|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Testers wanted: up to 50% greater battery lifeRe: Testers wanted: up to 50% greater battery life
From: TP Diffenbach <rockbox_at_diffenbach.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:48:39 -0400 Quoting Michael O'Quinn <michael_at_oquinn.info>: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, John Stevenson wrote: > > > > > 4) Your testing would not be 'real life' based, > > people do not use their player in that way. Might be > > best to time over normal usage - more people could > > take part then. The normal stuff such as switching > > on, off, (which uses more battery power) creating > > queues and just playing with it, that way you will get > > a more realistic set of metrics. > > That is not true. The purpose of his test is to compare battery usage > under a controlled set of conditions, and playing the way he described it > works. He will not be comparing this usage pattern against a more > "normal" usage pattern. He will be comparing it against other runs of the > same type, to determine which software has the longest run time compared > to the other versions USING THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS FOR EACH TEST. What Michael O'Quinn said (btw, Michael, your name's in the credits, but last I looked, your apostrophe isn't). > Tom: You ARE planing to distribute all three versions to each tester, > right? Well, no I wasn't. I wanted to do a blind test. Then I'd feel like a real scientist and stuff. > To get decently accurate results, you should instruct the testers to run > one test first to fully discharge the batts, then fully charge them, THEN > run the first valid test to actually collect data. This is a very good idea. Thanks. > I don't REALLY think this needs to be a blind test. It might not hurt to > have the user run the first test over when the other ones are done, just > to make sure the batteries are still behaving the same. This IS a > different than normal usage pattern, and the battery characteristics may > change over the life of the test. Also a good idea. > That would be five runs minimum: One dummy to prep the batteries, three > actual tests, and one final test (re-run of the first actual test) to > confirm the batts haven't changed radically. I like this. > Could you make a counter that logs each time a song is played? This would > make collecting the data a lot easier, and should suffice for your > purposes. I don't look forward to sitting there with a stop watch. No stopwatch is required. I'm going to log battery levels, you'll just play your selected album on repeat all. > If this really works, and doesn't break things, it'll be a very welcome > enhancement! Wait. You expect it to /work/? You didn't notice that I posted this April 1st? Oh, wait, nevermind. ;) -- Archos FM has a Rockbox!Received on 2003-07-29 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |