Apple's 15-inch 2010 MacBook Pro: More Battery Life Tests, High Res Display Evaluatedby Anand Lal Shimpi on April 24, 2010 1:57 AM EST
- Posted in
- MacBook Pro
Snow Leopard Battery Life Issues with Flash: Fixed
Snow Leopard brought forth 64-bit versions of many Apple applications. Finder, TextEdit and Safari (among others) could now run in x86-64 mode. However, last year I found that browsing websites that used Flash with 64-bit Safari dropped battery life by over 40% in Snow Leopard compared to 32-bit Safari in Leopard. To fix the problem you had to force Safari to launch in 32-bit mode.
While Apple never recognized the problem nor discussed why it happened to begin with, it appears that it’s since been addressed in OS X 10.6.3. The results below tell all:
|Snow Leopard Battery Life Improvement|
|Flash Web Browsing Battery Life||OS X 10.6.1||OS X 10.6.3|
|15-inch MacBook Pro (Mid 2009) - Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz||277 minutes||344 minutes|
Flash web browsing battery life improved tremendously from the original release of Snow Leopard. While it's still not as high as in Leopard, it's a definite improvement.
Windows 7 Battery Life
A handful of users asked that I look at battery life under Windows 7. Being your humble servant, I of course obliged. I attempted to recreate my OS X benchmarks under Windows 7 as best as possible, using Chrome and Windows Media Player in place of Safari and iTunes of course. You can’t draw any conclusions about OS X vs. Windows 7 battery life from these numbers however. As I mentioned in the original review, under Windows 7 the MacBook Pro keeps the discrete GPU enabled 100% of the time. There’s no way to shut it off. Battery life will inevitably be lower than OS X.
|Windows 7 Battery Life|
|Light Web Browsing||Flash Web Browsing||XviD Playback|
|15-inch MacBook Pro (Mid 2010) - Core i7 2.66GHz||255 minutes||255 minutes||153 minutes|
It appears that the dGPU being on all the time is the reason we can't get better browser battery life regardless of workload. The XviD playback test also takes a hit compared to OS X thanks to the discrete GPU. In our previous articles we found OS X to be roughly equal to Windows 7 in XviD battery life.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
Howard - Saturday, April 24, 2010 - linkCan't say I'd ever want a glossy screen.
vol7ron - Saturday, April 24, 2010 - linkI don't understand this, I like glossy screens. Everyone else seems to be against them. Of course, I rarely do anything outside. If I did, I'd probably get a removable screen attachment.
softdrinkviking - Saturday, April 24, 2010 - linki like glossies too, and i don't ever notice any glare.
i think there is just an assumption that glossy is bad or something, or
people are convinced that it's a gimmick.
maybe it is, but i like 'em.
Grabo - Saturday, April 24, 2010 - linkEh? Since it's relatively hard nowadays to find a portable with a matte screen I must conclude that most people are like you, i.e attached to glossy screens.
I despise them. Most desktop monitors (still) aren't glossy, and thus I see them as painting a more accurate picture. Glossies increase saturation and contrast, something which then is a lie, even though most people absolutely adore it.
hybrid2d4x4 - Saturday, April 24, 2010 - linkI've got natural light coming into the living room from ~135deg around me, and the glossy displays on family members' laptops are completely useless in that room- it's all reflections. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd like to be able to use a laptop outdoors (and probably would). There's no way I'm ever gonna settle for glossy, even if it means never buying a laptop.
MadMan007 - Saturday, April 24, 2010 - linkGlossy is fine on a desktop monitor where you can control the environment. On a laptop though? Hells no.
orthorim - Monday, April 26, 2010 - linkI have a 17" glossy. I like sunlight and a view, and working near windows with this laptop is very annoying, way too much reflection. In addition, I don't see how anything looks much better on the glossy screen - possible exception movies which really look fantastic on my screen.
But this is primarily a work laptop, and as such, it has a major flaw with the glossy screen. When working in Cafes or near a window, I have to crank up brightness all the way to the max, which then reduces battery life.
I will go with matte again next time. The gains from glossy are minimal, the downside clearly outweighs this. If you never go outside or don't live in a sunny climate, maybe it doesn't matter. I am in the tropics, and I love to see the outside when working.
iamezza - Sunday, April 25, 2010 - linkI agree. I don't use a laptop much outdoors, but when I'm indoors there is usually bright light coming in from the windows that can cause a lot of glare.
Socratic - Monday, April 26, 2010 - linkHave to agree with others here. I much prefer a matte screen. If there are any windows in the room the glare at certain times of the day on a glossy screen makes it unusable, at least for me. In an editing room or business environment with no outside lighting, I can see the appeal. I have however seen offices that the glare from the over head fluorescent lighting was so bad that users had to hang something over the top of the monitor on a glossy screen to be able to use it.
cjhao - Saturday, April 24, 2010 - link'MacBook Pro brought posted some incredible battery life numbers'
i created an account because you guys are great, so i wanted to help maintain the awesome reputation in my small way by pointing this out