Analog Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Hi all, I'm running 10.4.8 with the DaemonES kernel, currently, and ran my battery dry with the following setup: - Dell 640m (cpus=1) T2200 (1.6GHz CD) (bigger - 85mAh? - battery) - Screen brightness at 8/10 - Wireless on (and active in background) - DVD player in fullscreen playing off of DVD drive With all this, my laptop lasted for 3 straight hours (just over) of playtime. I haven't done a similar Windows benchmark, but will be doing so as soon as my battery is 100% recharged. I'll also be testing and reporting with the Paulicat kernel installed with Speedstep and S3 support (S3 still won't work on my machine). What are your average times like? Is this is strong showing, or would enhanced power saving make this run longer? Let's get some numbers going here and see how BIOS/OSX are running along! Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/43382-battery-comparison-lets-gather-data/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppery Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I don't know about OS X, but my HP Pavillion dv1122ap got 30 minutes at 100% when Vista Ultimate was on here Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/43382-battery-comparison-lets-gather-data/#findComment-310635 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share Posted February 24, 2007 Ouch! Fscking Vista! I'm sadly running it on my home rig (Barton 2800+, 2Gig PC400, 5200FX w/128M) and it sucks. It's slow, buggy and a resource hog - that is without Aero even! Vista's only good feature is the indexed searching - anything else is just an abstracted XP install that needs 10x the hardware :/ Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/43382-battery-comparison-lets-gather-data/#findComment-310701 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ouch! Fscking Vista! I'm sadly running it on my home rig (Barton 2800+, 2Gig PC400, 5200FX w/128M) and it sucks. It's slow, buggy and a resource hog - that is without Aero even! Vista's only good feature is the indexed searching - anything else is just an abstracted XP install that needs 10x the hardware :/ lol, do your homework before posting stuff you obviously don't know much about "abstracted XP install" lol. Really dumb post Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/43382-battery-comparison-lets-gather-data/#findComment-311001 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ha! I know it isn't just XP with configuration options for new people abstracted, per say. Really, though, outside of indexed searching, what does it bring to the table? A "flashy" GUI (that bogs down a system like crazy - besides, XGL/Beryl and OSX both look way better with lower HW requirements)? Extra "smart" folder-style support to help remove (abstract) directories away from the user? Newer DX version bundled in? All with the same old XP interface, overall (especially if you turn off Aero). Hell - it's compatible with a lot of XP drivers! How do I know? Vista doesn't support a few bits of my HW; installed the XP drivers sans-problem. Maybe it actually *is* more secure as they claim, but performance isn't worth whatever the hell they did to it. Re-reading the post, I was way too reductionistic about what I meant and I can see why my post looked stupid, but serious - Vista is a turd. It's XP bulked up to help the HW industry move more units and will work worse on anything other than a relatively (1 year?) old box. It's 16GB I don't need to give up for worse performance and a battery killing GUI. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/43382-battery-comparison-lets-gather-data/#findComment-311175 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts