Framework specifically has stated that they worked very hard to improve standby time and claim that it’s dramatically better. Being able to use LPDDR5x LP-CAMM2 modules aids in standby time significantly. We’ll find out soon when the first reviewers get their retail units in, probably within a month or so.
For standby time, my current framework 13 has never bothered me. It’s great that Macs have incredible standby but it’s much less of a dealbreaker than I originally thought it would be. I just have sleep to hibernate set up in Linux.
My system sleeps for 2 hours then hibernates afterward. If I am putting my system down for 2 hours I’m likely done using it for the day anyway.
Just take the L, dude.
To clarify for you, “moving the goalposts” means that I changed my definitions over time. You’ll notice that in my comments I never changed my definition of what it means to have good battery life. I know sometimes turns of phrase are easy to misuse so I hope that helps you out.
There’s no winner or loser here. We’re just discussing technology. I’d appreciate if you tried to add conversation value rather than just dissing me personally.
Panther Lake is an impressive chip. The only MacBook Pro that can achieve 20+ hours of battery life at all with any setting is the 16” model that comes with the largest battery capacity allowed on a commercial airplane. It’s really not framework’s achievement, it’s the chip that’s so good, and that’s great for consumers because you can find a lot of competition on the market that has the coveted “all day battery life” without compromising on performance.
I'm not sure it's fair to ding Framework specifically for not being able to make Linux battery life as good as Windows. Is that actually something they could reasonably fix?
My understanding is that the reason why Linux still struggles in this front is that nobody has put in the hardware-specific optimization work to make it happen. There’s also some friction with how the bulk of Linux dev attention is paid to servers rather than portable consumer hardware.
I am probably not competent to improve linux battery life myself (or at least I certainly don't have the time to get into that). But I can choose to spend my money on hardware and companies that explicitly support Linux, even if they aren't at the very top of the spec sheet. This has the best practical chance of convincing big-money companies and Linux kernel experts to actually spend time and money on this. Meanwhile, buying a Macbook and installing Linux on it is fine, I guess, but also invisible to the corporate world.
In a world where my Framework 13 gets ~10 hours of battery life on Windows at best with ideal settings, that means you're getting ~7 at best in Linux, which means your typical non-ideal Linux use is more like 4-6 hours. Well, that's fine for somebody, (I own one) but that's a severe compromise compared to buying a MacBook Pro.
This isn't really "close enough" to be considered in competition.
Newer chips that are hitting the market like Intel Panther Lake and Qualcomm's second generation as well as the improving software ecosystem around it is something of a game-changer for Apple's competition.
When Apple launched the M1, it was such a no-brainer choice over its competition. Apple was literally doubling the battery life of the nearest competitor with the same/better performance.
As a tangent, I think it's worth pointing out that MacBook Neo was a game-changing impossibly good value device...for a couple of months. Now, the price has gone up, and Windows OEMs have launched competitive packages with their own advantages over the Neo. Head on over to check out the XPS 13, it's the same $699 price as the MacBook Neo with double the storage.