
When I bought my EEE I did so because the website said I would get 7 hours of battery life from it. If this article is to be believed I should be getting about 3 hours of life out of each charge, yet in reality I regularly see 7 hours of battery life from it. Sure, I do keep the screen rather dim (but its still plenty bright to read slashdot) and don't peg the CPU at 100% the whole time, but it seems like common sense that if I did then the battery life would suffer. I can even keep the wireless turned on the whole time.
The summary seems to focus strongly on the setup of the laptops in these tests as optimized for battery life and yet somehow unfair. Meanwhile the article itself spends most of text playing up the bickering between Intel and AMD and in the end isn't really saying anything at all.
Everybody uses their laptops differently; some people use them as portable access to slashdot while others use them as portable desktops. These people are obviously going to see differing battery lifetimes. Instead of trying to come up with a realistic range or average battery lifetime for these different workloads it only makes sense to give the consumer the absolute maximum the battery will last and let common sense tell them that pegging the CPU or bumping the screen up to 11 will give lower times.
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.