[quote name='confoosious']again, you fail to account for power and efficiency.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by "power" and "efficiency"? Of course I'm accounting for power-that's what the rating is for.
[quote name='Mad D']The Gamegear had a battery life of a few hours with 6 AA batteries. That was with one screen and a lot less processing being done[/quote]
You're not accounting for multiple issues.
The Game Gear DREW a lot more power. The performance of the system doesn't tell you how much power it used. I don't what manufacturing process would have been used that far back, but the Game Gear's CPU and GPU and RAM would all be frighteningly large compared to a modern process. They would have drawn a lot more power than today's stuff does. Heck, just in the few years between the PSP revisions, Sony could get the same battery life out of a smaller battery because of smaller die processes. In this case, we're talking TWENTY YEARS between these systems. You could power a modern version of that chipset off a battery for days or weeks most likely.
The screen would be a similar situation-it's a worse screen with worse backlighting, but it would draw more power than something modern.
Heck, if things worked as you're implying, you'd need a coal power station to power an Xbox 360. The Genesis draws like 20 watts if I'm remembering right. Does that mean it's substantially more powerful than the 3DS and PSP? Because that's what you're effectively saying.
Beyond that, battery technology is somewhat better too. Alkalines hold more power. NiMH wasn't even available back then if I'm remembering, and since its introduction has grown by over 50% capacity I think. So even the battery technology is much better, but the main gain is from process technology. 20 years is an eternity for computers.
AA batteries in electronics are like relics.
No they're not. They're better than ever, and nothing's changed in that regard aside from manufacturers doing proprietary and often even sealed batteries now. That doesn't mean it's better for *US*.
Plus there are the factors of pollution, not just trash but hazardous waste.
All of that would favor using standard batteries, not proprietary lithium. Lithium batteries are more dangerous for the environment than NiMH.
Even if you want lithium and not NiMH, we'd be better off with a standardized format-whether AA, or some new design/size.
Lithium ion batteries (3DS, smart phones, DSLR cameras) are generally quick to charge and have a slow discharge rate.
NiMH is quick to charge, and the newer design also has a slow discharge rate, which I'm not sure is even relevant in this case.
They are very light weight and very durable.
NiMH is also light weigh, and is more durable.
They can also perform in harsh climates and temperatures.
NiMH has a somewhat better temperature range than lithium. Again, NiMH wins here.
In the long run they are the most cost effective/efficient.
Even assuming that were true, that doesn't preclude manufacturers from having a new standard for them. Proprietary is rarely a positive thing for consumers.
As for the other battery types. Alkaline (standard AA batteries) do offer a lot of power and are reasonably priced but are horrible choice for high drain devices. The Alkaline battery has a continuous drop in voltage as it's being used at a usually high current voltage. With NiMH batteries, they come with the highest capacity but they suffer from a high discharge rate. Even when you are not using them they continue to discharge.
The old style does, but it's not much higher than lithium batteries. The new style is probably comparable or perhaps lower, not sure. I'm not even sure that's relevant for high drain devices like game systems. It matters for stuff like remote controls, where you'd go months or years on a single set.