<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: VIA C7-M CPU and Battery life tests.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/</link>
	<description>portable pc, mobile computer, pocket pc and handheld computing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:29:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chippy</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>Chippy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-48</guid>
		<description>As you can see, these &#039;figures&#039; that are given on marketing literature are very difficult to define. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Its interesting they quote DVD playback times when the basic package doesnt include a DVD player!! Maybe they meant &#039;video playback&#039; instead.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I like the look of the Samsung but I can&#039;t help thinking that a VIA processor would be better choice.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I wonder when the Pentium-M devices will start coming out. They will boost power and give better battery life. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Steve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>As you can see, these &#8216;figures&#8217; that are given on marketing literature are very difficult to define. </p>
<p>Its interesting they quote DVD playback times when the basic package doesnt include a DVD player!! Maybe they meant &#8216;video playback&#8217; instead.</p>
<p>I like the look of the Samsung but I can&#8217;t help thinking that a VIA processor would be better choice.</p>
<p>I wonder when the Pentium-M devices will start coming out. They will boost power and give better battery life. </p>
<p>Steve.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anton p. nym</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>anton p. nym</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-47</guid>
		<description>TabletKiosk is quoting 2.5 hours estimated battery life with its internal cells, and Samsung is quoting 3.5.  I just did the arithmetic :) but of course there&#039;s no way to know if that&#039;s a fair comparison.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As to the DVD playback time, I&#039;d interpreted that to be the playback time with the external DVD running... after all, there&#039;s a dedicated power socket for the &quot;ODD&quot;, so the DVD player would be drawing power from the Q1 instead of its own cells.  Not the design choice I&#039;d have made, prefering instead to add that weight budget to the ODD to keep the viewing time up, but perhaps that wasn&#039;t feasible or was too expensive.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Since the Eo looks to be sold out in North America, however, it looks like the point is moot to me.  Now to go harass my local retailers to get a Samsung in for me.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt; -- Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>TabletKiosk is quoting 2.5 hours estimated battery life with its internal cells, and Samsung is quoting 3.5.  I just did the arithmetic <img src='http://www.umpcportal.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  but of course there&#8217;s no way to know if that&#8217;s a fair comparison.</p>
<p>As to the DVD playback time, I&#8217;d interpreted that to be the playback time with the external DVD running&#8230; after all, there&#8217;s a dedicated power socket for the &#8220;ODD&#8221;, so the DVD player would be drawing power from the Q1 instead of its own cells.  Not the design choice I&#8217;d have made, prefering instead to add that weight budget to the ODD to keep the viewing time up, but perhaps that wasn&#8217;t feasible or was too expensive.</p>
<p>Since the Eo looks to be sold out in North America, however, it looks like the point is moot to me.  Now to go harass my local retailers to get a Samsung in for me.</p>
<p> &#8212; Steve</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chippy</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>Chippy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-46</guid>
		<description>I have a pretty high confidence in those figures.&lt;br/&gt;The only thing that Samsung could do make a marked difference in battery life is to use the better screen technology that they have access to or to sneak in a bigger battery. (However, I see they have a 3-cell battery which is probably going to be a standard 20-25 Watt-hour part)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Celeron is not a leading-edge component and shows that a price-power trade-off has been made here. I wonder if there have been other trade-offs made in the design?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Samsung are claiming 3.5 hours of battery life BUT only 1.4 hours of DVD playback. That to me sounds like &#039;no-load&#039; and &#039;medium-load&#039; figures and they match my predictions.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Where did you see the &#039;extra hour of battery life&#039; quoted?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Regards&lt;br/&gt;Steve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>I have a pretty high confidence in those figures.<br />The only thing that Samsung could do make a marked difference in battery life is to use the better screen technology that they have access to or to sneak in a bigger battery. (However, I see they have a 3-cell battery which is probably going to be a standard 20-25 Watt-hour part)</p>
<p>The Celeron is not a leading-edge component and shows that a price-power trade-off has been made here. I wonder if there have been other trade-offs made in the design?</p>
<p>Samsung are claiming 3.5 hours of battery life BUT only 1.4 hours of DVD playback. That to me sounds like &#8216;no-load&#8217; and &#8216;medium-load&#8217; figures and they match my predictions.</p>
<p>Where did you see the &#8216;extra hour of battery life&#8217; quoted?</p>
<p>Regards<br />Steve.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anton P. Nym</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator>Anton P. Nym</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-45</guid>
		<description>How much confidence do you have in those figures?  Some of the Q1&#039;s allure (for me, anyway) was the extra hour of battery life quoted, but if the Celeron M is that much less efficient then the Eo just became a &lt;i&gt;lot&lt;/i&gt; more tempting to me.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt; -- Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>How much confidence do you have in those figures?  Some of the Q1&#8242;s allure (for me, anyway) was the extra hour of battery life quoted, but if the Celeron M is that much less efficient then the Eo just became a <i>lot</i> more tempting to me.</p>
<p> &#8212; Steve</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chippy</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Chippy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-44</guid>
		<description>Good question.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Yes, it will make a difference if you watch it from a memory stick. However, when compared to CPU useage and LCD power useage, the advantage is going to be minimal. (est. 10 minutes.)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Steve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>Good question.</p>
<p>Yes, it will make a difference if you watch it from a memory stick. However, when compared to CPU useage and LCD power useage, the advantage is going to be minimal. (est. 10 minutes.)</p>
<p>Steve.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CTitanic</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-43</link>
		<dc:creator>CTitanic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-43</guid>
		<description>Question? When you are watching a movie the battery life does not depend a little bit on where are you running the movie? Let say, if you are watching a movie from a DVD ROM will the battery last less than if you play the movie in your HDD? What would be the impact if you play the movie in a USB Memory stick vs. from the HDD?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>Question? When you are watching a movie the battery life does not depend a little bit on where are you running the movie? Let say, if you are watching a movie from a DVD ROM will the battery last less than if you play the movie in your HDD? What would be the impact if you play the movie in a USB Memory stick vs. from the HDD?</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chippy</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-42</link>
		<dc:creator>Chippy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-42</guid>
		<description>So far, all the batteries i&#039;ve seen have been 22-26W. The 6-cell options on some UMPC&#039;s are double that.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;A 50Wh battery would be quite heavy and the 2.2h run time figure points towards a 26W battery rather than a 50W battery. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;My rather bold guess is that &#039;internal battery&#039; figure is wrong. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Steve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>So far, all the batteries i&#8217;ve seen have been 22-26W. The 6-cell options on some UMPC&#8217;s are double that.</p>
<p>A 50Wh battery would be quite heavy and the 2.2h run time figure points towards a 26W battery rather than a 50W battery. </p>
<p>My rather bold guess is that &#8216;internal battery&#8217; figure is wrong. </p>
<p>Steve.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CTitanic</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>CTitanic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-41</guid>
		<description>Are you sure?&lt;br/&gt;From the eo manual:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Battery specs: Re-chargeable 26W Lithium Ion Battery Pack (Cylindrical Cell, 2400mAh)&lt;br/&gt;Run time: approx. 2.2h&lt;br/&gt;Power adapter: 19V, 3.42A, AC 100-240 Volt, 65W&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Internal Battery: 26W x 2.2h = 57.2 Wh</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>Are you sure?<br />From the eo manual:</p>
<p>Battery specs: Re-chargeable 26W Lithium Ion Battery Pack (Cylindrical Cell, 2400mAh)<br />Run time: approx. 2.2h<br />Power adapter: 19V, 3.42A, AC 100-240 Volt, 65W</p>
<p>Internal Battery: 26W x 2.2h = 57.2 Wh</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chippy</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>Chippy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-40</guid>
		<description>Origami devices have about half the battery capacity of the laptops in the test. (24 watt-hours on Origami devices as opposed to 48 watt-hour in the test)&lt;br/&gt;I&#039;ve updated the entry to make that clearer. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Regards&lt;br/&gt;Steve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>Origami devices have about half the battery capacity of the laptops in the test. (24 watt-hours on Origami devices as opposed to 48 watt-hour in the test)<br />I&#8217;ve updated the entry to make that clearer. </p>
<p>Regards<br />Steve.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CTitanic</title>
		<link>http://www.umpcportal.com/2006/04/via-c7-m-cpu-and-battery-life-tests/#comment-39</link>
		<dc:creator>CTitanic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.umpcportal.com/?p=1485#comment-39</guid>
		<description>I do not understand your math. If the Origami has smaller screen, etc, etc, etc, the battery life should be bigger than we saw in those tests no smaller.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color:#EEEEEE">
<p>I do not understand your math. If the Origami has smaller screen, etc, etc, etc, the battery life should be bigger than we saw in those tests no smaller.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

