Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: "Estimated Runtime" feature.
RE: "Estimated Runtime" feature.
From: Zakk <midkay_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:50:06 -0700
I'm in agreement, actually.
Runtime was great for the Archos when that was all we supported. Battery capacity made sense (AA NiMH batteries) and there was only MP3 playback.
Now we support like 20 targets with different capacity/type batteries, many are proprietary so "battery capacity" is confusing. Plus all the different codecs and buffer sizes... and it is always way off on my iPod 5G (hours over what it should be).
I think its time has come and gone.
-- Zakk (midkay_at_gmail.com)
From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:36 AM
To: Rockbox development <rockbox-dev_at_cool.haxx.se>
Subject: "Estimated Runtime" feature.
How many people think this feature is worth keeping?
I was talking in IRC, and I realized it's a fairly "weak" feature.
With all the various codecs music can be played with, and the
conditions under which it can be played, for the vast majority of
people the runtime is, if anything, misleading.
As well, it leaves an option in our menu, the battery capacity, that
confuses many users.
I would like to suggest that this feature could be trimmed. I imagine
it's a minimal gain for removal, but it does also remove some
But, I also know that I don't use the feature, and perhaps other
people feel differently about it. So, what say you: Any fans of it? Is
it useful and I'm just too thick to see it (very possible)?
Received on 2007-04-17