Well, that's in an ideal situation. When I was using Chrome as my browser (which given current trends, most people are) it often used 5-6% per hour in CS (sometimes even more than that!) Further, it would be nice if the device could use even less than that 1% and not ever have to go into hibernate.
New Apple 12" MacBook - competition to SP3 ?
- Thread starter kevinlevrone
- Start date
"given current trends most people are" That's just false; and would have been irrelevant, except that it further damns the reputation of Chrome as the battery sucking resource hog that it is, so it just flattens the argument.
No matter what CPU you have, if there is a piece of software that refuses to go sleep, the battery will be drained anyway. Core M wont magically fix Chrome's shitty codes.
That's like saying "lets install 2L engine on a Hummer". The efficient 2L engine wont magically make the Hummer any lighter or less of a burden to move. You still need to somehow make the Hummer lighter.
That's what I have right now... 0.6% per hour on average, no hibernation. The difference between mine and the stock configuration is merely the hibernation which IMO is highly unnecessary since its already efficient on the first place. I didn't tweak, I didn't change the system config apart from disabling hibernation. Just stock. I just don't use shitty software like Chrome.
But I can understand the reason behind the 4-hour hibernation: to make it foolproof and ready for shitty software.
Oh, the totally bogus Statconter... ha ha,
You have to lay some fault at the operating system for letting such behavior occur, however. Chrome is only one potential offender. This and every other forum that deals with devices using connected standby are filled with posts from people having excessive drain in that mode. That's Microsoft's problem.
Even at .6% per hour, that's still 15% of your battery gone in 24 hours. Good, but not good enough for the future of computing.
If you have something to counteract it other than a smarmy response, please post it. A couple of years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Today, virtually every Windows user I run across is using Chrome.
And, people look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them that I've switched to IE.
That's why Microsoft feels it necessary to rebrand it for Win 10. It's permanently tainted.
Ok, something that would represent a fairly large random sampling much more believable than cooked stats from Statcounter would be actual data on a large swath of government web sites.
http://gizmodo.com/look-at-all-the-people-on-government-websites-right-now-1692387051
Popular browsers are Chrome (35 percent), IE (28), Safari (20), and Firefox (11) in that order. (6% other).
Last I checked most is not less than 50% because "most people" are in the group of (28 + 20 + 11) 59% not using Chrome. Or more precisely 65% not using Chrome (59 + 6%) other.
Lookout for the spin now... I wont buy it and neither should anyone else.
Yeah THE OS should just boot an app like Chrome to the curb but then the Government would prevent that.
The point remains, Core M wont fix anything related to standby. Especially the ones caused by shitty Google Chrome codes.
theveterans
Member
At least core m idles at 400 MHz and have even lower voltage than core i. To me it doesn't really matter if I get an i or m
Similar threads
