If you have the firmware update... your Mac is cycling your battery down to about 80% once every month or two, to increase battery life. Though 2 hours is ridiculously short. My 2009 MBP does better than that (4-5 hours of web browsing without flash), and my 2012 retina does far better.
Mavericks (OSX 10.9) puts safari (and more importantly Flash crap) to sleep for you when they aren't foregrounded. Other apps as well, but Safari is most important due to Flash and javascript running when you aren't paying attention. They killed all that crap now:)
Whats the claim exactly? When you run a script every minute... so the machine can never sleep or suspend the disks... that the battery doesn't last as long?
Do you have any idea how much shit happens when he runs his little script? The entire machine will constantly state in full active mode, except for the processor which will idle down. SSD? Nope, full power so it can be ready for the next log write... in one minute.
As someone who debugs problems for a living, there is nothing useful about this 'study' that I would accept as an indication of a battery issue or problem with the system.
The problem is the user who thought it would be a good idea to configure his laptops in such a way to essentially prevent EVERY SINGLE possible power saving measure from going into place.
He deliberately configured his laptop in a worst-case scenario kind of way.
All of them are illegal in the USA now. You can no longer sell a laptop battery without a charge controller built in. So you can do whatever you want to a modern laptop BATTERY PACK without fear... well, unless you bought a $12 direct from China, then its your own stupid fault for burning yourself up.
That charge controller will not let you discharge your battery to far. It will not let you charge a battery that has a dead cell. It will not let you charge a battery with the internal cells unbalanced and a whole buttload of other things that tend to cause fires.
You can't tell an American consumer 'don't run the battery dead on your laptop' and expect that to prevent Li-Po's from bursting into flames, so its illegal to even consider doing so.
An intelligent geek would never void his warranty without good reason. Saving $20 isn't a good reason when the potential risk could be thousands. That and the $20 doesn't justify the time I've wasted out of my life doing what some 13 year old in China could be doing so she can eat tonight. Stop being so selfish.
Mavericks is awesome for FINDING shitty power usage. You may have to give up something in return.
Turns out for me, my mistake is using VMware instead of Parallels for virtual machines. VMware AWLAYS uses the nVidia card rather than switching back to the HD4000 for low intensity stuff. Parallels will idle VMs back to the HD4000 and allow the nVidia card to shut down.
Activity Monitor gives you a nice easy way to see what is currently and recently sucking up battery usage.
I run on AC 90% of the time now, so I can't say I've experienced longer runtimes because I don't get near a low battery unless I happen to sit the machine down without plugging it in and have sleep disabled, in which case I never really remember how long its been sitting.
It may not save you any run time if you don't actively monitor what apps are doing what.
2.5 hours would be probably normal if you were playing flash video for the entire time.
If you ACTUALLY had this experience, and reported it to Apple, they would have immediately replaced the battery for you.
Your post wreaks of someone who hasn't owned an Apple laptop in at least 5 years. I have a 2009 with the original battery that still does a solid 4 hours of web browsing, closer to 5 hours from a full charge. And that machine was my everyday use machine until last year.
Are you still talking about PowerPC runtimes, or are you just a liar in general?
If you actually didn't care, you would have had no need to tell us about it.
As far as old laptops, well, my time is worth far more than the cost of any MacBook Pro or any other laptop, if your time on the machine isn't valuable, then you can go with something 10 years old.
Of course, if you use it all day long, you're going to end up spending way more on power consumption in a year than if you'd just bought an over priced MBP... but hey, don't let common sense keep you from doing stupid shit and wasting your money.
X means some number of hours that it was basically capable of the moment it left the factory. Basically, current lithiums have a limited number of charge cycles. Charging them is one of the worst things you can do to them, actually. The only thing worse you can do is run them past their 'drop dead' point, where the charge controller is designed to cut off for safety reasons to prevent then volatile reactions during deep recharge from... well blowing up the battery in the most literal sense.
Also letting your battery NEVER run down at all (constant trickle charge) is less than ideal for it, but it is less damaging than running it down and charging it continually.
Modern MacBook charge controllers (and older ones running current OSes with firmware updates) will cycle the batteries to about 80% every month or so automatically if you aren't using them occasionally. The charge controller will do this based on the ideal charge cycle for your battery.
I.E. The charge controller is doing the same thing you are, except your doing it wrong and hurting the battery. Let the charge controller do its job. You aren't smarter than it is.
The charge controller in the retina's is intelligent. It is designed to run down the battery a bit (about %20) every couple of months in order to give it the longest possible life even when on mains.
The laptop will take care of your battery properly. You didn't buy a dell or some other cheapest 'how low can I price this thing' laptop.
PROTIP: The charge controller in MacBooks deals with periodic discharge/top-off cycles when running on mains all the time.
My 2009 macbook pro still gets 4 hours of web browsing easy on its original battery... because its mostly a desktop machine that I occasionally take with me on trips to... the couch or Vegas.
Stop buying shit laptops and you won't worry about pulling your batteries out.
15 years on rubber engine mounts is well past useful life weather you realize it or not. Yes, your engine mounts are rubber, and no matter what you do to them being next to a 212f/100c degree engine for 15 years is pretty much a good way to ensure they will be bad, as well as most other rubber under the hood.
The newest vehicle I ever bought was only 8 years old and only had 80,000 miles on it
So you have absolutely no idea what a car is supposed to sound/feel/handle like and you're telling us that your old car is as good as new because you took care of it... except you didn't own it for the first 8 years or more...
You're talking a lot of bullshit that simply doesn't add up. Some of those older cars you speak of most certainly had rebuilt engines in them. You're a liar if you're trying to tell me you have a 25 year old bronco with 250k miles and the original engine with no overhaul. Its not the miles, its the years.
So what that means is that they aren't repaired, and they will start working on it at some point. Thats a ridiculously wishy-washy statement that has no actual meaning.
This is what you get for playing with bit coin. When are you going to learn?
Microsoft Research has some of the most intelligent minds in the world. You can trust what someone at MS Research says most of the time.
The rest of the company takes that and puts marketing on it, and then you can't trust a single letter in the company name to be accurate, let alone what they say.
The is a first stage. There is no re-entry. It pretty much goes up and falls back down. Historically we'd let it fall in the ocean, then maybe salvage parts of it.
This lets it fall back down... in a controlled manner, to where it started from, with little to no damage.
The moon has considerably less gravity and atmosphere to worry about for VTOL. So if it's practical on the moon in 1969, it's reasonable it would take the better part of a century to become practical on Earth
Ok, look at the videos of the tests of the moon landers and systems here on earth... under our own gravity.
You are correct that rocket tech really hasn't changed, yet somehow you think today we can do it but back then we couldn't?
And then you have to add buffer fuel for the flight back because flying only part of the way back and landing on someones house because you ran out of gas is the exact reason the buffer fuel is there int he first place.
1ST rule of rocket engineering: YOU NEVER FUCKING PLAN TO USE YOUR BUFFERS. YOU PLAN TO NEVER EVER EVER EVER USE YOUR BUFFERS, and then use them only when the alternative is death.
You utterly fail to understand sound engineering practices.
Its not actually new either. Grasshopper is hardly the first craft, space craft or otherwise to move horizontally when it was vertically oriented. Its not even really impressive that they got it to work on the grasshopper. NASA sent a rover to mars and did it right on the first (and only) try, or you could look at the apollo program moon landers.
Big deal, SpaceX found out they could mod an ardupilot fairly easy to make their rockets navigate horizontally. When guys playing with toys (I'm one of those types of guys;) can do it, your big billion dollar space ship doing it is hardly impressive.
So basically what you're saying is 'when you start looking at the big picture instead of specific pin points, then warming isn't nearly as bad as claimed'.... right?
Its funny how you can say 'we know what we're doing' and then follow it up with justifying that statement saying predictions were wrong because we didn't take some things we didn't know about into account.
Those are the same kind of statements as what you're trying to use as evidence of your point of view. You can't use opposite indicators for the same thing to claim proof.
Slashdot Mirror
Suicide is the harshest form of censorship.
If you have the firmware update ... your Mac is cycling your battery down to about 80% once every month or two, to increase battery life. Though 2 hours is ridiculously short. My 2009 MBP does better than that (4-5 hours of web browsing without flash), and my 2012 retina does far better.
Mavericks (OSX 10.9) puts safari (and more importantly Flash crap) to sleep for you when they aren't foregrounded. Other apps as well, but Safari is most important due to Flash and javascript running when you aren't paying attention. They killed all that crap now :)
Whats the claim exactly? When you run a script every minute ... so the machine can never sleep or suspend the disks ... that the battery doesn't last as long?
Do you have any idea how much shit happens when he runs his little script? The entire machine will constantly state in full active mode, except for the processor which will idle down. SSD? Nope, full power so it can be ready for the next log write ... in one minute.
As someone who debugs problems for a living, there is nothing useful about this 'study' that I would accept as an indication of a battery issue or problem with the system.
The problem is the user who thought it would be a good idea to configure his laptops in such a way to essentially prevent EVERY SINGLE possible power saving measure from going into place.
He deliberately configured his laptop in a worst-case scenario kind of way.
They've reported the opposite actually, thats the problem with this being on slash dots front page.
Your IFs have one major problem.
All of them are illegal in the USA now. You can no longer sell a laptop battery without a charge controller built in. So you can do whatever you want to a modern laptop BATTERY PACK without fear ... well, unless you bought a $12 direct from China, then its your own stupid fault for burning yourself up.
That charge controller will not let you discharge your battery to far. It will not let you charge a battery that has a dead cell. It will not let you charge a battery with the internal cells unbalanced and a whole buttload of other things that tend to cause fires.
You can't tell an American consumer 'don't run the battery dead on your laptop' and expect that to prevent Li-Po's from bursting into flames, so its illegal to even consider doing so.
An intelligent geek would never void his warranty without good reason. Saving $20 isn't a good reason when the potential risk could be thousands. That and the $20 doesn't justify the time I've wasted out of my life doing what some 13 year old in China could be doing so she can eat tonight. Stop being so selfish.
Mavericks is awesome for FINDING shitty power usage. You may have to give up something in return.
Turns out for me, my mistake is using VMware instead of Parallels for virtual machines. VMware AWLAYS uses the nVidia card rather than switching back to the HD4000 for low intensity stuff. Parallels will idle VMs back to the HD4000 and allow the nVidia card to shut down.
Activity Monitor gives you a nice easy way to see what is currently and recently sucking up battery usage.
I run on AC 90% of the time now, so I can't say I've experienced longer runtimes because I don't get near a low battery unless I happen to sit the machine down without plugging it in and have sleep disabled, in which case I never really remember how long its been sitting.
It may not save you any run time if you don't actively monitor what apps are doing what.
2.5 hours would be probably normal if you were playing flash video for the entire time.
If you ACTUALLY had this experience, and reported it to Apple, they would have immediately replaced the battery for you.
Your post wreaks of someone who hasn't owned an Apple laptop in at least 5 years. I have a 2009 with the original battery that still does a solid 4 hours of web browsing, closer to 5 hours from a full charge. And that machine was my everyday use machine until last year.
Are you still talking about PowerPC runtimes, or are you just a liar in general?
Ah, but you do care. Thats why you responded.
If you actually didn't care, you would have had no need to tell us about it.
As far as old laptops, well, my time is worth far more than the cost of any MacBook Pro or any other laptop, if your time on the machine isn't valuable, then you can go with something 10 years old.
Of course, if you use it all day long, you're going to end up spending way more on power consumption in a year than if you'd just bought an over priced MBP ... but hey, don't let common sense keep you from doing stupid shit and wasting your money.
X means some number of hours that it was basically capable of the moment it left the factory. Basically, current lithiums have a limited number of charge cycles. Charging them is one of the worst things you can do to them, actually. The only thing worse you can do is run them past their 'drop dead' point, where the charge controller is designed to cut off for safety reasons to prevent then volatile reactions during deep recharge from ... well blowing up the battery in the most literal sense.
Also letting your battery NEVER run down at all (constant trickle charge) is less than ideal for it, but it is less damaging than running it down and charging it continually.
Modern MacBook charge controllers (and older ones running current OSes with firmware updates) will cycle the batteries to about 80% every month or so automatically if you aren't using them occasionally. The charge controller will do this based on the ideal charge cycle for your battery.
I.E. The charge controller is doing the same thing you are, except your doing it wrong and hurting the battery. Let the charge controller do its job. You aren't smarter than it is.
Always plug your MBP Retina in when you can.
The charge controller in the retina's is intelligent. It is designed to run down the battery a bit (about %20) every couple of months in order to give it the longest possible life even when on mains.
The laptop will take care of your battery properly. You didn't buy a dell or some other cheapest 'how low can I price this thing' laptop.
PROTIP: The charge controller in MacBooks deals with periodic discharge/top-off cycles when running on mains all the time.
My 2009 macbook pro still gets 4 hours of web browsing easy on its original battery ... because its mostly a desktop machine that I occasionally take with me on trips to ... the couch or Vegas.
Stop buying shit laptops and you won't worry about pulling your batteries out.
Since the point of the test is to determine life, not increase it. Its simply funny. Thats not even hard to understand.
15 years on rubber engine mounts is well past useful life weather you realize it or not. Yes, your engine mounts are rubber, and no matter what you do to them being next to a 212f/100c degree engine for 15 years is pretty much a good way to ensure they will be bad, as well as most other rubber under the hood.
The newest vehicle I ever bought was only 8 years old and only had 80,000 miles on it
So you have absolutely no idea what a car is supposed to sound/feel/handle like and you're telling us that your old car is as good as new because you took care of it ... except you didn't own it for the first 8 years or more ...
You're talking a lot of bullshit that simply doesn't add up. Some of those older cars you speak of most certainly had rebuilt engines in them. You're a liar if you're trying to tell me you have a 25 year old bronco with 250k miles and the original engine with no overhaul. Its not the miles, its the years.
So what that means is that they aren't repaired, and they will start working on it at some point. Thats a ridiculously wishy-washy statement that has no actual meaning.
This is what you get for playing with bit coin. When are you going to learn?
Microsoft Research has some of the most intelligent minds in the world. You can trust what someone at MS Research says most of the time.
The rest of the company takes that and puts marketing on it, and then you can't trust a single letter in the company name to be accurate, let alone what they say.
Did they seriously just call a modem 'new' technology?
The is a first stage. There is no re-entry. It pretty much goes up and falls back down. Historically we'd let it fall in the ocean, then maybe salvage parts of it.
This lets it fall back down ... in a controlled manner, to where it started from, with little to no damage.
That changes the equations a little
The moon has considerably less gravity and atmosphere to worry about for VTOL. So if it's practical on the moon in 1969, it's reasonable it would take the better part of a century to become practical on Earth
Ok, look at the videos of the tests of the moon landers and systems here on earth ... under our own gravity.
You are correct that rocket tech really hasn't changed, yet somehow you think today we can do it but back then we couldn't?
Your post is utterly conflicted.
And then you have to add buffer fuel for the flight back because flying only part of the way back and landing on someones house because you ran out of gas is the exact reason the buffer fuel is there int he first place.
1ST rule of rocket engineering: YOU NEVER FUCKING PLAN TO USE YOUR BUFFERS. YOU PLAN TO NEVER EVER EVER EVER USE YOUR BUFFERS, and then use them only when the alternative is death.
You utterly fail to understand sound engineering practices.
Its not actually new either. Grasshopper is hardly the first craft, space craft or otherwise to move horizontally when it was vertically oriented. Its not even really impressive that they got it to work on the grasshopper. NASA sent a rover to mars and did it right on the first (and only) try, or you could look at the apollo program moon landers.
Big deal, SpaceX found out they could mod an ardupilot fairly easy to make their rockets navigate horizontally. When guys playing with toys (I'm one of those types of guys ;) can do it, your big billion dollar space ship doing it is hardly impressive.
Only because people like you keep repeating that tired old 'it doesn't matter!' Bullshit.
Yes, if you never try anything different, you won't get different results.
Then he was an idiot. That doesn't even make sense. OSI is a logical way to think about networking. Its not an actual protocol.
So basically what you're saying is 'when you start looking at the big picture instead of specific pin points, then warming isn't nearly as bad as claimed' .... right?
Its funny how you can say 'we know what we're doing' and then follow it up with justifying that statement saying predictions were wrong because we didn't take some things we didn't know about into account.
My glass is empty because I poured it out.
My glass is full because I poured it out.
Those are the same kind of statements as what you're trying to use as evidence of your point of view. You can't use opposite indicators for the same thing to claim proof.