New iFixit layout thoughts

Since my initial post on Is it possible to carry comments over from the old guide view? when I expressed concerns with the comments on guides I said I was going to do this post. Since I said I’d do this, here’s what I think of the new UI. I didn’t want to rush it, but I also didn’t want to take too long to do this so bear with me if I missed anything. I spend about 8 days on the new UI full time to see what I like, don’t like and what I feel could be added. My thoughts aren’t completely sorted but I’m very close to it.

Since this was the major change, I wanted to put it through its paces. This was what I got on a 1600x900, 1920x1080 1680x1050 and 1280x1024 monitor.

Monitor 1: Gateway HX2000; 1600x900 20”

I feel like the space on this monitor isn’t very well optimized. From what I can tell, it looks like the new UI was made more for 4:3 tablets like iPads and small 16:9/16:10 tablets using the website rather than the app, and potentially small 11-12” laptops. I don’t feel like this is a bad thing, but I also think there is room to expand the width a little bit on desktop monitors. Other than this I like it. I feel like it works a lot better than the old UI does, so if this is going to be the only thing that will be a quirk of the new UI it can be overlooked. The majority of it is right, so this issue is small.

Monitor 2: Laptop display; 1920x1080 15”

For the most part, I feel the same way as I do on my HX2000. It wasn’t as focused on larger laptop classes and was really focused more around small laptops in the 11-12” space and tablets. It’s not a bad thing here either, but I feel like the space is even more underutilized on these 15” FHD laptops then I feel it was on with my HX2000 with the awkward resolution that’s more or less obsolete. Other than how I feel about the more extreme underutilization my thoughts really aren’t that much different.

Monitor 3: Dell 1704FVP/FVPI 17”; 1280x1024

Monitor 4: HP IQ506; 22” 1680x1050

Monitor 5: Asus X53E; 15” 1366x768

First, some more major changes I like.

• The comments being moved under the corresponding step with a number is one of the better small changes. I say this because in order to get to the comments, you had to scroll all the way to the bottom. This was not always ideal, but workable. A situation I feel fell under workable but not ideal is my Wireless testing notes. While I am testing more cards to add to the results and rewording it behind the scenes, these limited notes may be better than nothing at least right now. Those notes exist because of how bad getting the card wrong in Linux can and likely will be. If you get it wrong, you get one of two results. Total failure or a correctable failure, but it will be difficult to fix. Using the right card is crucial, and I will prove this in my final data when I get it posted. If you end up having to use it, at least you are aware it’s a problem card.

• I like how the whole text next to a warning is red now, rather than black text with the warning triangle. This can be useful for specific things I may add to the guide like my note on why you may want a UEFI system to get around the non UEFI 2TB drive limit, for example. The other notations are still the same as they always have been, but I don’t think that needs to be changed.

Now for the small changes I like.

I like how the new UI does not have a “Show more” button anymore and just shows the whole introduction. I never really had a problem with this personally, but there are times I feel like a particular guide needs a long introduction. I consider this a small change that wasn’t required but is a nice touch some guides will benefit from. One of the guides I’ve made I feel benefit from it is the Linux 2007/2008-2012 config guide. I have a few reasons for saying this.

• In this guide, I have information on laptops and desktops. This means I have a “Show More” button. If someone misses it they will miss my minimum suggestions for specs. Getting rid of it fixes that, but it wasn’t a change I feel was needed. It’s a welcome one, but it’s not a major change like many other bigger ones I have found.

I feel like hiding the summary once you start the guide was a change that was overdue. Once you’re in the guide, you do not need that information anymore. If you are in the search results then you will need it to see if you are looking at the right guide, but that’s it.

That’s how I feel about the layout changes that are good. Now, to get to the areas I have concerns with.

While I like a lot of the small and major changes, I also have some small concerns about a few changes I have found so far.

One of the changes I have a concern with is the ??? next to the time for the guide. I do not think this should always leave the Edit panel, since it is going to be intentional at times, as I have done with the 2007/2008-2012 Linux config guide. I did it for a few reasons:

• Bad hardware choices are the major reason. While it isn’t as catastrophic as it used to be, it still does happen. In order to correct these systems, it can take a while, depending on the extent of the problem(s). In some cases, the only **practical** fix is a new system, especially if the issue is related to a major component. If you take that into account, it probably makes sense why I do not want a time on this guide. I can't predict the time on these style guides.
• While I have provided some of this critical information for components like the processor, WiFi card and the GPU, it is up to the reader to utilize. The main problem is you need to go in armed with the information to make an informed choice or your odds may not in be in your favor. If you have to take a friend who knows this stuff, you have to do that.
• Because of the hardware range and the choices readers will make, I can't fully anticipate how their hardware will respond, regardless of if it's consumer or business class. I like business grade hardware since it is fairly predictable, but not everyone will pick retired business systems. As such, I can't easily predict how the reader's hardware will respond. I can get an idea based on certain output from the Terminal, but I can only predict so much with this information. This is because of the design goals between the two.

A comparison of different issues between Consumer and Business class

• Consumer grade hardware is dispoable. Business grade hardware is meant to be used for years.
• OS Support: Business class is designed with multiple OSes over the life of it in mind. If it shipped with Vista it will likely work with 7, 8.x, 10 and Linux. Consumer grade is meant for ONE OS and generally does not work well beyond that.
• Target Market: Business class is designed to be used for years, so it's designed accordingly. Consumer grade is designed to run for 1-3 years. After that it probably won't last much longer because it will fail and the parts will be hard to find. This is also why the compatibility sucks; general consumers know nothing about Linux, so why bother? Note: System71 and others are the exception. However, these cost more then your typical Dell or HP.
• Upgradeability: A business class laptop can be easily upgraded and repaired. Consumer grade is not easy to repair and when it fails, parts always seem to cost more then the system.
• Durability: Business class wins here by a long shot.

• WiFi: Business class usually uses Intel or Atheros, both of which work well in Linux. Consumer grade is usually Realtek unless it's a laptop from when Ralink was in business. Realtek/Ralink both suck.

These aren't all of the differences, but I think I got my point across on why I use business class.

Other then the hardware side, there is more to the story.

• I do not know which brand of system you will use, so I do not know where the compatibility issues will come up. This also falls under compatibility issues.
• Your first go at it is likely to be error prone with the hardware side. Some people get lucky and get an easy fix while others get burned. It's the luck of the draw.
• In cases of systems where the luck of the draw is not good, a new system is probably going to be cheaper then salvaging the bad system.

Another guide I have this issue came up on is the Pioneer VSX-918 control fix. When I wrote it, the last thing I was concerned about is time. I added this and patched that issue up because of it. It just was not a priority because I needed to kill the major edit issues first. I have overestimated by ~1 hour, to cover for any novice mistakes as I do all of my other guides. Now that the estimation emphasis is gone, this is more critical than ever for me to do.

With those two guides compared and contrasted, it’s time to get to some things I feel could be used to fix it.

• Option one is to let the author prevent people from adding a time to the guide by "locking out" the suggest a time option if it has been determined they don't think it's appropiate. It shouldn't be hard but it also needs to be hard enough to deter casual lock-outs. The option should require the author supply a reason to the reader as to why, which could replace the time. This is probably the safest way to implement it. In the case of the 2007/2008-2012 Linux guide my reason would be hardware variations and mixed incompatibilities.
• Option two is to let the author choose to hide the time from everyone. This could be treated as a editing lock out, but again should be easy. This is likely going to be the 2nd best solution for this.
• Let the author set it so there is no time. In this case, ??? would be replaced with something like Time to complete will vary. The idea is this will replace the question marks and clarify there is no set time and one person's time will be different from someone else's.

With that out of the way, there is one potential confusion point. When I first went to use this UI, I thought I’d have to do a comment migration. Turns out I was wrong. This is just something to remember if you think this will happen to your comments.

I feel like the hidden flags that you have to click to reveal aren’t required, but are okay in the sense they reduce scroll time and slightly improve the layout. It’s not a big change, but it’s a aesthetic improvement. I’m neutral on this for this reason. It doesn't make a big enough difference to make it a major change.

I feel like the Sections should only be reserved for multi section guides, or usable in a way that outlines the title of each step, and even potential step grouping. For example my 2007/2008-2012 Linux config guide. I don’t know if this will happen or not, but it’s an idea.

There are a fair amount of steps I can group together to make it easier to navigate. For example:

• Processors: I can have multiple categories. For example, I can group the AMD processors (11/12/13) and Intel processors (9/10).
• I can also do this for Wireless, and turn that into a section of steps. I don’t have to but seeing as it’s 4 steps it wouldn’t hurt to make it easier to find the step you need. I have done my best to make it work without sections, but there’s room to improve it. I could turn 4 steps into a single category and make it a little easier to navigate to the section you need.
• The GPU steps can be grouped into one step too. Not required, but like the Wireless step it’s something I could do to make it slightly easier to navigate.
• Group the Linux distro option steps together, so I can have the Good and Bad sections in one category.

Besides sorting out more complicated step groups, I could also do something with the hard drive steps like this:

• New SSD and hard drive (replace all of the drives. Keep none of them.)
• New SSD but reuse the hard drive (Carry the hard drive over as a backup drive, but use an SSD as the primary drive. This will be good for people who have concerns about the long term reliability of the existing drive, but do not want to retire it, at least until they see the drive has problems.)
• mSATA SSD, along with the original hard drive being carried over (Again, good for people who want to replace it to be safe but don’t want to get rid of it until they see it has problems.)
• Categorize the new and used hard drive steps into a single category.

My stance on drive reuse is I see nothing wrong with it. I would encourage the reader to see if they can reuse the drive in use somewhere it's okay to try your luck and see how long it lasts, providing the hours aren't high (~40k or more), and issues are only limited to a reasonable amount of reallocated sectors (no more then 5. It also can not continue to grow. If it does, the drive is junk). I certainly understand if you want to do it as a home user. This is why I have the used hard drive/new SSD steps. It allows you to reuse the drive while getting it out of regular use in case something happens.

Personally I would replace it. However, that's because of the environment I come from. I am used to not getting the drives because of the IT policy and having them fail due to high hours out of the blue.

This is for the Sections part.

To be specific: The Sections header is primarily designed for guides that use prerequisites guides, or building block steps that are repurposed in a number of different guides. You could include a general purpose CPU install guide, for example.

When I wrote the 2007/2008-2012 Linux config guide, I intentionally skipped the CPU upgrade advice and limited it to picking a CPU. Let's get into the reasons.

Laptops

Laptops have a few issues. The issues go as follows:

Cooling

• Not all laptops can take the same CPU's. The chipset might support it but the cooling does NOT support it. As such, it will be blocked at the BIOS level.
• Some laptops have what I feel are subpar cooling. The support is there but they barely cool the CPU's. The Asus X53E is like that. The most it should have had is the Core i3.
• Some laptops have more support then listed, but this is sketchy. It probably has no official support because of the cooling

That's why I feel like cooling is an issue.

BIOS microcode

• The laptop has to have microcode support in the BIOS for the CPU for it to work. If it's not there it probably will not boot at all. Some laptops will, but these will throttle the CPU or nag you.
• There may be more microcode added to newer BIOSes, but this is not reliable

There's the reasons for microcode. Should be cut and dry.

Difficulty

• It's a bad idea for most people
• Most laptops require full disassembly
• You need a specific guide for a specific laptop to show how to do it and communicate the limits on a certain laptop in terms of what CPU's can be installed.
• You may need to communicate certain details like if you need to buy a heavier cooler for the replacement CPU to not overheat. Again, can't be communicated in a catch all guide.

Desktops are less of an issue, thankfully. The issues are not substantial enough to warrant a extended discussion. I can elaborate if there is interest.