Page 11 of 45 « First 910 11 121321 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
SavageD is offline SavageD
2010-11-16 , 12:30
Posts: 436 | Thanked: 406 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#101
Originally Posted by Surreptitious View Post
Hi. Just started using your patch, so I haven't seen any of the benefits just yet. I'll post back with results later. But in the mean time, I noticed that in your instructions you say;

5) To use BoostN900 type in this command in xterm: sh Boost.sh

I think this should be "sh BoostN900.sh" ?

Very minor thing, but someone who doesn't know better might get confused.
Thx for the notice. It's now fixed. Also, although I did not put this in the first post, a restart is required to get the full effects.
 
James_Littler's Avatar
James_Littler is offline James_Littler
2010-11-16 , 12:37
Posts: 820 | Thanked: 436 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Portsmouth, UK.
#102
Again, I say what battery increase?

Also during the test I did I was listening to music through the internal speakers at full volume, not using a headset (which I would imagine requires less power than the internal speakers).
Attached Images
   
 
SavageD is offline SavageD
2010-11-16 , 12:56
Posts: 436 | Thanked: 406 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#103
Originally Posted by James_Littler View Post
Again, I say what battery increase?

Also during the test I did I was listening to music through the internal speakers at full volume, not using a headset (which I would imagine requires less power than the internal speakers).
o_O what changes have you made to your pulse audio? Are you by any chance following the same concept as my older patches? plz be honest...

Also someone else who has not messed round with pulse audio, or used any of my patches should confirm this.

As my battery has never been this good before.
 
James_Littler's Avatar
James_Littler is offline James_Littler
2010-11-16 , 13:01
Posts: 820 | Thanked: 436 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Portsmouth, UK.
#104
As mentioned before, I have a fresh flash of PR1.3 with no edits made to pulseaudio.

I run 125-1150 with swappolube defaults (ie swap at 30)
 
SavageD is offline SavageD
2010-11-16 , 13:04
Posts: 436 | Thanked: 406 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#105
Originally Posted by James_Littler View Post
As mentioned before, I have a fresh flash of PR1.3 with no edits made to pulseaudio.

I run 125-1150 with swappolube defaults (ie swap at 30)
Ok that just leaves some one who has never used my patches to test this out.

Plz, anyone who has never used any of my patches, plz try to confirm this.
 
James_Littler's Avatar
James_Littler is offline James_Littler
2010-11-16 , 13:08
Posts: 820 | Thanked: 436 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Portsmouth, UK.
#106
Originally Posted by SavageD View Post
Ok that just leaves some one who has never used my patches to test this out.

Plz, anyone who has never used any of my patches, plz try to confirm this.
As mentioned , I have a fresh flash, both Fiasco and eMMC so it is as if your patches never existed.
 
SavageD is offline SavageD
2010-11-16 , 13:13
Posts: 436 | Thanked: 406 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#107
Originally Posted by James_Littler View Post
As mentioned , I have a fresh flash, both Fiasco and eMMC so it is as if your patches never existed.
Wtf is wrong with you...are you a child or something? Looking closely at the two graphs I realized that you lost a good bit more percentage than I did...your decline was steeper, it's also why you failed to mention more details and your percentage lose.
Last edited by SavageD; 2010-11-16 at 13:16.
 
James_Littler's Avatar
James_Littler is offline James_Littler
2010-11-16 , 13:18
Posts: 820 | Thanked: 436 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Portsmouth, UK.
#108
Originally Posted by SavageD View Post
Wtf is wrong with you...are you a child or something?
A little un-called for don't you think?! I am only sharing my experience with you in the hope of furthering your development.

Originally Posted by SavageD View Post
Looking closely at the two graphs I realized that you lost good bit more percentage than I did...your decline was steeper, it's also why you failed to mention more details and your percentage lose.
Looking at the graphs, I can see a very similar decline in both standby and when the CPU is actually under use. The actual battery % is very inaccurate so the only way to accurately monitor battery drain is by looking at the gradient of mAh decline, in which case our graphs are very similar.

If I drop from 90% to 60%, is that not the same as dropping from 50% to 20%.
 
SavageD is offline SavageD
2010-11-16 , 13:30
Posts: 436 | Thanked: 406 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#109
Originally Posted by James_Littler View Post
A little un-called for don't you think?! I am only sharing my experience with you in the hope of furthering your development.


Looking at the graphs, I can see a very similar decline in both standby and when the CPU is actually under use. The actual battery % is very inaccurate so the only way to accurately monitor battery drain is by looking at the gradient of mAh decline, in which case our graphs are very similar.

If I drop from 90% to 60%, is that not the same as dropping from 50% to 20%.
I see your a wise guy...repeating the same lines specifically to annoy me.

Originally Posted by James_Littler View Post
As mentioned , I have a fresh flash, both Fiasco and eMMC so it is as if your patches never existed.
And then saying my reaction was uncalled for?? Every action has a reaction, remember that T_T.

This test wasn't about standby time, as we confirmed that we had the same standby time already...this test was to confirm whether or not my patches made saving battery life more efficient under heavy use, as mentioned a couple pages back.

It is clear that my patch was more efficient in saving battery life under heavy use, as you demonstrated by comparing the two images.

Your decline was alot steeper at the end of the test, which indicates that you lost a lot more mah and percentage at the end.

Btw how much % did you loose, or is it a secret? Cause you're not mentioning it.
 
James_Littler's Avatar
James_Littler is offline James_Littler
2010-11-16 , 13:39
Posts: 820 | Thanked: 436 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Portsmouth, UK.
#110
Originally Posted by SavageD View Post
I see your a wise guy...repeating the same lines specifically to annoy me.
No, I just didn't think you understood that my OS is fresh and has never had your patches applied.

Originally Posted by SavageD View Post
And then saying my reaction was uncalled for?? Every action has a reaction, remember that T_T.
No, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Originally Posted by SavageD View Post
his test was to confirm whether or not my patches made saving battery life more efficient under heavy use
...
It is clear that my patch was more efficient in saving battery life under heavy use, as you demonstrated by comparing the two images.

Your decline was alot steeper at the end of the test
That was me playing kroll.

Originally Posted by SavageD View Post
Btw how much % did you loose, or is it a secret? Cause you're not mentioning it.
Not sure, as I mentioned before, battery % is not accurate and is completely irrelevant. What we are comparing is mAh/hour, we could only compare battery % if:

1. We both use the exact same battery charged for the same amount of time.
2. We do the exact same activities for the exact same length of time.

We can then compare % loss. Seeing as that is never going to happen (as a truly fair test) the best we can go on is mAh loss/gradient decline.

If you want to get really clever you could break down the gradient into an equation, that would be the best comparison.
 
Reply
Page 11 of 45 « First 910 11 121321 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:36.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top