![]() |
2008-03-07
, 23:49
|
|
Posts: 1,463 |
Thanked: 81 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ UK
|
#192
|
Understood you're being facetious, but no, they won't. Devices today have the same battery life devices had in the nineties, because the power consumption increases with battery technology. Partly this is how technology works, and partly there's accepted cultural notions of what battery life should be.
![]() |
2008-03-08
, 00:10
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#193
|
![]() |
2008-03-08
, 00:36
|
|
Posts: 4,783 |
Thanked: 1,253 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ norway
|
#194
|
![]() |
2008-03-08
, 12:11
|
Posts: 7 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
|
#195
|
If you built an N800 to run for a week of active use, you'd sell maybe a tenth as many, because most people wouldn't like the tradeoff, whether in performance, or in portability. Likewise, if it only lasted 30 minutes, but had an x86 CPU for better compatibility and more performance, or to save practically all the battery weight, few people would buy it.
So while there's quite a lot of leeway technically (right now), people prefer something like current battery life. I, and I think many others, would gladly trade the weight/size for about twice the battery life, but even so I'd think it crazy to build one that lasts for a week.
If battery/power-saving technology improves more than power-consuming capabilities, some of the improvement will go to increased battery life, but a lot will go to shifting it up the existing performance/power curve.