1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Battery runtime on T43p running Linux

Discussion in 'IBM Thinkpad' started by none, Apr 28, 2007.

  1. none

    none Guest

    Hello everyone,

    I have a T43p with gentoo linux, and have applied (almost) every tip/trick
    concerning power management I could find on thinkwiki.org

    with a 9-cell battery, and with the processor running at 800MHz, I get about 3
    hours and 15 minutes battery runtime. The laptop is rather new (less than a
    year, about september 06). This runtime seems low to me, compared to
    measurements from other people.

    Do you have any tips, improvements? How much battery runtime do you have?
    Windows users seem to have more, interestingly.

    Greetings,

    Matthias
     
    none, Apr 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. none

    Phil Sherman Guest

    My T40 with Fedora 6 and a new battery eked out just under 4 hours with
    a new battery. This was about the same as Win was able to get.

    I see no reason why you shouldn't get the same with a T43. Try running
    the system with Windows and pay attention to the battery monitor to
    track power usage. You can get at this information in Linux by issuing a
    "cat" command on the battery file that contains the equivalent
    information. (On my FC6 system; its in the /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0
    directory. Discharge rates should be similar with both operating
    systems. If there is a big difference,then you have something setup on
    one operating system that is causing additionalpower use.

    Phil Sherman
     
    Phil Sherman, May 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. none

    PJ Guest

    remember that power demand for this
    machine will be proportional to
    processor speed and HDD activity. there
    are differences in swap file activity
    for the two operating systems and for
    versions of each (98, XP, Vista etc.)

    I've tried three versions of Win on an
    HP (zv6000/Athlon 64.) My impression so
    far is that Vista sucks a battery down
    about 1.5 times faster than XP-Pro and
    nearly twice as fast as Win-9x. I've
    dual booted W98 and suse 9.1 on this
    machine -- W98 running MS-Word and Excel
    was good for about 3.5 hours. Suse with
    Open Office about 3.0 hours. (Default
    APM during install.)

    one factor: XP and Vista fully exploit
    the graphics chip.. neither 98se or Suse
    do this.
     
    PJ, May 2, 2007
    #3
  4. none

    none Guest

    Thanks for the advice, I won't try with windows, since I will not install it
    just for that only purpose. But it's good to know that there's something not
    quite correct, have to investigate further...

    If I find a revolutionary discovery, I'll post it, either here or on thinkwiki. ;-)

    Cheers,

    Matthias
     
    none, May 2, 2007
    #4
  5. none

    none Guest

    Some additions:

    # acpitool -B
    Battery #1 : present
    Remaining capacity : 57540 mWh, 97.89%
    Design capacity : 77760 mWh
    Last full capacity : 58780 mWh, 75.59% of design capacity
    Capacity loss : 24.41%
    Present rate : 0 mW
    Charging state : charged
    Battery type : rechargeable, LION
    Model number : IBM-92P1077
    Serial number : 183

    I have that laptop since september. and it lost 25% of its capacity according to
    that output. Is that normal? It seems huge to me. What have I done wrong ?!?

    Sadly, I don't have records of those values when the battery was new, it'd be
    nice to compare.

    regards

    Matthias
     
    none, May 6, 2007
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.