gfxgfx
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
gfx gfx
gfx
75410 Posts in 13199 Topics by 2641 Members - Latest Member: lokta October 19, 2017, 01:39:33 am
*
gfx*gfx
gfx
WinMX World :: Forum  |  Discussion  |  WinMx World News  |  media player battery life comparrison
gfx
gfxgfx
 

Author Topic: media player battery life comparrison  (Read 426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

media player battery life comparrison
« on: April 03, 2014, 05:12:40 am »
http://www.techspot.com/article/799-battery-life-analysis-video-playback/

Interesting review, worth reading the full article.

Quote
Battery life is a critical aspect to consider when purchasing a new portable device. Hardware companies are targeting efficiency more than ever, and while battery life has certainly improved in recent years, there’s always more that can be done.

Video playback is one common case scenario where efficiency is crucial and where a lengthy battery life is an infrequently found godsend. Hopping on an intercontinental flight and wanting to catch up on Game of Thrones? The number of episodes you can watch is going to be dictated by your laptop or tablet’s battery life, and of course, settings like screen brightness and background tasks.

But what you may not realize is that the video player itself, and the format your videos are encoded in, can also have an impact on battery life consumption. Or do they?


Offline MinersLantern

  • Forum Member
Re: media player battery life comparrison
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2014, 06:03:02 am »
Well, yes.

A nice 1080P Dolby surround video will eat more energy. The processor has to do things faster. Faster means more energy.

Horrible software written poorly to play it back uses even more CPU cycles to do nothing but exist.

It still shocks me as a guy who was all over computers as soon as they appeared (think Ohio Scientific, atari, classic mac) as to how horrifically inefficient they have become.

Computers are very fast now, funny how they still can at times lag just to track the mouse.

It is called bloat.

Poor ways to do simple things in the most complex way imaginable to the CPU.

Everyone assumes the compiler will automatically find the fastest possible solution. Pfft.

I recompiled a simple plugin on virtualdub. I saw a divide by 2 function. The magically lovely compiler should have seen that and did a shift instead.

Nope, the compiler did nothing.

I changed that to a simple shift, and (for heavens knows what reason) :P the speed of the plugin doubled.

Anyway, things could be done MUCH faster, globally, with all software, if people (programmers) would ignore doing things the easy way and use their brains instead of the compiler.

lol, ive read on redit from old timer programmers how the new kids just type crap very quickly, over and over again. If it doesnt work, hit 'undo'. They take forever to make something that works, they do not wish to sit around thinking things through.

It is much faster in the end to use the brain rather than appearing to do things very fast to look busy to the boss.

But dont mind me, Im an old guy. Thinks that Java, Javascript,, NET, basically anything that isnt pure high speed C should be illegal.  ;)

ML would be much better, but that could make people brains explode.

(think of the poor children)




Offline MinersLantern

  • Forum Member
Re: media player battery life comparrison
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2014, 06:08:42 am »
But all that as horribly inefficient as it is, is meaningless.

Want to save energy?

How about (allowing) me to setup some solar panels on my home to run the 4kW AC unit during summer and not being charged a silly fee nor a property tax increase to do so?

Hell, I will do that at my own expense, I could care less abt tax credits or whatever.

The problem with saving power is that the power company sees a loss of revenue. They dislike that. They will do anything to prevent it.

Soviet Amerika.


Offline MinersLantern

  • Forum Member
Re: media player battery life comparrison
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2014, 06:13:31 am »
I know, not a media player thing, like whatever, one picowatt Vs, 2 picowatts.

Battery life == energy.

Many things come into play.

Ghost, this website seriously needs an 'edit' function.

I could have typed all this nice and neat without having to do 3 entries.  Yes?

;)


Re: media player battery life comparrison
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2014, 09:09:45 pm »
Ghost doesn't run this site. I understand the edit function is available for a short time after the post.

Too many used to take advantage of the edit button in their arguments/whinging/grandstanding.

WinMX World :: Forum  |  Discussion  |  WinMx World News  |  media player battery life comparrison
 

gfxgfx
gfx
©2005-2017 WinMXWorld.com. All rights reserved.
SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.028 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi © Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!