Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70
  1. #41  
    That's true, but it also begs the question, which can be rephrased this way: why in the world would palm make beam receive the default setting? I've always wondered that myself. After every time you beam, it asks you whether you want to put it back on. I always say no, and can't figure out why someone would want it on. Maybe they do a lot of beaming at the Palm offices and don't realize that's not the real world. That would probably explain a lot of other things as well.
  2. #42  
    It has always been the default as far as I know.
    I think it comes from the time this was the ONLY way of communicating with other equiment (besides using hotsync)
    Digital since 1980, Handheld since 2001
    M105, TE, T3.5, Treo 680, Treo 500v
    Happy Datebk6.1 user
  3. Silver5's Avatar
    Posts
    529 Posts
    Global Posts
    553 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by holvoetn View Post
    It has always been the default as far as I know.
    I think it comes from the time this was the ONLY way of communicating with other equiment (besides using hotsync)
    Wow...this battery issue is still going on?! Kinda sad...

    I understand why the beam receive is on by default though. It is the most simple way to transfer contact information between people meeting for the first time. Instead of fumbling around in the menus to try and turn on the IR port it is just a point and shoot type of operation for most people. It certainly makes things easier for me. Imagine trying to explain to every business associate that they need to find the "beam receive" application on their phone in order to transfer contact information and I can guarantee that most would rather grab some paper to write it down...It is actually a smart default setting even if it does take battery life down a bit.
  4. #44  
    BTW, I've been doing some estimates using Battery.prc, and I'm estimating the following information.. Sorry about this being an image, not sure what to do about it, I don't see a monospaced font available to paste the text and it be readable.

    http://unlimitedphoto.com/~wally/stuff/680.JPG

    Basically what I gather from the numbers above, everything is working pretty normally under normal circumstance.. Nothing is using an abnormal amount of juice. All of this is at idle with the values taken after letting the 680 sit idle for a few moments. The first box is some estimates on how much juice the Treo uses while on (a baseline) and the box below is how much each function adds to the usage. Interestingly Bluetooth (not in use, just on) uses less than I thought, and no difference between Hidden and Visible, IR beam 0, and data 0!?

    Again, none of these are in use, just on. Data means GPRS was connected (in this case, Verichat was online, but idle). You can ignore HandyAide, just wanted to check turning it off because it does a lot of event stuff.

    So what's my conclusion? Something is happening out of the ordinary which makes the battery life suck. I don't think it's the battery, don't think it's any of the phone features, but something is using juice that shouldn't be. I observed that sometimes it would jump from a baseline of 160 to 220 for 5-10s, then back down. Sometimes I'd turn the Palm off and back on, and I'd see a jump to 300, sometimes 600. I think Battery.prc does not record while off, so these jumps might be misleading. And one cannot really evaluate what the 680 is doing while turned off due to this.

    I'm sure you're wondering about the camera.. I might do it sometime to be complete, but I never use the camera, soo..
  5. #45  
    Red-beard, I appreciate all of your hard work on behalf of your fellow 680 users!

    Before I go any further let me say that I have no technical expertise whatsoever! But... I love tinkering with my Treo 680 (that just sounds bad) and I consider myself a thinker, so...

    If no phone features are causing an abnormal drain on the battery, could it be related to the SIM card in any way? I theorized on this early on when it became clear the battery wasn't lasting even under a light workload.

    Thoughts?
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  6. #46  
    Knowing SIM card circuitry is being used in litterally MILLIONS of devices nowadays, I would be very surprised if this was an actual reason.
    But one never knows ...
    Digital since 1980, Handheld since 2001
    M105, TE, T3.5, Treo 680, Treo 500v
    Happy Datebk6.1 user
  7. #47  
    Some preliminary observations from my test of IR beam receive and its effect on battery drain. Battery level monitored using 'Battery Graph'.

    Day1
    Charged to 100% and immediately removed from charger.
    11:30 (battery at 100%)
    (ON: phone, soundswitch; OFF: BT, IR, timesync)
    Received 2 calls, 1 unanswered, 1 where I spoke for <2 minutes.
    I started with IR off from 11:30 - 13:30, to make sure that my phone was achieving its usual good performance of less than 0.5% battery drain per hour. It was.

    13:30 (battery at 99%)
    Change settings: (ON: phone, soundswitch, IR; OFF: BT, timesync)
    1 SMS received, check battery level 7 times. No other activity.

    Day 2
    8:30 (battery at 95%)
    Change settings: (ON phone, soundswitch, IR, BT, timesync; OFF nothing)
    10:00 (battery at 92%) (this is where I am up to).

    So far, it seems that my 680 is performing very well and battery drain with IR on is roughly 0.2% per hour. Switching on both BT and Timesync makes a clear difference, battery drain has increased to approximately 2% per hour.

    Expt is still underway, but from my observations, IR ON or OFF makes no signficant difference. My 680 uses less than 0.5% battery per hour (more like 0.2% in this expt) in Standby mode (Phone on) regardless of whether IR is ON or OFF. This may suggest that different 680s have different factors that affect their efficiency (the most obvious variables being: additional software and signal strength). As I previously mentioned, the fact that Redbeard's 680 has a baseline drain of 2% suggests that some other variable is at play. Maybe IR ON and this other variable cause a synergistic effect?

    I will post an image of my battery graph chart at the end of the expt.
  8. jfme's Avatar
    Posts
    79 Posts
    Global Posts
    82 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by DIG View Post
    Some preliminary observations from my test of IR beam receive and its effect on battery drain. Battery level monitored using 'Battery Graph'.

    Day1
    Charged to 100% and immediately removed from charger.
    11:30 (battery at 100%)
    (ON: phone, soundswitch; OFF: BT, IR, timesync)
    Received 2 calls, 1 unanswered, 1 where I spoke for <2 minutes.
    I started with IR off from 11:30 - 13:30, to make sure that my phone was achieving its usual good performance of less than 0.5% battery drain per hour. It was.

    13:30 (battery at 99%)
    Change settings: (ON: phone, soundswitch, IR; OFF: BT, timesync)
    1 SMS received, check battery level 7 times. No other activity.

    Day 2
    8:30 (battery at 95%)
    Change settings: (ON phone, soundswitch, IR, BT, timesync; OFF nothing)
    10:00 (battery at 92%) (this is where I am up to).

    So far, it seems that my 680 is performing very well and battery drain with IR on is roughly 0.2% per hour. Switching on both BT and Timesync makes a clear difference, battery drain has increased to approximately 2% per hour.

    Expt is still underway, but from my observations, IR ON or OFF makes no signficant difference. My 680 uses less than 0.5% battery per hour (more like 0.2% in this expt) in Standby mode (Phone on) regardless of whether IR is ON or OFF. This may suggest that different 680s have different factors that affect their efficiency (the most obvious variables being: additional software and signal strength). As I previously mentioned, the fact that Redbeard's 680 has a baseline drain of 2% suggests that some other variable is at play. Maybe IR ON and this other variable cause a synergistic effect?

    I will post an image of my battery graph chart at the end of the expt.
    Who is your service provider?
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by DIG View Post
    Some preliminary observations from my test of IR beam receive and its effect on battery drain. Battery level monitored using 'Battery Graph'.

    Day1
    Charged to 100% and immediately removed from charger.
    11:30 (battery at 100%)
    (ON: phone, soundswitch; OFF: BT, IR, timesync)
    Received 2 calls, 1 unanswered, 1 where I spoke for <2 minutes.
    I started with IR off from 11:30 - 13:30, to make sure that my phone was achieving its usual good performance of less than 0.5% battery drain per hour. It was.

    13:30 (battery at 99%)
    Change settings: (ON: phone, soundswitch, IR; OFF: BT, timesync)
    1 SMS received, check battery level 7 times. No other activity.

    Day 2
    8:30 (battery at 95%)
    Change settings: (ON phone, soundswitch, IR, BT, timesync; OFF nothing)
    10:00 (battery at 92%) (this is where I am up to).

    So far, it seems that my 680 is performing very well and battery drain with IR on is roughly 0.2% per hour. Switching on both BT and Timesync makes a clear difference, battery drain has increased to approximately 2% per hour.

    Expt is still underway, but from my observations, IR ON or OFF makes no signficant difference. My 680 uses less than 0.5% battery per hour (more like 0.2% in this expt) in Standby mode (Phone on) regardless of whether IR is ON or OFF. This may suggest that different 680s have different factors that affect their efficiency (the most obvious variables being: additional software and signal strength). As I previously mentioned, the fact that Redbeard's 680 has a baseline drain of 2% suggests that some other variable is at play. Maybe IR ON and this other variable cause a synergistic effect?

    I will post an image of my battery graph chart at the end of the expt.
    Wouldn't a drain of .2% per hour equal 500 hours of standby? Seems unlikely given that no one I've seen on any message board is getting anything CLOSE to the advertised "up to 300 hours" of standby (more like 30-40 hours, if lucky). No offense, but maybe you could clarify some things. My math may be fuzzy.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  10. #50  
    "Who is your service provider?"

    Service provider is an Australian company you probably wouldnt have heard of. (Telstra)

    "Wouldn't a drain of .2% per hour equal 500 hours of standby? Seems unlikely given that no one I've seen on any message board is getting anything CLOSE to the advertised "up to 300 hours" of standby (more like 30-40 hours, if lucky). No offense, but maybe you could clarify some things. My math may be fuzzy."

    Yes, 0.2% per hour would equal 500 hours, which would be very surprising if it continues that way. I should re-emphasise - my expt results are preliminary and the results over a longer term, over a greater range of the battery drain cycle, may change these numbers. I usually get 0.5% or so on Standby (which isnt unheard of - several posts report 0.5-1% drain per hour), but have never had it test as low as 0.2% per hour when I have previously monitored the 680 on standby (ie. phone radio on, but with no use).

    One possibility that may affect my results and those of other people is that the 'reported' battery drain using the battery meter or 'Battery Graph' (which both myself and red-beard are using) may not be linear. ie. the drain rate might speed up with time. This would most likely reflect inaccurate battery meter readings, rather than actual variable drain rates of the battery. If this is the case, then Red-Beard's expt is better than mine because he has recharged his 680 prior to testing each condition.

    I havent tested this possibility but tonight I will set my 680 back to everything off but the phone and measure it's drain rate again when it is in a lower state of charge - it is currently at 83% after roughly 1 day and 6 hours and it is draining faster right now but I have other things like BT and Time synch switched on.

    Anyway, stay tuned if you are interested.
    Last edited by DIG; 01/16/2007 at 11:09 PM.
  11. #51  
    Thanks for your efforts, DIG. I'll be staying tuned!

    So far I can get through the day just fine with my 680, but I'll have more peace of mind if I know I can get several days on standby (in the event I get stuck in a snow-drift or something) --- as of now, I have no confidence in my 680 holding a charge for more than a couple days, use or no use.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  12. #52  
    So I'm not a technical expert but here is just another interesting observation. I travel internationally quite a bit and have to leave my 680 in flight safe mode, ie phone off. Even after with the 680 almost fully charged after a 10 or 11 hour flight I've noticed a great deal of battery drain. Others have reported this as well. When I arrived in Tokyo I removed my sim card and put it in my 3G phone and put another sim in the 680 with the phone off. I had intended to just use the calendar functions. I soon realized that almost all of programs would not work with the new sim card in so I simply left it in the hotel. To my surprise after the first day there was practically no drop in the battery level at all. Even after almost 3 days there was only maybe a 10% drop in the battery.

    So my question is if the radio is off shouldn't the battery consumption be the same in both scenarios? It obviously is not.
  13. #53  
    I'm not sure that is "obviously" so, since it depends upon whether the battery indicator is reliable, and it's not. It can go all over the lot with the same battery state, and suddenly drop, or even jump, for no reason related to battery state at all.
  14. conum's Avatar
    Posts
    338 Posts
    Global Posts
    339 Global Posts
    #54  
    You should try it. Pull out the SIM-Card, load your Treo full, put it aside and have a look at the battery.
  15. #55  
    There's a posting over on Treonauts that includes a response from Palm Technical Support:

    blog.treonauts.com/2007/01/treo_680_batter.html

    I tried this 'official' fix and my 680 is MUCH better. Seems the issue is in the initial battery charge, and as noted several times in threads, comes from the way the treo is reading the charge (incorrectly).
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by conum View Post
    You should try it. Pull out the SIM-Card, load your Treo full, put it aside and have a look at the battery.
    The problem is that you cannot look at the battery. All you can look at is a defective or inaccurate battery measuring circuit. I suspect that even the so-called "experiments" going on are defective because the 680 cannot tell itself what the battery is doing. The only way of really understanding this, with a defective battery algorithm, is to measure the battery directly.
  17. #57  
    I am not sure that the battery indicator is inherently unreliable. I think it needs to be calibrated, but once that is done, it seems to be pretty consistent. You can see this from Red-beard's expt with multiple readings taken over a range of time, and at a range of charge levels. I am getting similar consistency as it turns out (will post my expt results in a few hours). I think the expts using the TREO battery meter are valuable, since this is how virtually all users are assessing the performance of their 680. Obviously a dedicated device to measure battery charge may be more accurate, but I am not sure that anyone is so concerned that they want highly accurate estimates. I think most people would probably just want to know if they can expect 10, 50 or 100 hours out of their standby time, and what variable factors have an impact on this.
  18. #58  
    Turned off Beam Receive .... damn the batt is lasting longer now

    BIG UP and thank you for providing the test & results!

    EDT: Now trying the auto time & time zone adjustment from carrier thing ....
    Last edited by E2EK1EL; 01/17/2007 at 08:29 PM.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by DIG View Post
    I am not sure that the battery indicator is inherently unreliable. I think it needs to be calibrated, but once that is done, it seems to be pretty consistent. You can see this from Red-beard's expt ... .
    I don't think that holds up to analysis. I believe the battery algorithm is in fact inherently unreliable and gives erroneous information. There are times when youi can be satisfied with relatively consistent information, I agree, but the conclusions you draw from that are limited to that consistency, and no more. If all we are looking for is useful maximum life, we really don't need any "experiments." Turn the thing off, and see how long it lasts. On the other hand, and as only one example, the notion that turning the sound off increases, instead of minimizes, battery drain, is simply counterintuitive, and of doubtful validity. If the so-called experiment is based on a battery algorithm which is defective, it is quite possible, and I think very probable, that what is being observed is not an effect of the no-sound option on battery life, but instead, its effect upon the battery measurement circuit.

    It is true that the results of this process seem to be consistent, but it is also counterintuitive to believe that it reflects real-world usage, because of the outlandishly low level of battery usage it indicates, and a maximum life that simply defies everyone's experience.

    I certainly don't know what to conclude from all this, but I do know that the battery algorithm is unreliable, and therefore the results of these tests have to be subject to the same unrealiability, it seems to me.
  20. #60  
    To those who are interested, here are the final results from my expt (expanded from yesterdays post) to test some relevant variables that may influence battery drain on the 680. This is more a chronological documentation of my experience over 3 days with different settings activated. The findings reported here are pretty consistent with my overall observations with my 680, based on regular usage since late December. Obviously I could do a lot more, test various conditions for longer to achieve more accurate drain estimates, but I have had enough testing and I want to go back to using my 680 whenever I feel like it. My findings are not entirely consistent with some others. I am not trying to say mine are right and the others are wrong! I am simply hoping to point out two things: 1. It seems that it is possible for the TREO680 to perform roughly according to specifications in terms of standby time. 2. It seems that a variety of problems may contribute to lower performance, and there may not be one general 'fix it'. For example, in Red-beard's case it was IR beam receive, while this has little/no impact in my case, while Bluetooth has a much bigger impact. Hopefully the results will help some people who are trying to improve performance of their own 680 but are unsure about whether it can perform according to its specifications (or even close to that) and are worried that it is simply a lemon. I don't think it is, at least, mine isn’t!

    I have tested 4 variables: 1. IR beam receive, 2. Bluetooth, 3. Timesync, 4. The “Camera effect” and monitored the battery level monitored using 'Battery Graph'.

    I realise that my findings may create some scepticism, because my 680 is performing exceptionally well. Note, when I first purchased it, before I calibrated the battery meter, I was very disappointed with the performance (see my comments on Treonauts discussion site, username DG http://blog.treonauts.com/2006/12/treo_680_batter.html). However, since then, I have been pretty happy with the performance (apart from the widely documented camera problem). To help satisfy the sceptics, I will paste an image of my battery graph results below (next post), with a little annotation to help with interpretation. I will also list my detailed chronological account below (next post). I will begin with a summary of my findings.

    Even if you dont trust the battery meter at all (eg. M.Davis), the fact is that my 680 has been going for well over 2 days, has more than 50% left, and is showing no sign of giving up and I have used it under a range of conditions (as per details below).

    NB. In case you were wondering - I dont work for Palm and I have nothing to gain by providing positive comments about the 680.

    SUMMARY OF MY FINDINGS WITH MY 680.
    In standby mode (ON: phone radio, soundswitch; OFF: IR, BT, timesync), my battery drain is between 0.25 and 0.5% per hour). This equates to between 400 and 200 hours on standby (with the phone radio ON!).

    IR beam receive ON or OFF makes little/no significant difference
    Time sync ON drains additional power (roughly 0.5% per hour).
    Bluetooth ON (and visible) drains additional power (roughly 1% per hour).
    Camera Effect – causes a drain of roughly 2% per hour, corrected by soft reset.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions