Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by jcrewleif, Oct 19, 2005.
Yeah right, I bet they really last 3.5-4. They always waaaay over exaggerate.
Or they found a way to reduce power consumption in the new PowwerBooks and it's just the same battery as before.
That's the most likely thing with the new displays but it's probably a combination of the new displays plus a slightly better battery like the 3rd parties sell.
Who is the most reputable third party battery sales place? I'm thinking about getting one for my ibook; I'd love to get one with 5 hour capacity.
i want one that'll last 5.5 true hours with the amount of motion 2 / final cut 5 / dvd studio 4 work i do on mine...
I get 5:30 out of my PowerBook, Rev. C, 1 year old, 12".
Apple may be screwing us 12" PowerBook owners over, but we still get the best battery life! HAHA!
And I want to apparate from Istanbul to New York in a second. And I want birds to sing BonJovi, and cats Guns N' Roses.
I got one of the NuPower ones they sell over at OWC for my TiPb, and it's awesome. Highly recommended.
I was wondering the same thing... will the new batteries work in older PowerBooks? My 1.33 Ghz PowerBook 17" battery is kind of dwindling in length of unplugged activity.
That would be a horrible, horrible world to live in, IMO. <shudder>
I've seen third party batteries that last for hours, some ~16-24, But they're HUGE. And expensive. I can't remember what they were called though.
An automobile battery?
well, they list the ibook batteries at 6 hours, and I find that a little over 4 hours is a reasonable real world number on my 1.33 Ghz 12". Varies a ton depending on useage of course, but I think with really low power comsumption options it could go to over 5 hours and with everything blasting probably 3.
So if they list these new batteries at 5.5, figure that you'll get maybe a half hour less - 3.5 + normally, 2.5 on high settings, over 4.5 with power saving options. Very rough estimates, clearly.
I still don't understand why with the technology we have, that batteries aren't lasting longer. I'm wondering if it is just a cost/bidding issue.
Perhaps, in part, it is. However, there are many factors. Hard drive speeds have increased and processor clock speeds have also increased. There are more efficient parts than in past years but still there is cost in going faster. A more capacious drive with more platters will have more initial inertia and require more power to get it to speed and this is exacerbated by high rotational speeds like 7200 rpm.
On the apple TECH specs in the support section, the document shows the following :
maximum life (15 - 17'' models) - 5.5 hours
wireless use (15 - 17'' models) - 3.2 hours
dvd playing (15 - 17'' models) - 2.5 hours
do you have airport turned on?? bluetooth on??? brightness on??? processor at minimnum??...im shocked about that...i get about 3:30 with airport on, BT off, and brightness around 70 %....
Battery technology has increased drastically, but most of that (not all--remember that a lot of early laptops had awful battery life) is chewed up by drastically faster components that generally draw more power.
I'm willing to bet that if you put a crummy-looking low-power LCD, really slow processor, 1.8" iPod-style hard drive, low-speed optical drive, and any other power-over-speed components into a laptop with a modern battery, it'd last two or three times as long as this, but of course it'd be comparitively dog-slow, so most people wouldn't want it. There are Windows laptops that do this sort of thing (using much slower, super-low-power chips by smaller companies), but they're usually ultrathins so the benefit is more size than battery life.
Also, for what it's worth, the batteries Apple ships with their laptops are usually pretty close to the top end of the power density curve, though they're often not after the line has been around for a while. Battery capacity doesn't increase all that fast, though--the technologies currently used are pretty mature.
No, but they were pretty big.
5:30 with AP off, BT off, screen at minimum plus blacking it out when not in use (biggest battery saver, blacking the screen)
4:30 with AP on, BT off, screen at 1/3 to 2/3
4:00 when playing a game
3:45 with AP on, screen at 3/4, and a game
3:30 with AP on, BT on, screen at near-max
The screen takes up more power than you can believe. Black it out when you aren't using it to save on power.
I saw an ultrathin advertising at Fry's for 1.12" thick. Impressive next to a 1.8" thick something-or-other, but compared to PowerBooks... not really. (Had a battery life that was about 3:00... and you know that's on a really good day...)
The 1.5 GHz Pentium-M machines are pretty impressive for the combination of power and weight and battery life. They're still thick and poorly designed as well but the Windows thing is the only thing that killed the deal for me.
I agree, and hope we see some Pentium-M based PowerBooks/iBooks. Or a processor derived from the Pentium-M.
That's true. If the new NAND technology takes off in the future, that will help battery life as well.
Does anyone know how the new Powerbooks with better screens, but "lower power useage" actually fare in realworld testing?