3 ms·

I was anxious while updating from SL yesterday. I'll have to wait before judging the product, but from the moment it booted I felt like I made the right choice.

by chm 13y ago

I was anxious while updating from SL yesterday. I'll have to wait before judging the product, but from the moment it booted I felt like I made the right choice. One caveat: SL provided me with ~6 hours of browsing battery life while M predicts I'll manage only 4.5 on a 2009 15" MBP.

mathieuh 13y ago
I think that could be to do with some apps not being optimised yet or something. If I browse using Safari on my 15" Retina, I get ~8 hours of browsing, if I use chrome that falls massively down to ~3.5.
- chm 13y ago
  Ouch. But I can hardly see why that could reduce battery life so much. The new power-saving features in Mavericks shouldn't, in theory, lower the battery life. The OS should act like it did under SL unless lots of RAM is needed (I'm at 50%). I'll let the computer go through a couple of power cycles, maybe that'll fix it.
  - mitchty 13y ago
    The reason is in chrome the background tabs don't get frozen and stop executing etc... Safari has had a huge makeover to improve the amount of energy use for things like background tabs/etc.... Or even not running when occluded by another window. Small things like that add up overall. I think this is the way forward for improving the efficiency of our software in general. I'm glad someone is bringing power use to light alongside cpu/memory/disk/network. As for the os level stuff, have you tested the actual time under use or just looked at the estimates?
    - chm 13y ago
      I got 4:56 minutes out of my battery today. I switched from FF to Safari when I wrote the previous comment. It did make a difference.
      - mitchty 13y ago
        I'm noticing the same as well with my retina actually. The power drain differences are significant enough for me to swap back to safari. I was getting ~7 hoursish (hard to tell I tend to compile/browse/etc) before and now it looks more like 5. Which is disappointing to be honest. Though using non "best for retina" seems to kick in the discreet gpu more often now.

by chm 13y ago

mathieuh 13y ago

I think that could be to do with some apps not being optimised yet or something. If I browse using Safari on my 15" Retina, I get ~8 hours of browsing, if I use chrome that falls massively down to ~3.5.

chm 13y ago
Ouch. But I can hardly see why that could reduce battery life so much. The new power-saving features in Mavericks shouldn't, in theory, lower the battery life. The OS should act like it did under SL unless lots of RAM is needed (I'm at 50%). I'll let the computer go through a couple of power cycles, maybe that'll fix it.
- mitchty 13y ago
  The reason is in chrome the background tabs don't get frozen and stop executing etc... Safari has had a huge makeover to improve the amount of energy use for things like background tabs/etc.... Or even not running when occluded by another window. Small things like that add up overall. I think this is the way forward for improving the efficiency of our software in general. I'm glad someone is bringing power use to light alongside cpu/memory/disk/network. As for the os level stuff, have you tested the actual time under use or just looked at the estimates?
  - chm 13y ago
    I got 4:56 minutes out of my battery today. I switched from FF to Safari when I wrote the previous comment. It did make a difference.
    - mitchty 13y ago
      I'm noticing the same as well with my retina actually. The power drain differences are significant enough for me to swap back to safari. I was getting ~7 hoursish (hard to tell I tend to compile/browse/etc) before and now it looks more like 5. Which is disappointing to be honest. Though using non "best for retina" seems to kick in the discreet gpu more often now.