![]() |
2012-12-08
, 16:25
|
|
Posts: 491 |
Thanked: 299 times |
Joined on Jul 2012
@ Pordenone IT
|
#2
|
![]() |
2012-12-08
, 16:26
|
Posts: 158 |
Thanked: 56 times |
Joined on Jan 2012
@ Timisoara, Romania
|
#3
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to smcsa For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2012-12-08
, 23:19
|
Posts: 45 |
Thanked: 9 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Helsinki
|
#4
|
![]() |
2012-12-09
, 09:06
|
|
Posts: 6,450 |
Thanked: 20,983 times |
Joined on Sep 2012
@ UK
|
#5
|
![]() |
2012-12-09
, 09:34
|
Posts: 230 |
Thanked: 302 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Helsinki, Suomi (Finland)
|
#6
|
$ (sleep 60 && bmestat > /dev/shm/results &)
$ cat /dev/shm/results
I would like to share a thought that is been bothering me for the past few days, i assume i'm not the only one with this feeling so here i go.
I remember that when i first got my N9 (about a year ago, PR 1.0) it always said it would last for 4 days in stand by. Off course I was playing so much with it that i never managed it but it was comforting to read. Later on I tried Battery Usage and realized that it consumed more battery than ever before. So i uninstalled it. Now on PR 1.3 the read out on battery properties never says more than 2 days on stand by. I agree that that if i would not use the phone it would barely make it, but, where did those promised 4 days go?
I guess coming from the good old Nokia feature phones that lasted couple of days in "battery low" status i will never get used to charge my phone every night.
If you had a similar experience let me know!
PS: On the other hand i'm now much more satisfied with the way the phone looks and performs. So i guess is a fare trade off.