Mini laptops - Opinions/Experiences
Oct 11, 2008 21:16:30 GMT
Post by CharlieChomper on Oct 11, 2008 21:16:30 GMT
The Asus battery problem, for the pre-901/1000 series models, was a slightly different problem from how long it would take between recharging (although, the problem did affect that as well). It basically was causing problems in the sense of where the battery was still going even after the computer was turned on (the amount was somewhere in the area of 10% per day, so it wasn't exactly as though the user would turn the thing on the next day and find the thing "drained" and in need of a definite recharge, but still) and it also contributed toward shorter lifespans for the batteries (as batteries can only deal with so many recharges--this applies to every type of rechargeable battery on the market).
The use of the Celeron M processor also appeared to play a role in the matter for those early models as in order to get it working, the company ended up underclocking the processor (a practice that is generally not recommended, but it is doesn't present the same level of risks nor is nearly as frowned upon as the practice of overclocking--the latter is far worse and actually can be dangerous) which had an unintended consequence where battery usage was concerned and somehow very strangely caused things to where the battery didn't quite know the system was turned off and it wasn't needed. They chose the Celeron M, partly due to costs, availability, and general power consumption (at the time, there weren't really many choices of processors and even just chipsets for the consumer market available which fit the lower-power/lower-cost criteria to choose from as while AMD does have an entry in that market, they also don't have close to the same level of access to or number of fab facilities that Intel has
The problem also had the unintentional effect of where just reviewers of the earlier models would find varying running times in between recharges. The reason for that had more to do with the company using different batteries for different "regions", mainly due to compliance issues. People in the UK had it the worst, followed by people in other parts of Europe as both areas had to use batteries which fell within guidelines and restrictions in place within those areas. In order to address this, Asus did offer an extended warranty for European users (as well as those in the US), whereas in the UK, they established a program that just ended in July of where it would allow for the exchange of the old batteries for new ones.
As of the 901 and 1000s, this problem has definitely been resolved however.
As to Acer, the differing statistics for the battery life in between charges depends more upon the operating system you choose. There's a reason as to why you won't find Windows XP on embedded devices, aside from cost issues, (although, its "relative", the aptly-named WinCe which is Microsoft's entry in the embedded market, isn't that much better as far as problems and terrible resource management, but I digress)--it can be very demanding of resources in ways that are not in the best interest of efficiency. This is also why you're actually much more likely, again aside from cost issues, to run into an embedded device with Linux (although, even within the embedded market, both are still relative minorities--there's another operating system in this market that retains the majority of it mainly due to lower cost and much better efficiency in all the important areas (size, power consumption, and resource management).
In the case of netbooks (which I put more in the realm of consumer-level computers), due to its requirements and handling of power management, some of them are coming with 3-cell batteries and others with 6-cells. However, because of the reasons mentioned above, the systems running XP seem to require recharging more frequently compared to the Linux systems. The 3-cells appear to be up and running for approximately 3 hours if you're running Linux (potentially, less in XP) and 7 hours if you are using the 6-cell battery in Linux (again, potentially less in XP).
Assuming the recharge times you were looking at were statistics for XP, then it would make sense that they would have a shorter time to be up and running between charges because of how the operating system handles things. It isn't a "slight" against XP anymore than it should be seen as such against Acer so much as just how Microsoft chose to approach the subject. Different operating systems tend to handle resource management differently.
With Asus, however, the batteries appear to vary depending upon the operating system, model, and even region. Given that different regions (ie EU Europe versus UK or US, etc.) have different requirements or restrictions in place for batteries, times that are often listed are not definite and tend to be more of rough idea if that makes any sense. Generally-speaking, the older models are, of course, going to have a shorter span of time that you can have them up and running before they require another recharge. The 901 and later models seem to be up for longer periods of time (by several hours at times, but again, it depends upon the model).
The use of the Celeron M processor also appeared to play a role in the matter for those early models as in order to get it working, the company ended up underclocking the processor (a practice that is generally not recommended, but it is doesn't present the same level of risks nor is nearly as frowned upon as the practice of overclocking--the latter is far worse and actually can be dangerous) which had an unintended consequence where battery usage was concerned and somehow very strangely caused things to where the battery didn't quite know the system was turned off and it wasn't needed. They chose the Celeron M, partly due to costs, availability, and general power consumption (at the time, there weren't really many choices of processors and even just chipsets for the consumer market available which fit the lower-power/lower-cost criteria to choose from as while AMD does have an entry in that market, they also don't have close to the same level of access to or number of fab facilities that Intel has
The problem also had the unintentional effect of where just reviewers of the earlier models would find varying running times in between recharges. The reason for that had more to do with the company using different batteries for different "regions", mainly due to compliance issues. People in the UK had it the worst, followed by people in other parts of Europe as both areas had to use batteries which fell within guidelines and restrictions in place within those areas. In order to address this, Asus did offer an extended warranty for European users (as well as those in the US), whereas in the UK, they established a program that just ended in July of where it would allow for the exchange of the old batteries for new ones.
As of the 901 and 1000s, this problem has definitely been resolved however.
As to Acer, the differing statistics for the battery life in between charges depends more upon the operating system you choose. There's a reason as to why you won't find Windows XP on embedded devices, aside from cost issues, (although, its "relative", the aptly-named WinCe which is Microsoft's entry in the embedded market, isn't that much better as far as problems and terrible resource management, but I digress)--it can be very demanding of resources in ways that are not in the best interest of efficiency. This is also why you're actually much more likely, again aside from cost issues, to run into an embedded device with Linux (although, even within the embedded market, both are still relative minorities--there's another operating system in this market that retains the majority of it mainly due to lower cost and much better efficiency in all the important areas (size, power consumption, and resource management).
In the case of netbooks (which I put more in the realm of consumer-level computers), due to its requirements and handling of power management, some of them are coming with 3-cell batteries and others with 6-cells. However, because of the reasons mentioned above, the systems running XP seem to require recharging more frequently compared to the Linux systems. The 3-cells appear to be up and running for approximately 3 hours if you're running Linux (potentially, less in XP) and 7 hours if you are using the 6-cell battery in Linux (again, potentially less in XP).
Assuming the recharge times you were looking at were statistics for XP, then it would make sense that they would have a shorter time to be up and running between charges because of how the operating system handles things. It isn't a "slight" against XP anymore than it should be seen as such against Acer so much as just how Microsoft chose to approach the subject. Different operating systems tend to handle resource management differently.
With Asus, however, the batteries appear to vary depending upon the operating system, model, and even region. Given that different regions (ie EU Europe versus UK or US, etc.) have different requirements or restrictions in place for batteries, times that are often listed are not definite and tend to be more of rough idea if that makes any sense. Generally-speaking, the older models are, of course, going to have a shorter span of time that you can have them up and running before they require another recharge. The 901 and later models seem to be up for longer periods of time (by several hours at times, but again, it depends upon the model).
