bullshitfilter

Brian Lam

mferrari

socioecoboy

dagamer34

Tufte would have never click the submit button twice either.

Jesus Diaz

lianna_g

thechansen

Biggy

moukkis

federahhhh

I'm too cheap to buy a new battery for 130 bucks that I know will turn to crap in 2 years

BrandonOBrien

They don't really take into consideration things like open windows, air conditioning and the way drivers actually drive. Sounds like crapples battery life calculation works the same way.... just pump up the numbers and the consumer will think that it's a fluke or its just theirs that is off.

The fuel mileage calculations are just now (with the new system), coming down to reflect more realistic numbers.

Out2gtcha

Mr.Purple

Creibold

Earthslide

First off, in case any of you haven't noticed, Apple has a descriptor at the bottom of the 'Tech Specs' for both the new MacBook and MacBook Pro:

"Battery life depends on configuration and use. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information. The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%." [emphasis added]

It seems as though Apple is now using a more realistic estimate than before:

"Battery life depends on configuration and use."

Now I don't own either of the new portables (or the previous gens, for that matter), but it seems to me that Apple did not reduce their notebooks' battery life, but rather they are now providing a more accurate estimate by testing with AirPort on while text editing with screen brightness up. Again, I could be wrong --- this is just my take on the issue.

adamguntle

Yawn.

marm0lade

Dead right. My old iBook 12" really would give me 6 hours' battery life, so the battery life on the MBP was a shock.

iTheophilus

gamecrazychris

SigmundTheSeaMonster

phryed

andy

jetexas

how many pornos are we talking about?

Captain Nobody

Johnny Chimpo

wlcrm

Not saying I disagree, it's just humorous.

nachobel

OLEDRevolution

jetexas

thechansen

skyshard

The MacBook Pro 15 battery life, for example, remains unchanged across all CPU speeds (the higher the speed, the more energy it consumes.)...how could the battery life be the same for three different frequencies?

Ummm...you're forgetting significant details, I think. You're comparing a 2.33 GHz machine from Oct. 2006 to a 2.4 GHz one from June 2007, to a 2.6 GHz one from Feb. 2008. As processors get updated (even just revisions of the same processor without reduction in transistor size), power consumption goes down. In nearly a year and a half, I'd expect significant improvements in clockspeed per watt. And don't the new ones use the 45nm Penryn core? That'd take the power consumption down considerably. Thus: clockspeed up, power consumption *might* stay the same or even drop!

As to the rest of your concerns, the processor isn't the only thing that eats power in a notebook. I'm primarily thinking video card here. Isn't there now a significantly beefier video card in the newest MBP 17"? Wouldn't that consume more power?

You can't just compare processor clockspeed and screen size between laptops that come out 1.5 years apart and expect the analysis to be simple. The processors are different (not just the same exact processor forced to run faster), the video card and other components in the system are different, most of the chips on the motherboard are probably different. This is the world of technology...developments happen. You wouldn't look at a 300 MHz laptop from 1999 that had a 2 hour battery life and compare it to a modern 2 GHz machine that gets 4 hours of life and say "How can it be!??!!" would you?

EQC

The only reason that the 15" doesn't show the same dip in battery life is due to the screen change.

The bump up on the 17" from October to June was the addition of the LED screen.

What the hell is the question here?

ctthoqqua

ferrdidly

Why don't they just put the hard numbers up? I don't want to count giant green battery icons, i want numbers. The semi-battery icons have no precision at all, are they in 1/3 increments? 1/4? 10%?

It took 200,000 pixels to convey the following:

MB
2.16G 05/07: 6
2.20G 11/07: 6
2.40G 02/08: ~4.5

MBP 15"
2.33G 10/06: 5
2.40G 06/07: 5
2.60G 02/08: 5

MBP 17"
2.33G 10/06: ~5.5
2.40G 06/07: ~5.7?
2.60G 02/08: ~4.5

That's 183 bytes for the same data, including punctuation, aesthetic trailing zeros and whitespace.

In case you can't tell, I have read Edward Tufte. [www.edwardtufte.com]

wlcrm

Why don't they just put the hard numbers up? I don't want to count giant green battery icons, i want numbers. There isn't any kind of precision in the data. Is that semi-battery icon at 50%? 60%? 2/3? 75%?

It took 200,000 pixels to convey the following:

MB
2.16G 05/07: 6
2.20G 11/07: 6
2.40G 02/08: ~4.5

MBP 15"
2.33G 10/06: 5
2.40G 06/07: 5
2.60G 02/08: 5

MBP 17"
2.33G 10/06: ~5.5
2.40G 06/07: ~5.7
2.60G 02/08: ~4.5

That's the same information in 183 bytes, including punctuation, aesthetic trailing zeros and whitespace.

In case you can't tell, I have read Edward Tufte. [www.edwardtufte.com]

wlcrm

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

jetexas

If 4.5 hours was a replicable finding, it'd still be damn fine. As in ... great battery time, given the screen size, video power and the competition.

lianna_g

:P

aec007

chrisaroz

workingonyourinvoice

jetexas

workingonyourinvoice

jetexas

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

Thetics

thechansen

Then why did they just get finished BSing the world about the battery life of the Macbook Air?

Samifumi

Sockatume

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

ggore

Manve

Bos'un's Mate

STPGoose

thechansen