Astonishing battery difference between 2G and 3G
Hi everyone,
Well as I have posted before, I have been trying everything to get a respectable day's use out of my 9900. And I mean everything!
The only thing I hadn't done is switch to 2G. I have now done that. With the old 2G + 3G, drain when not using the phone could be anything between 5-9%.
On 2G only, it is 2%, 1% and sometimes even 0%.
Which begs the question, why is there such a HUGE difference. I understand part of it may be the phone searching for better 3G signals. But surely the difference shouldn't be so large?
Is this not something which RIM can solve via software updates?
The point I make is that the phone spec clearly CAN cope with the hardware and battery configuration - as long as it is on 2G. Surely it is possible to create a scenario where it is workable on 3G too? Or is 3G SO much of an extra drain, no matter what?
Thanks for any insight...
Nick
Battery life of .474 compared to .440
Originally Posted by
Phill_UK Thanks for the kind words Nick, much appreciated.
Unfortunately I can't help much though, as I personally found .440 great for battery life.
Battery drain is obviously different for everyone, depending on apps installed and personal usage. Mine is always pretty low because I never install BBM, and everything else is set to manually refresh when the app is opened (except for BerryWeather). 3G/2G setting is always on as 3G reception in my area is very good, and I also use Vodafone's Sure Signal at home which is an absolute godsend.
Just as an example though, I updated to .474 yesterday afternoon and with the phone idle overnight, my discharge rate was 0.7% this morning when I checked it.
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
Hi Phil
Would you say that the battery life on the Bold 9900 build .474 is much better than .440? What about the performance to?
I was considering whether to upgrade from .440?
Thanks:)