4 ms·
Sure, some manufacturers claim outrageous battery life numbers that noone has ever managed to achieve outside of a lab. But my 2017 X1 Carbon with a 57Wh batter
by lorenzhs 6y ago
Sure, some manufacturers claim outrageous battery life numbers that noone has ever managed to achieve outside of a lab. But my 2017 X1 Carbon with a 57Wh battery does manage close to 10 hours of actual light-ish use (with Linux). Macbooks' running times are apparently pretty close to what Apple claims, too. But 5 hours advertised running time is just bad, even if it actually manages that much.
- rcthompson 6y agoI don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I've never come close to the battery life numbers that Apple claims.
- tluyben2 6y agoSame here... I have brought several laptops back to the store 'for repair' just for that but there is never anything wrong and I really get miserable battery life out of macbooks. Devving + browsing.
- pantaloony 6y agoI bet I could get my MacBook’s battery life down to 5hrs with Slack, Chrome, WhatsApp, and VSCode all running, while “not doing anything that demanding”. Use Safari, use native-code messengers or open them only as-needed in response to alerts on my phone, and use Sublime and it’s back to approaching 10hrs. JavaScript eats battery and Safari is the only of the three major macOS browsers that takes power use seriously. If you live in webapps and Electron you’re gonna have battery trouble no matter what.
- tluyben2 6y agoMost things we have to use for work have no native equivalents though. I would be i3wm all the way if I could but most of everything is browser (badly done so even taking more battery power) or Electron. I mean how horrible is postman and yet everyone insists on using that pool of bugs. That said, my linux laptops, where I use the same apps and where I have no safari, have far better battery life. So it is not only that.
- pantaloony 6y agoWebapp or otherwise JS-and-media-heavy browsing in anything other than Safari easily takes 2hrs off my battery life on a MacBook. Chrome and FF are power hogs.
- toyg 6y ago> 0 hours of actual light-ish use (with Linux) There is Linux and there is Linux. Do you run KDE? It's basically the heaviest DE around, so it's bound to impact power-management.
- dTal 6y agoI don't think that's true anymore. Gnome 3 is heavier these days, and Plasma even beats XFCE on some metrics. It's actually quite easy on the battery. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/10/23/bold-prediction-kde-will-steal-the-lightweight-linux-desktop-crown-in-2020/#3d02f90626d2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/10/23/bold-...
- pjmlp 6y agoI am in the process of replacing an harddisk, so I evaluated the GNOME, XFCE and KDE flavous of Ubuntu LTS with live editions. GNOME has really progressed since the 18.04 LTS days, but I am still on the edge of going back to it (currently I use XFCE). JavaScript everywhere since version 3 and adamant refusal to support shaded windows is what puts me off. If I wanted that I would be using ChromeOS.
- pantaloony 6y agoThis is obvious running on weak hardware or constrained VMs. Modern Gnome is nearly unusable, while KDE is fine down to fairly low specs, especially if you dial down the animations.
- chupasaurus 6y agoIt was like this on Plasma 4 after it had stabilized also.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoI think that’s an out-dated viewpoint. KDE is relatively light now afaik.
- CoolGuySteve 6y ago