macOS Sierra 10.12.2 Removes 'Time Remaining' Battery Life Indicator

[Spectrum]

With the greatest respect, dyn: I do know what I am talking about, and you are not reading what I write, or simply do not understand. Let me help...

Good lord, you really don't know how things work...

1. What you are talking about is still in 10.12.2, they did not remove this! It is in the menu bar item (it's the percentage; you need to enable this from the context menu) as well as in the Activity Monitor on the energy tab.

1. 
   Yes. We all know that. My point has always been that the % remaining tells the user very little about how long the battery will last *given their current usage*.
   
   

   [*]Apple cannot use the amount of juice left in the battery for any form of estimating how long a notebook will last on the battery. For that they need to know 2 things: what's left in the battery AND the users usage on the machine. The latter is what's the problem here (see my previous reply). With only knowing what's in the battery it is entirely up to the user to interpret (read: guess/estimate/guestimate) how long the computer may last. For that you can use what's mentioned under point 1. If you do that for some time you'll get estimates that are far more accurate than any software can give you. You know the machine and everything outside the machine and you know it better than software, hence your own estimation is more accurate.

Why would a user be able to make a better guess than a computer?
For years/decades the MacOS has created an estimate for you by dividing your battery mAh left by the rate of usage. My point all along is that the computer can average out fluctuations in CPU usage by averaging the cumulative power draw over a 10-15 minute window of time. i.e. if you use up 150mA in 15 minutes (i.e. 600mA per hour) and you have 6000mAh left in the battery, then the battery will last approx 10 hours *given your current usage*.

Which is what Apple does and then some because they put it in a neat graph. Take a look at it in the Activity Monitor under the energy tab. It graphs it over the past 12 hours.

Exactly! So if the OS can do it in the form of a nice graph (which shows a gradient showing the average decline over time), why is there a need to remove the same information from the main tool bar?
In Snow Leopard it is possible to make the time remaining always visible in the tool bar. It is very useful!

If the problem is the the toolbar display is too variable and prone to fluctuation, then that can be solved - as I keep saying - by simply reporting the average decline over a wider window of time. Make it the past hour or two hours if needed!

None whatsoever. Before you reply again, do take a proper look at both the menu bar item and Activity Monitor! You can still estimate usage but the difference is that instead of OSX doing the guessing it is now up to the user. This is what many have done for years with various devices so it really isn't new, just inconvenient for some. The average camera, bluetooth device, smartphone, tablet, etc. will only show a percentage of battery life left, they won't give you an estimate, that's on you.

It is very hard to tell when a process is suddenly using up a lot of power, and takes a mental calculation to determine the impact this will have on your total run time. Exactly the sort of calculations a computer is good at...
I'm confused: Just because other devices don't do this, is no argument to remove a useful feature that has been available (for years) to users that do use it!

The feature is much more important on a laptop where you may actually be using it for - you know - WORK things? Where you might actually be concerned about how long you go before needing to plug in? Because you need to collect emails, or send emails, or finish a spreadsheet, or a presentation, or wait for some documents, or edit them, or upload some photos, or edit them, and attend a meeting, and share slides, make notes, and have known time constraints, and constraints on where you'll be and whether there will be a power source available.

I understand: You don't care about the time remaining feature, you've never use it , and/or you don't understand its value. But please let me speak up for those that do, and put forward suggestions for how perhaps it needs rewriting if there really is a compatibility problem with the new energy saving processors.

 

[CentersJ]

Wow people, relax! This isn't solving world hunger or nuclear war....it's a BATTERY feature. Perspective...perspective.

Despite Apple's MINOR disappointments over the past year or 2, they still make THE best software and hardware. Look at our alternatives anyway. Windows 10? hahahaha....no thanks. Dell? Pfftt. HP, Lenovo?? Um...no.

I for one am staying the course.

 

[dyn]

Why would a user be able to make a better guess than a computer?

A computer can only see what you are doing now on the computer and what you've done previously on the computer and do some calculations on that. It doesn't know you left the computer alone because you had to go eat, go to the toilet, etc. The computer doesn't know you are trying to do some last minutes tasks before you need to rush out to catch that train and so on. It doesn't know your entire planning for that day nor what that planning means for the computer usage. In other words, it doesn't have any context or concept of what you are doing that day. However, the user does and that's why it is better at guessing than the computer itself.

For years/decades the MacOS has created an estimate for you by dividing your battery mAh left by the rate of usage.

That is a very simplistic way of saying it. The problem is and has always been how the computer measures the usage.

My point all along is that the computer can average out fluctuations in CPU usage by averaging the cumulative power draw over a 10-15 minute window of time. i.e. if you use up 150mA in 15 minutes (i.e. 600mA per hour) and you have 6000mAh left in the battery, then the battery will last approx 10 hours *given your current usage*.

And as I've explained your point is not going to solve it, it is going to make the problem even worse.

Exactly! So if the OS can do it in the form of a nice graph (which shows a gradient showing the average decline over time), why is there a need to remove the same information from the main tool bar?

Because those two are completely different things. The graph only shows the drainage of the battery, it doesn't say anything about the usage at all.

In Snow Leopard it is possible to make the time remaining always visible in the tool bar. It is very useful!

This is the case for all OS X release up until 10.12.2.

If the problem is the the toolbar display is too variable and prone to fluctuation, then that can be solved - as I keep saying - by simply reporting the average decline over a wider window of time. Make it the past hour or two hours if needed!

And as long as you have no idea what you are talking about I suppose you keep on saying it so I will keep on saying the opposite: no it doesn't work that way. If you do what you are proposing the problem will be even worse than it is now. And I also repeat another thing: the graph in Activity Monitor shows you the decline of the battery over a 12 hour period (the past 12 hours to be exact).

It is very hard to tell when a process is suddenly using up a lot of power, and takes a mental calculation to determine the impact this will have on your total run time. Exactly the sort of calculations a computer is good at...

There are too many examples that show this isn't the case at all. Computers are not better at doing certain calculations/interpretations than humans. That is a great misunderstanding of non-IT people and the main reason why IT projects fail.

I'm confused: Just because other devices don't do this, is no argument to remove a useful feature that has been available (for years) to users that do use it!

They removed it due to it not working and thus misinforming the user. They didn't remove it because all the other devices don't have such an estimation.

The feature is much more important on a laptop where you may actually be using it for - you know - WORK things?

My work gave me a phone and they did so because they want me to use it for work things. This is the case for many people around the world.

Where you might actually be concerned about how long you go before needing to plug in? Because you need to collect emails, or send emails, or finish a spreadsheet, or a presentation, or wait for some documents, or edit them, or upload some photos, or edit them, and attend a meeting, and share slides, make notes, and have known time constraints, and constraints on where you'll be and whether there will be a power source available.

And you also need to make those phone calls or receive those phone calls. Companies do not like when their employees do not pick up the phone. In most countries not having a phone is even worse than not having a computer system.

I understand: You don't care about the time remaining feature, you've never use it , and/or you don't understand its value. But please let me speak up for those that do, and put forward suggestions for how perhaps it needs rewriting if there really is a compatibility problem with the new energy saving processors.

Nope, you most certainly do not understand at all and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your proposals and thoughts will not solve the issue, it will make it even worse. What you need to understand is that current hardware make it really difficult to write an algorithm that properly accounts for the very quick way of speeding things up and slowing things down. What you also need to understand is that Apple runs into serious legal issues if they keep this inaccurate misinforming piece of information in their OS. It means law suits all over the world which they will most definitely lose. They did not have any choice but to remove it and meanwhile work on a proper solution. What you also need to understand is that until that solution comes you can still get the estimate, you only need to do a bit more for it. You also need to understand that you are being overly emotional over something extremely silly.

In other words, you do not seem to be understanding that this issue isn't the end of the world. But then again, you don't even see when someone is on your side... Just because someone tells you that your idea is doing the exact opposite doesn't mean that they disagree nor have no idea what the time remaining is for and that it isn't useful at all! You are putting words into someone else's mouth and that is extremely rude. No wonder nobody replies to you...

 

[jasonsmith_88]

Can you imagine if they removed the fuel indicator on a car, because you complained weren't getting enough MPG as reported.

Except a fuel indicator (aka, gauge) is nothing like time remaining. A fuel gauge tells you the quantity of fuel you have left, and your mac still has a status indicator telling you the quantity of charge you have left.

The correct analogy would be comparing time remaining to distance to empty. Distance to empty is just a guess, because it's impossible for your car to predict how you're going to drive for the remainder of the tank. Similar to how your computer can't predict how you're going to use it for the remainder of the charge.

I've never found distance to empty to be useful, because it's inaccurate. I've owned many cars without this feature and I couldn't care less whether my next car has it or not. I rely on the gauge, not the estimate.

Likewise, I've never found time remaining to be useful, because it's inaccurate. I couldn't care less whether my laptop has it or not. I rely on the status indicator, not the estimate.

 

[Spectrum]

A computer can only see what you are doing now on the computer and what you've done previously on the computer and do some calculations on that. It doesn't know you left the computer alone because you had to go eat, go to the toilet, etc. The computer doesn't know you are trying to do some last minutes tasks before you need to rush out to catch that train and so on. It doesn't know your entire planning for that day nor what that planning means for the computer usage. In other words, it doesn't have any context or concept of what you are doing that day. However, the user does and that's why it is better at guessing than the computer itself.


That is a very simplistic way of saying it. The problem is and has always been how the computer measures the usage.


And as I've explained your point is not going to solve it, it is going to make the problem even worse.


Because those two are completely different things. The graph only shows the drainage of the battery, it doesn't say anything about the usage at all.


This is the case for all OS X release up until 10.12.2.


And as long as you have no idea what you are talking about I suppose you keep on saying it so I will keep on saying the opposite: no it doesn't work that way. If you do what you are proposing the problem will be even worse than it is now. And I also repeat another thing: the graph in Activity Monitor shows you the decline of the battery over a 12 hour period (the past 12 hours to be exact).


There are too many examples that show this isn't the case at all. Computers are not better at doing certain calculations/interpretations than humans. That is a great misunderstanding of non-IT people and the main reason why IT projects fail.


They removed it due to it not working and thus misinforming the user. They didn't remove it because all the other devices don't have such an estimation.


My work gave me a phone and they did so because they want me to use it for work things. This is the case for many people around the world.


And you also need to make those phone calls or receive those phone calls. Companies do not like when their employees do not pick up the phone. In most countries not having a phone is even worse than not having a computer system.


Nope, you most certainly do not understand at all and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your proposals and thoughts will not solve the issue, it will make it even worse. What you need to understand is that current hardware make it really difficult to write an algorithm that properly accounts for the very quick way of speeding things up and slowing things down. What you also need to understand is that Apple runs into serious legal issues if they keep this inaccurate misinforming piece of information in their OS. It means law suits all over the world which they will most definitely lose. They did not have any choice but to remove it and meanwhile work on a proper solution. What you also need to understand is that until that solution comes you can still get the estimate, you only need to do a bit more for it. You also need to understand that you are being overly emotional over something extremely silly.

In other words, you do not seem to be understanding that this issue isn't the end of the world. But then again, you don't even see when someone is on your side... Just because someone tells you that your idea is doing the exact opposite doesn't mean that they disagree nor have no idea what the time remaining is for and that it isn't useful at all! You are putting words into someone else's mouth and that is extremely rude. No wonder nobody replies to you...

Hi dyn, I am more than happy to discuss. I'm sorry if I may have upset you. Perhaps you can help me out: Why exactly will averaging the mAh decline over a wider timeframe make the average time-remaining estimate worse? I think it will even out minute-by-minute fluctuations. It will be more or less equivalent to reporting the gradient of the mAh decline reported in the 12 hour graph shown in Activity Monitor. Please can you explain to me why the gradient of that plot isn't a useful way to estimate your average battery life left?

The Activity monitor graph directly reports usage because it shows how much of the battery capacity was used over specified time period. To my understanding, that is exactly the same as the amount of power a user is consuming. Please can you explain to me why you think it doesn't?

I do agree that no estimate can reasonably accommodate for the fact that a user my decide (or need) in the future to use much more CPU for a sustained period (i.e. gaming or transcoding etc). At this point the previous estimate will become an overerestimate and will update, now showing a shorter time left. Why is that not useful/helpful information?

Question: In 10.12.11 (and earlier) can you have the time remaining always visible in the menubar without needing to click on the battery icon?

 

[kyykesko]

All the people complaining about battery life are all probably using Chrome and have 15 tabs open.

Yep. Instead we should watch iTunes videos all day long or do some light browsing on Safari which works whenever it feels like to be 'pro' worthy.
[doublepost=1482176838][/doublepost]

People are already calling them out for using Chrome, Safari, video-playback, messages, the fact that they're connected to a network or via bluetooth or that their brightness needs to be below 40%

When will people realize the macbook pro isn't meant to be used, it's meant to be left as a table decoration which it will do for 10 hours on a charge without breaking a sweat! Just don't actually use it for anything and you'll be fine.

 

[blufrog]

Just do a running average of power usage over e.g. 15 minutes? I'm not sure the current update rate (El Capitan) but I find it adequate.

It's never going to be perfect, but it is better than the percentage that says nothing of run-time. It does the calculation that I would just do myself anyway by looking under power at current draw and capacity remaining.

Frankly, it is a stupid move that makes Apple look dumb, and doesn't address the problem of unexpected power consumption. Clearly if the only thing running is Safari, and the tests are wildly inconsistent, then there is a problem with Safari.

As for the new MacBooks not having the stated run-time, that is a marketing problem. Maybe Apple screwed up somewhere? Removing the time remaining will not hide these problems.