Considering just how many
copies of
Windows Vista that Microsoft has moved, it's not too surprising that a few (potentially rightful) whiners are calling the new operating system out for glaring issues. Not too long after users were complaining over
sluggish file movements and
bogus ads, it seems that the Aero Glass interface is the latest target of concern. Reportedly, the battery life of laptops is being diminished by having the eye candy cranked up, all while Microsoft claims that the OS touts "improved power management capabilities." Of course, Core Duo users
cried this same river when trading more horsepower for minutes, but engineers from HP and Lenovo have actually concocted their own power settings after finding the canned options unsuitable. Still, it seems to make perfect sense that flipping on a glitzy interface that obviously requires more juice to run correctly would negatively impact the battery life, but until we start strapping potent
fuel cells into our portable machines, this
unfortunate trend is likely to continue.
posted May 4th 2007 5:45PM
Here you go. Gates vs. Jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHO8l-Bd1O4
Well...Duh. Who thought that using aero would be good for battery life? What moron had that bright idea?
Bill did.
Eye candy is nice, but...if you want to get anything done in windows you turn off the fluff.
"sometimes dropping it to Windows XP-levels"
???
Wait, since when is Vista faster than XP?
I guess it is counter-intuitive if you look at it like this:
Aero requires a decent GPU to work.
GPUs are now more power-efficient than CPUs.
Logically, using the GPU instead of the CPU reduces power use.
Clearly, something has gone wrong somewhere!
No....
No Aero = Little to no GPU use on battery
Aero = Much GPU use on battery
Using Aero is in addition to whatever you were using before. Aww.... fuck-it I am wasting my time.
I see what you are saying. Turning off Aero would save power but turning off Aero is also turning off a major feature of Vista. Who wants to actually have a little discipline and do that?
Hi,
Good Post
vishal
vishalgaurav01@gmail.com
This just in....Vista's Aero interface resembles a cheap knock off of OSX's Aqua. Sports and weather next...
This just in... Todd smells.
Well...Duh. Who thought that using aero would be good for battery life? What moron had that bright idea?
--
Presumably Bill Gates did when he pitched this to OEMs.
I find this hard to believe. As another poster noted, GPUs are much more efficient than CPUs for graphics operation, so putting GUI operations on the GPU should result in increased speed and efficiency. I don't run Vista on my laptop, but Aero certainly does seem faster on my desktop. I think this is mostly FUD. If Vista is causing reduced battery life compared to XP, I'd blame Superfetch.
And Todd, Apple didn't invent everything under the fucking sun. Aero is pretty; get over it.
Well done that bloke!
Vista's aero, whilst making a little bit of difference (higher load across the GPU as you're playing flipsy's and requiring it to render information behind then active window) the real reason is of course superfetch.
As fantastic an idea as it is, superfetch insists on looking at a hell of alot of information on your hard drive when you start doing.... anything really. That spinning HD drains battery like hell.
It's dropped my battery life, but mine is a Vaio SZ series, and the XP based power management was superb
Of course an apple fanboi has to chime in, then again I have to tell them to cut and paste the following link:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant
Don't suppose PC users are smart enough to shrink the font size down a bit are they?
:p
wow - that site - i don't even know what to say.
it's unbelievably retarded. i shouldn't even need to point out that just about every single word on the page is either completely wrong, mind-blowingly idiotic, or an outright lie. where do you find this crap?
wow someone is full of hate. I mean seriously dude. Chill. Good god you are going to have a stroke.
As for Aero. *shrugs* As if 10.0 was any better out of the gate. Hell Vista is a hell of a lot better then 10.0 originally was. I expect SP1 will do some serious fine tuning with much of Vista's graphics subsystem. things will get ironed out in the coming year or so. Yes I think vista as it stands is very much half baked however they have got a solid foundation there. They simply need to tweak it and work the bugs out. That being said I'm not looking forward to my Vista MCP certs.
It's Microsoft's job to make your PC seem slow, thus motivating you to upgrade your hardware and perpetuate the hardware-software upgrade cycle. It's in their business plan.
I'm pretty certain Vista simultaneously taxes both the CPU and the GPU more than XP does. Don't fool yourself by thinking that Microsoft somehow managed to lessen the load on the CPU. When was the last time Microsoft came out with something new and NOT added more bloat in the process. Never, that's when.
Sure, maybe they have offloaded desktop rendering to the GPU, but they have also added tons of new CPU code as well, meaning higher demands on both. Then they top it off with a slick appearance to make you think you have a more efficient OS. Just look at the system requirements!
Thanks Microsoft. So far I see no good reason to upgrade to Vista. Maybe in a couple years, once the hardware catches up and at least two service packs are issued.
"Considering just how many copies of Windows Vista that Microsoft has moved"
i wonder how many that really is, as in installed user base.
"20 million [...] includes OEM sales" (earlier engadget article)
I wonder if the "OEM Sales" include every Vista PC sitting in the factory, or on a shelf or in a box, or if it only counts those SOLD to CONSUMERS. (I doubt it, MS is known for channel-stuffing etc.)
Afraid Maddox's got that one covered:
"2. Protest. I'm keeping my web site shitty as a protest against all the slick-looking, contentless web sites out there. Nobody cares about your stupid rotating icons and fading links. Mine isn't the only site on the internet that uses a simple layout, perhaps you've heard of this one? [picture of Google]
Some webmasters have spent years tweaking their layout and designing their site, and very few get any traffic. This site, as shitty as it looks, gets over 1 million visits per month. I use large fonts also as a protest against all the stylish garbage you see out there. When I go to a web site, I WANT TO READ THE CONTENT. Trust me, that micro-font everyone uses isn't nearly as original as they think. I've chosen a black background for most of my text because it's easier on the eyes than staring at a white screen. Think about it: your monitor is not a piece of paper, no matter how hard you try to make it one. Staring at a white background while you read is like staring at a light bulb (don't believe me? Try turning off the lights next time you use a word processor). Would you stare at a light bulb for hours at a time? Not if you want to keep your vision."
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=faq
Really? What specifically on that page is "completely wrong" or "an outright lie"?
Hey here's another Big Duh that someone should test: see how much battery power is eaten up by the TCP/DRM overhead on Vista. Do a side-by-side test doing some innocuous thing like copying files from one directory to another, or copying files in from the network and see how much less battery life you get. (I'm sure it's got to be something >0%, you're not going to get DRM checking without expending CPU cycles.)
So now you have the CPU doing all the crap it usually does, but the GPU kicks in on top of that to handle graphic fancy useless stuff (and it probably isn't too well optimized). So now you have 2 chips running at once, and you have to cool them both off so you are running fans faster.
Theres probably plenty of legacy code underneath that wasn't rewritten either, mixing with a bunch of code for new features, not to mention compatibility for old programs etc.
If this is true, I might as well go back to XP on my laptop or even DOS
like rosetta on osx? total cpu waste?
You want more speed and battery life? Install Win3.1 and stop complaining.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.html
"Windows Vista doesn't require more energy than Windows XP, whether running under full CPU load or idle. We also tried to stimulate the power consumption at the plug by aggressively moving windows or by switching between multiple tasks in 3D mode (Windows key + [Tab]). We would have expected an increased power draw, since Vista and its AeroGlass interface are more 3D-intensive and require 3D acceleration. However, there was no noticeable increase in power requirements due to the involvement of the 3D subsystem. This might be different with automated loads, but a single user cannot cause sufficient 3D load to influence the power draw."
Do some god damn research before you blurt out what you think is obvious.
What kind of sick tests do they do to 'stimulate the power consumption at the plug by aggressively moving windows'????
Im sorry, but it seems to me that the more fancy things that are running, the more battery life will be killed... The bottom line is that its obviously doing more... Anyone with a CPU moniter on their computer can see that when you have a sh!#load of stuff running, it bogs down ram, leading to virtual ram being used, leading to higher power consumption... Dont beleive me, turn off aero and vista sidebar... the battery life is extended...
Turning off both the sidebar AND Aero at the same time will obviously extend battery life, because the sidebar IS a known cause of power drain. Sorry, what you're suggesting is just bad science.
Doing graphics related work on the GPU will decrease power consumption because that is what it is designed to do. Doing it on the CPU (ie no Aero) causes the CPU to work harder. Overall the hardware acceleration cancels out the power consumption of the fancy graphics.
took this long to report on this?
my OS should not make my battery go dead faster because I switch windows. I disabled Aero after 30 minutes of playing with it. Pretty does not save power.
Vista is a huge OS in comparison to XP. It needs more memory, higher end graphics card and with these facts alone, it will need more power to run it.
1. Memory usage does not affect power consumption in any significant way.
2. Higher system requirement does not equate to lower performance. Vista requires a NEWER video card because it uses NEWER hardware features, namely Pixel Shader 2.0, NOT because it needs more raw horsepower.
Come on people, think! QUIT TRIVIALIZING!
You are all idiots!
(yeah, I don't know either.)
... That's why Aero automatically turns off when you are on battery power and in power saver mode.
Good God.
It turns off Glass, not Aero.
Aero is the 3D hardware accelerated windowing technology; Glass is the stained glass effect it puts on the borders.
Flip3D and DWM are still enabled.
first of all mark z it does not turn off aero when you switch to battery. what are you talking about. (although i think it might be some oem battery program that probably interferes with aero when it comes on when you put it on battery power, try installing a newer version of your oem battery app.)
second of all, i have noticed almost no difference in my battery life running aero than running classic or xp. plus what does slow down the computer is a bloated corrupt installation, which Vista is not perfect at preventing, but is better than xp.
>1. Memory usage does not affect power consumption in any significant way.
Really, so you're saying that putting in an extra stick of RAM is in no way going to make a noticible difference in power drain?
That's what I'm saying.
Try putting your computer into Sleep mode. Notice how it'll drain maybe 1% battery life per hour. In Sleep mode only your RAM and certain functions of your CPU and motherboard are powered.
Now when you're using your computer, you get maybe 2-3 hours of battery life. That means that RAM + CPU sleep mode is using up around 2-3% of your battery life at most.
You must be crazy if you're going to buy less RAM for your laptop just because you're afraid that it might tax your battery more. That's over-optimizing.
Well my point was that what Vista is more RAM hungry than XP. XP is plenty comfortable running 1GB of RAM space, Vista is not. So in general, you'll be running with a larger RAM profile in Vista which would also require more power.
"You must be crazy if you're going to buy less RAM for your laptop just because you're afraid that it might tax your battery more. That's over-optimizing."
You're conflating the arguments. Having more RAM, you're probably right. Software that requires more RAM, probably means more stuff gets shuffled to the swap/page file which will use up significantly more power as it must spin up the HD.
Vista with 1GB of RAM thrashes the hard drive significantly less than XP does with the same amount. With 512MB things may be different, but if that's the case, this article is misleading nonetheless to say the least
SuperFetch caches preemptively and statistically, whereas Windows XP just does it on-demand. If your reasoning is correct, Windows Vista should run less smoothly than Windows XP, not just be slower. While it's debatable whether Windows Vista is _faster_ than Windows XP, the concensus is that it is much _smoother_.
I also speak from experience. I'm running Vista on a 4 year old machine with 1GB of RAM, a Radeon 9600 and a P4 2.4, and I upgraded to Vista a couple months ago. Aero runs perfectly fine.
I'm also using a TabletPC running Vista with the same amount of RAM. My battery lasts around 3-4 hours using Word, Visual Studio, Sidebar and Aero.
This was reported during the beta testing in June of last year. It was one of the things that was supposed to be fixed, but wasn't. Older versions of Windows didn't put the continuous load on the graphics chips that Aero does. This is supposedly one of the things that laptops 'designed' for Vista have, additional cooling.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6079215.html?tag=nl
Like I said, Vista is perfectly fine for me with 1GB, even on the same machine. Look at my taskbar if you don't believe me: http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=taskbaryw4.png
It's 512MB of RAM that Windows XP works better than Vista with. Vista doesn't use exponentially more RAM than Windows XP, it just has a larger footprint. Once you've cleared that, Vista's memory usage is much more efficient than XP.
And again, it's the number of DIMMs that you have that determines how much power your RAM consumes, not the actual amount that's in use. Most laptops come with both of your RAM sockets occupied, so upgrading that won't change the number of DIMMs you're using.
How in the hell did we get from blaming Aero to blaming RAM? I think in the end everyone just feels better blaming Microsoft rather than blame their aging batteries. That's the cause of this misconception.
I'm not full of hate; I'm just brutally honest. Most everyone else is afraid to say what I say because there's so much peer pressure against praising Vista. Have you noticed that?
As for bugs and problems in the "graphics subsystem", I'm sorry but I haven't found any, not regarding power consumption. It's that sort of blanket statement (and uncited/unexplained crap like in this article) that sets up the "it sucks, dunno why, don't wanna find out why" sentiment.
And you know what? I don't care how many copies of Vista get sold, but I am getting frustrated at the way people seem to shut off parts of their brains when they talk about Windows. When it starts affecting journalism like it's evidently affecting Engadget, it's a cause for concern.
recently tested an Asus V2je Laptop with VISTA Business Edition: Battery only lasted a crappy 1.75h!!! And not to mention the constant use of 70% of the 1GB RAM that was installed even with gadgets turned of. tried XP on the Laptop: it was much faster, maybe not as fancy but at least I could get all the drivers I needed for the hardware....
I use areo and uses battery but it is too nice looking for me to go back to an xp style.
just because the guy gets hits doesn't mean he's not a worthless moron.
Carlos Mencia gets a bunch of viewers, but he's still a worthless moron with absolutely nothing interesting to say. i think the parallel is obvious - no matter what stupid excuses the guy gives.
"Back in the late 90s, everyone used Real Player." no one did, real has always sucked.
"You can't install Quicktime anymore unless you download bullshit iTunes" bullshit
"1,349,388 Mac fans switched back over to Windows" - completely made up.
etc.
Mostly, though, you're right - the page is primarily "idiotic" and only secondarily wrong/lies.
I used to use Real player- he's right, it was quite popular back in the 90's, but then started including silly annoying things like the "message center".
The quicktime comment is incorrect - though the default option on the download page is indeed "quicktime with itunes". He is correct the other way round though, in that you can't get iTunes without quicktime. This annoys me - I need iTunes for my iPod, but I can't stand quicktime.
As for that last number, if you go back to the page now you'll see it has changed - it's a hit counter!
So essentially you've found one minor error (quicktime is available without itunes) on a page you said was full of "bullshit/outright lies".
As for "idiotic", I disagree. He tends to make a pretty good/mildly amusing argument.
How do you think this useless Arero(premium $$$ version only), feature can archived these 3D effect??? With more and more energy, you paying the bill at the end of the month and your contribution to global warming greater.
You people don't get it.
Aero offloads the windowing operations from the CPU to the GPU and adds the glass effect for fun. The only thing it's "adding" to the processing is the Glass, and Glass turns off WITHOUT Aero turning off when you REALLY want to conserve power, but at less than 20,000 shader operations per window, it's REALLY negligible should the drivers be doing their jobs properly.
Emulating surface/texture operations on the CPU takes more time thus more power to process. Notice the framerate when you move windows is much better with Aero than without even on a laptop with shared memory. It's using roughly the same size transistors and on a smaller chip; if it's taking less time to process, why do you expect it to take more power?
Lastly, real evidence (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.html) shows that there's only a 0.6% increase in power consumption from XP to Vista WITH stress to Aero's primary features: window management and Flip3D.
How people can still deny this is totally beyond me. It should be DEAD OBVIOUS that people are just looking for more things to accuse Microsoft of for the sake of gossip.
It's disgusting how much this blame Microsoft sentiment is affecting people's problem solving skills. If your video card's sucking up more juice than it should be, bad drivers should be the first thing that comes to mind.
Never mind what about all the alerts and warnings Vista continually spews out.
Like women ignoring a low oil pressure light most computer users are clueless and will ignore.
Some improvment in opeartins system security features.
Since the dawn of microsoft windows - windows 3.0 / 3.1 all most users used their powerfull computers for were for " solitaire"
www.vintagecomputermanuals.com
I do agree about the fact that most of these people aren't accounting for their aging batteries. My laptop's battery only lasts long enough to move the outlet that its pluged into!XD