Does Rockbox use up more juice?

[gonzalexx]

Hi guys... just thought I would open up with the question:

Does RB use up more use than native DAP software?

I have a friend at work that installed it in his Olympus DAP (he told me these were discontinued, and that he still has his original battery in it).  In his experience, RB sucks the juice out of his old battery to the point of shutdown - to be expected, BUT, he boots with its native software, and it just goes on working "normally" (taking into account that it still an old battery, but that in fact gives him significant playtime this way).

In my experience (which is short), with a brand new battery, it seems that the juice gets used up faster with RB, and with native software, it shows up full.  Could this be a tech mirage due to what I was told was not-so-real battery reporting?

In any case, this is our theory.  That native DAP software's core logic is custom-designed for the specific hardware.  That is, logic clock behavior, as in the "heart-beat" of the processor, is custom designed to run more efficiently according to the exact hardware characteristics of the specific box (read here... less overhead for its I/O and logic...).  WHILE, RB, being of a more "universal" design in its core logic, has to have significant overhead to provide the super features it gives all of us users, and to some extent, it is more of a "one-size-fits-all" or one design fits many... in its overall design, with specific programming to account for differences in hardware.

Now... this is theory coming from people that work with circuitry from a waaaaay up and away level, but still have a "feel" for behavior and design.  In other words, we are NOT experts giving our opinion here, but have certain experience with basic electronics that makes us think we can present our opinion.  There is our disclaimer about our "feeling-based" analysis.  I hope you devs get a nice laugh at this attempt... I think I would, from a dev perspective.

Then... having written my piece...
Can any of your devs please claim or disclaim our un-educated theory.

We certainly stand in awe of this work of art, and await your wise words of truth.

Thanks for entertaining our curiosity.
And of course... I think I said it, maybe in too many words here... thanks for excellent experience!!

[saratoga]

Does RB use up more use than native DAP software?

Depends.  Some it gets better battery life then the retail firmware, others less.  Usually, as a port gets more mature battery life gets longer and longer. 

If you're curious, I suggest looking at the battery benchmark wiki pages.

I have a friend at work that installed it in his Olympus DAP (he told me these were discontinued, and that he still has his original battery in it).  In his experience, RB sucks the juice out of his old battery to the point of shutdown - to be expected, BUT, he boots with its native software, and it just goes on working "normally" (taking into account that it still an old battery, but that in fact gives him significant playtime this way).

That just sounds like the low voltage shutdown isn't the same in the two firmwares, with the retail firmware being a bit lower. 

In my experience (which is short), with a brand new battery, it seems that the juice gets used up faster with RB, and with native software, it shows up full.  Could this be a tech mirage due to what I was told was not-so-real battery reporting?

In any case, this is our theory.  That native DAP software's core logic is custom-designed for the specific hardware.  That is, logic clock behavior, as in the "heart-beat" of the processor, is custom designed to run more efficiently according to the exact hardware characteristics of the specific box (read here... less overhead for its I/O and logic...).  WHILE, RB, being of a more "universal" design in its core logic, has to have significant overhead to provide the super features it gives all of us users, and to some extent, it is more of a "one-size-fits-all" or one design fits many... in its overall design, with specific programming to account for differences in hardware.

No thats not how it works.  The drivers for each rockbox target are specific for that target.  There is no overhead in the sense you're thinking.  Usually if battery life is lower its just because no one has figured out completely how the hardware works, and thus the port isn't as efficient as it should be.

[Llorean]

My suggestion: Simply perform a full battery benchmark under as similar circumstances as you can manage.

Depending on the player, Rockbox performs in the range of 5% less battery life to significantly more than original firmwares, usually. There is some evidence, though, that with older batteries Rockbox is more likely to shutdown early since some things like disk spinups can cause a voltage drop that would not be enough to make the player stop working (as in, low voltage but still enough to keep it running) but is enough to convince Rockbox to go into low-battery shutdown to prevent settings being lost. It seems some OFs choose to run until the battery is completely without power and the player just dies, which will account for a little difference between Rockbox performance and a native firmware in some cases.