barnes and noble's Nook to Amazon's Kindle Ummm Yes we do

[boswd]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

nook has almost 7-days of continuous reading. K3 has almost 2.5 days of continuous reading. I've like to see how 2 months came out of this.

30 mins of reading per day

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by boswd

30 mins of reading per day

That's to get the 2 months of battery life. Real battery life is about 156 hours.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

nook has almost 7-days of continuous reading. K3 has almost 2.5 days of continuous reading. I've like to see how 2 months came out of this.

Originally Posted by boswd

30 mins of reading per day

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That's to get the 2 months of battery life. Real battery life is about 156 hours.

Actually, if you do some basic math, you will see that that is wrong. If you have 156 hours of battery and you read 30 minutes per day, that means that you can read for 312 days, which is a little over 10 months.

If you want to see how much they assume that a person reads/day you want to calculate 156 h /61 days= 2.55 h/day.

[elcreative]

Of course batteries don't discharge at all when not actually reading

Where JSWolf says 156 hours battery life, it doesn't say 156 hours of reading time, it says 156 hours battery life - not the same thing, your math is trying to work different things into one conclusion...

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually, if you do some basic math, you will see that that is wrong. If you have 156 hours of battery and you read 30 minutes per day, that means that you can read for 312 days, which is a little over 10 months.

If you want to see how much they assume that a person reads/day you want to calculate 156 h /61 days= 2.55 h/day.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Of course batteries don't discharge at all when not actually reading

I don't know about the reader that you are using, but most devices don't lose a lot of battery power when they aren't in use.

Originally Posted by elcreative

Where JSWolf says 156 hours battery life, it doesn't say 156 hours of reading time, it says 156 hours battery life - not the same thing, your math is trying to work different things into one conclusion...

I'm guessing that you haven't read the article in the OP:

With up to two months on a single charge, the All-New NOOK has the longest-battery life in the industry and superior battery performance to Kindle 3. In our side-by-side tests, under the exact same conditions, continuous use of the device resulted in more than two times Kindle's battery life. While reading at one page a minute, the All-New NOOK battery lasts for 150 hours where the Kindle battery, using the same page-turn rate, lasts for only 56 hours (both with Wi-Fi off). We've also done a continuous page turn test and at one page turn per second, the All-New NOOK offers more than 25,000 continuous page turns on a single charge.

In case you missed it, one page a minute is supposed to be the approximation that they made for the average reading speed, so that makes the value reading time.

What I was calculating was how B&N got from 156 hours (and yes, I see that they are in fact 150) to 2 months. Last year when I was looking for a reader, all the manufacturers said the number of page turns, and the advertisements were mentioning how you get to read for a month without charging the battery (if you don't use wifi, etc.) and the general opinion on the forum seemed to be that only the people who don't read much would get that.

And JSWolf is right, if a person were to read continuously, the battery wouldn't last a week, but that would assume that such a person doesn't sleep or eat. But people in general sleep, eat, work, have a social life, and that puts a limit on the amount of time that they spend reading.

[OtterBooks]

I think what can be agreed on here is that measuring e-ink battery life by units of time is a problematic thing.

[Ajax]

I'm just curious how when they use a page per minute for 150 hours it would equal 9000 page turns battery life. Yet then they say they can get 25000 continuous page turns @ 1 per second.
I would have to assume @ 1 per second the full page isn't fully loading to get nearly 3 times the usage.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Ajax

I'm just curious how when they use a page per minute for 150 hours it would equal 9000 page turns battery life. Yet then they say they can get 25000 continuous page turns @ 1 per second.
I would have to assume @ 1 per second the full page isn't fully loading to get nearly 3 times the usage.

I remember reading somewhere that the number of continuous pages is obtained by running a slide show. The conditions would be different than what you get when you read a book, because the device doesn't need to calculate the position in the book, and display the time, and whatever else it's doing in the background. Maybe even the page refresh is different.

How long do you go with your device before needing to recharge?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

How long do you go with your device before needing to recharge?

I'd prefer I never had to recharge, but until that day comes... any devices whose battery lasts longer than a week yet less than forever are on rather equal footing in my mind.

I usually recharge once a week. And read between 3-4 hours a day on my K2.

[Sil_liS]

The sequence of events was: 24th - new Nook anouncement, 25th - Amazon changed the battery life, 26th - B&N present their test results.

I'm not sure if anybody realized this, but since it takes at least a week to perform the battery test that B&N did, they were well prepared for the argument, as well as sure that their battery was more than twice as good as the kindle's.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

they were well prepared for the argument,

Yes.

as well as sure that their battery was more than twice as good as the kindle's.

No. This remains to be seen.

(example: They were well prepared to show that they could double kindle in their stated test. Let's assume that the test results are valid. What if in practice, their advantage is due entirely to the 5 of 6 partial refreshes, and the battery itself and other engineering matters are no better? What if their wifi, and computing features are less efficient and drain more power in actual use or leak more in standby?)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'd prefer I never had to recharge, but until that day comes... any devices greater than a week yet less than forever are on rather equal footing in my mind.

I usually recharge once a week. And read between 3-4 hours a day on my K2.

The only time when I need a long battery life is for traveling. And if the battery is better, it just means that I can also use the wifi without worrying about having a dead battery on the return trip.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ApK

No. This remains to be seen.

Yes, but before Amazon can test this, they will have to wait until the new Nook ships, and then run the test for a week. By that time it will be too late for them unless the results say that the battery lasts exactly the same (or lasts longer).

[DiapDealer]

The only time when I need a long battery life is for traveling. And if the battery is better, it just means that I can also use the wifi without worrying about having a dead battery on the return trip.

I'm not arguing which battery is better, because I frankly don't care-- and I don't trust either company's in-house "tests", the truth be told. But honestly... when was the last time that you didn't have access to an electric outlet for more than week (or had your e-reader's battery die at an inopportune time)? A week will suffice until forever can be be achieved.

[elcreative]

My latest eReaders actually last for several months when switched off and not used... kind of defeats the point of having an ereader though... in use, I never switch my eReader off just use standby which tends to get me 10+ days at 3-4 hours per day... and this is real time usage rather than experimental testing designed to show an eReader in the best light, rather like battery life on laptops - usually meaningless for actual usage times...

And you're dead right, never read original because I was dealing with JSWolf's comment and your detailed arithmetic reply... original was irrelevant to that, hence my exact comments...

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't know about the reader that you are using, but most devices don't lose a lot of battery power when they aren't in use.



I'm guessing that you haven't read the article in the OP: