Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Touts 25 Hour Battery Life For Haswell-Equipped Vaio Pro

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the all-day-long dept.

Power 154

An anonymous reader writes "Sony claims that both the new 11.6-inch and 13.3-inch models of its Haswell-equipped Vaio Pro ultrabooks are the world's lightest. The 11.6-inch model weighs in at 1.9lb (0.87k , where as the 13.3-incher is a little heavier at just 2.33lb (1.06kg). But it's the battery life on offer here that really makes the new Pros stand out. The 11.6-inch Vaio Pro offers 11 hours of battery life as standard, while the 13.3-inch achieves 8 hours. However, Sony is also offering a sheet battery you can connect to the base of the ultrabooks. On the 13.3-inch Pro that increases battery life to 18 hours, but on the 11.6-inch you get a true day-long amount of juice with 25 hours of battery life claimed."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Waiting for Apple (0, Offtopic)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | about a year ago | (#43920697)

Let's see what Apple can get away with in their next MacBook refresh...

Re:Waiting for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43920735)

Is Apple trying to compete with this? Or is this the obligatory Apple reference in every comment section?

Re:Waiting for Apple (3, Insightful)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | about a year ago | (#43920861)

It's the "obligatory Apple reference" (tm)

Given Haswell's power saving credentials and the retina MacPros are mainly just battery under the hood, it should get interesting.
(also thunderbolt 2 coming around the corner)

Re:Waiting for Apple (4, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43921295)

Pressure will be on Nvidia (or AMD) for the next one to improve GPU power consumption no doubt.

Yes, GPU switching helps, but there's still a bunch of dumb stuff which enables the high end GPU under OS X, and you'll see battery life literally HALVE as soon as that happens - even if the machine is mostly idle. At least thats my experience with my 2011 MBP 15".

Sure, more intelligent GPU switching improvements will help, but haswell will make the higher end GPUs a lot "more expensive" (relative to total machine power draw) to drive and make said GPU switching even more important.

Re:Waiting for Apple (3, Interesting)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#43922035)

The interesting thing will be what Apple chooses for the Mac Book Pro refresh. The Haswell Iris Pro is pretty darn close to the NV 650m in the current MBP and the NV 750M is probably only going to be about 40% faster than it. Not much point there. So either do without or build a MBP that can handle a hotter, more powerful card.

Re:Waiting for Apple (2)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43922051)

MBP 15 will stay discrete is my bet - for at least a couple more generations until intel catch up a bit more (its a big differentiator between pro and air at the moment). However an MBA with Haswell iris and 16GB of ram and 512GB of storage would be a very attractive prospect. Nvidia / AMD should be concerned...

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#43922617)

I was thinking more of a MBP13 with any i5 or i7, Iris Pro and an efficient 1366x768 LCD would be nice (1280x800 is current). TFA's new Sony only has HD Graphics 4400 and its 13" 1920×1080 LCD is completely useless to me.

I just wish Apple understood the value of a docking station.

Re:Waiting for Apple (1, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#43921359)

Retina = 99% of backlight doesn't get through = bright backlight required = lots of power consumption.
The higher the pixel density on an LCD the smaller the area the light can pass through - more space is wasted with the transistors on each pixel.

Lower power consumption CPU isn't going to do much if most of the power is used by the display and most of the inside is already comprised of battery. That's why the new Ipad has a similar battery life to the previous one, but twice the battery capacity - that and the extra GPU required to drive the extra pixels...

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

CountBrass (590228) | about a year ago | (#43921949)

Err. Maybe I am missing something but don't you WANT the light to pass through the LCD? In other words the 1% that you claim 'gets through' is actually the wasted light and it's the other "99%" that actually provides any value?

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about a year ago | (#43921981)

Err. Maybe I am missing something but don't you WANT the light to pass through the LCD?

Yes.

In other words the 1% that you claim 'gets through' is actually the wasted light and it's the other "99%" that actually provides any value?

No, that contradicts what you just asserted. I don't know where their 99% vs 1% numbers originally came from, but assuming they're accurate, they're suggesting that the 99% of backlight that doesn't get through is wasted energy and a massive battery killer.

Re:Waiting for Apple (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43922787)

The display has a certain amount of dead weight: first it turns regular light into polarised light by filtering out all of the light of the wrong polarisation, which is wasted, then you have a matrix of coloured filters where everything that's not the right colour is thrown out, then you have electronics around each subpixel which get in the way and block even more light. Before you actually show anything on the screen, you've thrown out well over 90% of the light you originally created.

The electronics part increases the more pixels you have, meaning more wasted energy, which is why retina displays require more backlighting.

Re:Waiting for Apple (4, Funny)

David_Hart (1184661) | about a year ago | (#43921399)

It's the "obligatory Apple reference" (tm)

Given Haswell's power saving credentials and the retina MacPros are mainly just battery under the hood, it should get interesting.
(also thunderbolt 2 coming around the corner)

There was a Thunderbolt 1.0? Did it do anything...?

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | about a year ago | (#43921645)

Just because we never used a particular function doesn't mean other people might want to.
(which is why I don't get why comparing the Sony to what Apple could presumably do got shouted down as being offtopic. Yes, some people have to, or prefer to use Apple products in their daily work and won't get this Sony laptop.)

But support for 4K for the video editors sounds pretty cool in TB2
My bet is that the new Mac Pro redesign will get it too.

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#43922065)

Support for 4K is native to the video output on intel's Haswell motherboards. I would hope Apple wouldn't be excluded from that.

Re:Waiting for Apple (2)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a year ago | (#43922593)

If you want to make a great laptop these days, Apple are your competition. The build quality of virtually everyone else has gone to shit. Shame about the chiclet keys though.

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#43922699)

Normally I'd agree, but there's nothing special in the Sony. The slab battery was a good idea when it was introduced many years ago. The hardware is weak (HD4400 GPU?) and 1920x1080 on a 13" monitor is stupid. They should market it with Beats headphones to make those Youtube videos sound better.

Re:Waiting for Apple (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43920755)

My Apple macbook pro already beats this Viao ... if I attach an external battery, I can get days of uptime ... of course, I'm not saying how big the battery is, what it costs or anything else.

So the vaio can run longer if you add a second, external battery ... and thats different than what we already have now how? Just because they made a clip on? Knowing Sony it comes with a keyboard sniffer, root kit, and a price tag thats larger than the laptop itself.

Re:Waiting for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43922391)

No it doesn't. This Vaio has a Haswell CPU, your Mac has some old piece of shit. Also if you'd read the article, you'd have seen the prices listed as $1150 and $1250.

Re:Waiting for Apple (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | about a year ago | (#43920901)

Say what you want about Apple, one thing you cannot (rationally) debate is that their claimed battery life is among the most accurate in the industry. Multiple reviews from multiple sources have basically all confirmed that Apple's battery life estimates are pretty accurate. Not saying that Sony's aren't accurate, but if you are going to hate, at least hate with facts instead of just making shit up.

Re:Waiting for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921451)

What did the the original poster make up? Seems like you are too sensitive and read into his sentence too much.

I guess only Apple would have thought to use new parts from their suppliers (Intel in this case).

Re:Waiting for Apple (1, Flamebait)

Clsid (564627) | about a year ago | (#43921465)

And I have to say that's one of the reasons I will always prefer a Mac laptop over a Windows laptop of any kind. The power management is truly something, and I can see a noticeable difference if I use Windows on Boot Camp and then use OSX.

Re:Waiting for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921713)

...Windows on Boot Camp...
Apple writes the power management drivers for that. While I can't discount Windows internals being part of the problem, you can't really say Apple laid down massive development time for Windows power management, can you?
Would a "Hackintosh" install on non-Apple hardware fair as well as the OS it was designed to run?

Re:Waiting for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921589)

Fuck that. apple has just learned to manipulate the results to sound better, just like everyone else. They are no better.

Re:Waiting for Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921723)

The fuck they aren't. I get noticabally better battery life from my OSX laptop than I do with my Windows laptop, with the same specs. They have better power management, end of story.

Even when running Windows or OSX on the same machine (via bootcamp), I can get an extra 1.5 to 2 hrs on the OSX side of things, running the same stuff.

Re:Waiting for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43922415)

That is easy to believe, considering your Mac can't do 99% of what your Windows laptop can do. If I leave my laptop idling, I can get massive battery life too.

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43922421)

Your response to multiple, independent sources demonstrating that a machine actually does perform as rated in everyday use is "nuh-uh"?

Re:Waiting for Apple (-1, Offtopic)

mjwx (966435) | about a year ago | (#43922003)

Say what you want about Apple, one thing you cannot (rationally) debate

The only reason you cannot rationally debate that is because Mac fans are so irrational.

I've never seen a Mac get within 2 hours of it's advertised battery life, you'd be lucky to get within 3 hours of it under normal usage. Iphones/Ipads are even worse for advertised battery life vs reality.

Yet I fully expect rabid Mac fanboys flame me for saying this. Ad Hominiem is the first thing I expect.

Much like advertised fuel economy, advertised battery life is a huge lie. It's done in controlled conditions and deliberately disables or hobbles things people want to use (I.E. screen brigtness). The advertised fuel economy depends on you spending x minutes at highway speeds, less than y minutes idling and always accelerating at the vehicles optimum rate, conditions that can never be replicated in the real world, battery life is the same. They assume you will not use the optical drive, you will perform less than x writes to the disk, you will use the screen at 25/30/40% brightness, you will never use more than y% of the CPU, the video codecs used will be the most efficient etc... again conditions that can never be replicated in the real world. All manufacturers do this, from Toyota to Toshiba.

Advertised battery life is an exercise in lying by marketing and if I have to praise Apple, it's that they are excellent at marketing, I'll even say they are unmatched in that field.

Re:Waiting for Apple (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#43922385)

How have you not "seen" that if you don't own a Mac? It's pretty obvious you do not, nor would you even if it were the better system for you.

My Macbook Pro doesn't get the claimed battery life anymore... but it's three years old and on the original battery, so it can be forgiven for dropping a few hours of charge capacity after a while (started around 8 I believe). When new it did in fact meet the listed rating when you used it only for browsing and watching movies.

What you probably saw was people making much heavier use of the system than the reference is derived from, as in anything that puts a much higher demand on the CPU. Every laptop on the market is going to have worse battery life with heavy CPU use over something like browsing.

Re: Waiting for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43922521)

I actually got better than advertised battery life from my PowerBook back when they were still made. True, I was only using a terminal, ssh:ing to irc during class, backlight dimmed, but still..

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43922037)

This. Not only the battery life is accurate, it lasts relatively well (Macbook air 2012) for a light, thin and powerful machine. I'm no Apple fanboy, but, sorry for the haters, Apple engineering (+ ergonomics) is still far ahead of the competition.

Re:Waiting for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43922425)

That's why Apple is consistently ranked behind the likes of Asus and Lenovo for build quality.

Re:Waiting for Apple (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#43921875)

I'm surprised they didn't lock down exclusive first distribution of the new CPUs like they have in the past. Otherwise it's all the same hardware.

So? (4, Funny)

puddingebola (2036796) | about a year ago | (#43920705)

My soviet made flashlight gets endless battery life, just keep cranking the handle.

Re:So? (2)

otuz (85014) | about a year ago | (#43920893)

If you need to constantly charge it with the crank, it has no battery life at all.

Re:So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921541)

excellent captain obvious remark. you win the internet, sir.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43922069)

Thank you, Major Asshole.

Re:So? (4, Funny)

alostpacket (1972110) | about a year ago | (#43920957)

In Soviet Russia, you power battery?

(this almost seems like a setup!)

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43921309)

You laugh, but when the zombie apocalypse hits, he'll have a working flashlight for more than a few hours :D

Re:So? (1)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#43921579)

Not if he bought [allaboutcircuits.com] a fake [instructables.com] .

Even if he bought a real one, the vast majority of them don't work very well [flashlightreviews.com] . If you really want to prepare for the zombie apocalypse, stick with good old rechargeable AA or AAAs, a programmable charger [amazon.com] , and either a generator or a large regulated solar panel.

Re:So? (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43922043)

And when you run out of fuel, or are forced to abandon your solar panel installation? Charging via solar whilst running for your life not so practical :D

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43922481)

Yes, because in a zombie apocalypse, a flash light is going to be my number one priority. Forget shelter, food and guns, I need to be able to shine a light on shit.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921609)

I always knew we live in Matrix...
Now... Where is ma biach Trinity?

Re:So? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43921155)

My soviet made flashlight gets endless battery life, just keep cranking the handle.

yesss, I ssseee... wha'sss the lifetime of the handle, preciousss?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921677)

Way to let me down. I was expecting you to say you had a nuclear flashlight.

Battery Life (1)

Moppusan (2837753) | about a year ago | (#43920711)

"25 hours of battery life claimed." So in reality it'll be about maybe 4 hours of actual use, unless Sony's reality is screen dimmed until you can just barely make out shapes and just staring at it for 25 hours. Yep, that sounds about right for Sony Reality.

Re:Battery Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43920723)

My laptop right now gets better battery life than that with a larger screen, and it's a few generations old. Sony evil, down with Sony, rah rah rah! But don't be stupid about it.

Re:Battery Life (0)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43920775)

It is a purely stupid claim for Sony to make.

I have a Dell laptop which is about 6 years old. It gets a good 8 - 10 hours of battery usage.
It gets light use (for stuff where a tablet isn't suitable) and its actually a genuine surprise about once a month when its battery is flat.

You'd probably call it cheating however if I say it does have a expanded 9 cell battery.
Just as sticking a massive battery pack to the laptop is also cheating.

I bet those weights are not with the extra battery. That would be too honest of Sony.

Re:Battery Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43920909)

they're not.

but don't blame sony, blame the shitty article which at least makes it clear that the weight is without the "25 hour" sheet battery.

the current gen of sony sheet batteries weigh 1.4# each, so yeah, it's a significant load.

Re:Battery Life (1)

anubi (640541) | about a year ago | (#43921193)

Another data point for comparison.

I have a HP-CQ56-108WM( Wal-Mart ) bottom of the line laptop, but does what I need. Celeron. 2GB. I get about 6 to 8 honest hours on a 12-cell expanded pack ( 8800 mAH, 3S4P of 18650 cell ).

The saving grace is the batteries are not very expensive ( < $50, Amazon ), and it is easy to swap out a battery pack when I "hibernate" my machine.

The original battery pack that came with the machine had so little battery life that it was next to useless. I ended up repurposing its 18650 cells for other things.

If there is one thing I can say about the batteries, look for the ones made using 18650 cells internally, so if you find yourself having to toss a "bad" battery pack, there are lots of flashlights, head lights, and power converters out there which use 18650 cells on a cell-by-cell basis, letting you repurpose still-good cells in a pack for other things.

BatteryMark 2007 (5, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#43920831)

Imagine if automakers got together and started measuring the gas mileage of new cars with a cool test of their own making—one in which the cars were rolling downhill with their engines idling. Suddenly you'd have some pretty amazing claims: Why, that three-ton SUV gets 300 miles per gallon! This subcompact gets 500! In tiny print at the bottom of the window sticker you'd find a disclaimer saying that, well, um, you know, your mileage may vary.

Crazy, right? Yet that's more or less what's happening with laptop computers and their battery lives. Right now, I'm looking at a Best Buy flier touting a $599 Dell laptop that gets "up to 5 hours and 40 minutes of battery life." Down in the fine print comes a disclaimer explaining that "battery life will vary" based on a bunch of factors. Translation: you ain't gonna get five hours and 40 minutes, bub. Not ever. Not even close.

From a 2009 article excoriating the practice. [thedailybeast.com]

A computer that can function for ten hours is quite useful, but a twenty-five hour battery life is only marginally more so.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921025)

...then consider the life of the laptop... a year from now when the 24 hour battery is back down to a 10 hour battery and a 10 hour battery down to 5 or less. considering that batteries degrade generally in line with their full lifecycle abuse, the 24 hour battery will degrade on a better curve for the usage/abuse patterns.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#43921157)

Nothing in the ad copy suggests that the battery is glued in. If battery life beyond your threshold is compelling, you'll replace it. If it's not, you won't.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921527)

Not having to replace the battery in a year is a feature.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | about a year ago | (#43921707)

While a battery will degrade with time and accruing cycles, it's nowhere near as extreme as you're saying. Sure, if you're charging and discharging at 60+W and really abusing the battery by rapid-charging it right after it's been completely discharged (still warm) or other no-nos, you might see that rapid a drop in capacity, but these devices hardly draw 10W in normal usage scenarios. The batteries shouldn't lose much capacity at all during their first few hundred cycles...

Correction (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#43921121)

It's MobileMark2007, not BatteryMark.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921133)

A laptop that claims 25 hours of battery life _does_ only get 10 hours of life!

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year ago | (#43921153)

Agreed about the bullshit marketing.

They should be measuring the _worst_ case of battery life while running FurMark or Prime95 -- constant GPU usage and constant CPU usage.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (2)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43921349)

Is that your typical workload? In reality, most people use laptops on battery to do work on word documents, email or powerpoint.

Obligatory car analogy: Are you suggesting we test fuel economy on vehicles whilst driving uphill in 40C with the A/C on, towing a caravan of the maximum rated towing capacity?

No... the tests are better aimed at a typical workload, or a typical workload being performed in a reasonably battery conservative manner.

If you are not a typical user, then obviously they need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Estimating worse case isn't too hard anyway - work out watt/h of the battery and max TDP of the CPU/GPU (the two biggest power hogs) and it is a simple case of say (for example) 40 watt cpu + 45 watt GPU = 85 watts. Battery = 65 watt/hr = you will get 65/85 * 60 minutes of battery life, approximately.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (1)

oreaq (817314) | about a year ago | (#43922773)

No... the tests are better aimed at a typical workload, or a typical workload being performed in a reasonably battery conservative manner.

I disagree. The value you get with this method is absolutely worthless because you have no idea how your workload differs from a "typical" workload or how your handling differs from "reasonable" handling. These are all meaningless words. There are probably a couple of hundred million portable general purpose computers out there. Lower an upper bounds on how long a charge lasts at least have a well defined meaning.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (1)

tofu2go (727555) | about a year ago | (#43921163)

Batteries deteriorate over the life of the battery. It might offer 25 hours brand new, but in 2 years it would not be surprising if it offered less than half that. Given that computers have gotten so good that you can reasonably keep one for 4-5 years, a 25 hour battery life brand new just might survive the life of the laptop without needing an expensive replacement.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about a year ago | (#43921279)

And that, my unreading friend, is why the notebook only offers 25 hours of battery life if you buy an additional battery pack -- because its rarely useful.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (2)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43921335)

It all depends on your useage.

My MBP gets say, 8 hours (real world) when I am running 30-40 percent screen brightness, keyboard backlight off, not playing audio or video and just reading/typing lightweight stuff on-lin.e

If I crank up a game or 3d modelling program, handbrake, etc... well .... running neverwinter nights, the battery life drops to 45 minutes (I tested it for a laugh).

25 hrs of light usage would be good in transit where you are doing say, an international trip to somewhere remote, or are using your laptop to charge other devices (say, a smartphone you are using for internet service) when out and about. Or, '25 hours" would also be useful to get at least a couple of hours or more of heavy duty work done while not at a desk, or during a power outage..

But yes, niche cases...

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | about a year ago | (#43921689)

While I do agree with you in principle, there are certain use cases in which "idling" very much applies - with the exception of the display backlight. Reading Slashdot, for instance... or office work... or reading a PDF... so the claims aren't always as far-fetched as they seem. Hell, I regularly get 12 hours of battery life out of my Thinkpad, and that's rated for something like 13 or 14 hours IIRC, so pretty much right on the money since I use mid-high display brightness instead of dimmed.

Apple is better at this, with their "wireless web battery life" spec... someone reading a PDF will get far more battery life than the ~7 hours Apple usually claims on their MacBooks, while someone watching Flash videos or playing games will get far less - but it's a fair estimate for the average user.

Re:BatteryMark 2007 (1)

Arrepiadd (688829) | about a year ago | (#43922701)

A computer that can function for ten hours is quite useful, but a twenty-five hour battery life is only marginally more so.

Maybe in this day and age where iPhones have to be charged every night that comment makes sense. But I come from a time when crappy phones had batteries that lasted several days. And you could go on for a weekend out without a charger, because by the time you came back home on Sunday evening the battery would still be more than half full.

A computer with a 25 hour battery life doesn't need to be on all the time. In fact, if you are using it at home and for a few hours a day, you could stash the charger in a drawer because you'd be using it only once a week. And I, for one, would welcome that rather than having to plug half way through the movie.
And if you are using it for work, you could do as with the laptop and leave for a couple of days without taking the extra weight for the charger (which, for many computer makers is still a huge/heavy piece of equipment).

Re:Battery Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43920931)

This! It sounds like my new MacBook Pro that claims 7 hours of battery life, but you're lucky if you get an hour out of it if you're doing development work.

Re:Battery Life (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43921367)

To be fair, apple are fairly open/specific with the conditions of their test, available on their website. If you are running the GPU/CPU a lot harder then you will chew battery a lot more. As per my other post [slashdot.org] .

Re:Battery Life (1)

tmark (230091) | about a year ago | (#43920981)

There`s no misinformation on the part of Sony here. The article makes it clear how much battery life they are claiming with - and without - the extra battery.

And frankly, if the 11`` gets anything close to 11-h, I count that as pretty good. And depending on how much the extra battery weighs and how big it is, being able to work for 25-h - heck, even 15-h - gets all the way to awesome for me.

Re:Battery Life (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#43921095)

There`s no misinformation on the part of Sony here. The article makes it clear how much battery life they are claiming with - and without - the extra battery.

And frankly, if the 11`` gets anything close to 11-h, I count that as pretty good. And depending on how much the extra battery weighs and how big it is, being able to work for 25-h - heck, even 15-h - gets all the way to awesome for me.

Maybe not misinformation, but lack of information - if they are going to claim 25 hour battery life, they should include the weight, size and price of the battery.

Re:Battery Life (3, Informative)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#43922573)

Maybe not misinformation, but lack of information - if they are going to claim 25 hour battery life, they should include the weight, size and price of the battery.

Weight (g) - Approx. 290 g (10.3 oz)
Dimensions (WxHxD) - Approx. 277 x 16 x 130 mm (11.0 x 0.7 x 5.2 in) (w x h x d) (excluding projections)

Straight from their website.

I'm actually with Sony on this one. The last thing I want in a press release is an never ending diarrhea of specifications which are already available to those who are interested. They gave as much information as needed which is that the 25 hours is achievable with a extra sheet battery on the bottom of the laptop.

Now if you'll excuse me I have an appointment with an exorcist.

Re:Battery Life (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about a year ago | (#43921277)

I don't know. I was worried about that with the Surface but my Surface and Surface Pro almost always get more than the advertised use time. I've generally found laptop manufacturers to be generally pretty accurate.

Joy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43920721)

25 hours on an 11.6" laptop. The ergonomics boggle the mind.

Too stupid to weed out marketing spam /.? (2, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43920777)

So they add a large external battery that completely destroys the advertised weights and sizes ... and thats supposed to be impressive?

The 2.33 pound notebook WILL NOT run for 25 hours, since the battery adds weight and volume, doesn't it?

Guess what, my laptop will run for months ... because its attached to a UPS ... backed by a bank of car batteries, as they power other things in my home during power outages ...

You have to be an idiot to believe this sort of marketing BS ... guess thats how it made the front page of slashdot.

Re:Too stupid to weed out marketing spam /.? (5, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#43920897)

The sheet battery weighs only 290 g, [sony.co.uk]

Re:Too stupid to weed out marketing spam /.? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43922443)

It's rated for 36 Watt-hours. Even if that's per cell for the four cells in the battery, it'd have to be running in a heck of a low power mode to get the run time they're describing.

Re:Too stupid to weed out marketing spam /.? (2)

Covalent (1001277) | about a year ago | (#43920943)

Absolutely correct. What is needed here is a real power benchmark. A numerical score that incorporates weight, screen size, performance, and battery life. Perhaps something as simple as:

Score = Battery Time * Screen Size * Performance Benchmark Score / Weight

Doubling the weight to double the battery time would result in no net gain under this kind of formula. However, using a more efficient battery or optimizing the computer to use the battery time better would result in higher scores.

Re:Too stupid to weed out marketing spam /.? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year ago | (#43921003)

Doubling the battery weight won't double the weight of the laptop, so your score would in fact go up with that technique. In fact, your score is biased towards things that maximize battery weight, because it's linearly proportional to battery time, thus making it most efficient when the weight of everything else is negligible compared to that of the battery.

Re:Too stupid to weed out marketing spam /.? (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | about a year ago | (#43921667)

I agree with you that some benchmarking system would help, maybe "flops per amp-hour" or something, but your formula would lead to manufacturers gaming the system for higher scores and ignoring that people want different devices for different needs.

For example, a smartphone may have less screen size and performance than a tablet but not have an equal return in battery time or weight reduction, resulting in a lower score, and still may be "better" for someone that can't fit a tablet in their pocket.
Likewise, sedans and motorcycles are lighter and more fuel-efficient than larger, more powerful pickup trucks, but that just makes them suited for different markets and uses, and it wouldn't work to submit them to a one-size-fits-all Automobile Score.

Telling customers the class of the mobile device, processing ability, power efficiency, and battery capacity would be just as good describing the class of an automobile, engine output, MPG rating, and fuel capacity.

meh (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43920785)

all I want is a super light laptop that I can take notes on without having a netbook keyboard nor costing a freaking grand for a piss poor 1.8ghz CPU

Re:meh (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#43921243)

Cheap, powerful, small. Pick two.

Re:meh (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43921405)

I want cheap with a full size keyboard, its amusing that a 13 inch "ultrabook" with a 1.8ghz cpu cost 800 bucks, but a 10 inch 1.6 ghz "netbook" cost 250

give me 250 under 3lbs with a decent sized keyboard, it shouldn't be that radical of a jump

Re:meh (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#43921805)

A Core i7 CPU at 1.8ghz and an Atom CPU at 1.6ghz aren't even in the same ballpark. That's like comparing an MLB team to your 6 year old's T-ball team. They both hit balls with sticks and run but that's where the similarity ends.

If you want to split the difference, Woot's got an 11.6" Core i3 computer for $300 right now. It's not the latest generation but it's inexpensive, light, and more powerful than a netbook with a reasonably sized keyboard. I type on an 11.6" and the key spacing the the same as my standard desktop keyboard (minus the number pad, of course). It even has a touchscreen so you can get the full Windows 8 experience.

You're all missing the point (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#43922775)

All he's asking for is a decent keyboard on a relatively inexpensive small notebook.

The difference between a great keyboard and a fucktasticly shitty keyboard is about $50.

Re:meh (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43921377)

Would you like a pony with that?

Re:meh (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about a year ago | (#43921907)

I think he'd prefer a unicorn. One that farts rainbows, please.

C08 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43920809)

meh (1)

PSXer (854386) | about a year ago | (#43920951)

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Re:meh (1)

valentinas (2692229) | about a year ago | (#43921227)

The title is totally misleading. I can attach 10 car batteries to any laptop and make it run for days. External battery doesn't count.

Re:meh (1)

PSXer (854386) | about a year ago | (#43921291)

Oh yeah? Well there are convenient receptacles spread all throughout my city that I can attach my laptop to and get virtually unlimited battery life.

But it's the battery life... (2, Funny)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#43921149)

...on offer here that really makes the new Pros stand out.

Survivalists and campers are also anticipating this new release. In addition to the long battery life they can also be used to create spontaneous fires in emergency situations. These new "smart" batteries are able to sense an emergency and self ignite with no need for user input.

Re:But it's the battery life... (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#43921395)

I would think that a real survivalist would invest in some field guides and other books for when the shit really hits the fan, so they say, there isn't going to be power anyway. I mean, come on, a book on blacksmithing and one on farming the old fashioned way would be far better.

>bringing a computer with you camping.

Isn't the point of camping about trying to get away from that stuff? It is for me...

--
BMO

Will window 7 have the same battery life? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43921217)

Will window 7 have the same battery life? or did Sony make this windows 8 only?

Rootkit Sony!? (0)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#43921387)

This might be cool if it weren't from the same company that put rootkits on people's computers, try to force everyone into their proprietory lockins, and disabled the ability for their users to choose what OS they wanted to run on their game machines. In my book Sony is irrelevant and I will continue to dissuade everyone I know from purchasing any of their products.

Re:Rootkit Sony!? (1)

slash.dt (701002) | about a year ago | (#43921497)

In my book Sony is irrelevant and I will continue to dissuade everyone I know from purchasing any of their products.

Fine, don't buy it, there are other choices out there that may suit you better. For me, I have always been happy with my Sony products, from Cameras, Palm OS devices, Playstation and laptops. They have been good for me and I am happy to continue the relationship. My HP and Lenovo laptop experiences haven't been so good, but then YMMV.

Re:Rootkit Sony!? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#43921627)

Seriously, you had problems with a thinkpad? Mine has been going strong for 5 years now and runs just about any OS I put on it.

Re: Rootkit Sony!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921999)

My Lenovo laptop experience is rock solid. My x200 bore a 60 pound kid jumping up and down on it. It runs for 6 hours with a year-old battery that gets drained every day. It's been dropped a lot. It picks up wifi signals from half a kilometer away. It's made of magnesium and will self-immolate if ignited with a micro-torch. Chuck Norris punched it and broke all his knuckles on both hands.

Older sony vaio with sheet (4, Informative)

kangsterizer (1698322) | about a year ago | (#43921565)

For example the old sony vaio z with a battery sheet offered 16H of battery time. Just to get some idea of what the 25h from the advertisement linked up top means ;-)

Sound familiar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43921577)

Like MPG, your 'mileage' may (read: will) vary...

Good job Sony (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43921807)

Now I don't have to bother re-charging my laptop when I go to bed. It's always the most problematic of times because of that horrible humming noise recharging a laptop battery makes.

Who cares? Who serious considers Sony laptops anymore? The train has left the station and Sony is the conductor on the platform waving the red flag. "We have some completely awesome irrelevant technology, look at us!" ... "Our laptops are 10 grams lighter than Apple!" It just goes to prove how completely out of touch Sony is with reality.

both Ultrabooks run Windows 8

Epic fail. People need a battery that lasts properly between recharges .. a very, very, very small minority need something that lasts for 2 days of work. Sony just isn't a mainstream computer producer anymore. It doesn't matter how much they pay for shiny displays in retail stores, nobody who knows anything about computers would buy one nor recommend one to somebody else.

And what does Sony have to sell the latest VAIO?

Sony has also included X-Reality, which apparently optimizes video playback quality

Since when has anyone needed optimized video playback? All the R&D in the world is no good to you if you're researching how bear's wipe their arses in the woods.

Re:Good job Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43922031)

Sony has also included X-Reality, which apparently optimizes video playback quality

Since when has anyone needed optimized video playback? All the R&D in the world is no good to you if you're researching how bear's wipe their arses in the woods.

This translates into "also includes a new vector to inject our DRM code".

All Sony product problems *i* ever had, are problems they excersized on purpose in software, by design or an update. Ranging from damaged video formats to removed features, all the way up to a f** rootkit.

Re:Good job Sony (1)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43922167)

"It's always the most problematic of times because of that horrible humming noise recharging a laptop battery makes."

And what shitty brand manufacturer laptop are you getting, so I know to avoid it? Even my HP and Toshiba shit laptops don't make noise while charging the battery.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?