Test finds Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro only laptops to match or beat advertised batter...

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware
Apple's MacBooks are the only current laptops to meet or exceed their makers' battery life claims, British testing publication Which? found in a comparison of several major brands.




The site used three different MacBook models including the 13-inch 2016 MacBook Pro, and found that while Apple claimed 10 hours on average, the real-world figure was 10 hours and 15 minutes, easily outranking computers by Asus, Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Toshiba. A 13-inch MacBook Pro in fact lasted for 12 hours.

The evaluation process involved draining each laptop repeatedly in several different every-day tasks, such as watching movies, or loading websites over Wi-Fi.

In some cases there were major discrepancies between results and marketing. HP's Pavilion 14-al115na, for instance, is claimed to run for 9 hours, but in practice lasted just 4 hours and 25 minutes. Similarly, the Dell Inspiron 15 5000 managed just 3 hours and 58 minutes despite nominally being capable of 7 hours.

Image Credit: Which?
Image Credit: Which?


"It's difficult to give a specific battery life expectation that will directly correlate to all customer usage behaviors because every individual uses their PC differently -- it's similar to how different people driving the same car will get different gas mileage depending on how they drive," Dell told Which? in trying to explain the gap.

HP meanwhile said that its battery testing "uses real life scripts and runs on real applications like Microsoft Office," and that particular specifications -- like resolution -- can impact power consumption.

The Which? results are in some ways actually more conservative than ones generated by U.S. magazine Consumer Reports when it retested Apple's 2016 MacBook Pros. In the latter case, one unit managed nearly 19 hours.

Consumer Reports originally delivered scathing numbers, suggesting that battery life could fluctuate wildly from as much as 16 hours to less than 4. Apple then intervened, pointing out that the publication had an obscure developer setting turned on in Safari that was triggering a bug and hence bad battery readings. The glitch was later resolved in macOS 10.12.3.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    dbeatsdbeats Posts: 25member
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    lkruppStrangeDaysDilirXtallest skil
  • Reply 2 of 51
    That 15 minutes will make all he difference :)   :)  :wink:

    seriously, all that bad press when they were introduced seems an awful long time ago.
    But will it matter in terms of sales?
    Apple being Apple may not be shouting this from the rooftops whereas if it was the other way round....

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 51
    freeperfreeper Posts: 58member
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

    Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

    Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

    Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.
    cyberzombiebrucemcnetroxking editor the gratelorin schultz
  • Reply 4 of 51
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,702member
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    Oh I’m sure the usual suspects will be here shortly to explain why these test results are bogus and rigged. Remember these are the “Apple can do nothing right” types.
    StrangeDaysjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 51
    xzuxzu Posts: 112member
    Yippee being underpowered gives you more battery life!!!!
    brucemc
  • Reply 6 of 51
    freeper said:
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

    Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

    Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

    Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.
    Wow, you need some balance and objectivity.  I am CR long time subscriber, but you are glossing over their irresponsibility in rushing out test results to meet a deadline when their own results didn't make any sense. The responsible thing would have been to work with Apple to see if there was something in their testing methodology, (yes there was) or a bug somewhere (yes, as well) that was causing the anomalous (absurdly high battery life results as well).  Objectively, CR hurt its credibility on this as no responsible testing organization, getting these wildly inconsistent results, wouldn't have gone back to figure out the problem, but it was just too sexy of a title at that time of year for whoever made the decision to publish to resist.  They compounded their error by issuing a "no buy" recommendation.  Those of us who support CR are the ones most disappointed in their actions because we need organizations like CR to protect consumers and when they do something that damages their credibility, they undermine that role.  Sadly, many consumers who are more casual followers of CR have likely written them off. 
    edited March 31 StrangeDaysjkichlinecharlesatlasretrogustoDilirXjdgazmattinozroundaboutnowmagman1979jony0
  • Reply 7 of 51
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,006member
    freeper said:
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

    Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

    Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

    Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.
    Despite your verbal diarrhoea of a post, Consumer Reports is not blameless at all in their report, as it clearly exposed issues with their methodology in dealing with inconsistent data.  They took the approach to release anyways.  That is their right, but it sure affected their credibility when the issue was resolved.  
    coolfactorStrangeDaysmagman1979jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 51
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,288member
    Apple's secret in long battery life is in using SDD drive.  The HDD is notorious in draining battery.  But it is cheaper with much higher capacity.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 51
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,051member
    freeper said:
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.


    But Consumer Reports took the position of accusing Apple of lying about its battery claims, when the batteries or power management system were not at fault at all. Any application can have a bug, first-party or third-party. Bugs are squashed all the time.

    Yes, we should be thankful that they found this bug, but how they handled their initial report was very unprofessional. They jumped to the wrong conclusion out of the gate and spread damaging misinformation across the interwebs.
    StrangeDaysjkichlineretrogustobrucemcjdgazroundaboutnowmagman1979jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 51
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,358member
    freeper said:
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

    Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

    Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

    Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.
    TLDR; also too much text in caps. 

    Apple's battery bug only occurred when 1) dev settings in Safari enabled. 2) performing automated, looped testing. In no way would it ever affect someone in real world usage, because we don't hit favicons hundreds of times in a loop for hours on end. Or if using a different browser. So clearly a test conditions issue. 

    Side note, I see you like to post a lot of disparaging commentary about Apple. My Troll Early Detection System is spinning up...
    edited March 31 jkichlinecharlesatlasRoyfbjdgazmagman1979jony0radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 51
    I have not found the battery life to be very powerful in these new machines. If you are doing anything outside of optimized tasks, this battery crumbles fast. Old MacBook Pro Retina blows this battery out of the water. 74.5 watt hour battery versus 49.2 waa hour when comparing the 13" old and new models.

    The battery life has been good enough for me since I don't use the battery that often, but it in no way compares to the battery in the previous model.
  • Reply 12 of 51
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,684member
    freeper said:
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

    Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

    Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

    Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.
    You'd have a bit more credibility if you knew the difference between an "application" and an "operating system". 

    The bug was in Safari (an app-li-cay-shun), not MacOS (which is an operating sis-tum). 

    Read up, then come back. 
    edited March 31 jkichlinebrucemcstompymagman1979jony0radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 51
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 3,652member
    Doesn't matter.  Asshat iHater, trolls, and pundits will simply ignore it and continue blaming Apple for being the best in laptops, while giving a free pass to the competitors for making shitty products.
    lkruppmagman1979watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 51
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 3,652member
    freeper said:
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

    Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

    Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

    Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.
    Nonsense... while I'm not necessarily giving Apple a 100% free pass, the problem was caused by Safari, NOT Mac OS.  By your mentality, we might as well blame MacOS when Adobe Flash eats up the battery.

    Apple fixed it quickly, and battery life went back up to it's advertised levels.  Do we see competitors doing that?  No.  They'll only guarantee long batter life only if the user keeps the laptop turned off.

    Consumer Reports should have given Apple a chance to resolve it before having a hissy-fit and crying wolf.  I don't trust anything CR does anymore.  They are all about sensationalism like everyone else to drive those web-clicks.
    magman1979jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 51
    I can see CR's viewpoint: they represent the average consumer, purchase consumer goods from retail outlets, test them using a predefined protocol and report the results.
    They were pretty upfront about the inconsistent results obtained on the MacBooks, and I do remember many people complaining about the battery life as well when these machines came out. It's not their responsibility to go after every manufacturers to get them to tweak or debug their machines so they look good.
    Apple did their job and contacted them, identified the issue and corrected it. Now everyone is happy and Apple has every reason to brag about its excellent machines.

    The problem, and we saw it before during the iPhone 4 "AntennaGate" is that Apple has such a high profile that all its products are under intense scrutiny and the slightest issue is immediately blown out of proportion. I shudder to think of the reaction if they had a mishap like the Note 8 explosions. Looks like all the other manufacturers are reporting outrageously overinflated battery life specs, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. It's only a problem when Apple does it. I guess that's what being the best is about. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 51
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,702member
    sflocal said:
    Doesn't matter.  Asshat iHater, trolls, and pundits will simply ignore it and continue blaming Apple for being the best in laptops, while giving a free pass to the competitors for making shitty products.
    See responses in this very thread to validate your statement. So easy to predict what that crowd will say.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 51
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,944member
    My observations of Windows laptop performance is that battery lifetimes are all over the place and not predictable.   Leave excel running and Sometimes it will kill the battery with the laptop doing nothing.  These are simple excel spreadsheets too.  

    Now a Mac has app related problems also, the new batteries are too small for the laptops to run at peak performance very long. A classic example is compiling C++ code that is heavy with templates.  In other words Apples laptops suck for professional usage on battery power.    Apples advantage is only clear if you fit their description of an average user.  

    This is actually pretty simple to understand   A battery with a given amp/hour rating will simply have a shorter life span than a larger battery given the same load.  When one runs apps that leverage the GPUs or CPUs heavily power draw maxes out draining the batteries pretty fast.  
  • Reply 18 of 51
    FatmanFatman Posts: 93member
    I use a Dell laptop on a regular basis - it has an i7 8 core - on paper should be a powerhouse, instead 8 cores means it uses those cores to drain the battery, heat the CPU and kick the fans on. Only the latest Windows 10 version has somewhat helped alleviate the wasted cycles (I believe it just throttles back the processor extensively ... in which case what's the point of a faster CPU?), I'm lucky if I get 90 minutes of unplugged use out of it -- it's not very mobile since I need to be near a power outlet/plugged in at all times.
    watto_cobraalexmac
  • Reply 19 of 51
    And to all the other notebook makers about their battery life claims, "Liar, liar, pants on fire." This new report won't get nearly the coverage for Apple than the initial report about the MacBooks having abysmal battery life. Pffft. No one wants to know anything good about Apple products. That's just too boring to read about.
    jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 51
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,006member
    ...
    The problem, and we saw it before during the iPhone 4 "AntennaGate" is that Apple has such a high profile that all its products are under intense scrutiny and the slightest issue is immediately blown out of proportion. I shudder to think of the reaction if they had a mishap like the Note 8 explosions. Looks like all the other manufacturers are reporting outrageously overinflated battery life specs, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. It's only a problem when Apple does it. I guess that's what being the best is about. 
    Are you from the future?  Or will this just end up being an accurate prediction.
    :)
    lordjohnwhorfinwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.