![]() |
2009-12-12
, 00:06
|
Posts: 237 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ San Diego, CA
|
#2
|
![]() |
2009-12-12
, 00:10
|
Posts: 287 |
Thanked: 127 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Sweden
|
#3
|
![]() |
2009-12-12
, 00:12
|
Posts: 237 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ San Diego, CA
|
#4
|
![]() |
2009-12-12
, 08:04
|
|
Posts: 23 |
Thanked: 8 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Mumbai, India
|
#5
|
![]() |
2009-12-13
, 03:15
|
Posts: 95 |
Thanked: 19 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Mexico, Monterrey.
|
#6
|
![]() |
2009-12-13
, 20:50
|
Posts: 1,258 |
Thanked: 672 times |
Joined on Mar 2009
|
#7
|
![]() |
2009-12-14
, 19:15
|
Posts: 14 |
Thanked: 2 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#8
|
But what is the reason for that?
Is it:
1. To prevent the device from an unfinished firmware update in case of a to low battery
ir is it also
2. The OS saves the value for 100 % battery capacity somewhere and so, can't be fully loaded to 100 % again, when the update
was done at 90 % battery capacity, setting the 90 % battery capacity to maximum capacity. In other words 90 % gets the new 100 % value.
Is 2 possible or is battery management done without the support of the OS?