Here is an older, portable Macintosh with more (claimed) battery life than most of the modern Macs.
Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
41–50 of 52 posts
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#42Oh Macbook Air. For some reason my tired brain kept thinking about what an Air Battery would look like.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#43Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it to mean they were factoring in the computing power as well. i.e. they estimated that it would take 72,000 Watts-worth of 1990s computers to match the processing power of a Macbook Air. Though that does add further caveats to an already less-than-ideal comparison (as an MBA is not going to last seven hours at 100% CPU load).
Sounds like they ought to mention how long that is in football fields.
I wonder how many library congresses a modern iPad holds.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you placed all the iPhones in the world end to end on a line, some of them would be in the ocean. There, I wrote about iPhones. Now give me my ad revenue.
How many iPhones in the world? If I guessed about 100 million that would be about 8000 miles, which wouldn't necessarily be in the ocean if you started the line in Europe and cut across Russia/Eurasia.
I'd chuck mine in the ocean just to make it true.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#46Retarded.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#47Um, I doubt this, very very much. The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts! Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
[deleted]
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#48Um, I doubt this, very very much. The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts! Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
I'm being pedantic here -- units are Serious Business -- but "W/h" is "Watts per hour". You want "Watt hours", which you could write "W-h".
Or as Wh. Like we write Nm for Newtonmeter.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#49If only battery technology had kept up with computing technology. We'd definitely all be driving electric cars today if that happened. The best (commercial) batteries today are only a few times better than the ones used in electric cars 100 years ago.
I've read the rate of improvement for batteries is around 8% a year. That's still exponential, just not as good as transistor count. But nothing else improves that fast.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#50Oh Macbook Air. For some reason my tired brain kept thinking about what an Air Battery would look like.
Something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2a3uTU0fgc