Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #52945 > unrolled thread

Why not NiMH?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-04 16:24 -0500
    Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-04 16:38 -0500
      Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-05 11:01 +1100
        Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-04 23:38 -0500
          Re: Why not NiMH? Mike Lane <mike.lane.usenet@ntlworld.co.uk> - 2013-12-05 13:21 +0000
            Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 11:29 -0500
            Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 09:01 +1300
        Re: Why not NiMH? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-05 05:21 -0500
          Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 09:07 +1100
            Re: Why not NiMH? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-05 18:42 -0500
              Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 11:57 +1100
                Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 18:34 +1300
                  Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 17:08 +1100
                    Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 19:19 +1300
                      Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 20:14 +1100
            Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 13:30 +1300
              Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 12:00 +1100
                Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 18:24 +1300
              Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-05 19:50 -0600
        Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 15:11 -0500
          Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 16:15 -0500
      Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-04 19:59 -0500
        Re: Why not NiMH? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-12-04 22:09 -0600
          Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-04 23:38 -0500
          Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 00:54 -0500
            Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 00:59 -0500
              Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 02:22 -0500
                Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 02:44 -0500
                  Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 03:36 -0500
                    Re: Why not NiMH? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-05 04:21 -0500
                    Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 11:29 -0500
                    Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 16:24 -0500
                Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-05 18:37 +0000
                  Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 14:19 -0500
                    Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-05 13:31 -0600
                      Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 09:07 +1300
                    Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 14:36 -0500
                    Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-05 22:02 +0000
                      Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 13:26 +1300
                        Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-06 00:33 +0000
                          Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 18:36 +1300
                            Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-06 21:22 +0000
                              Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-07 11:49 +1300
                                Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-07 00:11 +0000
                                  Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-07 18:07 +1300
                                Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 08:37 -0600
                                  Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-08 09:52 +1300
                        Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-05 19:49 -0600
                          Re: Why not NiMH? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-05 21:55 -0500
                          Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 18:40 +1300
                            Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-06 21:24 +0000
                              Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-07 11:49 +1300
                                Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-06 18:43 -0500
                              Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 08:32 -0600
                                Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-08 09:50 +1300
                                  Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 15:50 -0600
                                    Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-08 14:04 +1300
                                      Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 21:02 -0600
                                        Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-08 17:45 +1300
                  Re: Why not NiMH? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-06 17:48 +0000
                    Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-06 21:25 +0000
          Re: Why not NiMH? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-05 05:33 -0500
          Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-05 18:35 +0000
        Re: Why not NiMH? Zar Zifodow <zarzifodow@mailinator.com> - 2013-12-04 20:14 -0800
        Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-04 23:38 -0500
          Re: Why not NiMH? Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-04 20:46 -0800
          Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 02:22 -0500
            Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 02:44 -0500
    Re: Why not NiMH? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-12-04 23:08 -0800
      Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 03:08 -0500
        Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 11:29 -0500
    Re: Why not NiMH? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-12-05 14:15 +0000
      Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 12:43 -0500
        Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 12:54 -0500
        Re: Why not NiMH? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-12-05 22:44 -0800
          Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-06 13:19 -0500
        Re: Why not NiMH? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Kiraly) - 2013-12-06 22:35 +0000
          Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-07 02:27 -0500
          Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-08 00:10 -0500
    Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-14 18:57 +1300
      Re: Why not NiMH? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-12-17 12:04 -0500
        Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-18 09:27 +1300
    Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-19 18:59 +1300

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#52945 — Why not NiMH?

I've avoided laptops because of the hassles and expense of lithium 
batteries.

I started using NiMH AA cells for a camera in the 1990s.  They were 
quirky.

For several months, I've been using Eneloop AA NiMH cells.  They vastly 
better.  I can count on them for a device that requires 1500ma.  They 
take only an hour to charge and always seem to charge fully, about 
2,000mah.  They're supposed to be good for 1500 cycles and hold a charge 
for years. (I don't use the latest ones, which have slightly more 
capacity but a much shorter service life.)

Why not uses them for a laptop?  For a given amount of energy, a battery 
pack would probably have twice the bulk of lithium, but they're cheap 
and foolproof.  If you run low, pop in a set of charged cells!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#52946

In article <l7o6ih$a9r$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com>
wrote:

> I've avoided laptops because of the hassles and expense of lithium 
> batteries.
> 
> I started using NiMH AA cells for a camera in the 1990s.  They were 
> quirky.
> 
> For several months, I've been using Eneloop AA NiMH cells.  They vastly 
> better.  I can count on them for a device that requires 1500ma.  They 
> take only an hour to charge and always seem to charge fully, about 
> 2,000mah.  They're supposed to be good for 1500 cycles and hold a charge 
> for years. (I don't use the latest ones, which have slightly more 
> capacity but a much shorter service life.)
> 
> Why not uses them for a laptop?  For a given amount of energy, a battery 
> pack would probably have twice the bulk of lithium, but they're cheap 
> and foolproof.  If you run low, pop in a set of charged cells!

you aren't actually suggesting making a laptop to run on a bunch of aa
eneloops, are you?

right now, a macbook air can get as much as 15 hours of run time on one
charge, all in a 2 pound laptop. there's no need to worry about running
low.

using aa batteries would be more than twice the bulk, ridiculously
inconvenient and probably not that much cheaper, if it is at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52949

In article <041220131638426141%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <l7o6ih$a9r$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I've avoided laptops because of the hassles and expense of lithium 
> > batteries.
> > 
> > I started using NiMH AA cells for a camera in the 1990s.  They were 
> > quirky.
> > 
> > For several months, I've been using Eneloop AA NiMH cells.  They vastly 
> > better.  I can count on them for a device that requires 1500ma.  They 
> > take only an hour to charge and always seem to charge fully, about 
> > 2,000mah.  They're supposed to be good for 1500 cycles and hold a charge 
> > for years. (I don't use the latest ones, which have slightly more 
> > capacity but a much shorter service life.)
> > 
> > Why not uses them for a laptop?  For a given amount of energy, a battery 
> > pack would probably have twice the bulk of lithium, but they're cheap 
> > and foolproof.  If you run low, pop in a set of charged cells!
> 
> you aren't actually suggesting making a laptop to run on a bunch of aa
> eneloops, are you?
> 
> right now, a macbook air can get as much as 15 hours of run time on one
> charge, all in a 2 pound laptop. there's no need to worry about running
> low.
> 
> using aa batteries would be more than twice the bulk, ridiculously
> inconvenient and probably not that much cheaper, if it is at all.

How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
carried. Like with some cameras.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52955

In article <dorayme-018CA0.11011905122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
<dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> > using aa batteries would be more than twice the bulk, ridiculously
> > inconvenient and probably not that much cheaper, if it is at all.
> 
> How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> carried. Like with some cameras.

still too bulky and cameras have mostly moved to lithium ion batteries
because people want thin pocketable cameras.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52973

nospam wrote on Dec 5, 2013:

> In article <dorayme-018CA0.11011905122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
>>> using aa batteries would be more than twice the bulk, ridiculously
>>> inconvenient and probably not that much cheaper, if it is at all.
>> 
>> How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
>> carried. Like with some cameras.
> 
> still too bulky and cameras have mostly moved to lithium ion batteries
> because people want thin pocketable cameras.

My Canon G15 camera has a lithium ion battery, but it's easily removable so I 
can carry a spare. I don't see why laptops shouldn't be the same.

-- 
Mike Lane
UK North Yorkshire
mike_lane at mac dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52979

In article
<0001HW.CEC62E540393F8D2B038C9DF@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Lane
<mike.lane.usenet@ntlworld.co.uk> wrote:

> My Canon G15 camera has a lithium ion battery, but it's easily removable so I 
> can carry a spare. I don't see why laptops shouldn't be the same.

because almost nobody buys spare batteries, even for cameras (unless
the camera has shitty battery life).

a macbook gets 10-15 hours on one charge. just how long are you going
to be on battery power without being near an outlet??

having an internal battery means it can have longer run time and be
thinner and more reliable. the user isn't going to replace it anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52987

In article
<0001HW.CEC62E540393F8D2B038C9DF@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Lane
<mike.lane.usenet@ntlworld.co.uk> wrote:

> nospam wrote on Dec 5, 2013:
> 
> > In article <dorayme-018CA0.11011905122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> > <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> >>> using aa batteries would be more than twice the bulk, ridiculously
> >>> inconvenient and probably not that much cheaper, if it is at all.
> >> 
> >> How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> >> carried. Like with some cameras.
> > 
> > still too bulky and cameras have mostly moved to lithium ion batteries
> > because people want thin pocketable cameras.
> 
> My Canon G15 camera has a lithium ion battery, but it's easily removable so I 
> can carry a spare. I don't see why laptops shouldn't be the same.

A camera requires less power of a laptop.

You can already get external battery packs / chargers for the iPhone,
iPad, and laptops which can double or more the usage time, and these
use proper battery packs rather than silly AA batteries. (Although
there are a couple of makers of "emergency power" packs that do use AA
or similar batteries.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52969

dorayme:
> How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> carried. Like with some cameras.

Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?
Because I'm the wrong person to talk to about this.

I can, however, offer a time-saving suggestion: get over it. Apple are
not going to take your suggestion. It seems that about ten hours of
heavy use is more than sufficient battery life for most users. Works
for me, and carrying spare batteries would partially defeat my purpose
in using laptops.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52997

In article <051220130521408134%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> dorayme:
> > How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> > carried. Like with some cameras.
> 
> Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?

Eh? Where did you figure in this?

> Because I'm the wrong person to talk to about this.
>

Eh? Who said you had anything to do with this matter? 

> I can, however, offer a time-saving suggestion: get over it.

Get over what exactly? Making any conversational suggestions? 

> Apple are
> not going to take your suggestion. It seems that about ten hours of
> heavy use is more than sufficient battery life for most users. Works
> for me, and carrying spare batteries would partially defeat my purpose
> in using laptops.

I never made any suggestions to Apple. It was just conversation here. 

Be good if they made it very simple to replace batteries, to allow 
people the choice of taking on a journey a spare (that does not mean 
hand-luggage carrying) and even allowing for easily corner-store 
purchasable alternative facilities. Like throwing them in a holder (in 
series) to get the amps and voltage to connect via an external plug. 
Or a clever way of designing the battery area to allow alternative 
arrangements in there.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53002

dorayme:
> > > How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> > > carried. Like with some cameras.

Davoud:
> > Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?

dorayme:
> Eh? Where did you figure in this?

It must have been your use of the imperative "make it." Not "Apple
should make it..." but "(You) make it..."

> Be good if they made it very simple to replace batteries, to allow 
> people the choice of taking on a journey a spare (that does not mean 
> hand-luggage carrying) and even allowing for easily corner-store 
> purchasable alternative facilities. Like throwing them in a holder (in 
> series) to get the amps and voltage to connect via an external plug. 
> Or a clever way of designing the battery area to allow alternative 
> arrangements in there.

Yeah, that's what I meant by get over it. Not gonna happen.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53009

In article <051220131842383630%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> dorayme:
> > > > How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> > > > carried. Like with some cameras.
> 
> Davoud:
> > > Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?
> 
> dorayme:
> > Eh? Where did you figure in this?
> 
> It must have been your use of the imperative "make it." Not "Apple
> should make it..." but "(You) make it..."
>

We come from very different worlds it seems. "make it..." in this 
context was not any kind of order to anyone, just a suggestion. There 
might be an international cross cultural literal way of talking, that 
would suit some more (it would suit computers better, for sure, they 
don't like contexts much!)

> > Be good if they made it very simple to replace batteries, to allow 
> > people the choice of taking on a journey a spare (that does not mean 
> > hand-luggage carrying) and even allowing for easily corner-store 
> > purchasable alternative facilities. Like throwing them in a holder (in 
> > series) to get the amps and voltage to connect via an external plug. 
> > Or a clever way of designing the battery area to allow alternative 
> > arrangements in there.
> 
> Yeah, that's what I meant by get over it. Not gonna happen.

It is sort of inappropriate to say "Get over it" in this context. That 
form of words is a *mildly* combative set best used in contexts where 
someone is getting all upset about something that is unlikely to 
change, someone who is railing against the world. You would say it to 
someone who gets furious every day that his train is late, to the 
point of his blood pressure getting to dangerous levels. It does not 
apply to mild cases or conversations about possible improvements.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53020

In article <dorayme-DDE730.11571506122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
<dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <051220131842383630%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > dorayme:
> > > > > How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> > > > > carried. Like with some cameras.
> > 
> > Davoud:
> > > > Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?
> > 
> > dorayme:
> > > Eh? Where did you figure in this?
> > 
> > It must have been your use of the imperative "make it." Not "Apple
> > should make it..." but "(You) make it..."
> 
> We come from very different worlds it seems. "make it..." in this 
> context was not any kind of order to anyone, just a suggestion. There 
> might be an international cross cultural literal way of talking, that 
> would suit some more (it would suit computers better, for sure, they 
> don't like contexts much!)

There's a number of fools on YouTube who have (supposedly) hacked
laptops to run on AA batteries, including these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrcf6Wkm57o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isswvcz7Mcg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqRvAu71Gw

and the LifeHacker.com website
http://lifehacker.com/5959585/power-a-laptop-with-aa-batteries

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53024

In article <061220131834573147%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> There's a number of fools on YouTube who have (supposedly) hacked
> laptops to run on AA batteries, including these:
> 

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isswvcz7Mcg
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqRvAu71Gw


I have done similar things with various cordless appliances (not 
computers though)... and more. Sometimes components (like soldered tab 
AA's) are often cheaper to buy and replace and often of a higher 
specification (like amp hour capacity). Be interesting to find out the 
real reason you call the YouTube folk fools, likely quite a different 
reason to the one you are likely to supply.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53025

In article <dorayme-98D8C7.17085006122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
<dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <061220131834573147%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> > There's a number of fools on YouTube who have (supposedly) hacked
> > laptops to run on AA batteries, including these:
> > 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isswvcz7Mcg
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqRvAu71Gw
> 
> 
> I have done similar things with various cordless appliances (not 
> computers though)... and more. Sometimes components (like soldered tab 
> AA's) are often cheaper to buy and replace and often of a higher 
> specification (like amp hour capacity). Be interesting to find out the 
> real reason you call the YouTube folk fools, likely quite a different 
> reason to the one you are likely to supply.

Anyone who mucks about with an expensive laptop is a fool ... although
I know at least one of those people was using an old, unwanted laptop.
It's the same as the idiots at places like MacFixit who buy a brand new
computer just to take it apart .. more money than sense.  :-\

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53028

In article <061220131919585229%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-98D8C7.17085006122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article <061220131834573147%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > There's a number of fools on YouTube who have (supposedly) hacked
> > > laptops to run on AA batteries, including these:
> > > 
> > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isswvcz7Mcg
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqRvAu71Gw
> > 
> > 
> > I have done similar things with various cordless appliances (not 
> > computers though)... and more. Sometimes components (like soldered tab 
> > AA's) are often cheaper to buy and replace and often of a higher 
> > specification (like amp hour capacity). Be interesting to find out the 
> > real reason you call the YouTube folk fools, likely quite a different 
> > reason to the one you are likely to supply.
> 
> Anyone who mucks about with an expensive laptop is a fool ...

That is hardly any sort of explanation of a good reason. One size (of 
response to equipment) does not fit all. It does not make everyone who 
does something that suits them, and might be a lot of fun, a fool. 

Presumably it has escaped you that maybe it is foolish to condemn a 
whole class of people whose circumstances you cannot know?

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53006

In article <dorayme-7B63F6.09075106122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
<dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <051220130521408134%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
> > dorayme:
> > > How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> > > carried. Like with some cameras.
> > 
> > Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?
> 
> Eh? Where did you figure in this?
> 
> > Because I'm the wrong person to talk to about this.
> >
> 
> Eh? Who said you had anything to do with this matter? 
> 
> > I can, however, offer a time-saving suggestion: get over it.
> 
> Get over what exactly? Making any conversational suggestions? 
> 
> > Apple are
> > not going to take your suggestion. It seems that about ten hours of
> > heavy use is more than sufficient battery life for most users. Works
> > for me, and carrying spare batteries would partially defeat my purpose
> > in using laptops.
> 
> I never made any suggestions to Apple. It was just conversation here. 
> 
> Be good if they made it very simple to replace batteries, to allow 
> people the choice of taking on a journey a spare (that does not mean 
> hand-luggage carrying) and even allowing for easily corner-store 
> purchasable alternative facilities. Like throwing them in a holder (in 
> series) to get the amps and voltage to connect via an external plug. 
> Or a clever way of designing the battery area to allow alternative 
> arrangements in there.

Apple purposely stopped having removeable batteries (and optical
drives) so that the dsiegn could be thinner and lighter.

There's already numerous external power packs for portable devices for
those who really want / need them, but they are pretty much the
minority.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53010

In article <061220131330451853%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-7B63F6.09075106122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <051220130521408134%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> > wrote:
> > > dorayme:
> > > > How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> > > > carried. Like with some cameras.
> > > 
> > > Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?
> > 
> > Eh? Where did you figure in this?
> > 
> > > Because I'm the wrong person to talk to about this.
> > >
> > 
> > Eh? Who said you had anything to do with this matter? 
> > 
> > > I can, however, offer a time-saving suggestion: get over it.
> > 
> > Get over what exactly? Making any conversational suggestions? 
> > 
> > > Apple are
> > > not going to take your suggestion. It seems that about ten hours of
> > > heavy use is more than sufficient battery life for most users. Works
> > > for me, and carrying spare batteries would partially defeat my purpose
> > > in using laptops.
> > 
> > I never made any suggestions to Apple. It was just conversation here. 
> > 
> > Be good if they made it very simple to replace batteries, to allow 
> > people the choice of taking on a journey a spare (that does not mean 
> > hand-luggage carrying) and even allowing for easily corner-store 
> > purchasable alternative facilities. Like throwing them in a holder (in 
> > series) to get the amps and voltage to connect via an external plug. 
> > Or a clever way of designing the battery area to allow alternative 
> > arrangements in there.
> 
> Apple purposely stopped having removeable batteries (and optical
> drives) so that the dsiegn could be thinner and lighter.
> 
> There's already numerous external power packs for portable devices for
> those who really want / need them, but they are pretty much the
> minority.

Good points. On the last point, I was actually thinking there might 
well be those but was wondering how they would work, via the very 
proprietorial magnet charging port (just considering my old but 
beautiful white MB)?

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53019

In article <dorayme-7EECA9.12004706122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
<dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <061220131330451853%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <dorayme-7B63F6.09075106122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> > <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > In article <051220130521408134%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > dorayme:
> > > > > How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one 
> > > > > carried. Like with some cameras.
> > > > 
> > > > Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?
> > > 
> > > Eh? Where did you figure in this?
> > > 
> > > > Because I'm the wrong person to talk to about this.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Eh? Who said you had anything to do with this matter? 
> > > 
> > > > I can, however, offer a time-saving suggestion: get over it.
> > > 
> > > Get over what exactly? Making any conversational suggestions? 
> > > 
> > > > Apple are
> > > > not going to take your suggestion. It seems that about ten hours of
> > > > heavy use is more than sufficient battery life for most users. Works
> > > > for me, and carrying spare batteries would partially defeat my purpose
> > > > in using laptops.
> > > 
> > > I never made any suggestions to Apple. It was just conversation here. 
> > > 
> > > Be good if they made it very simple to replace batteries, to allow 
> > > people the choice of taking on a journey a spare (that does not mean 
> > > hand-luggage carrying) and even allowing for easily corner-store 
> > > purchasable alternative facilities. Like throwing them in a holder (in 
> > > series) to get the amps and voltage to connect via an external plug. 
> > > Or a clever way of designing the battery area to allow alternative 
> > > arrangements in there.
> > 
> > Apple purposely stopped having removeable batteries (and optical
> > drives) so that the dsiegn could be thinner and lighter.
> > 
> > There's already numerous external power packs for portable devices for
> > those who really want / need them, but they are pretty much the
> > minority.
> 
> Good points. On the last point, I was actually thinking there might 
> well be those but was wondering how they would work, via the very 
> proprietorial magnet charging port (just considering my old but 
> beautiful white MB)?

The company Hyper makes all sorts of "goodies", including a suite of
external power products. Their HyperJuice2 is advertised to be able to
power various Macbook models (and even a MacBook and 2 iPads / iPhones
at the same time, although obvously not for as long as a single
device).
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperJuice/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53012

On 12/5/13 6:30 PM, in article 061220131330451853%YourName@YourISP.com,
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-7B63F6.09075106122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> In article <051220130521408134%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
>> wrote:
>>> dorayme:
>>>> How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one
>>>> carried. Like with some cameras.
>>> 
>>> Are you suggesting that I redesign Apple laptops in this manner?
>> 
>> Eh? Where did you figure in this?
>> 
>>> Because I'm the wrong person to talk to about this.
>>> 
>> 
>> Eh? Who said you had anything to do with this matter?
>> 
>>> I can, however, offer a time-saving suggestion: get over it.
>> 
>> Get over what exactly? Making any conversational suggestions?
>> 
>>> Apple are
>>> not going to take your suggestion. It seems that about ten hours of
>>> heavy use is more than sufficient battery life for most users. Works
>>> for me, and carrying spare batteries would partially defeat my purpose
>>> in using laptops.
>> 
>> I never made any suggestions to Apple. It was just conversation here.
>> 
>> Be good if they made it very simple to replace batteries, to allow
>> people the choice of taking on a journey a spare (that does not mean
>> hand-luggage carrying) and even allowing for easily corner-store
>> purchasable alternative facilities. Like throwing them in a holder (in
>> series) to get the amps and voltage to connect via an external plug.
>> Or a clever way of designing the battery area to allow alternative
>> arrangements in there.
> 
> Apple purposely stopped having removeable batteries (and optical
> drives) so that the dsiegn could be thinner and lighter.
> 
> There's already numerous external power packs for portable devices for
> those who really want / need them, but they are pretty much the
> minority.

True dat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52989

On 12/4/13 7:01 PM, dorayme wrote:
> In article <041220131638426141%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>
> How about this: make so it can be removed easily and a spare one
> carried. Like with some cameras.
>
My first camera used 4 AAs.  I got NiMH because they were recommended. 
That's when I found out the NiMH of that time were quirky; I never knew 
how long a set of batteries would supply the surge the camera needed. 
It didn't matter because I had 4 spares in my pocket.

My next one used lithium.  It may be 10 years old, but the original 
battery still works.  There has never been much warning that I needed a 
recharge, and it takes five hours or so.

Some nice cameras work on 2 AAs.  That's what I want: just pop in fresh 
batteries and keep going.  Using Sanyo's specs, I calculated the energy 
density of my Eneloops: about 300 watt hours per liter, which I 
understand is the same as lithium polymer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web