1. I have an iPod for music. I use it for such when on the go.
2. In my most ADD-induced frenetic browsing states, I never open new web pages at a sustained 20-second rate. One minute or so is probably more accurate. And, I'm assuming this is an "average" size web page with mostly text (ie, not YouTube, not pulling up massive Wikipedia entries).
3. H.264 instead of XVid would be a more valid stress-test comparison for Apple's claims. Specifically, rent a friggin movie and run it in a loop to see how far you get!
4. Brightness at 100%? If I'm on the go, I'm most often in dimly-lit locations (airplane, bus, airport); the 50% setting would be used, and likely reduced to more like 20%. Oh, and WiFi is typically off entirely on airplanes and buses, where battery life is critical, but we all know that, right?
5. No "input" test here. Typical use for me is to be writing something down, because I have old fashioned dead-trees media to read as necessary. I would prefer some sort of test with Word open, random keys being pushed in short bursts, and a save (because Word tends to crash) once per minute. If you wanted to get fancy and customize this for me, use DevonThink instead and cut the save operation down to once per 10 minutes (because DT has never crashed on me, yet Word has left my save-button reflex itching to be scratched). I'm hoping such a usage pattern would yield more than the 1.5 hours I typically saw on my PowerBook (seems like I get about 2.5 hours in this mode on my MacBook Pro). This test should be run with WiFi on (business meeting mode) and with WiFi off (airplane mode).
On the guy saying battery tech hasn't advanced recently: battery tech isn't the point here. You can read the capacity of any battery right off its packaging. What differs between computers is the set of components in the box needing power, and how well the "unused at the moment" components get powered down when not needed. There is definitely a difference between well-designed hardware and thrown-together hardware here.
All that having been said, this gives us a data point. Anandtech is quick to jump on the anti-Apple train, so their dismissal of 4:16 results being nowhere near 5:00 is typical. IMHO, 4:16 versus 5:00 is about the best I've seen come from any hardware company's battery life claims! The sole exception here is Apple with its iPods, where real-world testing often beats their claims by a few minutes.
2. In my most ADD-induced frenetic browsing states, I never open new web pages at a sustained 20-second rate. One minute or so is probably more accurate. And, I'm assuming this is an "average" size web page with mostly text (ie, not YouTube, not pulling up massive Wikipedia entries).
3. H.264 instead of XVid would be a more valid stress-test comparison for Apple's claims. Specifically, rent a friggin movie and run it in a loop to see how far you get!
4. Brightness at 100%? If I'm on the go, I'm most often in dimly-lit locations (airplane, bus, airport); the 50% setting would be used, and likely reduced to more like 20%. Oh, and WiFi is typically off entirely on airplanes and buses, where battery life is critical, but we all know that, right?
5. No "input" test here. Typical use for me is to be writing something down, because I have old fashioned dead-trees media to read as necessary. I would prefer some sort of test with Word open, random keys being pushed in short bursts, and a save (because Word tends to crash) once per minute. If you wanted to get fancy and customize this for me, use DevonThink instead and cut the save operation down to once per 10 minutes (because DT has never crashed on me, yet Word has left my save-button reflex itching to be scratched). I'm hoping such a usage pattern would yield more than the 1.5 hours I typically saw on my PowerBook (seems like I get about 2.5 hours in this mode on my MacBook Pro). This test should be run with WiFi on (business meeting mode) and with WiFi off (airplane mode).
On the guy saying battery tech hasn't advanced recently: battery tech isn't the point here. You can read the capacity of any battery right off its packaging. What differs between computers is the set of components in the box needing power, and how well the "unused at the moment" components get powered down when not needed. There is definitely a difference between well-designed hardware and thrown-together hardware here.
All that having been said, this gives us a data point. Anandtech is quick to jump on the anti-Apple train, so their dismissal of 4:16 results being nowhere near 5:00 is typical. IMHO, 4:16 versus 5:00 is about the best I've seen come from any hardware company's battery life claims! The sole exception here is Apple with its iPods, where real-world testing often beats their claims by a few minutes.