Q: 2011 MacBook Pro and Discrete Graphics Card

Swiss_G wrote:

 

obwianMacobi wrote:

 

I just ran a software update on my late 2011 MacBook Pro and noticed that this popped up in my updates list: MacBook Pro EFI Firmware Update 2.7.

https://support.apple.com/kb/dl1499?locale=en_GB

 

From the update info:

This update fixes several issues to improve the stability of MacBook Pro (Early 2011) and MacBook Pro (Late 2011) computers and is recommended for all users.

 

This update improves the reliability of booting from the network, addresses an issue that can prevent HDCP authentication after a reboot, and resolves an issue with boot device selection when a USB storage device is hot-plugged.

 

Boot ROM or SMC Version Information: MBP81.0047.27

 

I just wondered whether this is a new firmware update for 2011 MacBook Pro's or whether it's the old one Apple released before that had the CPU/GPU throttling built in to stop them potentially overheating. (It may be that I previously installed this before my logic board was replaced, and now I have a replacement board, this EFI firmware had never been installed on it - hence I get the update notification.)

 

Either way, I'm cautious over whether I should install it or not. - Anyone know?

 

If you look at the date on the link provided in your post the update originates from February 2012.

 

The Boot ROM Version of my, yet to be repaired, Early 2011 MBP is MBP81.0047.27 which is the same version that the software update is offering you. It woukd appear that this is not a new firmware update. Whether or not you choose to install the update is up to you!

Ok thanks. Being that this is an old firmware update, I'm surprised that it has popped up today, as almost certainly I would have installed it when it first came out. This leads me to believe that my replacement logic board never had this firmware installed. (Assuming of course  that the Boot ROM is in fact part of the logic board assembly) - I'm not sure whether this is significant or not, just curious.

redon,

     You are brazilian from Sao paulo, didi you get your computer back?

I'm with jimoase on this:

Apple intentionally builds flexibility into their products so customers can have their system configured to meet their needs. This is the premise for engineering standards.  When Apple has an after sale production problem Apple is burdened with testing customer configuration that meet Apple's specifications because the customer reasonably expected Apple's product to operate as advertised and sold.   For Apple to deny the customer the choice to customize their Apple computer only after a production problem is discovered is not operating in good faith.

The issue here is Apple's failure—before these computers were even shipped, let alone modified—to deliver an adequate product. As I see it, nothing an end-user does to modify their system negates Apple's responsibility to make up for that failure. Of course some new drives will not work with these laptops; Crev333 cannot ask Apple to make an updated drive work if it doesn't. But Crev333 is not asking Apple to make her or his computer work; only to replace an improperly designed/installed GPU. Seems to me it's irrelevant whether the laptop is "beyond economical repair." Apple should still make the GPU work, even if the rest of the computer doesn't. This is not a "repair"; it is a replacement of a flawed part.

That said, Crev333 is well-served by following Richard Liu's advice to reinstall the original parts, if possible, before resubmitting the laptop for the program! A drag, I know, but worth the time.

I know it is a fine point, and I do not want to "beat a dead horse," but it bears repeating.  In order to protect itself and the owner, the condition in which Apple received the machine is documented.  On the form authorizing Apple to repair my late 2011 MBP 17" even some minor cosmetic blemishes have been documented.  Although I cannot know for sure, it would not surprise me to learn that the optical drive was also checked but found to be in order.  Suppose, however, that I had replaced the original optical drive by one that evidently supports Blu-Ray.  If Apple does not check whether the unit does all those things for which I bought it both before and after repair, it is vulnerable to post-repair claims that it was damaged during repair.  The same is true even if the object occupying the optical drive bay is not quite so "foreign".

So again:  Upgrades that give a machine capabilities that the original did not possess make repairing it (formally) impossible, because an essential aspect of the repair is documenting the condition of the machine both before and after.  To Apple's credit, it evidently does not consider performance enhancements such as a larger/faster HDD, an SSD or more RAM to be major obstacles to repair.  So replace the offending devices by the original equipment and take the machine back to Apple.  Once it has been successfully repaired you can reinstall the upgrades.

Lastly, I do not agree that "Apple intentionally builds flexibility into their products so customers can have their system configured to meet their needs."  Yes, that is true if, and only if, those needs are communicated during the process of ordering, in which case the machine will be delivered with the required equipment installed.  However, it is clearly not Apple's intention that users upgrade their machines with any and all manner of device that fits in the space created by removing original equipment.  I think it is safe to assume:

• If Apple provides no instructions on how to upgrade a component, it was not intended to be upgraded by the user.
• If Steve called it a "bag of hurt"  then it was not intended to be put in the machine.
• Apple did not intend for users to do whatever videos that begin with "This may will void your warranty" demonstrate.

Why should anybody care what Apple intends?   The answer is, because most consumer protection legislation is predicated on the consumer's using the device as intended. 

rdbrwn wrote:

After LB replacement, MacsFanControl is not showing GPU diode. But iStats is showing. Anybody else?

It's working for me. I see reasonable values for both GPU Diode and PECI GPU, Macs Fan Control v1.2.1.

Make sure you're running an application that forces the system to switch to the discrete graphics; GPU Diode is missing when it's running on the integrated graphics. I use gfxCardStatus to tell me what's up, http://gfx.io/

<Link Edited by Host>

I'm a bit confused.  Why is such a petition even necessary?  Let's apply a little logic.  The first sentence of the petition has the form

if A then B, or equivalently, A therefor B

where A = "I support p, a product of company c" and B = "c should fulfill certain expectations with respect to p"

But A therefor B is equivalent to NOT(B) therefor NOT(A), i.e., in plain English, if c does not fulfill one of those expectations with respect to p, don't support p!  Depending on the nature of p, that could mean taking action ranging from not buying anymore p from c to boycotting c entirely.

Creating laws from the petition will probably keep lawyers busy and happy for years, after which they are likely to conclude that they cannot do any better than laws that already exist.  Consumers have a better, more powerful and more precise weapon at their disposal.  They can vote with their money.  Companies constantly monitor their sales and expenses.  Deviations from expected values will be noticed immediately, and when they are, consumers should leave affected companies in no doubt about the cause of the unexpected nose-dive in sales.  But, for this weapon to be effective, consumers will have to coordinate and target their actions and work wisely.  If you're not happy, say, with an Apple product, by all means boycott Apple and inform the company of your action.  And if you bought the product from, say, Best Buy, do also consider not buying  Apple products from them anymore and informing them of your decision.  You can bet that they will inform Apple.  But be firm!  If your Apple laptop is sick and Apple isn't being as cooperative as you expect, don't just complain and then replace it with another Apple laptop or an iPad, and resist the temptation to acquire that sexy, thinner-than-air iPhone or the Apple Watch, because "they're different."  And do try to drum up the support of others who feel as you do and are prepared to resort to the same means.

More/cheaper repairability = longer life for those that can not afford to buy new every few years.

More/cheaper repairability = better for the environment.

More/cheaper repairability = probaby better/easier upgradeability etc...

Only see advantages.

D3us wrote:

 

Only see advantages.

Agreed.  But you don't need legislation to achieve that.  People who feel that way must vote with their money.  They must refuse to buy products that don't meet their expectations and buy products that do.  This is the only language that companies understand.

I think it was when Apple brought out the first Retina MBP, a 15" model with no optical drive, that they also released an upgraded Unibody model with a 15" display and a Superdrive.  It gave the market a choice between the anorexic beauty and "classic" beast.  The market voted for the former, and ever since then Apple has been taking to extremes what began with that model, throwing out components that it claims nobody needs, bonding display panels directly to the clamshell cover, soldering flash memory and RAM to the logic board, designing and manufacturing its own batteries to fit available space, etc.  These machines are difficult if not impossible for anybody but Apple to repair because that is the price of giving consumers what they evidently want.

If you want the Apple logo on it and repairability inside, you are going to have start by refusing to buy Apple products that are not repairable and telling Apple that repairability is more important to you that all the sleekness and slickness in the world.  And you will need to convince people who feel the same way to do the same thing.

Been working with Apple Support since getting my 2011 mbp back a few weeks ago after being "fixed".

To recap, the geniuses swapped my HDD and my 16GB of 1600Mhz ram into another slightly newer 2011 and said it's ready.

I picked it up and the case and the "About this Mac" had an entirely different S/N and there's no telling if the logic board/GPU defect has been corrected.  I've not had a single issue with the slighltly nicer 2011 mbp.

Support has been friendly about this as they've been spinning their wheels trying to track things down and what they should do about this.

At one point the support gal said to me, "Apple's not going to leave you in a lurch if something happens to your mbp down the road."

I tried to keep from laughing when I responded, "What do you mean?  Apple's already left me in a lurch for 8 months with a defective and dead mbp."

Anyway, thought that was a bit funny.

Richard Liu wrote:

 

I know it is a fine point, and I do not want to "beat a dead horse," but it bears repeating.  In order to protect itself and the owner, the condition in which Apple received the machine is documented.

 

--------

 

I think it is safe to assume:

• If Apple provides no instructions on how to upgrade a component, it was not intended to be upgraded by the user.
• If Steve called it a "bag of hurt"  then it was not intended to be put in the machine.
• Apple did not intend for users to do whatever videos that begin with "This may will void your warranty" demonstrate.

Why should anybody care what Apple intends?   The answer is, because most consumer protection legislation is predicated on the consumer's using the device as intended.

The check that was in the mail is now in the bank.  Apple's refund check arrived.  As many may remember my MBP was repaired by a third party before the refund program began.  I choose a third party because of the repeated reports of Apple repaired machines failing multiple times. 

Of interest, considering the tenor of the latest conversations about which machines can be repaired and which cannot, is that until the refund program begin no one reported that Apple would not repair their machine because the machine was other then as delivered.  Apple was willing, for a fee, to repair every machine.  Reports of machines being unrepairable have only occurred since the announced free repair program.

Further muddying the water is my machine which was repaired by a third party.  Apple was only interested in the serial number and what repair action took place.  There were no questions concerning customized features such as replaced hard drive, I have a 1TB hybrid, replaced memory, I have 16gig.  Apple didn't care the customized state of my machine, they were concerned that is was actually repaired for having the GPU problem.  Once satisfied my machine was repaired they sent a check.   It would not be reasonable that only third party repair shops are capable of repairing customized Apple machines.

For further clarification on changing from a DVD reader to a hard drive, did anyone taking their machine in for testing report that Apple tested their DVD driver prior to accepting it for this GPU repair problem?

Apple is blowing smoke, putting up ghost hurdles when they say Apple cannot repair a machine because there is too much memory or the DVD player has been replaced.  Apple is doing the government agency thing, creating the regulations, judging the compliance and handing out the penalties with no outside monitoring.

Yes we can vote with our dollars on the next product we purchase.  This discussion is about teaching Apple manors for doing the right thing on this purchase.

Oh dear!  (I hereby apologize to my "dead horse.")  I do believe we have some insurmountable cultural differences here:

Apple is doing the government agency thing, creating the regulations, judging the compliance and handing out the penalties with no outside monitoring.

I presume that you are referring to the way you perceive government agencies in your country to work.  US?  I did not realize that.  As I see it, Apple is now doing its damnedest to make its customers happy, and some are determined not to be, for whatever reason.

Apple is refunding the cost of having had these machines repaired before it announced the program.  Apple does not care how other people run their repair business, nor, evidently, what they actually did in their attempt to fix the problem.  If you are happy about the repair, Apple is happy.  If you are not, you can still have Apple or an ASP repair it.

Evidently, Apple (and, I am presuming, ASPs) have a standardized repair procedure that begins with documenting the condition in which the machine was received.  An analogy:  I once went to the emergency ward of the University Hospital here in Basel, Switzerland complaining of abdominal pain.

I checked in at reception, where I told them who I am and why I had come.  After waiting for what seemed like ages a nurse examined me, took urine and blood samples, discussed my symptoms, etc.  Long story short, it eventually turned out that I had kidney stones.  As always, a report was sent to my personal physician.  The text is standardized:  "Most esteemed colleague, the patient <name> resident of <canton> came to us on <date> at <time> complaining of <symptoms>.  We examined him and found <deviations from the norm> ... etc."  As a deviation from the norm the report mentions a broken ankle that I had suffered in 2000 and which had been treated at the University Hospital.  Since nobody examined my ankles, I assume that this finding was pulled from my records.  The point I want to make is, a complete documentation of the initial condition of the patient is the first step in the standard operating procedure at the University Hospital (and, I assume, at other hospitals), when somebody is brought in "for repair."

I do not find that so difficult to comprehend, nor does it surprise me that Apple's repair procedure is similar.  For Apple, the documentation of the initial condition of the "patient" begins at the Genius Bar, but does not stop there.  The next part occurs when the technician opens the machine up on the workbench.  (Luckily, the hospital did not need to open me up to discover that somebody had "tampered" with my ankle.)  Apple is rejecting as "unrepairable" those machines that present obstacles to documenting the initial condition, typically when it finds something in the optical drive bay that was not there when the machine left the factory.  Put a "government agency" slant on that if you wish and say that Apple could test the Blu-Ray drive, HDD, the SSD or whatever else is in that bay if it wanted to, it just chooses not to, or that Apple could just ignore such upgrades altogether.  (I wonder how long it would take for the first accusations to surface that Apple is maliciously breaking third-party hardware while pretending to "fix" machines?)

OK, 'nuff said.  For those more concerned with getting their machines repaired under this program than "teaching Apple manors [sic]" the take-home messages should be clear.

1. Apple is rejecting as "unrepairable" (see next point) machines that have something other than a Superdrive in the optical bay and machines whose Airport/Bluetooth cards have been upgraded.  So, if you want your machine to be repaired under this program, simply undo such upgrades.
2. "Unrepairable" means, in this context, that it cannot ("government agency" slant:  will not) be repaired by Apple in its present condition.
   • Argument:  One report in this thread mentions that a technician told a customer to put the original optical drive back into the machine and it would be repaired, since the work order had already been prepared.  I do not recall whether this incident occurred at an Apple Store or at an ASP.
   • Conclusion:  It would seem, therefore, that "unrepairable" is a technical term that indicates the presence of an obstacle to applying Apple's SOP for repair, and that such machines can be repaired if the obstacle(s) are removed.  The conditions of being "unrepairable" is evidently reversible.
   • Remark:  Hospitals generally do not have the option of declaring as "unrepairable" in this sense people whose original teeth, arms, legs, etc. have been "upgraded."
3. Upgrades of the original HDD and the original RAM seem to be alright.

That's right, Ram or HDD upgrades won't affect the repair status, anything else may.

Just got my computer back from the AASP with the logic board replaced. So far so good.

For the record, the computer had additional 8GB ram and the optical drive was replaced with a 256GB SSD.

What really bothered me was the customer service at the AASP (TSI Informatica). I had to speak to Apple Support (which was really considerate and efficient, I should admit) so the AASP would acknowledge my MBP was part of the repair program.

Best,

Filipe

Just a question to clarify

redon2 wrote:

For the record, the computer had additional 8GB ram and the optical drive was replaced with a 256GB SSD.

 

Was it the hard disk drive that was replaced by a 256 GB SSD, or was it the optical disc (DVD) drive?  If it was really the latter, this would be the first report of such "tampering" not disqualifying a machine for repair under this program.