91–100 of 245 posts
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!
How can they claim 16h of work - I own an Asus m16 with the same CPU and a 90Wh battery and after some tweaking my Ubuntu drains 9.xWh without touching anything ... With Firefox open it already consumes 12wH - so I guess I can be happy if I can get 6h of work done with one load and this laptop here can't do much better...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate why these architectures give better battery life?
I don't think I know enough to give a great answer. The obvious is TSMC's "7nm" and iterative 6nm enables greater efficiency over "Intel 7." Beyond that, presumably there's some IPC advantage that means more work can be done with the same clocks and power draw. It's odd, because 12th gen is quite performant and seems efficient, and yet somehow the battery life isn't very good.
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…
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 for as long as possible. This is where Linux really shines, as X plus a window manager is much lighter than anything else.
There is still some room for improvement with a custom kernel, a custom Firefox build or a better wireless card, the only non-Intel component. Broadcom Linux drivers are awful. Also Safari is a marvel in terms of efficiency.
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…
I'm not convinced Framework actually supports Linux, though. AFAICT, it supports Windows and can ship with no OS, and you have to do the rest yourself. To predictable end (e.g. having to deal with kernel parameters to make it work.) The firmware involved is also distinctly non-trivial.
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.
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 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.
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…
Linux just is worse on battery than any of the other mainstream OSs in my experience, though the margin has reduced over time. It's still my platform of choice (because even now, in 2022, the choices available are crap), but denial makes them disappear only from the imagination, not reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the way the market works. How about vendors focus on delivering a quality product, with good hardware and software, proper QA and support, and fair prices? Hell, I'm sure many Linux users would be willing to pay a premium if all the other aspects are there. Linux will never be a mainstream option with these low effort products.
> Hell, I'm sure many Linux users would be willing to pay a premium if all the other aspects are there. Evidence so far indicates that they do not, when given the chance.
Dell and Lenovo generally do a pretty good job, and those machines sell well, but I think the quality is still below what, say, Apple can deliver. Judging by the push to get Linux to run on Apple hardware, I'd say Linux enthusiasts are not only willing to pay a premium for a quality product, but willing to invest time and effort getting it to run well in a hostile and closed ecosystem.
So I think there's a big market opportunity for someone to deliver Apple quality hardware, that integrates well with open source software. Framework is probably at the frontlines in this regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the way the market works. How about vendors focus on delivering a quality product, with good hardware and software, proper QA and support, and fair prices? Hell, I'm sure many Linux users would be willing to pay a premium if all the other aspects are there. Linux will never be a mainstream option with these low effort products.
> Hell, I'm sure many Linux users would be willing to pay a premium if all the other aspects are there. Evidence so far indicates that they do not, when given the chance.