Study compares claimed laptop battery life and reality

[TooNice]

Anyone who buys something based on a claim by a company, should always expect to be disappointed.

The problem is that we have nothing else to go with, and people -do- use laptops on the go where it -is- a factor.

If every reviewers start emphasising claimed vs actual, and start to name and shame the biggest offenders, perhaps, just perhaps manufacturers will put more restraints when bending the truth.

But then again, many reviewers probably rely on manufacturers providing them with the test rigs, so it might be a difficult movement to start.

[TheAnimus]

or what browsing software was used.

Which is why this is garbage.

[watercooled]

I've always disliked these sorts of criticisms. I'm fully aware claimed numbers can usually only be achieved under specific circumstances. But I also know full well how to tweak and monitor battery consumption such that my laptops have pretty much always managed to match or exceed their claimed battery life numbers. My Dell, Samsung, HP, Acer, Fujitsu and Toshiba laptops have all managed to live up claims if you know what you're doing.

Therefore I'd rather know the true maximum it can achieve rather than some dumbed down number made for "typical" consumers. And I also hate those new rules on broadband speed claims. A claim of "Up to 16Mbps" or "Up to 24Mbps" or "Up to 40Mbps" will tell me exactly what technology it uses and I can measure my line to determine how much I'll actually get. A rating of "Up to 14Mbps" based on 10% of customers getting that average speed tells me nothing useful. Is it using ADSL1? ADS2? VDSL1/2? 16Mbps cap? 24Mbps cap? Who knows. By rating it down they get an excuse to fob off customers on a faster 24Mbps line with a fault reducing their speed to 14Mbps because well, they never claimed 24Mbps did they!

I want to know what my equipment is capable of, not some obfuscated "average" crap, especially when it's easy enough to access reviews or tests under specific conditions.

I'm going slightly off-topic, but I agree. Regardless of what average (i.e. mean/median) is used, it's really no more useful than the limit imposed by the technology used, as a headline figure. ISPs already provide estimates based around BTW's speed checker which is as close to a realistic estimate as you're going to get, so I don't get what this average nonsense is supposed to achieve, and is already having a demonstrably negative effect on the market as ISPs like Sky are booting off lower-speed customers in order to raise this average - proving how utterly idiotic the 'average speed' is - booting off a few long-line customers obviously isn't going to improve your speed, yet according to this oh-so-useful 'average', you'd think otherwise!

Don't you just love it when politicians stick their nose into things they have no clue about?

[ik9000]

Don't you just love it when politicians stick their nose into things they have no clue about?

<cough cough> Brexit. <Cough> (but that's for another thread)