Whats the word on this? Is it really less battery time than last years?
exactly why would you change your test methods then what do you say to past customers? who bought it based on a supposed 10hr life.. LOL I bet the battery life is just not as good as previous year's.
They're using a different test standard on purpose to cover up the loss of battery life. And when people asked, they would use that as an excuse. Very typical apple.
There is likely to be a small loss in battery life, as the new CPUs are more power-hungry (35W vs. 25W), however the GPU is included in that 35W, so 7 hours should be pretty accurate.
We’ve just finished showing that CPU and GPU performance has basically more than doubled compared to last year’s Arrandale offerings. That’s great news, but what happens to battery life? We’ve got 35W TDP Arrandale parts compared to a 45W TDP Sandy Bridge quad-core; doesn’t that mean battery life will decrease by around 25%? The answer is happily no; as we’ve point out in the past, TDP isn’t really a useful measurement of power requirements. All the TDP represents in this case is the maximum amount of power Sandy Bridge should draw. So worst-case battery life under full load might drop, but the real question is going to be what happens under typical workloads.
Yes, those figures are accurate. Best-case, running at 100nits, quad-core Sandy Bridge still lasted nearly eight hours on a single charge! What’s more interesting is that our standard Internet battery life test that loads four pages with Flash ads every sixty seconds still checks in just shy of seven hours. Finally, H.264 playback also comes in at the top of our charts, providing more than four hours of demanding video playback. If 240 minutes of content off your HDD/SSD isn’t enough, we also were able to watch a Blu-ray disc and still get 220 minutes of 35Mbit VLC playback. Wow!
Wireless web testing conducted by Apple in February 2011 using preproduction 2.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7–based 17-inch and 15-inch MacBook Pro units and preproduction 2.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i7–based 13-inch MacBook Pro units. The wireless web test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing 25 popular websites with display brightness set to 50%. Battery life varies by use and configuration. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information.
It's called being honest.
Hey, you had some grammatical errors. FTFY.
.
No wonder Steve took a break. I wouldn't want to be around for this lackluster update. Throw in some new chips, lower the battery life, and add a port that can't even be used yet. Way to go Cook!![]()
Agreed.
My current MBP is broken so I have no choice but to upgrade...but a higher price for a modest upgrade with lower battery life is a bit disappointing.
exactly why would you change your test methods then what do you say to past customers? who bought it based on a supposed 10hr life.. LOL I bet the battery life is just not as good as previous year's.
speaking of non relevancy.
"LOL I bet the battery life is just not as good as previous year's."
too true. Apple states so. Unless, of course, you are erroneously suggesting that Apple has somehow gone backwards in terms of battery technology?
Additionally, what does Apple say to a prior customer such as myself? They really don't have to say much.
My 13" MBP actually easily gets 10 hours battery life with wireless and low-brightness settings. W/o wireless, and not too frequently saving (in Pages) - I get more like 12-13 hours. Pretty impressive. However, with frequent saves, higher brightness and wireless...it manages around 7 hours. Sounds like Apple is doing a good job of offering consumers more realistic expectations - especially built around the new, higher-draw chips.
/thread