mavrothal at yahoo.com
Sat May 26 04:59:15 EDT 2012
Since I'm trying to figure this strange battery issue ( http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2012-May/035198.html ) I also tried to test the XO-1(os880), XO-1.5(os883) and -1.75(os10) battery life and thought to report it. It might be of help to someone.
The "strange" battery was not part of this test of course (though its results are quite comparable with the good batteries).
All batteries were fully charged. The XO-1.75 and thus its battery is ~1.5 years newer that the ones in the XO-1, -1.5
The test was done is Sugar and during the entire test the backlight was on and the "rolling" count output was displayed in the terminal activity. The XOs were associated with the same AP but no network or other activity was running.
Battery level was determined from the power-logs (the second column)
For the test, the CPUs were running this simple loop script in terminal:
echo “Count is: $count”
Starting from fully charged batteries after ~70 minutes of running the XO-1 was at 60% the XO-1.5 at 55% and the XO-1.75 at 80% (It can really go 5 hours :-)
The "count" displayed at the end of the run from the script was
7575933 for the XO-1.75, 12542538 for the XO-1.5 and 4618306 for the XO-1.
I can appreciate that this is far from a CPU/computer performance test but taking counts just as an *indication* of CPU/FPU performance would imply that the XO-1.75 is 65% faster than the XO-1 but 40% slower(?) than the XO-1.5.
Considering counts/discharge however, the XO-1.75 appears 33% more efficient than the XO-1.5 and 320%(!) more efficient than the XO-1
One thing I noticed is that while on the XO-1 and XO-1.5 the output was a constant stream of new lines without and "hesitations" and the cursor barely visible, on the XO-1.75 were "hesitations" and the cursor was appearing at the end of the line during these "hiccups".
I was wondering if this might be related to X performance rather but still affects the final result on the XO-1.75.
More information about the Devel