Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Sony Pledges More Accurate Laptop Battery Figures

Posted by timothy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 03:18 AM
from the trust-but-verify dept.
Slatterz writes "Ever wondered why you never get the 10 hours of battery life advertised with your new ultraportable? Battery life ratings have been a joke for years, so it's interesting to hear that one big vendor is picking up its game. PC Authority says Sony is abandoning the usual (and wildly misleading) JEITA method for coming up with those 10+ hour battery numbers (they're still using JEITA, but not the usual way). Interestingly, the story has links showing the old and new steps Sony takes to come up with those battery predictions. It's good to see the industry coming clean on this issue."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Swizec (978239) on Monday September 08 2008, @03:21AM (#24917125) Homepage
    Just wondering here, how would a move like this affect marketing of computers? The previous model had an up to 10 hour battery life, the new ultra better omgwtfbbq more magnificent version has "Up to 4, but we're not lying to you this time!"

    Somehow I just don't see that faring well with Joe Average ...
    • by evilviper (135110) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:15AM (#24917343) Journal

      Just wondering here, how would a move like this affect marketing of computers?

      They'll leave the old 10 HOURS figure, in huge numbers on the packaging. Then have an asterisks, and a tiny footnote that says "TYPICAL BATTERY LIFE: 4 hours".

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Somehow I just don't see that faring well with Joe Average ...

      On the contrary, it's probably going over quite well since the likely reason for the change was customer complaints. Why, I alone have told them a MILLION times that people shouldn't exaggerate so much.

    • Somehow I just don't see that faring well with Joe Average ...

      Joe Average is indeed in a market for lemons. But you find that very often, when buying something like a laptop, he might try and ask for advice from Average Slashdotter.

      Most people know at least one geek. Most Slashdotters are probably their friends' and extended families' "go to guy", for tech issues. And lets not forget IT departments and professional buyers, etc. Every geek knows battery lives are 1-1.5 hours for laptops everywhere, and if th

    • by dotancohen (1015143) on Monday September 08 2008, @06:00AM (#24917725) Homepage

      Just wondering here, how would a move like this affect marketing of computers? The previous model had an up to 10 hour battery life, the new ultra better omgwtfbbq more magnificent version has "Up to 4, but we're not lying to you this time!

      The new figure is time to 0% power. The old figure was time to explosion.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "It's good to see the industry coming clean on this issue."

      That should be:

      "It's good to see a publication suggest that one player within an industry is slightly tweaking their method of measuring this issue."

      • by Swizec (978239) on Monday September 08 2008, @03:39AM (#24917181) Homepage
        No, I was talking about how Joe Average doesn't really care/know that some vendor quotes realistic battery life on the box while another doesn't, they just see a higher number next to the word "hours" on that other computer and buy that one instead of the one who is lying less. I know realistic battery life quotes are great for us geeks, but they must be a marketer's nightmare until this behaviour becomes standardised and mandatory for some reason.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Or until a lot of people and magazines wonder why the hell they lie to us, since we can never reach the battery time stated on the box. Like now.
        • by gregbot9000 (1293772) <mckinleg@csusb.edu> on Monday September 08 2008, @04:02AM (#24917279) Journal
          I get you, but I also doubt they would change their marketing much, I imagine instead of saying 10+, the will now say: Up To 10 Hours* As for standardized, the first thought I had when reading the summery was "who is Sony afraid to get sued by that they'd change something in a way that could cost them" Maybe they see the battery life fudging as something that may get cracked down on.

          *In sleep mode.
            • by beelsebob (529313) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:26AM (#24917397)

              This is close, but not quite accurate. Macs enter sleep mode as any other PC does. However, when they enter sleep, they also begin paging everything out so that they can hibernate if the battery gets too low while still sleeping. You can tell whether or not your mac hibernated easily. If it wakes up instantly on a key press it was sleeping. If it needs the power plugged in, and comes back to a greyscale filtered version of what you were working on and a progress bar, then it was hibernating.

              • by dotancohen (1015143) on Monday September 08 2008, @06:47AM (#24917937) Homepage

                You can tell whether or not your mac hibernated easily. If it wakes up instantly on a key press it was sleeping. If it needs the power plugged in, and comes back to a greyscale filtered version of what you were working on and a progress bar, then it was hibernating.

                What state was mine in? I pushed the button and it said "BRAAAAAIIIINS!!!"

  • Properly, we should be told the capacity of the battery and the consumption of the machine at highest and lowest levels.

    For example, my Lenovo X61 gets between 4 and 8 hours on its large battery. The difference comes from how I tune the machine.

    At least for laptops using Intel chipsets and Linux, powertop makes it very easy to measure battery life, and (more importantly) tune it. I get my 8 hours by by switching off the wifi, usb ports, killing programs that do too many interrupts, turning down the brightness, etc. Powertop shows exactly how many watts the machine is using. The battery has about 70 watt/hours so when I get it down to 9 watts, that gives me about 8 hours.

    • by evilviper (135110) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:13AM (#24917327) Journal

      Properly, we should be told the capacity of the battery and the consumption of the machine at highest and lowest levels.

      You still have the same problem. Now you're simply moving the problem from calculating "battery life" to calculating "power consumption", and leaving consumers with an extra bit of math to do...

      "Lowest" power consumption is tricky, because you've now got to define what parts of the machine have to be functional in this minimal state. ie. You'd get a huge boost in battery life if you shut off the LCD screen, backlight, and graphics chip.

      Maximum isn't exactly easy, either... Does this include external devices drawing their power from the laptop ports? USB, Firewire, speakers, mouse, etc., it's pretty easy to drive the power consumption WAY up, with a few ridiculously power-hungry external devices.

      Battery capacity is pretty trivial, and is already notated on nearly every battery I've ever seen.

      • So, here's a very simple, useful standardized measurement:

        1. Capacity of battery in mAh, when new, after 6 months, and after 12 months.
        2. Power consumption of machine when doing video playback with screen set to 75% brightness, and all ports and networks enabled ("high").
        3. Power consumption of machine when surfing the web, with screen at 50%, and wifi enabled ("medium").
        4. Power consumption of machine when doing word processing with screen set to minimum brightness (not off!), and all ports and networks di

        • So, here's a very simple, useful standardized measurement:

          The devil is in the details.

          1. Capacity of battery in mAh, when new, after 6 months, and after 12 months.

          You want WATTS, not just Amps, or else they can just halve the voltage and double the amps, with a trivial change to the battery pack.

          Battery capacity over time varies SUBSTANTIALLY based on what level of charge is maintained over that period of time, and how many charge/discharge cycles it goes through. With certain types of batteries, how quick

      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday September 08 2008, @07:56AM (#24918511) Journal

        "Lowest" power consumption is tricky, because you've now got to define what parts of the machine have to be functional in this minimal state. ie. You'd get a huge boost in battery life if you shut off the LCD screen, backlight, and graphics chip.

        Sony's new "JEITA A"
        http://www.sony-asia.com/support/faq/272659 [sony-asia.com]

        1. No screensaver
        2. VAIO Long Battery Life Wall Paper
        3. Mute volume
        4. Turn off wifi
        5. Exit VAIO Smart Network
        6. Turn off Windows automatic updates
        7. Close Windows Sidebar
        8. Start the system in the STAMINA mode [you can do it without restarting]
        9. Close the Welcome Center
        10. Close the Prepare your VAIO
        11. Do NOT run the initial settings of McAfee Security Center

        Power Plan
        1. Set to Maximum Battery
        2. Never sleep/hibernate/turn off display
        3. Set graphics to 16 bit
        4. Disable Memory Card Slot
        5. Set Refresh Rate to 40Hz
        6. Set LCD brightness to 28%

        No offense but that's fucking ridiculous.
        Nobody would ever realistically use their computer in that fashion.

      • by clickety6 (141178) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:22AM (#24917373)

        Unfortunately, whereas I can use my computer without WiFi and USB, etc. I do find it much harder to use it without the screen being on ;-)

        • it would be nice to have a portable computing cluster though. Ten quad cores in your pocket would be a nice performance boost.

      • No, you can easily use PowerTop [lesswatts.org] to optimize your powerusage by disabling/poweringdown Wifi, ethernet, sound and applications. So you can get your computer down from 14 Watt to 7 Watt, of course it all depends on what you need. You will see that what draws the most power is usually software not the hardware, if you run less it will draw less. It's not a price everyone is ready to pay, on the size of your computer and on functionality.

        On my 12" laptop there is a 3W difference between a fully lit screen to a

      • If you're going to be pedantic, get it right. Batteries are measured in amp-hours, and if you want to use watts, it would be "watt-hours at X volts", whatever the voltage is that the battery is supplying.

        The Lenovo X61 extended battery has 4400 mAh, or 4.4Ah, so if it lasts eight hours at a draw of 9 watts, then it's drawing about 16 volts.

        9 watts at 16 volts is 0.55 amperes. 0.55 amperes for 8 hours is 4.4 amp-hours.

        It's more fun not having to think this much on a Monday morning.

  • by oodaloop (1229816) on Monday September 08 2008, @03:34AM (#24917165) Homepage
    I have a Sony Vaio UX280 micro pc with an expanded battery, both bought 1.5 years ago. Not only did neither battery live up to their advertised battery life (3 hours standby for the orginal, 9 for the expanded), but now they are closer to 30 min and 45 min. I haven't let them run down to zero and time them, but they fall so fast after unplugging it I get my business done and shut it down. It's to the point now that I need another extended battery, but at $349 I might as well buy an Eee or similar netbook instead. Needless to say (but I'm obviously saying it anyway), if I knew the batteries didn't have the advertised life and were going to die so quickly, I would never have bought them.
    • I hate DELLs, but they do have cheap replacement batteries. So if your Dell makes it past battery replacement then it's going to be cheap to buy a new one.

      Unofficial batteries are often half the price though, or you can refurbish by putting in new Cells in an old enclosure.

      • The Dell mini with Ubuntu is one I'm considering. I'm interested in checking out the Netbook Remix, if indeed that's what it ships with. I'll have to look into the battery cost. Thanks.
  • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Monday September 08 2008, @03:35AM (#24917169)

    From TFA,

    The old testing method: A picture showing a naked man stretching his anus to a large and disproportionate size. The Sony employee reaches into the anus and pulls out the battery figures.

    The new method involves running the laptop until the battery is exhausted and timing the result.

    • You realise that history dictates that you're meant to post as anonymous, right? An accompanied link or ascii images of description to be supplied also. But a nice twist, I'll grant you.
  • by clickety6 (141178) on Monday September 08 2008, @03:40AM (#24917185)

    Average time before battery goes flat under normal usage: 1 minute more than figures quoted by Dell

    Average time before battery goes flat under Vista: 8 hours (i.e. during startup process)

    Average time before battery goes flat watching DVD: length of film - 10 minutes

    Average time before battery goes flat using Office: Fails during write process of important presentation

    Average time before battery explodes into flame: 7 hours 32 minutes

    Average time before stored spare battery goes flat: 5 seconds after it was last tested

    Average time before battery goes flat under Linux:
    Never. It is constantly recharged by sucking energy from the superior mind of the user

  • They should start the computer up, leave it unplugged, and run prime 95 or some other resource maximizing program to see it's potential. Then do one that does it at around 50% then idle, etc. And do this and average them, or something of the sort. I do agree with the first comment though, marketing the batteries will be weird unless there is news coverage to the general public about the new method of time calculations.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2008, @03:50AM (#24917219)

    built in the 1980s.

    It runs for approx 2 weeks continuously, on 4 AA rechargables, and I just dump my notes as a .txt file to my desktop.

    If people made a more sophisticated version, with network capability and OpenOffice formatting, I'd buy it like a shot. Modern batteries would also run it for months.....

  • by jeroen94704 (542819) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:17AM (#24917353)
    Now all we need is for HD manufacturers to stop defining "Gigabyte" as "1 billion bytes", so my 160 GB drive is actually 160 GB (171 billion bytes), and not 149 GB (160 billion bytes).
    • by meringuoid (568297) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:40AM (#24917445)
      Now all we need is for HD manufacturers to stop defining "Gigabyte" as "1 billion bytes", so my 160 GB drive is actually 160 GB (171 billion bytes), and not 149 GB (160 billion bytes).

      Or alternatively we need RAM manufacturers to stop defining 'gigabyte' as '1,073,741,824 bytes'. If they must insist on using a power of 1,024, then they can pick a different word for it, that doesn't conflict with the usage of the 'giga' prefix to mean 'x10^9' in every other field in the world. May I suggest 'gibibyte'?

      • Or alternatively we need RAM manufacturers to stop defining 'gigabyte' as '1,073,741,824 bytes'.

        It's not RAM manufacturers, it's the whole computer industry... and for a good reason, that being that computers haven't used decimal arithmetic since COBOL was new and sexy.

        Nobody uses 'GiB'. It was a fad, and it's a dead fad. And in any case it should be 'Gio'... the 8-bit-byte is actually LESS of a standard than the 2^30 octet Go.

        • Re:Gibibyte is dead. (Score:5, Informative)

          by meringuoid (568297) on Monday September 08 2008, @05:47AM (#24917683)
          It's not RAM manufacturers, it's the whole computer industry...

          It's clearly not the whole computer industry, though, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Some parts of the computer industry call a gigabyte 1,000,000,000 bytes, other parts call a gigabyte 1,073,741,824 bytes. One of these standards is consistent with the usage of 'giga' in all other scientific and technical fields, while the other is unique to computer science. To my mind, calling 1,024 bytes a 'kilobyte' was just about acceptable, since the difference wasn't so great and 'kilo' was a convenient shorthand. But calling 1,073,741,824 bytes a 'gigabyte' is really pushing it, and now we're starting to build terabyte drives and it's getting ridiculous. If you want to use substantially different multipliers from the standard, don't use SI prefixes for them. Make up your own unit names.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Drive manufacturers do that to make their product sound better than it really is, it's all marketing.
            You may not like it, but kilo and giga have always had such values in computing because computers operate using binary, 10 binary bits gives 1024 possible values. It would be quite ridiculous to use 1000 and whatever nasty kludges were necessary to achieve that.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              It either is acceptable, or it isn't. Maybe you think that 73MB per 1GB is a lot, but I bet that 10 years ago you would've felt the same way about "losing" 5MB per every 100MB.

              Not really. The difference goes up by 2.4% every iteration. It becomes relatively greater, not just absolutely greater. Terabyte disks are now available: a tebibyte is 10% more than a terabyte, and that's almost 100GB - quite a substantial difference.

              But who's 'losing' bytes? I bought four gigabytes of RAM when I built my new PC,

                  • Ya know, when I ask Linux "How much can this 1TB drive hold?" and it reports back "900 GB".

                    And when you copy files to it, you find that it only holds 760GB, because your files are small enough that the file system overhead eats more than 10% of the available space.

                    Gibibyte is dead because the difference between 2^30 octets and 10^9 octets is small. The computer industry uses Gigabyte for 2^30 octets because it works in powers of two, so the storage PART of the industry should do the same thing.

    • by asc99c (938635) on Monday September 08 2008, @05:00AM (#24917509) Homepage

      Hard disc manufacturers are in the right though - mega means million, giga means billion, tera means trillion. It's the world of computers with their binary-derived values that are wrong.

      This has already been discussed in great detail, and the decision was that a binary gigabyte (2^30 bytes instead of the decimal 10^9) should be called a gibibyte (GiB).

      2^10 bytes (1024) is a Kibibyte (KiB)
      2^20 bytes is a Mibibyte (MiB)
      2^40 bytes is a Tibibyte (TiB)

      There are even a few people who took notice of the decision and switched usage.

    • Now all we need is for HD manufacturers to stop defining "Gigabyte" as "1 billion bytes"

      But Giga does mean 1 billion. Why on earth do some people in IT believe they can define a unit prefix differently to the rest of the scientific world?

      It was an acceptably lazy hack back when the difference between 1024 (2^10) & 1000 was negligible, but now units of 2^30 are common, we're starting to the consequences of such laziness.

      Its not going to be long before units of 2^100 are common. I don't know about you, bu

  • by GrpA (691294) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:24AM (#24917377)

    I find it very hard to imagine Sony doing anything altruistic at all. They are to Hardware what Microsoft is to Software.

    So I'm wondering what's in it for them. Do they have some kind of new technology that when measured by the second method only, looks much better for them? Or perhaps their min-power usage number is the same as the movie-play version...

    I'm only guessing, but I can't imagine Sony would be doing this just for the benefit of consumers, if they didn't get something out of it, since other manufacturers will still be using the old method of measuring this.

    GrpA

  • no lying? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rarel (697734) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:36AM (#24917435) Homepage
    So they will give the expected yield of their batteries in kilotonnes now? Right?
    • They will run the battery realistically but give the answer in crazy units - 5.7x10^-7 millennia. And in case you want to just check the capacity of the battery, that's 550 liter-atmospheres.

  • by Candid88 (1292486) on Monday September 08 2008, @05:04AM (#24917523)

    There would simply be no point in selling laptops with more than 2 days battery life anymore, in 2 days time we'll all be dead anyway (or sucked into a parrallel universe to experience a fate even worse than death!)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider [wikipedia.org]

  • Sony? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bert64 (520050) <bert@@@slashdot...firenzee...com> on Monday September 08 2008, @06:17AM (#24917791) Homepage

    So do their figures represent "how long the battery will last before it runs out of power" or "how long the battery will last before it catches fire" ?