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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #70030 > unrolled thread

Re: Linus rant on HFS+

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-02-20 11:53 -0800
    Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-20 22:37 +0000
      Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-02-21 09:41 -0800
        Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-21 23:18 +0000
          Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-22 09:23 +0000
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-02-22 11:23 +0100
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-22 16:34 +0000
    Re: Linus rant on HFS+ android <here@there.was> - 2015-02-22 05:39 +0100
      Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-22 10:05 +0000
        Re: Linus rant on HFS+ android <here@there.was> - 2015-02-22 15:05 +0100
          Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-22 18:38 +0000
        Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-22 11:11 -0500
          Re: Linus rant on HFS+ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-02-22 13:30 -0500
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-22 13:32 -0500
              Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-25 19:01 -0500
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-22 18:40 +0000
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-22 20:55 +0000
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Matt Simpson <usenet@news.jmatt.net> - 2015-02-25 14:59 +0000
              Re: Linus rant on HFS+ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-02-25 12:33 -0500
          Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-03-25 08:01 -0400
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-25 14:11 -0700
              Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 17:16 -0400
                Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Wilbur Eleven <wil@nowhere.at.all.ru.ca.fr.uk.us> - 2015-03-25 17:31 -0400
                  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 17:40 -0400
                    Re: Linus rant on HFS+ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-25 18:31 -0400
                      Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-25 22:39 +0000
                        Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-25 19:23 -0400
                          Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-26 04:00 +0000
                            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-25 22:37 -0700
                              Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-26 19:53 +1200
                                Re: Linus rant on HFS+ befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2015-03-26 09:37 +0100
                                  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-26 23:07 +1300
                                  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-27 20:39 -0700
                                    Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:42 -0400
                                      Re: Linus rant on HFS+ befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2015-03-30 10:10 +0200
                                        Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 09:27 -0400
                              Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 03:08 -0400
                              Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-27 00:14 +0000
                                Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-27 20:29 -0700
                                  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-28 06:18 +0000
                                  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 21:05 +0000
                      Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 18:41 -0400
                Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-25 14:32 -0700
                  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 17:40 -0400
                    Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-25 14:45 -0700
              Re: Linus rant on HFS+ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-25 17:34 -0400
                Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-25 14:41 -0700
                  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-25 21:56 +0000
                  Re: Linus rant on HFS+ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-25 18:33 -0400
                    Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-25 19:44 -0700
        Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-22 16:22 +0000
        Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-25 18:54 -0500
          Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-26 07:56 +0000
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 07:57 -0500
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-26 07:58 -0500
              Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-26 17:24 +0000
                Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 13:25 -0500
                Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-03-02 10:07 -0500
          Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-02-26 07:28 -0800
            Re: Linus rant on HFS+ Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-03-02 10:08 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#72055

On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:01:21 -0400
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:

> There are several very different OSen called Unix. The commonality is
> that they at least come close to supporting Posix.

the lines are blurred now for most OSs even ones called Unix.
there a *nix like tools in windows plus mingw and cygwin

does anyone care about posix besides OS committees


BTW the poster mentioned that if macosx wasn't unix like they
would have put linux on

my big worry with these new laptops is changing out batteries, etc.
does it require special tools or can I DIY













 

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

#72056

In article <mev89t$jo2$1@dont-email.me>, Electric Comet
<electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:

> my big worry with these new laptops is changing out batteries, etc.
> does it require special tools or can I DIY

the batteries will outlast the laptop so it makes no difference.

to put it another way, you'll be wanting to replace the entire laptop
for a newer and faster model before the battery in the old one needs to
be replaced.

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

#72060

In article <250320151716004799%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> to put it another way, you'll be wanting to replace the entire laptop
> for a newer and faster model before the battery in the old one needs to
> be replaced.

Have another glass of the Kool-aid.

-- 

Fine then, I'm drinking coffee and rolling cigarettes and looking 
out at the hot baked street and a lady just walked by wiggling it 
in tight white pants, and we are not dead yet.

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

#72063

In article <mev9f3$jqv$1@news.mixmin.net>, Wilbur Eleven
<wil@nowhere.at.all.ru.ca.fr.uk.us> wrote:

> > to put it another way, you'll be wanting to replace the entire laptop
> > for a newer and faster model before the battery in the old one needs to
> > be replaced.
> 
> Have another glass of the Kool-aid.

no koolaid needed.

the batteries are rated to last 5 years with 80% capacity. most people
replace their computer every 3-4 years. 

even for those who keep their laptop a bit longer than typical (which
is a minority), the battery is still plenty usable, especially when it
originally lasted 10-12 hours. 

worst case, break out a screwdriver and swap the battery or take it to
an applestore and let them do it. it will only need to be done once in
the life of the laptop. 

plus, it's not just apple with internal batteries either. 

it's a complete non-issue.

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

#72072

On 15-03-25 17:40, nospam wrote:

> the batteries are rated to last 5 years with 80% capacity. most people
> replace their computer every 3-4 years. 

That is rather optimistic. lithium ion battery chemistry degrades over
time.  Apple still has to live within the rules of physics and chemistry.

My MacBookPro had severely degraded after 4 years. Not even close to
having kept 80% over 5 years.


> plus, it's not just apple with internal batteries either. 
> it's a complete non-issue.


Which is why there is no point in making unreal claims about Apple's
batteries lasting longer than lithium ion batteries. Everyone on same
footing here.

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

#72076

Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like:
> On 15-03-25 17:40, nospam wrote:

>> the batteries are rated to last 5 years with 80% capacity. most people
>> replace their computer every 3-4 years. 

> That is rather optimistic. lithium ion battery chemistry degrades over
> time.  Apple still has to live within the rules of physics and chemistry.

More generic FUD spreading. The batteries are rated for 80% charge
capacity at 5 years. You imply by your FUDish statement that these
numbers aren't correct. Put up or shut up.

> My MacBookPro had severely degraded after 4 years. Not even close to
> having kept 80% over 5 years.

First, different and older battery. I doubt it was rated for 5 years. Probably 3.

> Which is why there is no point in making unreal claims about Apple's
> batteries lasting longer than lithium ion batteries. Everyone on same
> footing here.

There was no such claim, you liar. The battery is rated for 5 years. Fact.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere,
someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over
there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.

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

#72080

On 2015-03-25 18:39, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like:
>> On 15-03-25 17:40, nospam wrote:
>
>>> the batteries are rated to last 5 years with 80% capacity. most people
>>> replace their computer every 3-4 years.
>
>> That is rather optimistic. lithium ion battery chemistry degrades over
>> time.  Apple still has to live within the rules of physics and chemistry.
>
> More generic FUD spreading. The batteries are rated for 80% charge
> capacity at 5 years. You imply by your FUDish statement that these
> numbers aren't correct. Put up or shut up.

The Apple claim is 80% after 1000 complete charge cycles (for Macbooks). 
  So depending on the user that could be less than 3 years 
(balls-to-the-wall road warrior) or much many more.

For many (probably most) users 5 years is a pretty good bet.

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

#72091

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> was all, like:
> On 2015-03-25 18:39, Lewis wrote:
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like:
>>> On 15-03-25 17:40, nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> the batteries are rated to last 5 years with 80% capacity. most people
>>>> replace their computer every 3-4 years.
>>
>>> That is rather optimistic. lithium ion battery chemistry degrades over
>>> time.  Apple still has to live within the rules of physics and chemistry.
>>
>> More generic FUD spreading. The batteries are rated for 80% charge
>> capacity at 5 years. You imply by your FUDish statement that these
>> numbers aren't correct. Put up or shut up.

> The Apple claim is 80% after 1000 complete charge cycles (for Macbooks). 
>   So depending on the user that could be less than 3 years 
> (balls-to-the-wall road warrior) or much many more.

True, though I think it is 1000 charges OR 5 years. That is, even with a
low charge cycle count, the battery will lose as much as 20% efficacy
after 5 years.

1000 cycles will take long on the MacBook than on the other machines
because each cycle is much longer (twice as long as on a 4 year old
MacBook Pro, for example).

I replaced my battery on this 2009 MacBook because it was barely lasting
2 hours (sadly, out  of warranty) 2 years ago. The new battery has 411
cycles and a capacity of 5100mAh. I use the laptop every day for at
least an horu or two, and sometimes for 5 or 6. It goes about 4:30 from
full charge unless I play video in which case the power goes to hell.

> For many (probably most) users 5 years is a pretty good bet.

Yep, I bet most MacBook buyers will be well under 1000 cycles at 5
years. Based on my current usage, I'd be close to 500.


-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
Reality is a curve. That's not the problem. The problem is that there
isn't as much as there should be. According to some of the more mystical
texts in the stacks of the library of Unseen University - (...) - at
least nine-tenths of all the original reality ever created lies outside
the multiverse, and since the multiverse by definition includes
absolutely everything that is anything, this puts a bit of a strain on
things. --Moving Pictures

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

#72099

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:00:00 +0000 (UTC)
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> True, though I think it is 1000 charges OR 5 years. That is, even
> with a low charge cycle count, the battery will lose as much as 20%
> efficacy after 5 years.

lots of hand waving and blah blah blah

1000 charges
what about discharges
and what's the definition of a charge
or a discharge

and why would aapple ever replace a battery free of charge (pun)
are some defective and overly free of charge to a fault
are aapple so kind/generous that they just feel need to give back
does the batt supplier suck up the loss

it's all rather odd 
i smell a cover up

perhaps the charge/discharge technology in the laptops was defective
but since it was firmware/software fixable they said "well we'll replace
some of them if it's normal wear/tear" (whatever that means)

deflect blame
move along











 

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

#72101

In article <mf05v3$oep$2@dont-email.me>, Electric Comet
<electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:00:00 +0000 (UTC)
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > 
> > True, though I think it is 1000 charges OR 5 years. That is, even
> > with a low charge cycle count, the battery will lose as much as 20%
> > efficacy after 5 years.
> 
> lots of hand waving and blah blah blah
> 
> 1000 charges
> what about discharges
> and what's the definition of a charge
> or a discharge

These days it's usually defined as complete charge-discharges cycles. 

If you let your battery run down to half charged, then plug it into the
wall to recharge it, you can do that twice before it counts as "1
charge cycle".

If you let your battery run down by 10% and then recharge it, then you
can do that 10 times to count as "1 charge cycle".

BUT leaving your portable device plugged into the wall constantly is
not a good idea either (even ignoring the fact that it was pointless
buying a portable device in the first place).



> and why would aapple ever replace a battery free of charge (pun)
> are some defective and overly free of charge to a fault
> are aapple so kind/generous that they just feel need to give back
> does the batt supplier suck up the loss
> 
> it's all rather odd 
> i smell a cover up
> 
> perhaps the charge/discharge technology in the laptops was defective
> but since it was firmware/software fixable they said "well we'll replace
> some of them if it's normal wear/tear" (whatever that means)
> 
> deflect blame
> move along

Batteries are an old and crap technology - they were hopeless long
before laptops were created and still are (one reason why electric cars
simply are not a solution to anything). 

The fact that all batteries do become useless is used by people jumping
onto the portable device fad  ... it gives them a "good" excuse for
throwing away otherwise perfectly good equipment and buying a new one.

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

#72105

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> BUT leaving your portable device plugged into the wall constantly is
> not a good idea either (even ignoring the fact that it was pointless
> buying a portable device in the first place).

I beg to differ.
My MBP is almost constantly plugged in and hooked up to a Monitor.
About once or twice a month I take it with me.

Worked fine for several years and still held enough charge to last a
working day when I got a new one last year.
I´m pretty confident this will last about 5 years before I buy the next
one. (And if not I´ll simply have the battery replaced by Apple.)

I just don´t have the time to pamper my battery and try to "optimize" it
by letting it run empty every other day or by any other means that
supposedly prolong it´s lifetime.

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

#72106

Bernd Fröhlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> wrote:

> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> > BUT leaving your portable device plugged into the wall constantly is
> > not a good idea either (even ignoring the fact that it was pointless
> > buying a portable device in the first place).
> 
> I beg to differ.
> My MBP is almost constantly plugged in and hooked up to a Monitor.
> About once or twice a month I take it with me.

That sort of usage pattern is fine.

Problems can start to occur if the battery is not exercised for several
months to years. I've seen a few cases where someone had a MacBook that
almost never got unplugged from power, and they were surprised to find
that the battery didn't hold much charge when they came to try using it
after a year or two.

Using the computer on battery once or twice a month should be enough to
keep it healthy (running to empty would probably be better, but even
some battery usage is better than none).

> Worked fine for several years and still held enough charge to last a
> working day when I got a new one last year.
> I´m pretty confident this will last about 5 years before I buy the next
> one. (And if not I´ll simply have the battery replaced by Apple.)
> 
> I just don´t have the time to pamper my battery and try to "optimize" it
> by letting it run empty every other day or by any other means that
> supposedly prolong it´s lifetime.

Running empty every other day would be excessive. Apple recommends
letting it run empty every month, and that's mostly to calibrate the
battery level measurement. I don't bother, nor do I know anyone who
does.

My typical usage pattern is to have the computer plugged in on weekdays
while at work, and if I use it at home or elsewhere in the evening or
weekend, it is mostly running from battery, except where I have used it
enough to need to plug it in, or if I'm doing something more intensive
that justifies working at a desk or table.

I had each of my previous two MacBook Pros for three to four years and
they still had several hours of operating time on the original battery
when I sold them (both to people I know, so I've had occasional updates
about their current state).

The older one had a removable battery, rated for 80% of its original
capacity after 300 charge cycles. It was up to 450 charge cycles when it
was approaching three years old, and I didn't notice much drop in
battery operating time. The new owner never replaced the battery and it
was still good enough to be useful after seven years. Unfortunately the
computer suffered an accident about then so the experiment can't
continue.

The newer one had an integrated battery, rated for 80% of its original
capacity after 1000 charge cycles. I didn't note where it was when I
sold it, but a sample at about the two year mark shows I was using about
150 charge cycles per annum, so it was probably around 600 when I sold
it after almost four years. The new owner now has it plugged in all of
the time, which is probably not good for it.

I seem to be using the battery a little less on my current MacBook Pro:
about 110 charge cycles per annum so far. The battery operating time is
longer on this model, so it may be that I'm using it on battery about
the same amount but that isn't discharging the battery as far as with my
previous one.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#72193

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:37:46 +0100
befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) wrote:

> I just don´t have the time to pamper my battery and try to "optimize"
> it by letting it run empty every other day or by any other means that
> supposedly prolong it´s lifetime.

this is important because it's clear that aapple tries to cater to
the lowest common demoninator of consumer, not all people care
about things like battery pampering and aapple doesn't want them
to have to think about those details
the firmware/software needs to be better to eliminate any need to do
this

for example why couldn't the laptop while it's plugged into AC
still go through a close to full discharge once in a while
if that's needed

















 

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

#72194

In article <mf57pg$ell$2@dont-email.me>, Electric Comet
<electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:

> for example why couldn't the laptop while it's plugged into AC
> still go through a close to full discharge once in a while
> if that's needed

not only is that not needed but it would be a very stupid thing to do.

no product does that.

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

#72382

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mf57pg$ell$2@dont-email.me>, Electric Comet
> <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > for example why couldn't the laptop while it's plugged into AC
> > still go through a close to full discharge once in a while
> > if that's needed
> 
> not only is that not needed but it would be a very stupid thing to do.
> 
> no product does that.

It does not go to full discharge but it is not constantly charging
either.
AFAIK if the battery is at 100% charging stops until the charge drops to
98% and then it will be charged again.
Someone please correct me if I got this wrong.

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

#72386

In article <1m23crh.1d65npy18cm0lcN%befr@eaglesoft.de>, Bernd Fröhlich
<befr@eaglesoft.de> wrote:

> > > for example why couldn't the laptop while it's plugged into AC
> > > still go through a close to full discharge once in a while
> > > if that's needed
> > 
> > not only is that not needed but it would be a very stupid thing to do.
> > 
> > no product does that.
> 
> It does not go to full discharge but it is not constantly charging
> either.
> AFAIK if the battery is at 100% charging stops until the charge drops to
> 98% and then it will be charged again.
> Someone please correct me if I got this wrong.

95%

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

#72103

In article <mf05v3$oep$2@dont-email.me>, Electric Comet
<electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:

> > True, though I think it is 1000 charges OR 5 years. That is, even
> > with a low charge cycle count, the battery will lose as much as 20%
> > efficacy after 5 years.
> 
> lots of hand waving and blah blah blah
> 
> 1000 charges
> what about discharges

you have to discharge before you can charge. duh.

> and what's the definition of a charge
> or a discharge

more duh.

> and why would aapple ever replace a battery free of charge (pun)
> are some defective and overly free of charge to a fault
> are aapple so kind/generous that they just feel need to give back
> does the batt supplier suck up the loss

they warrant defects.

> it's all rather odd 
> i smell a cover up

then you're an idiot.

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

#72146

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> was all, like:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:00:00 +0000 (UTC)
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> True, though I think it is 1000 charges OR 5 years. That is, even
>> with a low charge cycle count, the battery will lose as much as 20%
>> efficacy after 5 years.

> lots of hand waving and blah blah blah

> 1000 charges
> what about discharges
> and what's the definition of a charge
> or a discharge

These are well-defined. Your ignorance can easily be solved with use of google.

[Still unable to post properly, I see. What a dipshit]

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
There are strange things done in the midnight sun/By the men who moil
for gold; The Arctic trails have their secret tales/That would make your
blood run cold; The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,/But the
queerest they ever did see Was the night on the marge of Lake Lebarge/
When I cremated Sam McGee

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

#72192

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:14:22 +0000 (UTC)
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> These are well-defined. Your ignorance can easily be solved with use
> of google.

Ok.

> 
> [Still unable to post properly, I see. What a dipshit]

you deteriorate so quickly into personal attacks and foul
language like many others here

it's embarassing to witness and it's expected from a losing position
lashing out in fear or something





















 

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

#72209

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> was all, like:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:14:22 +0000 (UTC)
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> These are well-defined. Your ignorance can easily be solved with use
>> of google.

> Ok.
 
>> [Still unable to post properly, I see. What a dipshit]

> you deteriorate so quickly into personal attacks and foul
> language like many others here

Its not a personal attack. You've ha this pointed out to you many times
by different people. You still haven't figured it out.

[20+ lines of shit removed]

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
Bishops move diagonally. That's why they often turn up where the kings
don't expect them to be.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web