(11 votes, average: 3.82 out of 5)
Loading ...A thought occurred to me as I filled my car up with gas recently. Afterwards I did what I always do: reset the trip counter to zero, which I do because even though the vehicle tells me how many miles until empty, that number is almost never accurate given where (or how) I might be driving. My car typically indicates 550 miles to empty, while my trip counter on average shows I actually get about 375 miles.
I think we all accept the idea that there is not one answer to the question, “how many miles to the gallon?” We understand you need to ask whether the reference is to city or highway miles. As a member of my team puts it, there are “guard-rails” between which we know our cars operate.
In the same vein, I think we are talking about battery life all wrong. In our discussions at AMD and our messaging on the subject, we’re going about it in the wrong way. And we’re not alone – see Rob Enderle’s thoughts on the matter here.
Have you experienced a difference between your devices’ actual battery life relative to what the manufacturer tells you to expect? I thought so.
I find people often ask what my battery life is on my 3G iPhone, and I tell them I don’t know because I always try and keep it charged. If you ask Apple they will tell you the 3G model has 300 hours of standby time but only about 5 hours of talk time – and less it you activate Wi-Fi, GPS or other features.
Given this, it’s interesting to look at how PCs are rated on battery life. Typically you only get one number ― and most people have no idea what that number really means in terms of how they will actually use the device: is it city or highway, talk-time or standby? More to the point: does this number represent the PC’s battery life with the machine in use, or sitting idle?
Most PC battery time metrics are achieved by looking at how long the battery lasted running a benchmark called MobileMark® 2007 (MMO7). This is a rating of battery life when your PC is running on average less than 5% utilized – or fundamentally idle. Most PC makers don’t even turn Wi-Fi on for this test. Is this realistic based on how you use your PC?
Like highway or standby – most MM07-based battery numbers are the “best case scenarios” in which your machine is doing nothing. Not that the MM07 benchmark isn’t useful; it’s just that it only tells part of the story. It’s just one guard-rail ― shouldn’t there be another?
If I want to know how long my battery is going to last, I want to know how long it’s going to last with me using it, not with it idle or doing nothing.
For this reason, we propose that the industry needs another test to measure battery life, and we would like to propose adoption of the industry-standard 3DMark06 benchmark. The reason I like the sound of 3DMark06 is that it uses more graphics, it runs on Microsoft Windows XP and Windows Vista, and, most importantly, it runs the machine at a higher overall system utilization than other industry-standard benchmarks.
I asked my team to dig a bit on this and we decided to test some PCs with both MM07 and 3DMark06 and see what the results would be. See the table below with some of the relevant test details. AMD’s Hal Speed is also posting a blog to show you what the test scripts were so you can do this for yourself.
|
OEM System |
OEM System |
OEM System |
||||
|
Processor |
AMD Turion™ X2 Ultra |
Intel® |
AMD Turion™ X2 Ultra Dual-Core Processor |
Intel® |
AMD Turion™ X2 |
Intel® |
|
Processor Sku |
ZM-82 |
P8400 |
ZM-82 |
P8400 |
RM-72 |
P7350 |
|
Battery Size |
55Whr |
55Whr |
43Whr |
43Whr |
55Whr |
55Whr |
|
Graphics |
ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 3200 |
Intel® |
ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 3450 |
NVIDIA GeForce™ 9600M GT |
ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 3200 |
Intel® |
|
3DMark 06* |
92 |
91 |
59 |
53 |
91 |
97 |
|
MobileMark 2007 (Productivity)* |
169 |
206 |
103 |
148 |
210 |
167 |
*numbers represent battery life in minutes
As you can see, on similar machines, while the typical idle metric on one machine shows that we may have an underperforming system, when that machine is in use it achieves similar if not identical battery life.
Are we suggesting people should abandon the MM07 idle metric for the 3DMark06 busy metric? Actually: no. Like talk and standby or city and highway, we think both should be cited to provide the buyer with a more informed purchasing process. Perhaps next time we test using MMO7 we’ll enable Wi-Fi to make it a more realistic, “active,” reading.
In any event, when we talk about battery life in the future, we intend to give both MMO7 and 3DMark06 — and we hope others will follow suit.
Now the cynics and the wiser-than-thou will tell you that we are only doing this because our idle battery life is not as good or that we should use something other than 3DMark06. To them I say: Let’s engage in a discussion, and if you find a better test on “active” use than 3DMark06, we would love to discuss it with you! Let’s work together.
The issue is we are not being entirely honest with users about what PC battery life they can expect to actually experience. Shouldn’t we, as an industry, try and fix that?
We think so.
Nigel Dessau is senior vice president and chief marketing officer at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such links sites and no endorsement is implied.
#1 by Cliff Forster - March 12th, 2009 at 14:46
Nigel,
I work in the cooling tower industry, where standard testing from an independent agency, CTI.org, is required if you want to be a major player in the market. Independent verification using standardized testing procedures to test product marketing claims for capacity performance is the only way to level the playing field in a fair and equitable way, and its the only realistic way for our customers to have faith in what we are providing.
The technology industry has made strides in similar areas. 80plus.org is a great example, setting standards for power supply efficiency, frankly, I don’t know any responsible computer user, or vendor that should pack in a power supply without the 80 plus logo. Energy star is another good source of certification standards for tech products. RoHS compliance also comes to mind.
Surely, an independent organization to test battery claims can not be too far off. Its obvious the market likes to fudge the data a bit by offering numbers based on an often unrealistic user profile. The only way to get it straight is to have an independent organization, with a standardized testing methodology come in and test the claims for consumers. Does it add a little pain in getting a product launched? Sure it does, but in the end, what it says to the consumer is that you value a fair, honest and equitable market, and you want to deliver real, verifiable value for thier dollars. An independent organization to test battery claims across the tech industry is what I believe we all need for a fair level playing field.
By the way, appropriate timing because my portable phone lost its charge today after less than half its advertised standby time. I am a light duty cell user, but its annoying to me just the same.
#2 by Nigel Dessau - March 13th, 2009 at 07:57
I think we would welcome an open agency to work this. We know people like Mossberg does their own testing. I think the key element should be openness, transparency and repeatability.
#3 by Bryan Bartow - March 12th, 2009 at 17:43
I completely agree with the sentiment of the post. Because I’m savvy to the game played my marketers, I mentally cut battery life listings by 70% to gauge how much time I’ll get out of a device. However, most consumers assume that they’ll get what’s listed “on the box” and more often that not have far different results. Kudos to AMD for trying to give more accurate and more “real-world” specs.
What I’d really love to see is a suite of benchmarking apps that emulate several different typical usage profiles. For example, Home, Work and Play. Each app would simulate a workload commensurate with the profile. The Home benchmarking app would open iTunes and play MP3s, open several video sites in a browser, read emails in a browser, open a desktop Twitter client, etc. The Work app would open Outlook and do whatever people do in Outlook, manipulate various numbers and types of documents, play Solitaire, surf eBay, etc. The Play app could run 3DMark.
The outcome would, hopefully, be a series of battery life listings that were somewhat accurate and that users could identify with. As is, I think the steps you all are taking are a major improvement over the way things have been done.
#4 by Nigel Dessau - March 13th, 2009 at 08:00
Bryan – I think this makes sense. But then again I always thing real usage models makes sense. Some people have asked if 3DMark06 is a good indicator of performance – not sure it is for this case. What it is meant to be is a job that uses the battery and the machine more than 50%. Happy to consider all other ideas.
#5 by John McElhenney - March 12th, 2009 at 20:34
Okay here’s a great example of the “battery life” issue.
I have a 2006 Prius. And the fuel indicator has an 8 bar indicator for gas level. And I also reset my trip meter after I fill up. And here’s where I think Toyota has missed the mark. I can go upwards of 120 miles and the gas meter still shows FULL, all 8 bars are still lit.
Now I know the Prius gets good mileage, but that’s a little to Jetsons. The car actually gets around 340-370 to a ten gallon tank. I average 38 mpg combined, even when I’m driving pretty aggressively. So, at the top of the gauge the measure is useless. But as the car moves closer to that magic 340-350 range the lights practically go out at in pairs. And if you see that last LED marker flash and the “add fuel” message on the dash, DO NOT PASS ANOTHER STATION. Get gas immediately.
So the fuel gauge is useless in the Prius. I know I get near 350 miles per tank with a gallon or so to spare. And the only indicator that causes me to take action is the flashing light, and if I’ve let the fuel get THAT LOW then it is an idiot light.
My laptop battery has similar issues.
When unplugged my MBP does it’s best to calculate time remaining to standby. And the accuracy of the minutes to black is less important than the final “please plug in your laptop to avoid standby” message. Or the equivalent of the flashing “add fuel” message.
So in the real world my MPB with a 2.4 Intel Core Duo 2 gets approximately 3 – 3.5 hours on a full, overnight, charge. But the real measure, the real indicator I look for is that final “add fuel.”
Now, I am waiting with anticipation for my new 17″ MBP with Apple’s enhanced Li battery. Advertised and marketed at 8 hours battery life, I am not so concerned or worried about “exactly” how long the battery will last, but more about how much warning I will have between when the battery says, “add fuel” and when the machine powers down in the middle of my Spore victory dance.
In terms of reporting battery performance, doesn’t some of the problem originate with the battery itself? Does an ATI battery and a Sony battery and a who-knows-what-brand battery all perform the same?
And what I learned recently in doing some “battery” research is, that HEAT is a bigger issue for Li batteries than anything else. So even in standby, if your Li battery and laptop are in a hot car with the windows rolled up, the battery will drain much faster than if it were on a shaded table in a coffee shop.
I would like to see battery ratings gain more reputable metrics. Does anyone believe the 5-hour vs 12-hour battery claims? I certainly didn’t get overly excited or concerned about the new 17″ MBP exaggerated battery life or the fact that the battery was “not removable.” Oh MY!
And I would suspect, since it is taking me over 6 weeks from Apple’s shipping date to actually receive my MBP, that there are a lot of us consumers who don’t believe the stats or care to judge our next laptop by the manufacturer’s claims.
Here is what I demand:
1. I want the battery to last a long time.
2. I want the battery to not die prematurely. (1 – 1.5 years seems reasonable)
and more important to me than any spec (3DMark06 or MMO7) is
3. I’d really really really like the battery to be GREEN. Less lead, less bad stuff, less waste.
And then we should really think about how to cool the battery better, so my palms aren’t on fire atop my 140 degree Duo, and my thighs aren’t blistering red. And if we can keep it cool, while under duress (more like the 3DMark06 benchmark) guess what? It performs better and lasts longer.
Now, back to cars for a second, I understand that the Prius outside the US has been offered offered with an EV override button that forces the car to use more electric power than it does in “normal” mode. It was taken off the US models by pressure from somewhere. Not hard to imagine that lobbying pressure.
And so with my laptop I would often hit the “TURBO” switch to keep the machine running at top performance even if that meant having to keep it plugged it. But I would like a “ECO” mode as well.
The new 2010 Prius comes with three modes including “EV.”
By all means, let’s keep getting better and honest about our metrics. But let’s not obsess about a 91 3DMark06 vs a 95 3DMark06. Quite frankly, even if you tried to explain it to me, I don’t know what that 4 point 3DMark06-spread means in terms of actual battery time.
So when Apple says the new MBP I am waiting for will get 8-hours runtime (or is it 12?) I don’t really know what that means. Will my Prius really get 42 city 48 hwy? I don’t care. But when that “add fuel” message pops up on my laptop or my Prius then I will sit up and take immediate action.
I wrote a post about taking care of your Li battery here.
“Laptop Battery Maintenance and Good Habits – Scientific Studies Reveal” http://bit.ly/battery-advice
Cheers,
@jmacofearth
#6 by Nigel Dessau - March 13th, 2009 at 08:04
I think you make many good points and one day we may have a battery that last 12 hours and recharges in 12 seconds. I would love that. But it’s not what we have today – from anyone. What we have is people buying PCs without really knowing how long they are going to last if you actually use them. Till we get the 12 hour battery, maybe we could do a better job of telling them how long they have before they really really really have to save their Spore. (Never played – do you save Spores?)
#7 by James King - March 12th, 2009 at 22:28
I’m not sure how much this practice will help. The 3DMark06 number is interesting, especially when used in an apples-to-apples comparison, but may have a dampening effect as a standalone number, even in conjunction with MM07. If they are indicative of an average disparity with MM07 numbers, the 3DMark06 figures are pretty sobering and a potential purchasing turn-off, especially with everyone else fudging their numbers. Besides, how many laptops are actually returned for poor battery life? I respect AMD’s commitment to greater honesty as related to their products but I don’t see anything but downside in this tactic. That lower number is going to stick in everyone’s heads and it’s not like Apple or anyone else is going to do the same thing. If everyone else were going to do it, I’d be more supportive but, without comparisons or context, it’s superfluous.
#8 by Nigel Dessau - March 15th, 2009 at 01:30
James, I understand but I am not sure that it’s not a reason to try and do better. The key message for us is not that 3DMark06 is the best definition of how a user uses their PC, and we don’t really care what number it produces in this case, but that we show what real users get when they really use their machine. It’s classic Talk vs Standby or even City vs Highway.
#9 by John McElhenney - March 13th, 2009 at 18:32
@James,
I think that’s the point. HP, Apple, Dell and Lenovo and Acer WILL do it if becomes the norm. Cheers to AMD for opening up the discussion, even if they don’t WIN every case. But honesty is the goal.
In fact when I am using my laptop, I keep it plugged in when I’m near a plug, I run off battery when I move between rooms in the house. BUT how many times do I leave the house for the day WITHOUT my charging cable? Answer: I have done it before, but no many times.
Maybe a good answer to the battery issue is a smaller and better charger. Maybe one the size of a new Apple iPod Shuffle.
@jmacofearth
#10 by Snappy - March 15th, 2009 at 03:52
Great idea to have both metrics, and as you mentioned, it can definitely be tweaked further to better highlight actual usage scenarios.
SUSPEND BATT LIFE
It would also be meaningful to show suspend batt life. This is most important now as netbooks, notebooks and embedded devices like smart phones merge in functionality. Netbooks and notebooks can suspend and conserve energy while giving near instanton usage. Its ability to stay suspended for longer period of time can be useful until the next ac charge.
For some reason, I’ve rarely seen notebook/netbook reviews determine the suspend batt life. Knowing this can definitely be helpful.
#11 by pepoluan - March 16th, 2009 at 01:37
I personally look forward to the day when fully-charging a laptop’s battery takes no more than 1 minute.
See this article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-10194721-72.html
If that does happen, it will change our lifestyle, for sure. And maybe John’s wish of a small charger will come true
#12 by Maarten - March 16th, 2009 at 03:01
Hi Nigel,
I completely agree. An objective an representative way of battery-life classification, would be really useful for everyone. I hope the large manufacturers will put your initiative into practise….
Cheers,
maarten
#13 by dorin - March 16th, 2009 at 10:51
great initiative ! i remember a few years back when getting a new monitor would mean check if it had TCO99 and all those other standards, imo nowadays battery life time classification is a must
PS: how wierd – after i closed your site in ie it just cloned itself 20 or 30 times
#14 by Stephen S. - March 16th, 2009 at 13:23
I agree. I have an old HP Pavilion ZD8080us desktop replacement notebook. I’ve seen battery life claims of up to 2 hours. It’s a bogus claim. Maybe if that same battery was in another lower powered laptop, it probably does that. I knew when I was purchasing this laptop, that the Intel P4 clocked at 3.4 GHz would suck back the juice and be hot. I just wanted it for the ATI graphics card, which was the fastest one out there at the time. Unfortunately finding the same version with the new Athlon’s was hard, but I’m sure you already know why with your court filings.
Anyways, even when new, and doing every battery optimized setting I could perform on the laptop, I may get over an hour. Now, going on 4 years old, I’ll be lucky to get 20 mins at idle. When it was new, and just doing general web browsing with the wi-fi enabled, I might be get 40 minutes out of it. A far cry from the 2 hours reported.
Even today, most laptops of this nature, just have a “*” in that field that usually says something along the lines of, “Determined by use”. There’s not even a hint of battery life depicted anymore. Is it 30 minutes, 40 minutes? I know it’s going to be short, but how much? I’ve only ever had one notebook exceed it’s battery life expectations. That was my old 386SX 24MHz notebook. I was constantly getting close to 4 hours with a new Ni-Cad battery.
I have a UPS for my desktop and it reports it’s battery life extrememly accurately. Technically, that’s what a battery in a notebook/laptop is, so why can’t we have the same? I just open my APC PowerChute program and I get realtime battery information and accurate projected time based on load level. It might say 29 minuntes at idle and then drop to 12 minutes at a gaming load. That’s all I’m asking for in a laptop.
Not 2 hours estimate battery time and then when it flips to DC power, I see 47 minutes and then a minute later it says 22 minutes.
Glad to see AMD taking the initiative. Maybe we can see a Fusion battery program like APC’s PowerChute program end up on our AMD laptops? Or heck, jsut to get the industry to standardize on a metric would be nice. We’ve seen disparity over power use in TDP and you’ve tried to level it out with ACP, so hopefully we can see the industry move this way in power use to laptops in the same way we have standardized power metrics for servers.
#15 by Vijay - March 18th, 2009 at 06:28
I partially disagree with this post.
There are different issues being tackled here and I’m not sure if you’re targeting reviewers or the manufacturers. But I can tell you’re mixing both up in your analogy.
One is the accuracy of the rated battery – which requires all the major companies to adopt better standards to report more real-life usage – not the lousy JEITA battery standards most use and exploit it to their best to get the longest battery life run. This is absolutely not indicative of any real usage other than keeping the notebook mostly idle and dim – like a show piece if you will.
MobileMark 2007 used in several independent reviews is a hell lot better than any of those battery life claims made on the notebooks by the manufacturers. Have you ever seen it run in full? There’s a good balance of productivity, interactivity and wait times which is more often applicable than we realize (and it’s not just 5% of utilization). How often and how taxing do you actually use the notebook? Different notebooks are made for different user groups and perform differently on various tasks and the length of operation. There is no single standard you can ever derive, but if one were to go with the usual productivity workflow, then MobileMark’07 is actually doing a decent job at going the middle line. Yes, I’ve tried it both with the benchmarks and casual usage and they aren’t that far apart – unless otherwise you do something stressful all through like 3DMark06.
So what if you tax your notebook like 3DMark’06? Do you really thing notebook vendors are going to adopt those measly up-time numbers? Hell no… not until batteries are 3 times more powerful perhaps. Simple fact of marketing is that the consumer will keep the lower numbers in their head and that would actually throw them off in their decision making.
If you were to say Manufacturers should use MobileMark’07 test numbers, I’m probably with you because that’s anytime more real than those ’standards’ being used now.
Then comes the matter of accurate real-term reporting, which is what you’re lamenting about in the beginning and as reiterated by Stephen in his post above. Yes, this we sorely need a fix. We really need a more accurate up-time gauge based on the workload at any one point of time.
Lastly the comparisons drawn aren’t accurate. While the battery being used is similar for the Intel and AMD machines respectively, their platforms and components used, OS used and most importantly, notebook specific power-optimizations done at the hardware and BIOS level make up for the differences in performance. Oh and the reason why 3DMark06 up-time is similar across the board is due to two reasons – similar max TDP of total platform and that of the same Wh battery used. When it comes to normal productivity use, there are more chances for power saving features to kick-in and that’s when it depends on each component’s capability and that of the optimization at the vendor level for each platform. More often than not, Intel would pull through better. But if AMD’s platforms are better implemented to capitalize on its much lower idle clock speeds at low power states, then it has an upper hand. BUT here-in comes another issue – how capable are each of the platforms at low-power states (and low CPU utilization), which also equates to who gives better raw performance.
The other issue is activation of Wi-Fi, GPS or other features – they are location specific and will vary from place of usage. Even in the same location, activating any of these really depends on the signal strength, how busy the band is, etc.. it’s open to too many external concerns which can’t be controlled – and these would also undermine your battery life because these radio device consumer power corresponding to what they are doing.
I applaud the overall notion of improvement, but it should be less AMD-centric. The problem that needs to be tackled now is dumping JEITA like standards for something more down-to-earth that when consumers note the battery life rating, it’s closer to general usage numbers – not those of idle or those of extremely heavy loads. The latter is good to have, but it’s not going to adopted industry-wide and that’s quite sure.
#16 by JD - March 18th, 2009 at 11:00
I really hope you can see this through. Having a new standard would be welcomed by consumers. They spend considerable time researching their purchase before actually buying anything. This would only help consumers become a properly informed buyer.
To be honest, it’s kind of sad this isn’t already being used. I’m disappointed at Intel’s reaction to this discussion. You don’t ALWAYS have to rely on traditional methods to implement change. In fact, embracing the blog would show them to be agile and adaptable. Sadly, they don’t appear to be either.
#17 by DStevenson - March 18th, 2009 at 14:58
I think it’s an excellent idea. I posted it in my Facebook profile to alert others that I know would be interested to hop in and comment. I would really like to see more open testing between all the manufacturers, not just their high scores.
#18 by DennisR - March 18th, 2009 at 16:33
I love the idea of a more real world number attached to battery life…. at least when I pull my laptop out its because I need to use it, and real numbers on how long I will actually have before needing a plug would be great.
the numbers for stand by time/ Idle time are useless to me unless your talking about my bluetooth headset…then idle time means something…
as it stands now I have a pretty good idea of my battery life when Im using my laptop, I had to find that out after
#19 by John Clifford - March 18th, 2009 at 18:40
I really hope the manufacturers of notebooks and cellphones will start getting more real and transparent about battery life. I almost returned my Google G1 because battery life was so short with 3G and WIFI turned on. I ended up getting extra batteries and a solar charger. I. I also bought my last MSI WIND netbook based on the availability of an extended battery when competitors had no extended batteries in stock. Another pet peeve is companies that launch new products with no spare batteries available. Apple has also disappointed me with changing IPOD connectors in Ipod touch 2G does not charge in most of the speaker docks that worked fine with prior generation. Even Apple ads talking about 8 hrs with new macbook 17 inch and 1000 charges make me skeptical. With all the negative press about exploding batteries it would be a breath of fresh to get some positive attention given to helping people have a better idea of how battery will perform in real life not some ideal case scenario.
#20 by Jimmy Tang - March 18th, 2009 at 19:56
I think the idea of using 3DMark06 is only addressing a tiny aspect of battery life, and that is gaming. We all know very well that when you run the machine with full 3D graphics, you’re only going to load the GPU. Hence, the measurement here is only going to skew towards the power consumption of the GPU and not representative of the many power saving technologies found in the system. If you only look at a single aspect of something you measure, it’s flawed and opened to ridicule. In the analogy of your car’s mileage, should you only measure your mileage based on a constant cruise speed of 90mph (ala full gaming load with 3DM06?).
I agree there should be other measurements available to aid consumers, but I don’t agree with using 3DMark06 as a candidate to measure battery life performance. It confuses (or misinform) users more than it educates. Besides, gamers play their games plugged into the wall socket, not running off batteries.
#21 by DaMulta - March 19th, 2009 at 14:00
I don’t agree with the way these test are being done to test battery life. All tho I do see the need to test them. I just don’t know if doing these test prove anything.
There should be a bigger need to fix the problem of running out of power. For example with my cell phone I always have it charged, and sometimes if the need calls for it I have other ways of keeping it charged. I have a crank that I can spin round and round to give it some more juice. I can also use normal battery with an adapter if the need arises.
Now maybe that isn’t available for laptops but I know what is available. Why not add a battery save o/s to laptops.
OK so here it is.
I play a DVD or Blue-Ray what ever it is. Do I really need all the crap Windows/osx/Linux is playing in the background?
Why can’t the laptop just play the DVD without the OS why can’t it just boot into a Movie OS at the start by pushing f12 at boot?
It could go more into just boot into my Email with a web browser. I know that I have built a Linux kernel before that only did that. THAT’S ALL IT DID.
To me splitting up programs mps, movies, open office, email and other needed normal everyday things could save a user a ton of battery life.
Lastly I bet a program could be written very well to manage battery life. Ok why does wi-fi GPS media player eat more energy? Is it because the CPU is just being worked that hard? What if the CPU is working slower, and it takes more time to finish the task you asked it BUT saved more battery usage time.
I know for a fact if I drive to town at 55Mph vs 75Mph that I will have more gas if I would of drove 55Mhp. Why can’t AMD give a program that lets you slow down the PC so that you save a little battery life if you needed to have extra time between a charge? Why do I need a CPU/Memory/Video card working 100MPH at media player/open office/staring at my desktop with noting going on? Why can’t this be managed with a simple program that no one has yet to produce. The only thing that you get is turn this off after so much time, which is BS in my book. You should be able to slow down your machine. I know that I can by under clocking and overclocking, BUT there has to be a way for the average Joe to just be able to tell it”hey I only want to go 45Mph today not the whole 100Mhp like normal.
DaMulta
#22 by toddc - March 19th, 2009 at 14:09
So i like the concept of trying to find a more accurate gauge of battery life on the front side for usage, but i would also like to see it expanding to Overall battery lifetime as well since im sure that usage and charge are affecting cycle lifetimes.
#23 by LisaStratus - June 14th, 2009 at 06:38
It is remarkable, rather valuable information