Factoid, copy tiime, from phone versus from laptop to ext. drive

[micky]

Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
from the phone to the laptop.

Took 75 minutes.

Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.

Took under 3 minutes

About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
10 gigs
3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
good speed for usb3?)

I guess I'm posting because it suprises me how much faster it is from
the laptop to the external drive, compared to from the phone.

Wait. I could have done it right but I had the phone plugged into the
desktop while I was backing up the photos to the laptop, on the same
local network. That was stupid. Did it slow things down? Likely to
cause errors? Or have they got the error-elimination working realllly
well now? (Stupid me, I only noticed this because when I unplugged
the phone, a message popped up on the desktop PC!)

My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More
comparable to PC's? I used MyPhoneExplorer, but I think that just
formats the copy and then the copy is done the same as most other
methods would do it, right?

Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3? If not that, what? Or do
they not rate them at all?


(AOMEI backing up the whole 170gig partition with slight compression to
the same external drive only took about 35 minutes.)

[Andy Burns]

micky wrote:

> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?

Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?

[micky]

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 14:34:53 +0000, Andy

LOL. Well I have a policy of doing backups much more often than 2
years. Implementing it has been backed up in committee. The
MickySenate is all for it but the MickyHouse dawdles so much you'd think
it wants me to lose my files.

I have wifi, in the phone and my local network, and MyPhoneExplorer will
connect in any of five ways, USB cable, wifi, bluetooth, fixed IP
address, or autodetect (although I don't know how auto makes its
decision. I currently had it set on auto and fwiw it's when I plug in
the cable that it asks if I want to backup photos,etc. ).

But I always thought cables were faster, or more reliable, than
wireless.

[Arno Welzel]

micky, 2023-12-26 14:22:

> Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
> from the phone to the laptop.
>
> Took 75 minutes.

How did you do that? Via USB cable? WiFi?

> Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.
>
> Took under 3 minutes
>
> About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
> 10 gigs
> 3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
> good speed for usb3?)

That's about 63 MB per scond which is not really fast for USB3 - but it
depends on the external drive as well, how fast it can get. Wich
mechanical hard drives the transfer rate is also limited when you copy
many smaller files since the write heads need to be positioned all the time.

[...]

> My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
> not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More

It depends on what kind of connection you use.

Via USB2 and MTP you can at least expect 20-30 MB per second or up to
1800 MB per minute. So 10 GB should be possible in less than 10 minutes.

However using WiFi or even Bluetooth (which is also supported by
MyPhoneExplorer) it will be *much* slower. Using 2.4 GHz you don't get
much more than 5-10 MB per second and Bluetooth only supports 1 MB/s or
less.

The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[Arno Welzel]

Andy Burns, 2023-12-26 15:34:

For the future I would use FolderSync and sync on a weekly basis to a
shared folder on the PC via WiFi. FolderSync will check which files
already got synced and will only transfer the missing ones.

[Andy Burns]

micky wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
>>
>> Almost invariably USB2
>

> LOL.

According to this, quite a few phones are USB3.x now

<https://www.epey.co.uk/phone/usb-version/3-1-gen-1-usb-3-0/>

But maybe it needs taking with a pinch of salt, it says my Pixel 5a has
USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...

[micky]

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:32:52 +0100, Arno

Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

>Andy Burns, 2023-12-26 15:34:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
>>
>> Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
>> but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?
>
>For the future I would use FolderSync and sync on a weekly basis to a

I don't know if I can go from every 2 years to every week. I'm afraid
the G-forces will kill me.

>shared folder on the PC via WiFi. FolderSync will check which files
>already got synced and will only transfer the missing ones.

But I will check out FolderSync, right now.

[Theo]

If the USB-C cable you're using only has the USB 2.0 pairs wired then you'd
get USB 2.0 speeds (peak 60MB/s, likely less). The cable which came in the
box likely doesn't have the USB 3 pairs in it, so will only work at USB 2
speeds. You'd need a better cable to get faster data transfer.

Theo

[micky]

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno

Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

>micky, 2023-12-26 14:22:
>
>> Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
>> from the phone to the laptop.
>>
>> Took 75 minutes.
>
>How did you do that? Via USB cable? WiFi?

It was usb cable, but I used a cable that was already plugged in, mostly
for charging the phone, and it was the wrong computer, not the one I was
transferring to. So I guess it was cable to wifi. ;-(

>
>> Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.
>>
>> Took under 3 minutes
>>
>> About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
>> 10 gigs
>> 3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
>> good speed for usb3?)
>
>That's about 63 MB per scond which is not really fast for USB3 - but it
>depends on the external drive as well, how fast it can get. Wich
>mechanical hard drives the transfer rate is also limited when you copy
>many smaller files since the write heads need to be positioned all the time.

No small files, but the files had to change trains when they got to the
wrong computer.

>[...]
>> My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
>> not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More
>
>It depends on what kind of connection you use.
>
>Via USB2 and MTP you can at least expect 20-30 MB per second or up to
>1800 MB per minute. So 10 GB should be possible in less than 10 minutes.
>
>However using WiFi or even Bluetooth (which is also supported by
>MyPhoneExplorer) it will be *much* slower. Using 2.4 GHz you don't get
>much more than 5-10 MB per second and Bluetooth only supports 1 MB/s or
>less.
>
>The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.

Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.

This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
photos (PTP).
Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it
does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on
some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
it elsewhere.)

[micky]

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 16:36:31 +0000, Andy

Haha.

I plugged my phone into the wrong computer, but to test it with the
right computer, I don't have 10 more gigs to transfer. At the moment I
don't have anything to transfer.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on 26 Dec 2023 16:54:28 +0000 (GMT), Theo

<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>If the USB-C cable you're using only has the USB 2.0 pairs wired then you'd
>get USB 2.0 speeds (peak 60MB/s, likely less). The cable which came in the
>box likely doesn't have the USB 3 pairs in it, so will only work at USB 2
>speeds. You'd need a better cable to get faster data transfer.
>
>Theo

I've lost track of what cable I got where. I'll pay more attention in
the future and maybe I'll buy a cable I know is USB3 (even though I'm
really not in a hurry, but I think I should do things right.)

[knuttle]

On 12/26/2023 12:00 PM, micky wrote:
> It was usb cable, but I used a cable that was already plugged in, mostly
> for charging the phone, and it was the wrong computer, not the one I was
> transferring to. So I guess it was cable to wifi. ;-(

Do I understand correctly: You have two computers on your LAN that
share folders. You connected you phone to one computer, and
transferred your file from the phone to computer one which saved them to
a shared drive that existed on computer one?

If so this in inherently the slowest way to accomplish the task.

[micky]

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 12:58:50 -0500, knuttle

<keith_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 12/26/2023 12:00 PM, micky wrote:
>> It was usb cable, but I used a cable that was already plugged in, mostly
>> for charging the phone, and it was the wrong computer, not the one I was
>> transferring to. So I guess it was cable to wifi. ;-(
>Do I understand correctly: You have two computers on your LAN that
>share folders.

No, they don't share folders. But the cable went the computer without
the folder.

> You connected you phone to one computer, and
>transferred your file from the phone to computer one which saved them to
>a shared drive that existed on computer one?

No, I don'[t have any shared drives. I have considered them separate
computers for different uses and never ran both at the same time until
20 months ago. In this case, I thought computer one just took them in
and sent them out on wifi. But otoh, how would it know to do that?
Maybe I'm just assuming they ever went to computer one. If they went to
computer one, what would happen when they got there? Maybe they went
by wifi straight from the phone to computer 2. It's set on autodetect
and since the PC half of MyPhoneExploer was not on the PC the cable
connected to, maybe that was no connection at all, and it went by wifi
instead, straight to MyPhoneEplorer on the correct computer. ??

If so, there was no point in plugging in the phone except to charge it
for 75 minutes, instead of discharging. Maybe all that wifi would
discharge it faster than usually.

>If so this in inherently the slowest way to accomplish the task.

I'm glad I excel in something.

[Paul]

If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.

10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.

10,000,000,000
--------------
75*60

MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".

Google modified the (Microsoft) specification somewhat, by defining
a slightly smaller "chunk size" of some sort, to
improve the granularity aspects of the protocol.
That's so the link would not look dead, when a
1GB video crosses the cable.

My camera, as a counter-example, uses USB mass storage protocol,
and it goes as fast as the cable or SD card can go.
It does not heave metadata around like a drunk.
That's why it goes fast.

Paul

[John Dallman]

In article <kv06ke...@mid.individual.net>, use...@andyburns.uk (Andy

Some newer ones are USB-3, but the nomenclature is annoyingly complicated.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0>

For fast transfers, you want USB-C 3.2, which should get you at least
5Gbit/sec raw speed. Here are a couple of examples:

<https://www.gsmarena.com/oneplus_12-12725.php>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/xiaomi_14-12626.php>

USB 4 doesn't seem to have appeared in 'phones yet.

John

[Arno Welzel]

micky, 2023-12-26 18:00:

> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno
> Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

[...]

>> The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.
>
> Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.
>
> This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
> more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
> As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
> choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
> photos (PTP).

PTP and MTP are very similar.

PTP - "Picture Transfer Protocol" - was originally developed to transer
images from digital cameras to a computer or printer and is therefore
not as flexible. A smartphone in this mode will appear like a camera to
the computer.

MTP - "Media Transfer Protocol" - is the successor and provides some
extensions. But when you just want to copy images from the phone to your
computer, this should be a big difference.

> Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
> files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it
> does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on
> some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
> but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
> it elsewhere.)

No, maybe MTP was just not added by the manufacturer to save costs for
development and testing. For image transfer, PTP is totally sufficient
and many people don't need anything else.

[Arno Welzel]

Paul, 2023-12-26 21:38:

[...]

> If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
> that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
> issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.
>
> 10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.
>
> 10,000,000,000
> --------------
> 75*60
>
> MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".

Yes, but MTP is not *that* slow. It may be half of the possible speed.
In this case I believe it's more like using WiFi with 2.4 GHz (2-6 MB/s)
instead of USB (20-60 MB/s).

[Jörg Lorenz]

Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[Andy Burns]

Theo wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> it says my Pixel 5a has USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...
>
> If the USB-C cable you're using only has the USB 2.0 pairs wired then you'd
> get USB 2.0 speeds (peak 60MB/s, likely less). The cable which came in the
> box likely doesn't have the USB 3 pairs in it, so will only work at USB 2
> speeds. You'd need a better cable to get faster data transfer.

Yes, I've got various USB4/TB4 rated cables, but I thought the SoC only
had a USB2 compatible controller.

Just used UsbTreeView and it reports as USB 3.2 Gen1, copying a 1.9 GB
firmware file from phone to laptop took 16 seconds instead of 47 seconds.

While looking at the specsheet for the snapdragon 765G, I noticed it
supports DP altmode, the phone will power my USB-C monitor, apparently
it can't drive it as a second screen :-(

[Andy Burns]

John Dallman wrote:

> USB 4 doesn't seem to have appeared in 'phones yet.

Not even the iPhone 15.

[Frank Slootweg]

As far as I know, Micky has a Samsung phone.

On Samsung phones, the 'Transferring files / Android Auto' setting is
the one which (also) does MTP.

At least, when set to that setting, you can use it with File Explorer
on a Windows system and Windows does only MTP on such a connection.

They probably don't mention MTP because 1) it's not just for media,
but for any type of file and 2) the 'Transferring files / Android Auto'
already fills nearly the whole line, so there's no space to add 'MTP',

Bottom line: The 'Transferring files' setting is for ... <drum roll>
... transferring files!

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on 27 Dec 2023 11:40:08 GMT, Frank Slootweg

FWIW, it's a Xiaomi phone. But I'm okay. I just wanted to provide a
curiosity for you folks. And all the files actually were pictures, or
videos (the same thing?).

BTW, I had to reconnect to send some texts** and I did it the same way,
and this time I noticed that it said I was connected by wifi, not USB. I
hope I remember next time. Wait, this was next time. I hope I remember
the time after next time.

**Easier to type on the PC, full size keyboard, use two hands. Using
myphoneexplorer. It will also synchronize contacts, which iiuc for me
just means it saves my phone contacts on my computer. In case the phone
is lost, they can be copied back to the next phone.

[Arno Welzel]

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:

Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
USB in many cases.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:

> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:

>> Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
>
> Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
> USB in many cases.

180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
for a DVD.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 28.12.23 um 08:21 schrieb Jörg Lorenz:

5 Mhz would be even faster. In our big massive home with the three steel
reinforced floors this is not an option.

[Arno Welzel]

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-28 08:21:

Yes - that's why I said "around 18 MB/s". And 22 is still less than 30.

[Arno Welzel]

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-28 08:29:

GHz, not MHz.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 28.12.23 um 13:09 schrieb Arno Welzel:

Klugscheisser.

[Arno Welzel]

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-28 17:50:

Same to you.

[Wally J]

Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote

> If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
> that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
> issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.

While there are so many ways to copy files back and forth between Android
and Windows it's not funny... mostly I just mount the entire Android phone
as a drive letter on Windows (one for each sdcard) and slide them over.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wM4Z45pN/webdav10.jpg> Free Android WebDAV servers
<https://i.postimg.cc/BQyRxCN9/webdav11.jpg> Mount sdcards read & write
<https://i.postimg.cc/yYWwgGmy/webdav12.jpg> As Windows drive letters
<https://i.postimg.cc/QtbR1GY0/webdav13.jpg> Over Wi-Fi on your home LAN
<https://i.postimg.cc/JhjpnRgh/webdav14.jpg> Mirroring Android on Windows
<https://i.postimg.cc/gcKXV6F7/webdav16.jpg> A third free WebDAV server
etc.

It's fast enough. But I never timed it against the dozen other methods.

For example, most of the time my six inch Android phone is mirrored on
Widnows using adb over Wi-Fi (so the clipboard, mouse & keyboard can be
used and so that the phone becomes almost two feet tall on my screen).
<https://i.postimg.cc/JhjpnRgh/webdav14.jpg> Mirroring Android on Windows
<https://i.postimg.cc/wvsbcNBz/scrcpy05.jpg> Drag APK from Windows

I almost never plug an Android phone into Windows over USB anymore
given that Wi-Fi works as well or better than USB (speed notwithstanding).
--
Usenet is a way to glean over the years tends of scores of useful tricks.

[Andy Burns]

Wally J wrote:

> most of the time my six inch Android phone is mirrored on
> Widnows using adb over Wi-Fi (so the clipboard, mouse & keyboard can be
> used and so that the phone becomes almost two feet tall on my screen).

What's battery life like?

[Wally J]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote

Good question. I don't even know. It's fantastic. But how fantastic?

Once T-Mobile gave me unlimited data, I never bothered to look at how much
data I used (nor how much everyone else in the family plan used) and
likewise, with the huge batteries in Android phones nowadays (which can
almost start your car they're so huge), I never bother to even think about
the Android battery anymore. I charge it when it needs it. Every few days.

Since I don't even _think_ about the battery anymore, all I can say is it's
fantastic - but it has always been fantastic since it's a five amp hour
battery such that I don't even bother charging it on any set schedule.

Plus it came with the fast charger in the box, so if the battery ever does
get low, I pop it in the charger and it's fully charged in an hour or so.

I'm happy. I got, in total, five of those free phones from T-Mobile
and one iPhone (which has, let's face it, a terrible battery life).
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15/mo iPhone,$0/mo Android
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 fees

I don't even charge the phone overnight anymore, so when I woke up this
morning, it was sitting by the bed all night when I saw your query where it
has been unplugged for 14 hours and 19 minutes apparently (see images).

Here's a set of battery level screenshots I took just now on that Galaxy
A32-5G which show averages of battery life of 1 day 18.8 hours
(18 hours 28 minutes active) and the screen on average being on for 6 hours
and 6 minutes (8 hours 51 minutes maximum) according GSAM Battery Monitor.
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5X8Ccpx/batterylife01.jpg> Battery Bot Pro
<https://i.postimg.cc/sxRgjfgt/batterylife02.jpg> GSam Battery Monitor

Let me know if you want me to run any tests for you as with data in the
past, we used to husband our battery so I know it's important to some.
--
BTW, if someone tells me they have to charge their new phone each night, I
already know it's an iPhone because Apple put in cheap crappy batteries.

[david]

Using <news:ums3uf$1pdup$1...@dont-email.me>, Wally J wrote:

> Here's a set of battery level screenshots I took just now on that Galaxy
> A32-5G which show averages of battery life of 1 day 18.8 hours
> (18 hours 28 minutes active) and the screen on average being on for 6 hours
> and 6 minutes (8 hours 51 minutes maximum) according GSAM Battery Monitor.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/k5X8Ccpx/batterylife01.jpg> Battery Bot Pro
> <https://i.postimg.cc/sxRgjfgt/batterylife02.jpg> GSam Battery Monitor

I think you misinterpreted that Battery Bot Pro results as it says you have
4 days and 5 hours to go on your current charge (of 80%) and exchange rate.

[Alan]

On 2023-12-31 08:13, Wally J wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote
>
>>> most of the time my six inch Android phone is mirrored on
>>> Widnows using adb over Wi-Fi (so the clipboard, mouse & keyboard can be
>>> used and so that the phone becomes almost two feet tall on my screen).
>>
>> What's battery life like?
>
> Good question. I don't even know. It's fantastic. But how fantastic?
>
> Once T-Mobile gave me unlimited data, I never bothered to look at how much
> data I used (nor how much everyone else in the family plan used) and
> likewise, with the huge batteries in Android phones nowadays (which can
> almost start your car they're so huge),

You say the most incredibly bullshit things.

You pretend to know about cars (because you know what "beemer" and
"bimmer" mean apparently)...

...and you make a statement THAT ludicrous.

The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7
Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>



That's 6 Amp-hours.

An automotive battery for a SMALL car such as a Honda Civic has
something on the order of NINETY Amp-Hours...

...that is 15 TIMES the capacity.

And a car battery will provide Amperage in the HUNDREDS to start the car.

> I never bother to even think

That is quite evident.

>
> Since I don't even _think_ about the battery anymore, all I can say is it's
> fantastic - but it has always been fantastic since it's a five amp hour
> battery such that I don't even bother charging it on any set schedule.

And yet, I bet it doesn't last as long an iPhone 15 Plus.

>
> Plus it came with the fast charger in the box, so if the battery ever does
> get low, I pop it in the charger and it's fully charged in an hour or so.

Great! How many chargers

>
> I'm happy. I got, in total, five of those free phones from T-Mobile
> and one iPhone (which has, let's face it, a terrible battery life).

Now you're just lying.

4 of the top 15 phones by battery life are iPhones:

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>

[david]

Using <news:umsp4a$1s5oe$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote:

> And a car battery will provide Amperage in the HUNDREDS to start the car.

Whoosh.

[Alan]

Really?

Explain.

[Arno Welzel]

Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:

[...]

> The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7
> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
>
> <https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>

Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
"18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
Toms Hardware says at
<https://www.tomsguide.com/reference/how-toms-guide-tests-and-reviews-smartphones>:

"Battery testing: When it's time to test a phone's battery, we turn to
our custom test. Each phone's screen is set to 150 nits of brightness,
and then we have the fully charged phone surf the web over cellular (5G
in the case of 5G-capable devices) until the device runs out of power,
timing how long the phone lasts."

Well "surf the web surf the web over cellular" is not very specific.
What websites? What browsers? How many URLs per hour/minute?

18:32 would mean that the battery is dead at midnight when it was
charged early in the morning about 5:30 or so - or maybe 2 am when you
disconnected the charger at about 7:30.

Under my usage conditions, a Google Pixel 6a usually lasts more than 24
hours with one charge. When I pick it up fully charged at about 7:00 the
battery is often still at about 30% the next morning. Yes, I use it
during the day. But I don't play games or watch videos all the time -
just messaging, e-mails, some audio streaming and maybe do some calls
and web browsing for about 2 hours a day. Having a power bank with me is
helpful sometimes, but usually I can charge it in the office, so it does
not matter, when the battery is nearly empty after about 30-35 hours.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
>
> [...]
>> The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7
>> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
>>
>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
>
> Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
> "18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All

It provides a common reference.

> Toms Hardware says at
> <https://www.tomsguide.com/reference/how-toms-guide-tests-and-reviews-smartphones>:
>
> "Battery testing: When it's time to test a phone's battery, we turn to
> our custom test. Each phone's screen is set to 150 nits of brightness,
> and then we have the fully charged phone surf the web over cellular (5G
> in the case of 5G-capable devices) until the device runs out of power,
> timing how long the phone lasts."
>
> Well "surf the web surf the web over cellular" is not very specific.
> What websites? What browsers? How many URLs per hour/minute?

What does it matter? It's for COMPARISON.

>
> 18:32 would mean that the battery is dead at midnight when it was
> charged early in the morning about 5:30 or so - or maybe 2 am when you
> disconnected the charger at about 7:30.

If the phone were in use continuously.

>
> Under my usage conditions, a Google Pixel 6a usually lasts more than 24
> hours with one charge. When I pick it up fully charged at about 7:00 the

Because it's not in use continuously.

[Oliver]

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 10:30:12 -0800, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote

>> Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
>> "18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
>
> It provides a common reference.

The battery amp hour capacity is a common reference.

[Alan]

Not to how long a particular phone will operate...

...because it doesn't take into account how much power a particular uses.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-01 11:44, Oliver wrote:

Apologies for the double reply, but what I SHOULD have said was:

'Not to how long a particular phone will operate...

...because it doesn't take into account how much power a particular uses...

...Arlen'

😉

[Arno Welzel]

Alan, 2024-01-01 19:30:

> On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
>>
>> [...]
>>> The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7
>>> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
>>>
>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
>>
>> Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
>> "18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
>
> It provides a common reference.

Reference for what? A info like the battery capacity is a reference. But
"18:32 without our custom tests" is the exact opposite to "reference".

[Alan]

Because the tests are common, dude.

[Arno Welzel]

Alan, 2024-01-02 17:16:

Where is the specification of the tests then? "surf the web surf the web
over cellular" does not sound very specific.

What if I also "surf the web surf the web over cellular" and find out,
that the battery of a tested device only lasts 12 hours instead of 18?

[Alan]

Oh, please.

The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.

[Arno Welzel]

Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:

> On 2024-01-02 08:46, Arno Welzel wrote:

[...]
>>>>>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
[...]

>> Where is the specification of the tests then? "surf the web surf the web
>> over cellular" does not sound very specific.
>>
>> What if I also "surf the web surf the web over cellular" and find out,
>> that the battery of a tested device only lasts 12 hours instead of 18?
>
> Oh, please.
>
> The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.

No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.

[Alan]

And knowing the size of the battery is useless unless you know the power
consumption of the phone.

[Oliver]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:50:35 +0100, Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote

>> The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
>
> No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
> completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.

Agree the test results are usually pointless unless you have one of the
exact devices tested and if you use the phone the way they tested it.

As you said, since each battery shootout typically uses DIFFERENT test
criteria, you can't extrapolate the tests from one phone to another.

The ONLY thing you can compare amongst ALL phones is battery capacity.
The bigger the better in every way imaginable (both daily & total life).

A bigger battery capacity means fewer charges which means overall longer
battery life since the nominal 500 charge cycles are reached sooner on
smaller batteries (even if they claim "higher efficiency").

A typical "higher efficiency" claim is in the single digits but let's give
them a whopping 25% higher efficiency to test out the simple math.

Phone A has a 3 amp hour battery with a claimed 25% higher efficiency.
Phone B has a 6 amp hour battery (they don't advertise the efficiency).

Which phone dies soonest in a day (assuming normal use patterns)?
Which phone dies soonest in a few years (due to reaching 500 cycles)?

These are just example numbers which make the point that you can't beat a
bigger battery since it's better in every way that you can do the math.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-03 16:39, Oliver wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:50:35 +0100, Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote
>
>>> The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
>>
>> No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
>> completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
>
> Agree the test results are usually pointless unless you have one of the
> exact devices tested and if you use the phone the way they tested it.
>
> As you said, since each battery shootout typically uses DIFFERENT test
> criteria, you can't extrapolate the tests from one phone to another.

Unless you find a phone in common on both tests.

>
> The ONLY thing you can compare amongst ALL phones is battery capacity.
> The bigger the better in every way imaginable (both daily & total life).

Other than weight and bulk...

>
> A bigger battery capacity means fewer charges which means overall longer
> battery life since the nominal 500 charge cycles are reached sooner on
> smaller batteries (even if they claim "higher efficiency").

No, the nominal 500 charge cycles are NOT reached sooner if the phone is
more efficient in its power usage.

>
> A typical "higher efficiency" claim is in the single digits but let's give
> them a whopping 25% higher efficiency to test out the simple math.

This is Arlen again, isn't it?

>
> Phone A has a 3 amp hour battery with a claimed 25% higher efficiency.
> Phone B has a 6 amp hour battery (they don't advertise the efficiency).
>
> Which phone dies soonest in a day (assuming normal use patterns)?
> Which phone dies soonest in a few years (due to reaching 500 cycles)?
>
> These are just example numbers which make the point that you can't beat a
> bigger battery since it's better in every way that you can do the math.

If that were true, then lots and lots of phones with beat the iPhones in
battery life...

...but that isn't what happens.

TomsGuide:

5. iPhone 15 Pro Max

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>


GSM Arena's Editors' Choice:

iPhone 15 Plus

<https://www.gsmarena.com/phones_best_battery_life_buyers_guide-review-2028.php>

NanoReview:

4. iPhone 15 Pro Max

<https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>

Are you starting to sense a theme, Arlen?

[Oliver]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:36:45 -0800, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote

> No, the nominal 500 charge cycles are NOT reached sooner if the phone is
> more efficient in its power usage.

Without a cite showing the percentage, your claimed efficiency is BS.

If phone A is 3 amp hours and 25% more efficient than phone B of 6 amp
hours, the total number of charge cycles will always be reached sooner with
the "more efficient" phone because it has a smaller capacity battery
(assuming everything else being equal in terms of daily use & charging).

Worse, I doubt the efficiency you tout is higher than single digits, but
why don't you bring up a cite which shows what the claimed efficiency is?

Specifically, without a cite showing efficiency at least as great as the
lack in capacity, then it stands to basic reason (and simple math) that the
number of charge cycles will always be much higher for the smaller battery.

Even worse, the much smaller battery will likely approach much lower
thresholds, which will also reduce the life of the battery over time.

Hence, lower overall lifetime (since battery life is mostly due to charge
cycles although there are other ways to prematurely degrade a battery).

I won't bother replying to your BS until & unless you provide a cite
backing up your claims with actual percentage numbers that can be trusted.

ciao

[Alan]

On 2024-01-03 21:04, Oliver wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:36:45 -0800, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote
>
>> No, the nominal 500 charge cycles are NOT reached sooner if the phone is
>> more efficient in its power usage.
>
> Without a cite showing the percentage, your claimed efficiency is BS.

I didn't make a claim about efficiency, Arlen.

What I pointed out is that when 500 charge cycles are reached depends on
BOTH the battery's capacity and the phones energy usage.

You agree that's true, right?

>
> If phone A is 3 amp hours and 25% more efficient than phone B of 6 amp
> hours, the total number of charge cycles will always be reached sooner with
> the "more efficient" phone because it has a smaller capacity battery
> (assuming everything else being equal in terms of daily use & charging).

Sure, but you're just making up numbers.

>
> Worse, I doubt the efficiency you tout is higher than single digits, but
> why don't you bring up a cite which shows what the claimed efficiency is?

I'm not required to.

What I make NOTE of is that iPhones regularly rank among the very
highest in run times.

>
> Specifically, without a cite showing efficiency at least as great as the
> lack in capacity, then it stands to basic reason (and simple math) that the
> number of charge cycles will always be much higher for the smaller battery.

Where have YOU show actual cites of energy efficiency?

>
> Even worse, the much smaller battery will likely approach much lower
> thresholds, which will also reduce the life of the battery over time.
>
> Hence, lower overall lifetime (since battery life is mostly due to charge
> cycles although there are other ways to prematurely degrade a battery).
>
> I won't bother replying to your BS until & unless you provide a cite
> backing up your claims with actual percentage numbers that can be trusted.

All based on hypotheticals for which you have not offered any
substantiating evidence.


Basic logic, Arlen. Not your strong suit, but here goes.

Imagine two identical phones except that one has a battery half the size
of the other, but that is so efficient that it gets the same run time as
the phone with the larger battery.

Now:

Will those two phones complete 500 charge cycles in a different amount
of time?

Yes or no?

[Arno Welzel]

Alan, 2024-01-03 18:14:

> On 2024-01-03 08:50, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:

[...]

>>> The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
>>
>> No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
>> completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
>
> And knowing the size of the battery is useless unless you know the power
> consumption of the phone.

Well - along with the SoC and the display used you have can an idea if
it might be better or worse. A Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 with an Andreno
320 GPU core speed will always use the same power, regardless in which
device it is built in.

And to compare your own device with other devices, a *defined* test is
important which you can try on your own device as well. But "surfing the
web" is not "defined" since it depends on what websites you visit and
how you interact with the browser.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-04 00:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Alan, 2024-01-03 18:14:
>
>> On 2024-01-03 08:50, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:
> [...]
>>>> The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
>>>
>>> No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
>>> completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
>>
>> And knowing the size of the battery is useless unless you know the power
>> consumption of the phone.
>
> Well - along with the SoC and the display used you have can an idea if
> it might be better or worse. A Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 with an Andreno
> 320 GPU core speed will always use the same power, regardless in which
> device it is built in.

Yes... ...the SoC CPU/GPU will use the same power.

But a phone is not just a SoC CPU/GPU

>
> And to compare your own device with other devices, a *defined* test is
> important which you can try on your own device as well. But "surfing the
> web" is not "defined" since it depends on what websites you visit and
> how you interact with the browser.

But the point remains that battery size ALONE doesn't tell you how well
your phone will do.

Stop being an Arlen.

[Larry Wolff]

On this Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:48:38 -0800, Alan wrote:

> But the point remains that battery size ALONE doesn't tell you how well
> your phone will do.

There is no substitute for much larger battery capacity no matter how much
you try to argue the iphone's dearth of battery capacity isn't important.

[Alan]

The facts show that iPhones DO NOT have a "dearth of battery capacity":

150 phones in this list, the top iPhone is at 4 with 3 places in the top 10
<https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>

How long will you try and maintain your belief in this shibboleth that
battery size is what's important?

Run time is what matters, and it doesn't matter whether you get it by
large battery and with average energy efficiency or small battery with
better than average energy efficiency.

[Larry Wolff]

On 1/4/2024 6:06 PM, Alan wrote:

> The facts show that iPhones DO NOT have a "dearth of battery capacity".

Whoosh.
You make lame excuses for all iphones having very low battery capacity.

> 150 phones in this list, the top iPhone is at 4 with 3 places in the top 10
> <https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>

Idiot. I'm talking about overall battery life, as in years. Not hours.

> How long will you try and maintain your belief in this shibboleth that
> battery size is what's important?

Dumbass. A small battery will always reach the 500 charge cycles sooner.

> Run time is what matters, and it doesn't matter whether you get it by
> large battery and with average energy efficiency or small battery with
> better than average energy efficiency.

The smaller the battery, the sooner its life-ending charge cycling occurs.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-04 17:06, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 6:06 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> The facts show that iPhones DO NOT have a "dearth of battery capacity".
>
> Whoosh.
> You make lame excuses for all iphones having very low battery capacity.
>
>> 150 phones in this list, the top iPhone is at 4 with 3 places in the top 10
>> <https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>
>
> Idiot. I'm talking about overall battery life, as in years. Not hours.

Yes, and you are the idiot.

>
>> How long will you try and maintain your belief in this shibboleth that
>> battery size is what's important?
>
> Dumbass. A small battery will always reach the 500 charge cycles sooner.

Nope.

>
>> Run time is what matters, and it doesn't matter whether you get it by
>> large battery and with average energy efficiency or small battery with
>> better than average energy efficiency.
>
> The smaller the battery, the sooner its life-ending charge cycling occurs.

Let me lay this out as simply as I can for a simpleton you obviously are.

Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
you use it from the moment you get up at 8am until you go to bed and
recharge it overnight 16 hours later at midnight.

How many days will you use the phone to reach 500 charge cycles?

500 days.


Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours and you
use it just the same.

How many days will you use the phone to reach 500 charge cycles?

Also 500 days.

Run time on a single charge and how quickly you reach any arbitrary
number of charge cycles are inextricably...

...(and I know that's a big word for you, so please look up
"inextricably")...

...linked.

If you had cars that magically stopped working after you'd fill the tank
500 times, then it wouldn't matter that one car had a tank of half the
size...

...if it had twice the gas mileage.

[Larry Wolff]

On 1/4/2024 8:18 PM, Alan wrote:

> Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and

> Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours

Dumbass.
You're making up absurd excuses for iPhones all having small batteries.

In your example the iPhone is B because all iPhones have a small battery.
Your claim that this tiny-battery iPhone is TWICE AS EFFICIENT is absurd.

While you're making ridiculous excuses for the small iPhone battery, why
stop at merely claiming twice the efficiency of a typical Android phone?

Why not claim ten times, no, twenty, no one hundred times more efficient?

If your iPhone was one hundred, no..... two hundred times more efficient,
then those tiny batteries would reach the 500 cycles at a later date.

While you're making up excuses for the small iPhone batteries, why not
claim iPhones are five hundred, no..... a THOUSAND times more efficient.

At ten thousand times the efficiency, then your lame excuses for the small
batteries found in all iPhones can begin to start to make arithmetic sense.

Why stop there. Why not claim TWENTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
Do I hear THIRTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
FORTY?

At a HUNDRED THOUSAND times the efficiency, you could make your case that
the always much smaller iPhone battery has the same lifetime as others do.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-04 19:54, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 8:18 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
>> Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours
>
> Dumbass.
> You're making up absurd excuses for iPhones all having small batteries.

Nope.

I'm noting some obvious facts and their logical conclusions...

...Arlen.

>
> In your example the iPhone is B because all iPhones have a small battery.
> Your claim that this tiny-battery iPhone is TWICE AS EFFICIENT is absurd.

I'm not claiming anything about specific phones, Arlen

Do you now understand that phones that have the same run time will reach
500 charge cycles in the same length of time...

...Arlen?

>
> While you're making ridiculous excuses for the small iPhone battery, why
> stop at merely claiming twice the efficiency of a typical Android phone?
>
> Why not claim ten times, no, twenty, no one hundred times more efficient?
>
> If your iPhone was one hundred, no..... two hundred times more efficient,
> then those tiny batteries would reach the 500 cycles at a later date.
>
> While you're making up excuses for the small iPhone batteries, why not
> claim iPhones are five hundred, no..... a THOUSAND times more efficient.
>
> At ten thousand times the efficiency, then your lame excuses for the small
> batteries found in all iPhones can begin to start to make arithmetic sense.
>
> Why stop there. Why not claim TWENTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
> Do I hear THIRTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
> FORTY?
>
> At a HUNDRED THOUSAND times the efficiency, you could make your case that
> the always much smaller iPhone battery has the same lifetime as others do.

Why did you snip the rest of my post...

...Arlen?

Let me lay this out as simply as I can for a simpleton you obviously are.

Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and

[Larry Wolff]

On 1/4/2024 11:15 PM, Alan wrote:

> ...if it had twice the gas mileage.

Anyone reading this can already do the basic simple math that you can't do
which is the small iPhone batteries will always reach 500 cycles sooner.

Your absurd lie of twice the efficiency is the ONLY WAY you can make your
lame case small iPhone batteries will not reach 500 charge cycles sooner.

Until you retract your dumbass lie of twice the efficiency, we're done.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-04 20:53, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 11:15 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> ...if it had twice the gas mileage.
>
> Anyone reading this can already do the basic simple math that you can't do
> which is the small iPhone batteries will always reach 500 cycles sooner.

Anyone who isn't a complete idiot can see that equal run times means
reaching 500 cycles in the same length of time.

>
> Your absurd lie of twice the efficiency is the ONLY WAY you can make your
> lame case small iPhone batteries will not reach 500 charge cycles sooner.
>
> Until you retract your dumbass lie of twice the efficiency, we're done.

You're a pussy, Arlen.

[Alan]