Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
micky wrote:
Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?
Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
from the phone to the laptop.
Took 75 minutes.
Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.
Took under 3 minutes
About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
10 gigs
3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
good speed for usb3?)
My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More
micky wrote:
Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?
Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
Almost invariably USB2
LOL.
Andy Burns, 2023-12-26 15:34:
micky wrote:
Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?
For the future I would use FolderSync and sync on a weekly basis to a
shared folder on the PC via WiFi. FolderSync will check which files
already got synced and will only transfer the missing ones.
micky wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
Almost invariably USB2
LOL.
According to this, quite a few phones are USB3.x now
<https://www.epey.co.uk/phone/usb-version/3-1-gen-1-usb-3-0/>
But maybe it needs taking with a pinch of salt, it says my Pixel 5a has
USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...
micky wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
Almost invariably USB2
LOL.
According to this, quite a few phones are USB3.x now
<https://www.epey.co.uk/phone/usb-version/3-1-gen-1-usb-3-0/>
But maybe it needs taking with a pinch of salt, it says my Pixel 5a has
USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...
If the USB-C cable you're using only has the USB 2.0 pairs wired then you'd >get USB 2.0 speeds (peak 60MB/s, likely less). The cable which came in the >box likely doesn't have the USB 3 pairs in it, so will only work at USB 2 >speeds. You'd need a better cable to get faster data transfer.
Theo
micky, 2023-12-26 14:22:
Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
from the phone to the laptop.
Took 75 minutes.
How did you do that? Via USB cable? WiFi?
Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.
Took under 3 minutes
About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
10 gigs
3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
good speed for usb3?)
That's about 63 MB per scond which is not really fast for USB3 - but it >depends on the external drive as well, how fast it can get. Wich
mechanical hard drives the transfer rate is also limited when you copy
many smaller files since the write heads need to be positioned all the time.
[...]
My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More
It depends on what kind of connection you use.
Via USB2 and MTP you can at least expect 20-30 MB per second or up to
1800 MB per minute. So 10 GB should be possible in less than 10 minutes.
However using WiFi or even Bluetooth (which is also supported by >MyPhoneExplorer) it will be *much* slower. Using 2.4 GHz you don't get
much more than 5-10 MB per second and Bluetooth only supports 1 MB/s or
less.
The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.
It was usb cable, but I used a cable that was already plugged in, mostlyDo I understand correctly: You have two computers on your LAN that
for charging the phone, and it was the wrong computer, not the one I was transferring to. So I guess it was cable to wifi. ;-(
On 12/26/2023 12:00 PM, micky wrote:
It was usb cable, but I used a cable that was already plugged in, mostlyDo I understand correctly: You have two computers on your LAN that
for charging the phone, and it was the wrong computer, not the one I was
transferring to. So I guess it was cable to wifi. ;-(
share folders.
You connected you phone to one computer, and
transferred your file from the phone to computer one which saved them to
a shared drive that existed on computer one?
If so this in inherently the slowest way to accomplish the task.
Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
from the phone to the laptop.
Took 75 minutes.
Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.
Took under 3 minutes
About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
10 gigs
3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
good speed for usb3?)
I guess I'm posting because it suprises me how much faster it is from
the laptop to the external drive, compared to from the phone.
Wait. I could have done it right but I had the phone plugged into the desktop while I was backing up the photos to the laptop, on the same
local network. That was stupid. Did it slow things down? Likely to
cause errors? Or have they got the error-elimination working realllly
well now? (Stupid me, I only noticed this because when I unplugged
the phone, a message popped up on the desktop PC!)
My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More comparable to PC's? I used MyPhoneExplorer, but I think that just
formats the copy and then the copy is done the same as most other
methods would do it, right?
Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3? If not that, what? Or do
they not rate them at all?
(AOMEI backing up the whole 170gig partition with slight compression to
the same external drive only took about 35 minutes.)
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno[...]
Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.
Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.
This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
photos (PTP).
Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on
some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
it elsewhere.)
If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.
10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.
10,000,000,000
--------------
75*60
MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".
Paul, 2023-12-26 21:38:
[...]
If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.
10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.
10,000,000,000
--------------
75*60
MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".
Yes, but MTP is not *that* slow. It may be half of the possible speed.
In this case I believe it's more like using WiFi with 2.4 GHz (2-6 MB/s) instead of USB (20-60 MB/s).
Andy Burns wrote:
it says my Pixel 5a has USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...
If the USB-C cable you're using only has the USB 2.0 pairs wired then you'd get USB 2.0 speeds (peak 60MB/s, likely less). The cable which came in the box likely doesn't have the USB 3 pairs in it, so will only work at USB 2 speeds. You'd need a better cable to get faster data transfer.
micky, 2023-12-26 18:00:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno[...]
Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.
Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.
This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
photos (PTP).
PTP and MTP are very similar.
PTP - "Picture Transfer Protocol" - was originally developed to transer images from digital cameras to a computer or printer and is therefore
not as flexible. A smartphone in this mode will appear like a camera to
the computer.
MTP - "Media Transfer Protocol" - is the successor and provides some extensions. But when you just want to copy images from the phone to your computer, this should be a big difference.
Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
it elsewhere.)
No, maybe MTP was just not added by the manufacturer to save costs for development and testing. For image transfer, PTP is totally sufficient
and many people don't need anything else.
In comp.mobile.android Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
micky, 2023-12-26 18:00:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno[...]
Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.
Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.
This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
photos (PTP).
PTP and MTP are very similar.
PTP - "Picture Transfer Protocol" - was originally developed to transer
images from digital cameras to a computer or printer and is therefore
not as flexible. A smartphone in this mode will appear like a camera to
the computer.
MTP - "Media Transfer Protocol" - is the successor and provides some
extensions. But when you just want to copy images from the phone to your
computer, this should be a big difference.
Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it >> > does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on
some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
it elsewhere.)
No, maybe MTP was just not added by the manufacturer to save costs for
development and testing. For image transfer, PTP is totally sufficient
and many people don't need anything else.
As far as I know, Micky has a Samsung phone.
On Samsung phones, the 'Transferring files / Android Auto' setting is
the one which (also) does MTP.
At least, when set to that setting, you can use it with File Explorer
on a Windows system and Windows does only MTP on such a connection.
They probably don't mention MTP because 1) it's not just for media,
but for any type of file and 2) the 'Transferring files / Android Auto' >already fills nearly the whole line, so there's no space to add 'MTP',
Bottom line: The 'Transferring files' setting is for ... <drum roll>
... transferring files!
On 26.12.23 23:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Paul, 2023-12-26 21:38:
[...]
If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.
10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.
10,000,000,000
--------------
75*60
MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".
Yes, but MTP is not *that* slow. It may be half of the possible speed.
In this case I believe it's more like using WiFi with 2.4 GHz (2-6 MB/s)
instead of USB (20-60 MB/s).
Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
USB in many cases.
180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
for a DVD.
Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
USB in many cases.
Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
USB in many cases.
180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
for a DVD.
Am 28.12.23 um 08:21 schrieb Jörg Lorenz:
Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just >>> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
USB in many cases.
180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
for a DVD.
5 Mhz would be even faster. In our big massive home with the three steel reinforced floors this is not an option.
Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-28 08:21:
Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just >>> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
USB in many cases.
180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
for a DVD.
Yes - that's why I said "around 18 MB/s". And 22 is still less than 30.
Am 28.12.23 um 13:09 schrieb Arno Welzel:
Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-28 08:21:
Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just >>>> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
USB in many cases.
180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
for a DVD.
Yes - that's why I said "around 18 MB/s". And 22 is still less than 30.
Klugscheisser.
If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.
most of the time my six inch Android phone is mirrored on
Widnows using adb over Wi-Fi (so the clipboard, mouse & keyboard can be
used and so that the phone becomes almost two feet tall on my screen).
most of the time my six inch Android phone is mirrored on
Widnows using adb over Wi-Fi (so the clipboard, mouse & keyboard can be
used and so that the phone becomes almost two feet tall on my screen).
What's battery life like?
Here's a set of battery level screenshots I took just now on that Galaxy A32-5G which show averages of battery life of 1 day 18.8 hours
(18 hours 28 minutes active) and the screen on average being on for 6 hours and 6 minutes (8 hours 51 minutes maximum) according GSAM Battery Monitor.
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5X8Ccpx/batterylife01.jpg> Battery Bot Pro
<https://i.postimg.cc/sxRgjfgt/batterylife02.jpg> GSam Battery Monitor
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
most of the time my six inch Android phone is mirrored on
Widnows using adb over Wi-Fi (so the clipboard, mouse & keyboard can be
used and so that the phone becomes almost two feet tall on my screen).
What's battery life like?
Good question. I don't even know. It's fantastic. But how fantastic?
Once T-Mobile gave me unlimited data, I never bothered to look at how much data I used (nor how much everyone else in the family plan used) and likewise, with the huge batteries in Android phones nowadays (which can almost start your car they're so huge),
I never bother to even think
Since I don't even _think_ about the battery anymore, all I can say is it's fantastic - but it has always been fantastic since it's a five amp hour battery such that I don't even bother charging it on any set schedule.
Plus it came with the fast charger in the box, so if the battery ever does get low, I pop it in the charger and it's fully charged in an hour or so.
I'm happy. I got, in total, five of those free phones from T-Mobile
and one iPhone (which has, let's face it, a terrible battery life).
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15/mo iPhone,$0/mo Android
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 fees
I don't even charge the phone overnight anymore, so when I woke up this morning, it was sitting by the bed all night when I saw your query where it has been unplugged for 14 hours and 19 minutes apparently (see images).
Here's a set of battery level screenshots I took just now on that Galaxy A32-5G which show averages of battery life of 1 day 18.8 hours
(18 hours 28 minutes active) and the screen on average being on for 6 hours and 6 minutes (8 hours 51 minutes maximum) according GSAM Battery Monitor.
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5X8Ccpx/batterylife01.jpg> Battery Bot Pro
<https://i.postimg.cc/sxRgjfgt/batterylife02.jpg> GSam Battery Monitor
Let me know if you want me to run any tests for you as with data in the
past, we used to husband our battery so I know it's important to some.
And a car battery will provide Amperage in the HUNDREDS to start the car.
Using <news:umsp4a$1s5oe$1@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote:
And a car battery will provide Amperage in the HUNDREDS to start the car.
Whoosh.
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7 Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7
Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying "18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
Toms Hardware says at <https://www.tomsguide.com/reference/how-toms-guide-tests-and-reviews-smartphones>:
"Battery testing: When it's time to test a phone's battery, we turn to
our custom test. Each phone's screen is set to 150 nits of brightness,
and then we have the fully charged phone surf the web over cellular (5G
in the case of 5G-capable devices) until the device runs out of power,
timing how long the phone lasts."
Well "surf the web surf the web over cellular" is not very specific.
What websites? What browsers? How many URLs per hour/minute?
18:32 would mean that the battery is dead at midnight when it was
charged early in the morning about 5:30 or so - or maybe 2 am when you disconnected the charger at about 7:30.
Under my usage conditions, a Google Pixel 6a usually lasts more than 24
hours with one charge. When I pick it up fully charged at about 7:00 the
battery is often still at about 30% the next morning. Yes, I use it
during the day. But I don't play games or watch videos all the time -
just messaging, e-mails, some audio streaming and maybe do some calls
and web browsing for about 2 hours a day. Having a power bank with me is helpful sometimes, but usually I can charge it in the office, so it does
not matter, when the battery is nearly empty after about 30-35 hours.
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
"18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 10:30:12 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
"18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
The battery amp hour capacity is a common reference.
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 10:30:12 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
"18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
The battery amp hour capacity is a common reference.
On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7
Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
"18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
Alan, 2024-01-01 19:30:
On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7 >>>> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
"18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
Reference for what? A info like the battery capacity is a reference. But "18:32 without our custom tests" is the exact opposite to "reference".
On 2024-01-02 00:44, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2024-01-01 19:30:
On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7 >>>>> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying >>>> "18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
Reference for what? A info like the battery capacity is a reference. But
"18:32 without our custom tests" is the exact opposite to "reference".
Because the tests are common, dude.
Alan, 2024-01-02 17:16:
On 2024-01-02 00:44, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2024-01-01 19:30:
On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7 >>>>>> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying >>>>> "18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
Reference for what? A info like the battery capacity is a reference. But >>> "18:32 without our custom tests" is the exact opposite to "reference".
Because the tests are common, dude.
Where is the specification of the tests then? "surf the web surf the web
over cellular" does not sound very specific.
What if I also "surf the web surf the web over cellular" and find out,
that the battery of a tested device only lasts 12 hours instead of 18?
Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:
On 2024-01-02 08:46, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
[...]<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Where is the specification of the tests then? "surf the web surf the web >>> over cellular" does not sound very specific.
What if I also "surf the web surf the web over cellular" and find out,
that the battery of a tested device only lasts 12 hours instead of 18?
Oh, please.
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
On 2024-01-02 08:46, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
[...]<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Where is the specification of the tests then? "surf the web surf the web
over cellular" does not sound very specific.
What if I also "surf the web surf the web over cellular" and find out,
that the battery of a tested device only lasts 12 hours instead of 18?
Oh, please.
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:50:35 +0100, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
Agree the test results are usually pointless unless you have one of the
exact devices tested and if you use the phone the way they tested it.
As you said, since each battery shootout typically uses DIFFERENT test criteria, you can't extrapolate the tests from one phone to another.
The ONLY thing you can compare amongst ALL phones is battery capacity.
The bigger the better in every way imaginable (both daily & total life).
A bigger battery capacity means fewer charges which means overall longer battery life since the nominal 500 charge cycles are reached sooner on smaller batteries (even if they claim "higher efficiency").
A typical "higher efficiency" claim is in the single digits but let's give them a whopping 25% higher efficiency to test out the simple math.
Phone A has a 3 amp hour battery with a claimed 25% higher efficiency.
Phone B has a 6 amp hour battery (they don't advertise the efficiency).
Which phone dies soonest in a day (assuming normal use patterns)?
Which phone dies soonest in a few years (due to reaching 500 cycles)?
These are just example numbers which make the point that you can't beat a bigger battery since it's better in every way that you can do the math.
No, the nominal 500 charge cycles are NOT reached sooner if the phone is
more efficient in its power usage.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:36:45 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
No, the nominal 500 charge cycles are NOT reached sooner if the phone is
more efficient in its power usage.
Without a cite showing the percentage, your claimed efficiency is BS.
If phone A is 3 amp hours and 25% more efficient than phone B of 6 amp
hours, the total number of charge cycles will always be reached sooner with the "more efficient" phone because it has a smaller capacity battery (assuming everything else being equal in terms of daily use & charging).
Worse, I doubt the efficiency you tout is higher than single digits, but
why don't you bring up a cite which shows what the claimed efficiency is?
Specifically, without a cite showing efficiency at least as great as the
lack in capacity, then it stands to basic reason (and simple math) that the number of charge cycles will always be much higher for the smaller battery.
Even worse, the much smaller battery will likely approach much lower thresholds, which will also reduce the life of the battery over time.
Hence, lower overall lifetime (since battery life is mostly due to charge cycles although there are other ways to prematurely degrade a battery).
I won't bother replying to your BS until & unless you provide a cite
backing up your claims with actual percentage numbers that can be trusted.
On 2024-01-03 08:50, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
And knowing the size of the battery is useless unless you know the power consumption of the phone.
Alan, 2024-01-03 18:14:
On 2024-01-03 08:50, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
And knowing the size of the battery is useless unless you know the power
consumption of the phone.
Well - along with the SoC and the display used you have can an idea if
it might be better or worse. A Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 with an Andreno
320 GPU core speed will always use the same power, regardless in which
device it is built in.
And to compare your own device with other devices, a *defined* test is important which you can try on your own device as well. But "surfing the
web" is not "defined" since it depends on what websites you visit and
how you interact with the browser.
But the point remains that battery size ALONE doesn't tell you how well
your phone will do.
On this Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:48:38 -0800, Alan wrote:
But the point remains that battery size ALONE doesn't tell you how well
your phone will do.
There is no substitute for much larger battery capacity no matter how much you try to argue the iphone's dearth of battery capacity isn't important.
The facts show that iPhones DO NOT have a "dearth of battery capacity".
150 phones in this list, the top iPhone is at 4 with 3 places in the top 10 <https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>
How long will you try and maintain your belief in this shibboleth that battery size is what's important?
Run time is what matters, and it doesn't matter whether you get it by
large battery and with average energy efficiency or small battery with
better than average energy efficiency.
On 1/4/2024 6:06 PM, Alan wrote:
The facts show that iPhones DO NOT have a "dearth of battery capacity".
Whoosh.
You make lame excuses for all iphones having very low battery capacity.
150 phones in this list, the top iPhone is at 4 with 3 places in the top 10 >> <https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>
Idiot. I'm talking about overall battery life, as in years. Not hours.
How long will you try and maintain your belief in this shibboleth that
battery size is what's important?
Dumbass. A small battery will always reach the 500 charge cycles sooner.
Run time is what matters, and it doesn't matter whether you get it by
large battery and with average energy efficiency or small battery with
better than average energy efficiency.
The smaller the battery, the sooner its life-ending charge cycling occurs.
Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours
...if it had twice the gas mileage.
On 1/4/2024 8:18 PM, Alan wrote:
Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours
Dumbass.
You're making up absurd excuses for iPhones all having small batteries.
In your example the iPhone is B because all iPhones have a small battery. Your claim that this tiny-battery iPhone is TWICE AS EFFICIENT is absurd.
While you're making ridiculous excuses for the small iPhone battery, why
stop at merely claiming twice the efficiency of a typical Android phone?
Why not claim ten times, no, twenty, no one hundred times more efficient?
If your iPhone was one hundred, no..... two hundred times more efficient, then those tiny batteries would reach the 500 cycles at a later date.
While you're making up excuses for the small iPhone batteries, why not
claim iPhones are five hundred, no..... a THOUSAND times more efficient.
At ten thousand times the efficiency, then your lame excuses for the small batteries found in all iPhones can begin to start to make arithmetic sense.
Why stop there. Why not claim TWENTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
Do I hear THIRTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
FORTY?
At a HUNDRED THOUSAND times the efficiency, you could make your case that
the always much smaller iPhone battery has the same lifetime as others do.
On 1/4/2024 11:15 PM, Alan wrote:
...if it had twice the gas mileage.
Anyone reading this can already do the basic simple math that you can't do which is the small iPhone batteries will always reach 500 cycles sooner.
Your absurd lie of twice the efficiency is the ONLY WAY you can make your lame case small iPhone batteries will not reach 500 charge cycles sooner.
Until you retract your dumbass lie of twice the efficiency, we're done.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:56:50 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,021 |
