Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

tuxedocomputers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 245 posts

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#151

Post by nazgulsenpai »

nextos wrote: post #140
tpush wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am able to squeeze 5% more battery from a MacBook Air 11'' Late 2012 using Linux vs macOS. > The key aspect is to [...] use no desktop environment, [...] Is this satire?

No, it's not. Keep in mind in Linux, desktop environment means a big framework such as GNOME or KDE that runs on top of X or Wayland, i.e. a graphics server. You can run bare X or Wayland, plus a window manager and cherry-picked daemons, to achieve the same sort of functionality e.g. desktop notifications, network roaming or device automounting. My point is that bare X plus cherry-picked services tends to be much mor…

Not sure why you're being down voted when a lot of us just use X with a window manager instead of a full fat DE.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#152

Post by lightedman »

prima-facie wrote: post #122
seabrookmx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of Linux apologists in your replies but my experience is exactly the same _with a laptop that supports Linux_ (Framework laptop). I'm running a very recent kernel in Fedora and have tried numerous power saving mechanisms (currently autocpufreq, although it's results are not much different from gnome PPD) and I'm lucky if I get 3 hours from the thing while running 10-15 FF tabs and a single instance of V…

That's probably because of BDProcHot throttling shenanigans on Windows. It's no use having 9hrs battery life if your CPU runs at 800Mhz.

"It's no use having 9hrs battery life if your CPU runs at 800Mhz."

800MHz would be more than enough processing power for most things I do. Just about virtually everything we do now, we were doing when 400MHz Celerons existed.

Nobody does efficient coding any longer.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#153

Post by [deleted] »

nextos wrote: post #150
CoolCold wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that X13s looks underpowered comparing to Apple's laptops, but from my understanding of reviews - it's working machine, not a proof of concept of WoA style gimmick

Qualcomm claim they are releasing a CPU that is comparable to the M1/2 lineup next year. The X13s can run Linux fairly well right now, so it's promising. IMHO, ARM CPUs are going to eat the low and mid-end laptop market due to their energy-saving advantage.

[deleted]

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#154

Post by cbsmith »

cbsmith wrote: post #135
seabrookmx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of Linux apologists in your replies but my experience is exactly the same _with a laptop that supports Linux_ (Framework laptop). I'm running a very recent kernel in Fedora and have tried numerous power saving mechanisms (currently autocpufreq, although it's results are not much different from gnome PPD) and I'm lucky if I get 3 hours from the thing while running 10-15 FF tabs and a single instance of V…

Framework's Linux support is very... DYI. I would say it's a long step away from a laptop designed for Linux (the new Chromebook offering being the exception that proves the rule). > It's not Linux's fault per se, it's just that there's considerably less engineering manpower going into tuning the power efficiency of laptop hardware on Linux. You're not wrong, but it's worse than that. A lot of the power management is…

> I would argue that Chromebooks are pretty solid proof that it isn't Linux's fault, because they by and large Linux systems that get fantastic power management results.

Sorry, that should read:

"I would argue that Chromebooks are pretty solid proof that it isn't Linux's fault, because they are Linux systems that by and large get fantastic power management results.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#155

Post by nextos »

nazgulsenpai wrote: post #151
nextos wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Keep in mind in Linux, desktop environment means a big framework such as GNOME or KDE that runs on top of X or Wayland, i.e. a graphics server. You can run bare X or Wayland, plus a window manager and cherry-picked daemons, to achieve the same sort of functionality e.g. desktop notifications, network roaming or device automounting. My point is that bare X plus cherry-picked services tends to be much mor…

Not sure why you're being down voted when a lot of us just use X with a window manager instead of a full fat DE.

Me neither. Sadly, I think some users think no desktop environment means no graphics at all, or perhaps a very primitive graphical setup.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#156

Post by numpad0 »

gandalfgeek wrote: post #19

Isn't it a searing indictment of the entire Intel laptop chip lineup that a MacBook Air M1 has half the battery capacity (50Wh) while giving easily twice the battery life with as good or better performance -- and with no fans!

> with as good or better performance

I don’t know, just the other day I saw someone warning against falling for M1/M2 for StableDiffusion inference(people buy new computers to run SD apparently!), claiming that same code take two orders of magnitude longer on M1/M2 against a 3080.

So maybe an M1/M2 Air isn’t faster than Intel(+NVIDIA) machine at TDP, maybe it’s magnificent that it’s only 100 times slower than a proper desktop, maybe it is still a lightweight ARM laptop, just (salivatingly) nice ones.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#157

Post by andrepd »

seabrookmx wrote: post #75
slashdev wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a searing indictment of Linux. I get less than half the battery life on my Alienware AMD laptop under Linux than under Windows. I don't know what Linux is doing wrong here, but it is not energy efficient.

There's a lot of Linux apologists in your replies but my experience is exactly the same _with a laptop that supports Linux_ (Framework laptop). I'm running a very recent kernel in Fedora and have tried numerous power saving mechanisms (currently autocpufreq, although it's results are not much different from gnome PPD) and I'm lucky if I get 3 hours from the thing while running 10-15 FF tabs and a single instance of V…

n=1. Want another n=1? I have up to 9h on Linux but never more than 5h on Windows.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#158

Post by andrepd »

mrguyorama wrote: post #81
seabrookmx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of Linux apologists in your replies but my experience is exactly the same _with a laptop that supports Linux_ (Framework laptop). I'm running a very recent kernel in Fedora and have tried numerous power saving mechanisms (currently autocpufreq, although it's results are not much different from gnome PPD) and I'm lucky if I get 3 hours from the thing while running 10-15 FF tabs and a single instance of V…

>It's not Linux's fault per se It IS linux's fault, in the way that whenever someone new comes into the ecosystem and says "hey this important thing doesn't work well or is broken for me" and get accosted from all directions by crazy people who haven't touched mac or windows in 20 years who insist that what you describe isn't possible, linux is super easy to fix yourself (lol), and that ideas from computing in the 60…

No post body was provided.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#159

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

seabrookmx wrote: post #75
slashdev wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a searing indictment of Linux. I get less than half the battery life on my Alienware AMD laptop under Linux than under Windows. I don't know what Linux is doing wrong here, but it is not energy efficient.

There's a lot of Linux apologists in your replies but my experience is exactly the same _with a laptop that supports Linux_ (Framework laptop). I'm running a very recent kernel in Fedora and have tried numerous power saving mechanisms (currently autocpufreq, although it's results are not much different from gnome PPD) and I'm lucky if I get 3 hours from the thing while running 10-15 FF tabs and a single instance of V…

I'm very disappointed in my Framework/PopOS!

Ships with Linux, some good marketing. I think PopOS! has lost the thread on why they exist, in that it started as an 'it just works' version of linux, and it seems to be managed as yet another enthusiast grade linux. It doesn't take much time over at r/popos to see this sentiment spelled out.

I'm not leaving the linux ecosystem, but I can tell you i'd be shocked if I go with either Framework again. Majorly disappointed for what should have been a top tier system when I bought it. I'm on the fence about PopOS. I need an OS that works out of the gate and doesn't break things like audio and bluetooth down the road (both of which are borked in the current version).

Idk. Hard time to be committed to FOSS, but the options aren't better.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#160

Post by cooperadymas »

1letterunixname wrote: post #103

So? The T480 has a 24 Wh internal battery and a 72 Wh removable battery. I have 4 of the 72 Wh and an external charger. 55 hours of runtime. What's the big deal?

My X201 has no battery and a charge cord. Infinite runtime.

It's easy if you change the parameters.

Post reply on HN