Jump to content

Cory5412

Administrators
  • Content Count

    8738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Cory5412

  • Rank
    Daring Pioneer of the Future

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Cory5412
  • Website URL
    http://www.stenoweb.net/

Profile Information

  • Location
    Arizona, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cory5412

    Wiki/Pages article ideas

    classic mac networking: hosts file formatting:
  2. Cory5412

    Upgraded my on 11'' lcd screen

    Gonna mirror that this looks great and I imagine it's a huge productivity booster on this machine.
  3. Cory5412

    Major Score! 8600 with Sonnet CPU, 3DFX card, Etc

    It is, and to be honest, this is unrelated, but I'm thinking of asking my telco to give it to me, for hilarity reasons. I've got a small PBX I can pipe a BRI or a PRI into and get some neat calling functionality with. Anyway, the trouble would be, ISDN might not be something the telco has a lot of capacity for, might require line conditioning (though probably not more than DSL), etc. Depends on what you mean by came along. I've got a VDSL2 line at 40/20 and the telco is telling me up to 140/? is available at my home, and that's before looking at upgrades to g.fast. I don't know if that involves bonding or if it's a single pair. There's a certain area where upgrading to a better DSL technology gives you cheap immediate results ahead of The Real Answer which is to lay fiber directly to homes. The physical layout of cable infrastructure makes it easier to just drop newer, higher-bandwidth DOCSIS devices and better responsiveness to simple in-line amplifiers relative to what needs to be done to improve the layout and speeds of a DSL system. (moving to g-fast outside of in-building installations or communities planned up front for it (bad idea) will likely require FITL-style midsized pedestals for every few houses, and by that time you've spent almost as much money installing new equipment and power delivery that you may as well just have dropped fiber in. ISPs who bothered to lay any fiber are enjoying the ability to just replace the endpoint equipment for generational (BPOIN -> GPON -> XGPON) upgrades, but, like, that was never particularly common, unfortunately. (Also: re-factoring split factors isn't typically very difficult.) .... anyway.
  4. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    By the way, I feel like the mood in this thread is a little sour. That's definitely mostly my bad, and I apologize. I absolutely don't explicitly intend to blame you for your machine's death. I agree completely that it's "a problem" that a machine with "pro" in the name and sold as a professional product with marketing and imagery designed explicitly to promote its professional usage, and a price tag to match, should probably be able to hold up to that use case. It's very bad that you and everyone you work with managed to get multiple successive bad units and/or repairs that ended up having the same problem. If that were me, I would be at least as angry at that machine as I am at the TiBook, and in another 15 years, nobody should hold it against you for recommending against that machine, even if in the context of 10+ years from now, what happened in 2017 makes no bearing at all. Ironically, that kind of thing is most of why I hated the TiBook, and why after that machine, I never ended up buying another Mac laptop again. (Let's be entirely real: If that Pismo hadn't been so bad or if I hadn't lucked into the single workload that brought the machine to its knees, ironically, it'd seem, without even taxing the CPU that hard, I would probably have bought or asked for a Mac laptop instead of the iMac for school, and would likely even have been less likely to go looking again once Vista launched, which is the start of my becoming almost entirely Windows-based at home, to the extent that I run AD/Exchange/SharePoint on my Hyper-V server). And, this is entirely with the recognition that the people who are buying Macs are doing so for good reason, and I just don't happen to have that reason any more.
  5. Cory5412

    Major Score! 8600 with Sonnet CPU, 3DFX card, Etc

    Very nice looking setup. A couple of LaserWriters were still available in 1997, as well as I think some Stylewriters. The LaserWriter 12/640 and 8500 were the newest laserwriters. The LaserWriter 630, 630 Pro and 16/600PS predate this by a good bit but loads, perhaps even most of the ones sold earlier in the '90s would still have been in service. Those are Canon EX (IIRC) engines, you can think of them as rebadged laserwriter 4s and they take the same cartridges, so it's not unreasonable to keep them running today. At least a few of those have ethernet and can speak TCP/IP as well, so you can use them on modern computers - though they're slow and use a lot of power by modern standards. The StyleWriters Apple ever sold were mostly Canon and HP engines, some going as far to be pretty overtly re-badged HP DeskJets. All of that stuff got discontinued upon or just before the introduction of the PowerMac G3, so you could also reasonably pair this with a Newton, a OneScanner or Color OneScanner and a QuickTake. There's also the quicktime video conferencing camera, which -- purely for interest unless you actually have ISDN or anything that can interface with it -- originally paired with an ISDN telephony add-in card, which would be something really fun to drop in a 7000 or 8000 series machine from this era, at the height of the idea of telecommuting. Also curious: does that microphone you have attached work? It's designed for 68k Macs (outside of the AV Quadras) which used the older microphone connector and there's a good chance it doesn't. The newer large microphone is the "correct" one to use with this machine, if you can find one.
  6. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    If you want to read it that way, sure. I can lean into it if you want, for dramatic effect. (Also: I'd forgotten that recall and/or apparently didn't realize it impacted 2016/17 machines as well.) But, largely, if it turns out that, just, any machine subjected to the rigors of that kind of technical and/or multimedia authoring workflow does that, and that happens to be the reason, and not just purely coincidence (i.e. production batches or bad cells from a supplier) then, sure, we can/should absolutely talk about Apple's continued inability to build a machine that can withstand the rigors of professional work. The audience of 15-inch MacBook pro users at the university where I work -- as tech support, so I take calls from the people having these kinds of problems -- is much more diverse compared to the population you described. Many of them are very, very under-using these machines, and many of them are doing things on them that arguably should be going onto the HPC. (Not a Mac, but: we had a faculty repeatedly blow out the cooling on their Latitude E6400 or 6410 doing really long-running analytics jobs in SAS or something similar, for example) (That faculty now has either an HPC account or a special RDP environment that doesn't terminate their jobs, both for speed and reliability.) It's also entirely possible (I'm on a team of 5) that there's loads of these failures at the university, and I just don't happen to have seen any of the tickets, so, like, take all that for what it's worth I suppose. That said: That's a pretty random grouping of machines. If we want to claim it's some kind of design flaw, then it would make more sense if it was, say, all of the older unibody retina machines, or all of the flat-keyboard/type c machines, rather than certain groups from each model. I.e. all machines that share a single particular design, and not just some of the machines from two different designs. Even more interestingly is that the 2013 and 2015 MacBook Pros have the same processor -- the component I singled out as being highly likely to spike power consumption and cause draw from the battery, even when plugged into the wall. The result is ultimately the same: Some of these computers are going to suffer -- badly -- from failed batteries. I suspect that it's not an overarching problem with the macbook pro, however, if none of the 13-inch machines are involved and if the 2012-2014 and 2018+ models aren't involved. To call back to the future collectability aspect that got mentioned: The long-term collecting effect is probably going to be that there'll be a couple fewer 2015-17 machines around. As established elsewhere in the site, the 2013-14 and 15 macbook pros are dang near the same, and the 2016/17 models are quite similar to the 2018/19 models, so it'll be a bummer if by some miracle these are by any measure "difficult to get", but I doubt, to be perfectly honest, that it'll impact total survivor numbers in ten to twenty years that much. Even if it does: interest in "late 2010s era" vintage Macs will need to be proportionally more popular in, say, 2040 than "late 1990s era" vintage Macs is today for it to make a difference. (i.e. if the vintage Mac community doesn't grow at the same rate new Mac buyers has 2000 to 2020, then we'll be swimming in the things.) Basically: I think it'll be fine, and at worst, it's pretty reasonably likely that the 2015-17 machines will run without their batteries, even if they speedstep all the way down and become annoying or useless by today's standards. (Though honestly, at everything except the web I suspect a quad-core 800MHz machine otherwise operating at full modern speed (i.e. SSD and RAM) would be more or less fine to actually use, and it'd certainly stay cool.)
  7. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    A generation or two (I believe it was for the 2017 or 2018 models) the MacBook Pro switched from adhesive to screws for some of the internals, so removing the battery has gotten a little better over the past couple years. For 2010/11/12 (or perhaps just 11/12, I'd have to look) the batteries were more or less removable, just not "in transit" swappable as they were up through that point. So generally if you can pull the machine apart, removing the battery isn't the biggest problem. Sourcing a replacement is an issue, and I'm curious as to how the last ~decadeish of MacBooks will run without their batteries. Pre-unibody, the machines would boot and run, but they'd be speedstepped down to the slowest possible speed (around 800MHz typically) largely because burst power usage on a Mac laptop has long been higher than what the power adapters could provide on their own. (Actually, knowing what I do about Intel power draw, I almost wonder if there really is an increased incident of catastrphic battery failure, and not just something weird going on at Gorgonops' office, if it's related to something in the workload these machines are seeing causing a much higher than normal battery cycle/draw rate versus a machine that, say, mostly idles on office applications.) I guess the question is, in 10-15 years, what "surprisingly few" will mean. I feel like the litmus test will kind of end up being how many flat-keyboard era macbook/pros we see hanging around in another ten years, relative to the number of 2008-2012 unibody/not-retina macbook/pros we all still see running around today. If a much smaller percentage of the number of macbooks from the bad/flat keyboard era survive, there'll still be plenty to go around in 2030-2040, because mac laptops are "a bit" more popular in 2020 than they were in 2002. I do suspect most of the survivors will end up being used with external keyboards though. That seems to be the single most inevitable failure. Everything else mostly seems to be luck or perhaps something that happens on the coast but not in the mountains. As far as batteries for vintage machines go: A thing I want to try eventually is getting one of those really huge battery packs with AC outlets on them (for example). I've got a 1400 that's... not great but if I took care, it would be bag-ready, and I would absolutely go hang out in a cafe with it, but getting seating with an outlet isn't a completely reliable possibility. The problem, of course, is that AC-output power banks are huge and you can quickly go from "backpack ready" to "hand truck".
  8. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    Incidentally, largely, it almost sounds like the argument is to avoid a laptop from the era at all if you can possibly avoid it. I have literally no recollection about how I got the TiBook now in my posession, and some iBooks (a G3/366 and a G4-12/1.33) were given to me by a local friend, but by and large, I would rather have a desktop machine than a laptop for any number of the reasons you've listed: They're faster, they're more reliable out the gate, they're easier to maintain, it's easier to put modern replacement parts in them (in so many senses), they run OS X even better than a TiBook would, and they're physically more comfortable to use, from an ergonomics perspective. Given that a pismo is now at minimum twenty years old, and the youngest TiBooks are a sprightly seventeen, you're absolutely right, these aren't spring chickens and it might be best not to treat them as if they are. Which is a huge bummer because it basically means that save for the early iBook G3s and any other PowerBooks that happen to have survived, there's not a recommendable, viable on-the-go system 7/8/9 computer. (Ignoring battery issues, although it's not entirely out of the question to find something from this era that claims to still have surprisingly good life. My iBook/366 estimates over 4 hours, something I should test eventually.) That's not to say that bag-ready Mac laptops outright don't exist, just that finding one is essentially random luck.
  9. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    Sure, at this piont, you really find what you can get. I say the same thing about LCs and Performas all the time, and I suppose the same applies with late PowerPC laptops, too. Heck, I even have a second 1GHz TiBook that I run some OS9 stuff on, and some of my old-ish photos indicate that for some reason I had not just the one but three in total, so, like, yes, there are more tibooks in existence than pismos. I'm fully aware that my eternal dislike of TiBooks is mostly irrational. I had a bad time because I deigned not to upgrade from a two-year-old professional laptop to a brand new one in 2005 when I got a new peripheral for it, and had a bad time that I didn't know how to diagnose because I was like sixteen and didn't realize that the CPU wasn't the only important part to a computer. I used it anyway because we didn't have the money for a new computer. Later, when the screen broke, I swapped the machine for something still working for what I needed in that moment, which ironically was going to be a laptop as I went to universality. In retrospect, high end chance that was a pity swap, but I appreciated it immensely. It didn't make my photo work better, but the pismo had a screen and it ran OS X well enough. I didn't game and the pismo also had a generous disk and 512mb of ram so my day-to-day was fine on it. I didn't get the TiBook in 2005, I pulled it out of the box new(1) in 2003. 2005 was when I got my DSLR(3). We shouldn't give young cory that hard of a time for having still had a TiBook in 2005. It's well established that literally anything else from Apple's product stack would've been a better choice for me specifically in 2003, but I wasn't aware the machine was coming my way and even though I very very preferred laptops then (and until 2009 at the very least) - a laptop was chosen mostly for physical convenience(2). --- (1) QT2451CEN4M, mine, had been a floor demo at CompUSA, but the model would remain on sale until the 15-inch got brought into the Al fold in September 2003. I believe there was a slight discount for haivng bought it this way, either in the form of AppleCare being included for $0 or around $150 off of the $2800 list price. (2) The backstory there is that we were moving a couple states over, but it's the west and that means ~1500 miles. The four of us lived in a travel trailer a bit smaller than your average city bus (it was 37' long) for around a year. Incidentally, I completely do not buy the story that a PowerBook is better than a Mac mini or PowerMac in space-constrained scenarios, because after moving, we unpacked my mom's minitower computer and LCD dislay, my dad's laptop, my laptop, and we pulled out my iMac/233 and we'd swap between my brother using it and me using both on a small table-for-two inside. We'd stow the iMac on the floor at the back of the trailer between the booth seat and the bunk beds when we needed the table space for something else. If you have room for powerbook and you're worried about connecting it an LCD: you have room for a mini, and you probably have room for a powermac. (3) Yes I'm going out of order. I bought a Kodak DCSPROFESSIONAL and the cheapest possible F-mount lens on ebay and when those things came in, the camera didn't work, so my parents splashed out in a fairly unusual manner for a camera to put on the lens. That one was coordinated a little bit.
  10. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    Post TiBook, Apple managed to improve in build quality a lot. I would argue that the TiBook was too ambitious of an early attempt to do something that was pretty clearly possible and reasonable. Though, I'd also argue Apple didn't really get it right until 2008 when the unibody enclosure was introduced. I don't think it's because the TiBook was thin that it was flimsy. ThinkPads from the era are nearly as thin and have almost none of the problems the TiBook did, physically.
  11. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    My apologies for any confusion. I didn't intend to imply that a 500MHz G3 with a Rage128 and a 100MHz bus would numerically, on paper, outperform a 1000Mhz G4 on a 133MHz bus with a Radeon 9000. Of course if you get a raw CPU benchmark, a 1000MHz G4 will be much faster than a 500MHz G3. I suppose that seemed obvious enough to me not to have to say it. At the time, I was using SETI@home Classic and, sure enough, the TiBook rocked at fast fourier transforms, which I'd bet fit within its meg of L3 cache. (I believe BOINC had come online by the time I got the Pismo, I don't remember if I ever used SETI Classic on the Pismo, but I did on a blue G3/450 tower, and, the TiBook was, as you'd expect, much faster at raw out-and-out compute that only touches the CPU.) My, admittedly anecdotal, and it appears literally nobody else had this kind of experience, is that the TiBook buckled immediately and hard once you started to do certain types of difficult work on it. Mine was "looking at photos." (In OS X, which was my daily OS at the time, because of convenience and the web.) It was bad in iPhoto with 2-megapixel JPEGs, which were a common file format and size in 2002 when the TiBook/867-1000 launched, and it got worse when I got a camera that could produce 6 megapixel RAW files. The TiBook was solidly "fine" at mostly everything else I did with it. Email, internet, word processing, page layout, and even (because this relies more on achieving a certain consistent throughput, which became trivial in 1999, than random i/o perf) ripping DV tapes and simple standard def video editing with DV files. In retrospect, the problem was the disk drive. The TiBooks (and first-gen AlBook) all shipped with 4200RPM hard disks as stock, because it wasn't until later that there were two suppliers of 5400RPM laptop hard disks, at which point Apple adopted them for PowerBooks. From a technical perspective, I could have worked around the problem by using an external firewire hard disk, or buying my own 5400RPM laptop hard disk and installing it. I didn't have the means (or, to be honest, I was a literal child at the time, so, the knowledge) to do that. It really, really, soured the experience of using a machine that retailed for $2,799 and was under three years old. I've thought for years that the $2,800 would have been better spent on almost any other combination of Mac hardware at the time. The scenario was, I don't know if this is unique, but it was one where the machine showed up one day largely in exchange for my coming along quietly with a big cross-country move into some much smaller living quarters. It's not exactly relevant here, but it's perhaps useful context for why I as a literal child even had a TiBook. It suffered lots of random physical failures along the way, more than any other laptop I've had up to this point, and suffered a display failure I didn't have the means/wherewithal to recover from, so I swapped it for a pismo, which itself did have an upgraded disk installed. Between that and ho-hum normal 5400-7200RPM desktop drives in my 450MHz blue-and-white tower doing my photo work as fast as the TiBook, I don't think it was entirely unreasonable for Young Cory to come away with the impression that G4s were bad machines. That was, of course, bolstered by the bad physical reliability of the G4 I happened to have. And then by the fact that the slowest MacBook Pro that ended up shipping, the 1.83GHz Core1Duo model, also managed to outperform my TiBook at the photo tasks. A faster disk would've resolved a lot for me, but I still think, given that my workload in 2005 isn't even remotely comparable to what most people are doing on vintage OS 9 machines today, that recommending a PowerBook or iBook G3 over a TiBook today for that need is reasonable. You miss out on the upgraded screen and the newer graphics, but you're not really missing out on any real-world performance improvements for OS 9 apps. I'm not convinced that OS 9 gaming on TiBooks is a thing a lot of people are interested in, mostly because we'd hear about it if they were. From what I can tell, most of the vintage Mac gaming people are either fine on Pismos and iBooks, or they're doing "maximum possible" PowerMac G4 configs. And if you wanted to use apps that ran in OS X and needed a lot of horsepower anyway, you could just get much newer PowerPC Macs (such as the last round of G4s, as suggested above, or G5s) or, heck, Macs released up through 2012 will run 10.6, which still has Rosetta. Re Radeon 9250 and Core Image: Whoops, sure enough. I was mis-remembering both some mini specs and the Core Image information. The second group of Aluminum PowerBook G4s supports CoreImage, and the 1.42GHz eMac supports it with a Radeon 9600, but only some (17-20") of the last generation of iMac G4 support it, no G4 minis support it, and on the PowerMac side, of course the MDDs support it, but talking about PowerMac CoreImage support is a little moot as you can install newer graphics cards into any PowerMac G4 minus the Yikes.
  12. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    To add: What I'm saying is that the on-paper performance boost to OS 9 from an upgrade from the fastest PowerBook G3 to the fastest PowerBook G4 isn't worth the trade off in physical reliability and flexibility. This isn't relevant today but historically the G3 had a huge operational advantage with the modular bays where you could put two big third party batteries in and get 12-15 hours off-network with OS 9 and 8-10 hours in OS X on wifi. Those figures would probably be boosted today by installing an SSD. The TiBook has a better display, and if you're going to strap it to a desk anyway, having DVI output to run bigger/nicer monitors better is an advantage, but at that point there's no reason not to get a Mac mini or a PowerMac G4, both of which can far outperform the TiBook, even at OS X, because the Mac mini's graphics supports CoreImage. (Ironically, at this exact moment, on eBay US, TiBooks are trending a fair bit cheaper than Mac mini g4s, so if performance wasn't important and having the fastest TiBook wasn't important, you can get a pretty good deal BIN on a working TiBook for under $100, whereas the cheapest mini on US eBay at the moment is $110 BIN. Last year, this was very much the reverse where G4 minis were going for like $30.)
  13. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    My assertion that, at the very least, the TiBook isn't a better OS9 machine than the pismo, is based on a bunch of different things. Largely, nothing in OS 9 meaningfully benefits from over a 500MHz G3. The handful of people who are doing anything in OS 9 that might be limited by that speed are doing it on Power Macs anyway. In stock configuration, the TiBook is very very held back by its bad stock disk. (Granted: a Pismo would be too, and upgrading the internal disk should improve either a pismo or a tibook a lot.) The graphics uplift from Pismo to TiBook867/1000 are almost entirely a moot point for OS 9 desktop usage and for pre-OS9/edutainment software designed to run fine on a 630 or 6200. Mac OS 9 gaming would benefit a lot from the Radeon 9000M (or whatever's in the 667/800 TiBook) - if you're doing 9 gaming. High end OS9 productivity software is a bit of a unique scenario, but again, most high end OS 9 productivity software also runs in OS X, and arguably runs better in OS X, and can benefit from running on newer hardware that doesn't originally support booting OS 9 like newer PowerMac G4s with even better graphics (which is meaningful in OS X), PowerMac G5s, or early-ish Intel machines that have Rosetta - which is to say that if you want to run Office v.x and Photoshop CS2 really fast, a 2011 MacBook Pro running 10.6 might be the best way to do it. And none of that's counting the physical unreliability of the TiBook. So, like, on paper, the TiBook is a better computer (than the Pismo), but it's in this weird middle zone where it's not really good enough to be a good OS X machine, nor is it as durable or reliable as later OSX-running MacBook/Pros or even the iBooks, and the spec bumps mostly don't matter for OS 9 usage. I also don't know that a 1GHz G4 will end up being twice as fast at out-and-out CPU than a 500MHz G4. The 1GHz TiBook uses a 7455, which if I'm remembering correctly uses some Netburst-like go-fast stripes that only work well once you've scaled a bit beyond 1GHz. I suppose a way to find out would be to bench say, my PowerMac G3/450 and my TiBook/1000 in macbench 4 or 5. I get why people like them, but I just don't, even in an environment where brain worms are starting to cause me nostalgia for old versions of OS X or for interest in late-era PowerPC hardware.
  14. Cory5412

    Solid State Drive for G3?

    I'm kind of curious: What if you try to install OS 9 and see if it can boot? At absolute worst, it's an hour or two and we still have some more information. Another idea: You could see about connecting a conventional hard disk (up to 2TB) up to the SATA card. Partition it for, say, 100GB to boot from and "the rest" and then see how it runs.
  15. Cory5412

    A tale of 3 Tibooks...

    Sidenote here: There were two different portable Pentium 4 families. One was the Mobile Pentium 4 you're describing, in the 65watt-and-up category. Landtanks, basically. The other, which is what shipped in a number of business PCs at the time was the Pentium 4 Mobile, which ranged in heat output from 15 to around 35 or so watts. These systems were far from svelte by modern standards but they weren't un-portable and mostly the OEMs that built them made up for the size by pairing them with 14 and 15-inch screens and pairing them with two or three storage spindles per machine. My dad had such a machine from Micron that could run its floppy and CD drive at the same time, and the same is true of, say, the Dell Latitude C840. A couple years ago, I had a ThinkPad T30 from 2002 with the midrange 20-ish watt Pentium 4 is a much thicker computer than any TiBook or AlBook, matched the score on a 1.67Ghz PowerBook G4 in some benchmarks. (Cinebench. Cinebench 11.5 was the one benchmark.) Upgrading from the 1.8GHz CPU I had in mine to a 2.4 or 2.6Ghz CPU, would of course have that going even further. (And, from there things only look up. Those two got 0.22, a coresolo mac mini could get 0.35, I had a T42p get 0.41, The Apple DTK got 0.53, MBP15 2.4GHz got 0.65, and a 2*2GHz G5 got 0.70. Things went up from there.) People give the Pentium 4 a hard time but a couple revisions in and it mostly Did Fine. I think in 2002 it makes perfect sense to have the Pentium IIIm and two different Pentium 4 variants all sit alongside one another in a portable product stack the very same way that we have 7, 15, 28, and 45-watt mobile chips all making up unique parts of the portable computer landscape. In terms of TiBook vs. pismo: the only tangential benefit the TiBook has is the bigger display. I would argue a good solid pismo is a better OS9 computer in every respect, and I include in this my typical general idea that OS9 doesn't benefit a whole lot from newer graphics chips and faster CPUs, and the apps that do usually run better on OS X anyway and then you're looking at, really, having a better overall experience on a midrange Power Mac G4 or a G5, or even a much newer PowerBook G4 or iBook G4. Not that batteries in working shape are easy to find these days but an early advantage when I switched to the pismo in ~2006 was that it came with two high-capacity third party batteries, which were each around 8800mah, up from the Pismo's stock 6500mah battery, if I remember correctly. When hypermiling in Mac OS 9, I could get around 17 hours of runtime off of them. What that meant in practice was running 10.3 or 10.4 at about medium screen brightness and with wifi I was getting better battery life than classmates with brand new MacBooks, ~7-10 hours. That probably wouldn't apply today, however.
×