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

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#211

Post by zwaps »

nextos wrote: post #107
XorNot wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and to use no desktop environment, Why do people write comments like this as though it's reasonable way to use an everyday driver PC? "I don't use a DE" - well then yes, obviously but you've also removed like 80% of the functionality to turn the thing into a dumb console. That's not what I want to use a computer for.

No, DE doesn't mean I have a dumb console. It just means it's a bit lighter. I have all services a modern desktop has, I still run X plus a window manager. I imagine Xfce or even GNOME 3 can be tweaked a bit to be almost equally energy efficient.

I see no evidence that anyone has ever achieved energy efficiency and battery runtime comparable to windows or macos machines using Xfce or Gnome.

Would love to see what it would take.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#212

Post by zwaps »

slaw wrote: post #210
bogwog wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually one of the big reasons I've held off on buying one (although the #1 reason is lack of AMD options), and am eyeing laptops from HP and Lenovo that actually advertise full Linux support (like the HP Dev One). Even if those laptops don't support Linux as well as they claim to, it seems like it'd be less of a headache to deal with than Framework with their unique dongle situation.

HP Dev One hits all checkboxes except it has very glossy screen.

Only available in the USA sadly

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#213

Post by zwaps »

thefz wrote: post #67
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!

It's always the same story. Intel makes the chip, other people makes the software that runs on it. Apple makes both. On the better permormance, I have yet to see. This laptop drives 4 external displays, M1 or M2 can do the same?

Uh,yes?

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#214

Post by olq »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #53
zamalek wrote: post #40

> Configure your InfinityBook Pro 14 optionally with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti and turn your lightweight business laptop into an ultra-portable gaming console! Why are so many Linux laptops NVIDIA? It know that we have the OS kernel + blob userspace option now, but it's still early days. My desktop is AMD, my laptop is NVIDIA, and the difference is night-and-day. I would honestly have an IGPU in a laptop over NV…

Because NVidia works in Linux. Intel isn't really accelerated, and AMD is buggy and doesn't do GPU compute acceleration terribly well.

This is completely false. Modern Nvidia cards on linux can barely get pixels on the screen and does not have power saving modes.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#215

Post by ranguna »

goodpoint wrote: post #63
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.

Don't blame Linux developers for the behavior of OEMs and your choice of hardware.

So now it's my hardware's fault that my battery is better on Windows than on Linux?

Come on...

That's like saying: this piece of software is great but only under very specific conditions, everything else is non standard and you can't complain.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#216

Post by ranguna »

b112 wrote: post #102
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!

It's mostly systemd's fault.

Probably the gpu's fault as well, I have to restart my laptop if I want the gpu turned off or on. With it on l and barely using it, I get an extra 11-15W of power usage .

Also I'm not sure how mature performance/efficiency cores are supported on Linux right now.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#217

Post by yywwbbn »

zwaps wrote: post #213
thefz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always the same story. Intel makes the chip, other people makes the software that runs on it. Apple makes both. On the better permormance, I have yet to see. This laptop drives 4 external displays, M1 or M2 can do the same?

Uh,yes?

You can connect just one external display to an m1 air.

So no..

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#218

Post by midoridensha »

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…

>The linux ecosystem doesn't even have a legitimate window manager.

The rest is largely correct, but this part is completely wrong. Linux has a bunch of legitimate window managers, most of them much better than MacOSX or Windows.

The problems with window managers on Linux are: 1) fragmentation: there's a bunch of them, all competing with each other, but with insufficient dev resources, so they all feel half-baked, 2) unreliability: because of #1, they have a lot of bugs 3) churn: with Gnome and KDE specifically, they keep throwing things out just as they finally make their product mature and starting over every so often, subjecting users to systems that are never really mature or reliable.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#219

Post by CoolCold »

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.

> The X13s can run Linux fairly well right now, so it's promising.

May be, was not paying attention to it, I'm overall skeptical of Linux-on-desktop camp.

Re: 99Wh Battery Linux Laptop

#220

Post by adrian_b »

pdntspa wrote: post #112
nextos wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Linux is not less efficient than other major OSes. I am able to squeeze 5% more battery from a MacBook Air 11'' Late 2012 using Linux vs macOS. This is possible because the machine is basically a pure Intel device, so in-kernel support for most hardware components is good. The key aspect is to implement fairly aggressive udev rules and to use no desktop environment, so that the CPU stays in powersaving states…

I think a lot of this boils down to the distribution you install, what kind of background services it runs, and how effective its energy tunings are. As an example, IMO an idle computer should have all CPU save one or two at 0% utilization, and that remaining CPU(s) shouldn't be averaging more than a few percent, in short spiky bursts. FreeBSD or Debian are like this, but Ubuntu is not.

Yes, saying that a laptop runs "Linux" does not provide any useful information when talking about battery life.

I use Gentoo on a Dell Precision laptop and I do not see any battery lifetime difference between it and Windows.

However, I do not doubt that with other Linux distributions or with a Gentoo that has a very different configuration, the results would not be the same.

I think that it is very wrong to say that a laptop with Linux has a worse battery life than one with Windows, but it is right to say that in many cases a laptop with Linux needs an experienced user to configure it properly, in order to have the same battery life that it would have with Windows out of the box.

On the other hand, when installing Windows 10 Enterprise on embedded computers, I have encountered many cases when Linux had great performance in a default installation, while with Windows 10 I had to waste many days with tuning, e.g. with discovering that certain services must be disabled, until obtaining an acceptable performance.

Post reply on HN