Did I damage my laptop by me personally upgrading my Dell 5505 15 inch laptop?

doumamuzan · 03-21-2022, 06:09 PM

When I purchased it it was Ryzen 5, 8GB and 256GB

I purchased a brand new 8GB ram with the same speed 3200 MHz, and put it in there to make it 16GB, and I also purchased a brand new 512GB from a very well-known brand and replaced it with the 256GB

For roughly 8 months it worked exceptionally well for Kubuntu / Win10 dual boot

and then it went out of order

A Dell technician paid a visit, but unable to repair it, even after replacing the mainboard

My question is, did I damage my Dell Inspiron 5505 by increasing RAM and HD capacity?

michaelk · 03-21-2022, 07:37 PM

What do you mean by out of order?

The probability that you damaged the laptop is low but not zero.

Its possible, the most likely culprit would be static electricity or maybe damaging the wiring in some fashion. If you damaged either the drive or the memory could that also damage the new motherboard? Unlikely but not impossible.

My guess would be a power problem. I assume the technician checked all that.

frankbell · 03-21-2022, 08:16 PM

Quote:

For roughly 8 months it worked exceptionally well for Kubuntu / Win10 dual boot

That it ran for so long without issue would indicate that the problem was in no way related to the upgrades you did. Your questioning yourself is a good example of post hoc ergo procter hoc.

michaelk · 03-21-2022, 11:21 PM

Actually that isn't true. Static electricity can damage a circuit junction but it still works. However, Eventually it can fail over time. As posted the probability is low but not zero.

boughtonp · 03-22-2022, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankbell

... post hoc ergo procter hoc.

To save others from searching:

Quote:

Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because correlation appears to suggest causality. The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection.

A simple example is "the rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise."

Quote:

Originally Posted by doumamuzan

A Dell technician paid a visit, but unable to repair it, even after replacing the mainboard

All that means is that the mainboard was not the problem. (Or perhaps not the only problem.)

As Michael said, with the limited information provided, checking power would be the next most obvious thing, but you really need to be more specific on what is wrong and what the technician tried.