
MacBook Pro Mountain Lion Battery Life: 10.7 vs 10.8 vs 10.8.1 - tanousjm
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/macbook_pro_mountain_lion_battery_life_10.7_vs_10.8_vs_10.8.1/
======
benologist
How are macobserver not banned for spamming yet?

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=tanousjm>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=jmartellaro>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=digiwizard>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=davethenerd>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=Semteksam>

~~~
tanousjm
Hey benologist, I can see you're frustrated by the frequent submissions that
The Mac Observer and other tech sites make to HN. I've read a lot of your
commentary on the topic and I agree with many of your points.

In my own personal opinion, it's not cool to simply dump every article that a
site publishes to places like HN, Reddit, etc. I also agree that a lot of
sites generate content solely as "link bait," fill their articles with useless
internal links, and offer no real substance other than to re-report what some
other site said.

However, in this case, and in the relatively few articles I've submitted to HN
and other places (check my profile), I think that the content is both original
and of general interest to the HN community.

I'm not going to lie: there's definitely a problem with many sites "spamming"
HN, but in some cases there's arguably a legitimate reason to submit a story.
If you don't agree, could you please elaborate on why?

As for me, I'll continue to submit infrequent stories from The Mac Observer
and other sites that I think offer original perspective and are of potential
interest. If you think this is unreasonable, please let me know.

~~~
benologist
I think a pretty easy distinction is whether someone's actually part of the
community adding value, or they're just extracting it.

Content worth being submitted will find its way here without employees dumping
links like clockwork and if it doesn't end up here then maybe that means
something too.

~~~
tanousjm
"Content worth being submitted will find its way here without employees
dumping links like clockwork and if it doesn't end up here then maybe that
means something too."

Good point!

------
toadkick
I wish they would/could also include Snow Leopard in this comparison. I lost
about 20-30% of my battery life after upgrading to Lion, so the further
reduction seems pretty horrible. Guess I'll be waiting a little longer still
before upgrading to Mountain Lion.

~~~
tanousjm
Hi toadkick, That's a great idea. Our 2011 MacBook Pro that we used in the
test can run 10.6, so this weekend I'll see if I can roll it back and run the
tests on Snow Leopard for comparison.

------
jval
Dear Apple,

Please spend part of your enormous amount of cash reserves building a crack
team to fix this.

Regards,

Users.

------
evoxed
My very very unscientific personal test from earlier today
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4423422>) ended up showing pretty
similar results. Ultimately it died about an hour or two before it "should",
but it's a noticeable improvement.

------
mikeash
How many tests did they run with each configuration? What is the margin of
error on the results? The article mentions differences of just a few minutes
at least twice, but I strongly doubt the tests are accurate enough to
distinguish at that level. I certainly get the impression that each
configuration was tested _once_ , which means the results are practically
useless.

