Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: iPod Battery Life
Re: iPod Battery Life
From: Mark <discardedswimwear_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:03:12 -0000
I've had a rather mixed experience with the battery life on my 1Gen iPod
Nano. Although I haven't sat down and tested this, and so my evidence is
rather anecdotal, I thought it might be worth passing on to see if anyone
else has had the same experiences and/or anyone has any comments.
I was using the 2006/10/04 Rockbox build on my Nano, and changed the "idle
power off" time to 30 minutes. After leaving it paused, but not turned off,
and with the battery level at something around 60%, the Nano was completely
discharged the following morning. I hadn't turned it off, and the music was
not playing. It appeared to me as if it had not gone to sleep after the 30
I adjusted the idle power off time back to the default 10 minutes, and it
seemed to be better, or at the very least the power drain was minimal.
I have recently installed 2007/01/07 to the Nano, and changed the idle power
off time to three minutes. I unplugged it from the USB(PC) yesterday
afternoon and left it on my desk.
I have just picked it up and thought I'd check the battery level... 5%,
despite me not having touched it since I unplugged it.
It seems to me that simply changing the idle power off time from its default
value seems to disable the idle power off feature completely.
My Nano is fairly old, so I'm not expecting brilliant battery life from it,
but the change in performance when modifying the setting does seem
Any thoughts, or questions?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter C. Gravelle" <xoder83_at_gmail.com>
To: "Rockbox" <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: iPod Battery Life
> My Nano's 8-9 hour (14+ hour is spec-ed by Apple) battery life agrees.
> Not as bad a drop off as the HD-based players (by percentage), but
> still, not good.
> On 12/15/06, mat holton <mat_at_lessermatters.co.uk> wrote:
>> Is this true for the nano as well?
>> Mark Fiorucci wrote:
>> > Oh I blame apple. And of course they wouldn't release the info. It
>> > sucks tho because it's hard to justify using Rockbox when I'm going to
>> > lose 1/2 of my battery life.
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: rockbox-bounces_at_cool.haxx.se
>> > [mailto:rockbox-bounces_at_cool.haxx.se] On Behalf Of Jonas H
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:09 PM
>> > To: Rockbox
>> > Subject: Re: iPod Battery Life
>> > desowin wrote:
>> >> It's sad but rockbox isn't optimised for battery usage on iPod (it
>> >> gets about half battery life comparitively to original firmware),
>> >> while on some other targets it beats original firmware with battery
>> >> life.
>> > The problem here is that there is no available documentation for the
>> > important parts of the Ipod. This means that the developers are to a
>> > large degree in the blind about how to operate the chips. The result is
>> > that some parts of the Ipod are most likely in an "awake" state,
>> > consuming power, when they really should be turned off and the
>> > developers practically no idea how to turn them off. Finding out these
>> > details by reverse-engineering the Apple firmware is a hard and very
>> > time-consuming job and not something a lot of the developers are very
>> > keen on doing.
>> > So you can really only blame Apple and PortalPlayer for using and
>> > producing chips with no documentation.
>> > --
>> > Jonas H
>> > rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.19/587 - Release Date:
>> > 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
Received on 2007-01-08