Originally Posted by sygys

Aren't there companies making high end and high quality batteries for nokia's? Maybe we can just buy it from another company?

Originally Posted by janzeeschuimers

My Nokia N810 has a BP-4L battery with 1500 mAh.The new Nokia N900 will get the BL-5J with only 1320 mAh.
That is 180 mAh less in a successor.
Strange because the N900 has now things like:

-Integrated FM transmitter
-5 megapixel camera with dual led flash
-Call and data features like 3G and HSDPA.

And much more that the N810 did not have , so the N900 will need more power but gets less.
The N900's 1320 mAh battery has 12% (180mAh) less then the N810's 1500 mAh battery.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I think the n900 turns off things like the FM transmitter after it's not in use for a minute. Same for the camera (well that and it wouldn't even be running unless you slide open the camera lens). But I do find it odd that they gave it a smaller battery, and an inferior one at that too.

Originally Posted by texaslabrat

LOL yeah, I was thinking the same...assuming the 2 batteries are the same dimensions length/width wise (I have no idea if that's the case, just throwing out a hypothetical)...the N97 battery is almost assuredly thicker and thus the cover isn't gonna go back on. Hope he ordered a roll of duct tape to go along with that battery

Originally Posted by javispedro

Just on the previous page there was this "power saving will be perfect... when you're not using the phone" comment.

Originally Posted by zkyevolved

That's exactly the problem. I don't know about you guys, but I'm a very active user. I don't care if my phone uses nearly no power while the screen is off, data is in scarce usage... Or whatever. I'm a hardcore user. I use my device for everything. For music, calls, internet, video playback, recording and taking pictures, as a calendar, sync between my pc and the device. I'd want my device to last longer while using it... Not while NOT using it.

Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles

As a baseline, the OMAP3430 consumes about the same amount of power while active as the OMAP2420, but it has a number of powersaving advantages.

First, it's quite a bit faster (2-3x faster depending on the task) which means for the same task it's going to be spending much less time active and processing and a lot more time idle than the OMAP2420 (this is called Race to Idle). As idle usage consumes orders of magnitude less power than even 0.1% usage, this translates to noticeable and immediate power savings even if all other factors are equal (which they're not).

Second, idle power consumption has been improved significantly. The OMAP2420 uses nearly no power while idle (fanoush managed to get about 30 days of battery life at idle) but the OMAP3430 is even better, as it uses basically no power at idle. Although the difference seems small on a larger scale, the relative difference is large and with as much time as the device will spend in idle this means big power savings.

Finally, the software, too, has seen large improvements in powersaving. Both at the library and application level and at the kernel level. Fremantle on the OMAP3 is more intelligent about hardware power management and more careful in how in consumers power in the userspace than Diablo on OMAP2.

Unfortunately, most of these advantages are offset by the inclusion of additional hardware (accelerometers, cameras, LED flashes, GPU—although the smaller screen represents a major reduction in power consumption) and, in particular, the cellular radio. So in the end, the N900, I suspect, is going to have a much lower power consumption at the extreme low end of usage and a slightly higher one running full blast. The end result for the average user is probably going to be marginally worse battery life, on average, than OMAP2 devices with a potential for slightly better battery life depending on usage.