MacBook Pro Mountain Lion Battery Life: 10.7 vs 10.8 vs 10.8.1

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/macbook_pro_mountain_lion_battery_life_10.7_vs_10.8_vs_10.8.1/

by tanousjm • 14 years ago

20 10 14 years ago

macobserver.com

jval• 14 years ago

Dear Apple,

Please spend part of your enormous amount of cash reserves building a crack team to fix this.

Regards,

Users.

toadkick• 14 years ago

I wish they would/could also include Snow Leopard in this comparison. I lost about 20-30% of my battery life after upgrading to Lion, so the further reduction seems pretty horrible. Guess I'll be waiting a little longer still before upgrading to Mountain Lion.

tanousjm3• 14 years ago

Hi toadkick, That's a great idea. Our 2011 MacBook Pro that we used in the test can run 10.6, so this weekend I'll see if I can roll it back and run the tests on Snow Leopard for comparison.

benologist2• 14 years ago

How are macobserver not banned for spamming yet?

- http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=tanousjm

- http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=jmartellaro

- http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=digiwizard

- http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=davethenerd

- http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=Semteksam

joshu• 14 years ago

Good eye.

I did spam mitigation for years elsewhere. This stuff still makes me twitch.

tanousjm3• 14 years ago

Hey benologist, I can see you're frustrated by the frequent submissions that The Mac Observer and other tech sites make to HN. I've read a lot of your commentary on the topic and I agree with many of your points.

In my own personal opinion, it's not cool to simply dump every article that a site publishes to places like HN, Reddit, etc. I also agree that a lot of sites generate content solely as "link bait," fill their articles with useless internal links, and offer no real substance other than to re-report what some other site said.

However, in this case, and in the relatively few articles I've submitted to HN and other places (check my profile), I think that the content is both original and of general interest to the HN community.

I'm not going to lie: there's definitely a problem with many sites "spamming" HN, but in some cases there's arguably a legitimate reason to submit a story. If you don't agree, could you please elaborate on why?

As for me, I'll continue to submit infrequent stories from The Mac Observer and other sites that I think offer original perspective and are of potential interest. If you think this is unreasonable, please let me know.

benologist2• 14 years ago

I think a pretty easy distinction is whether someone's actually part of the community adding value, or they're just extracting it.

Content worth being submitted will find its way here without employees dumping links like clockwork and if it doesn't end up here then maybe that means something too.

evoxed• 14 years ago

My very very unscientific personal test from earlier today (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4423422) ended up showing pretty similar results. Ultimately it died about an hour or two before it "should", but it's a noticeable improvement.

mikeash• 14 years ago

How many tests did they run with each configuration? What is the margin of error on the results? The article mentions differences of just a few minutes at least twice, but I strongly doubt the tests are accurate enough to distinguish at that level. I certainly get the impression that each configuration was tested once, which means the results are practically useless.

MacBook Pro Mountain Lion Battery Life: 10.7 vs 10.8 vs 10.8.1

Related Stories