Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

revelated

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 30, 2010
994
2
2010 MacBook Pro 17" system information reads full charge capacity @ 12392.

2011 MacBook Pro 17" system information reads full charge capacity @ 8850.

That's quite the difference in battery capacity, assuming it's the same type of battery. I wonder what would happen if I were to put the 2010 battery in the 2011. This could get quite interesting.
 

alust2013

macrumors 601
Feb 6, 2010
4,779
2
On the fence
I can't imagine that that is accurate. I'm fairly certain that they used the same battery in both models, it would be absolutely ridiculous to put a lower capacity battery in when you have the same amount of space.
 

TheHoff

macrumors 6502
Oct 22, 2008
434
0
On only my second cycle with a 17", I got 6.5 hours of constant work in Safari, Coda, and Skype including voice calls, so I'd say 7 hours is a very fair rating and accurate.
 

shstiger2009

macrumors 6502
Jan 30, 2011
259
0
If you look at this thread posted a few minutes ago, shows CNET did testing and the battery actually lasted longer. Don't really think they'd go with a lower battery life.
 

kobyh15

macrumors 6502a
Jan 29, 2011
616
0
They got a full hour longer than the 2010. Impressive. Those waiting for the 15" got a very nice refresh.
 

revelated

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 30, 2010
994
2
All I know is what the system information screen shows me.

I'll run a calibrate tonight. Then I'll see what the capacity reports. Again, this is the 17" I'm referring to, not the 15". Seems everybody is all about the 13" and 15".
 

TheHoff

macrumors 6502
Oct 22, 2008
434
0
All I know is what the system information screen shows me.

I'll run a calibrate tonight. Then I'll see what the capacity reports. Again, this is the 17" I'm referring to, not the 15". Seems everybody is all about the 13" and 15".

My 17" reads the same charge as yours. My previous was a 15" so I can't compare. Do you really think, though, that they purposefully gimped the 17 out of 33% of its battery capacity? Or is it more likely that the battery tech changed or it simply reports differently.

Why would Apple purposefully lower battery capacity by so much without changing anything else about the case or dimensions or internal layout?
 

revelated

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 30, 2010
994
2
My 17" reads the same charge as yours. My previous was a 15" so I can't compare. Do you really think, though, that they purposefully gimped the 17 out of 33% of its battery capacity? Or is it more likely that the battery tech changed or it simply reports differently.

Why would Apple purposefully lower battery capacity by so much without changing anything else about the case or dimensions or internal layout?

Not sure. The battery appears to be the same size, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same # of cells. Might have less, but larger, cells that are not capable of holding the same capacity. I'm just wondering if that's the case, is all. The capacity doesn't lie, is all I'm saying.
 

DustinT

macrumors 68000
Feb 26, 2011
1,556
0
Not sure. The battery appears to be the same size, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same # of cells. Might have less, but larger, cells that are not capable of holding the same capacity. I'm just wondering if that's the case, is all. The capacity doesn't lie, is all I'm saying.
Ya, your software just didn't read it correctly for some reason. Its the same battery man.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.