both repairable and modular. These just happen to be use cases for it. I find business laptops like Thinkpads "repairable enough" and am okay with the upsides and downsides of a fixed selection of ports, so I don't own a Framework. But my friend owns one because they would rather have a limited number of very customizable ports - for example, when they need to charge the Framework while connecting to a TV, they can swap around the USB-C and HDMI ports to the side closer to each. And when they need to dock to a bunch of stuff at their desk, a USB-C dock is a more suitable solution. This obviously isn't for everyone, but it satisfies their niche.

It seems that the NAND doesn't need much space, but the support components do. https://guides.frame.work/Guide/1TB+Expansion+Card+Throttlin...

Modularization inherently requires much more space than integrated components. So you either need to have a much larger chassis to support the same number of components, or you need to have fewer components for a similar sized chassis.

USB-C / Thunderbolt dongles are modular, that's why this seems sort of silly.

Would it have been possible to have modularisation, but with internal modules?

I know nothing about industrial design, and no doubt this must have been considered. What would be the trade offs the designers faced? Seems this modular design uses a lot of layers of chassis and space.

Connectors inherently need to reach the outside of the device, and they're all different shapes and sizes. At a minimum you need to reserve as much external space, per module, as you expect the largest module will need to expose.

For devices that don't have external connectors, modular devices are already common, like M.2.

Since they're all full fledged tb4 ports they're likely limited in the number they can put in. Other laptops are just building in a separate USB root for multiple ports off once tb channel.

They could have maybe laid them out in a way that would have made making double-wide modules easier or something though, maybe.

> fill the rest of the laptop with the usual set of ports in a motherboard that I can easily repair.

Where exactly does "easily repair" mean? It all depends on who the end user is. Consider three very different users:

1. Expert: Replacing connectors on motherboards is not particularly hard for someone with experiencing soldering surface mount components.

2. Intermediate: Many laptops have modular barrel connector subcomponents that are easy to replace for anyone who is comfortable opening laptops.

3. Non-technical: Many consumers are uncomfortable opening laptops at all. Many have thrown away laptops with modular batteries.

Because there are lots of different users on different levels of technical ability, creating a "repairable" laptop can mean a lot of different things depending on where you draw the line.

> Many laptops have modular barrel connector subcomponents that are easy to replace for anyone who is comfortable opening laptops.

That's one thing that makes me a bit uncomfortable about the current trend to use only USB-C for charging. At least on my current laptop (and I believe many other models from the same manufacturer), the "traditional" barrel connector is separate from the motherboard, connected to it by a short length of wire, while the USB-C connector is soldered directly to the motherboard and reinforced by a piece of metal. Any mechanical stress to the charging cable (for instance, from tripping on it) will go to the chassis for the barrel connector, but for the USB-C connector it will go directly to the motherboard.

I ended up just buying additional expansion cards and swapping them on demand. I don’t often need HDMI/DP expansion cards so I just keep them around in case I need them, and have extra USB slots for normal days.

Sounds like just another version of dongle hell. It is even worse for ports used less often, in my opinion. Last thing I want is to realize I want to hook my laptop up to a TV and I can't find or forgot my HDMI dongle, or want to flash an SD card and can't find my SD card dongle...

And 5 years from now when USB-C 11.6rev5 (with a new 100pin physical connector) is commonplace for our 8k Displays, framework laptop owners can spend $40 to buy a new "dongle". The Lenovo owners will be buying a new laptop (or a Dongle / dock. something that physically hangs off the laptop).

Repeat this process as every external connector changes physical layout, non backwards compatible change, etc.

There is no perfectly forward and backward compatible laptop port layout. Lenovo does it one way (which some people like). Framework has gone a different direction (which a lot of other people seem to like).

Framework dongles are just a fancy form factor for USB4/TB4. Lenovo and Framework will have exactly the same support for USB11.6.

I can see the point of one, maybe two expansion slots. But not the way they did it with four and only four ports.

Edit: Also, this ethernet expansion card this thread is about also physically hangs off the laptop.

It’s really not too bad, but I guess it depends on your use case.

Would be great if they could release a dual USB-A expansion slot though, the bandwidth should not be a problem. Or maybe redesign the expansion slots to be more slim so they could fit 6 in a laptop.

I would buy a Thinkpad over the Framework laptop in a heartbeat. Better keyboard (actual arrow keys!), track point, better hinges, matte screen, more ports, better warranty options. The only real negative is that Lenovo chose to solder the RAM in newer models.

Being able to reuse the chassis is good idea but the implementation is lacking.

> Being able to reuse the chassis is good idea but the implementation is lacking.

I find this statement interesting - could you expand on this? IIRC they just delivered on this promise which included (1) a new intel 12th gen mainboard as a drop-in replacement for their 11th gen mainboard and (2) an optional new chassis lid to resolve issues with the original chassis.

Disclaimer: I'm both a Thinkpad and Framework fanboy.

As I understand it, the big selling point for the 4 modular ports is that it allows future motherboards to fit the older chassis. The drawback is that you only have four ports to customize.

What they could have easily done instead is to use the same port layout for as long as possible. Let's say Ethernet, 2x USB-A, HDMI, 3.5mm jack, and as many USB-C ports as they can reasonably fit. That would be good enough for at least 3 years and probably way longer. In my opinion 3-5+ years backwards compatibility is good enough. Of course this is only me saying this from my armchair.

Hate? It's a small laptop, and I feel generally well-designed. Sure it could have more, for example I think the USB-C card should have two ports. I think they are trying to give them enough space for bulky cables, etc. But two small ports should fit in one card.

But it isn't "bad" in any sense of the word. More cards and they'd have to make the motherboard bigger. Maybe on a future 15"?

No? But that might be because I don't need the same options as you do. I however do like the dual HDMI, USB-C, and the extra storage I added to my framework and since your Thinkpad only has 1 HDMI output I think that's rather odd. It's 2mm thicker how do you handle the lack of a second HDMI port?

I cannot imagine a realistic scenario in which I would need two HDMI ports on the laptop. When I need to connect more than one screen (home, work) I would always use a docking station.

Ironically one of the top complaints from mainstream laptop reviewers was that the Framework was too thick compared to a Macbook Air or Razer Blade. I too would have preferred a slightly thicker device with more ports, but you can't please everyone.

And what will happen when you'll want more than the 16GB soldered memory? Or one of the memory modules will fail? The Framework offer the best solution for this situation, and the Thinkpad (as much as I love their older models) don't.

Well the T14 does have one SODIMM slot that takes up to a 32GB module, for a total of 48GB. But I don't want 16GB of soldered memory. I'm not some Lenovo shill trying to sell people on the new thinkpads, I hate what Lenovo has done to the classic line. I would be so incredibly happy for framework to take Lenovo's place. But I need more than 4 ports and have such a hate for carrying adapters, because I've been burned in critical situations after losing an adapter.

I mean, to be fair, it's just their first product / platform? In a few years, imagine having way more form factors and options here to support what you're looking for.

My laptop before frame.work was a Dell 7480 with more ports than the frame.work.

But on my Dell two of those ports the USB-C and the RJ45 no longer work anymore and I can't fix them ...

Something that won't happen (at least not as fast) on my frame.work.

In a near future they could easily go for a very simple solution which is to provide expansion cards featuring multiple connectors (or storage etc) at a time.

This yeah, and the Thinkpad has a better keyboard and great matte displays. The latter is a must-have for me. Even the versions with touch are matte!