The venerable 2001 classic of an OS,
Windows XP, strikes again. The scribes over at
Laptop have put together a rather damning battery life comparison between old greybeard and the fresh Windows 7, which finds that on average netbooks get 47 minutes less battery life with the upgraded software. In the case of the ASUS 1008HA, that deficit was a meaty 57 minutes, or 16.7%.
Liliputing and
jkOnTheRun have run their own tests which invariably reached the same conclusion. Adding these data to an earlier
comparison with Snow Leopard, where Windows 7 was again markedly worse than its competitor, leads us to the conclusion that perhaps Microsoft's 7th heaven hasn't quite been optimized for the mobile mavens out there... yet.
Read - Stick with XP? Windows 7 Battery Life Worse on Netbooks
Read - Windows 7 + netbooks = lower battery life?
Read - Netbook Battery Tests: Windows XP vs Windows 7
posted Nov 12th 2009 3:51AM
i believe if you run MS-DOS on a netbook, u can get some amazing battery life result.
Ye, you'll get about as much done as you can with Mac OSX and better battery life to boot!
Actually, If you run MS-DOS, you won't get any ACPI/Power saving features, resulting in, I would imagine, a markedly shorter battery life.
As an example, your CPU temps will rise when running DOS, leading me to believe the CPU is not being put into an Idle state. Thus, more power usage.
Really depends on how the driver works, especially the battery management.
If they really want to compare, I suggest get some thinkpads with Lenovo EE Windows 7 specially tune for 7 and see how that up against a Windows XP machine.
The poor battery life along with very painful migration procedures for XP is the reason
why businesses and corporations will continue to use XP for another decade!
@damiensturdy Get the joke man, sheesh...
I believe if you run CP/M on a netbook, the OS actually charges your battery.
I got the joke (made me chuckle even!) but I also felt the truth would also be good for those that didn't know. :-)
People like Windows 7, I get it.
But please don't lose touch with reality. XP is still a fully functional OS (arguably even more than 7, since more programs work).
If the test showed a longer battery life with 7, I'm sure people would hype its improved power management features like there's no tomorrow..
But XP is not MS-DOS ,if you stick with it ,you will not lose much productivity
Not to mention that with XP you don't risk going mental by 7's LSD-induced wallpapers.
@damiensturdy .
Well depend, MS DOS 6.0 have a program called POWER (how original name) that act as a power saver.
Switch Windows 7 to the 'windows clasic' theme, and it turns off all the windows 7 eye candy, making it look like XP in clasic mode or windows 2000. I bet it beats windows XP in the batter test then ;)
For a computer processor there are no physical differences between "Idle" and "Active". When a processor is idle, it means it's just running NOP commands instead of commands that manipulate data. It's up to the computer's operating system to actively underclock the processor when it doesn't need it running at full cycle frequency so that it uses up less power.
Lol, nevermind that. What I meant is that your processor will run the operating systems idle tasks for all of the free clock cycles. That's why when opening Task Manager you'll see System Idle Process at the top of the list at about 99% when you're idle.
Can you expand on that, Ben?
I've noticed that in Windows 7 I can go to advanced power management tools and underclock my CPU when I'm running on battery, so that the processor is throttled to 50%. Now I IMAGINE that this is actually underclocking the CPU and not just putting a cap on its active use - that is, it's really being underclocked rather than being half-utilized. I was originally under the impression that when you weren't using the processor for manipulating data, it didn't use as much power. But if that's NOT the case, then it wouldn't make sense to cap its active use, since it won't do anything.
Anyone know if the power option underclocks or if it's just a cap on how much of the processor can be used at one time? Also, between underclocking your processor and underclocking your RAM, which will save more power? Is it a case of "it depends on your RAM"? I suppose you could look at the voltages of each, but I'm quickly getting in a little over my head.
Modern CPU's have complex mechanisms that reduce the clockspeed and lower the voltage to save power and actually now the move is to also switch off whole segments, they are without power even, and yes it requires the OS to activate it and often a driver too, and the OS has to be told to work in powersaving mode in its power options configuration screen.
So if you enabled powersaving and have the processor drivers then it's not just doing NOP's, it will lower the voltage and reduce clockspeed etcetera, there are utilities that show the clockspeed/voltage and you can easily observe if it's working.
Also your computer when it's 'idle' is not completely idle really, the OS is active handling interrupts that check IO watch the mouse/keyboard, and the networks for incoming data, handles counters, and much more, and most OS also run all kinds of task like cleaning up when idle, (not to mention all the taskbar.dock utilities), and a lot of IO/interrupt handling will not show in taskmanager at all.
@Morris
Actually, the migration from XP to 7 for corporations will be MUCH easier than with consumers. We're rolling out Win 7 In our environment starting in January because its so easy. In fact the WDS 2010 Toolkit automates the migration. I can migrate users from 7 to XP in less than an hour and not have to reinstall progs, documents or settings with little more than a few clicks.
You obviously don't know what you're doing
The fact that this ignorant MS-DOS comment is STILL highest ranked really sets the stage for the rest of the comments below. Prepare yourself for more ignorant comments about TI calculators, 386 chips, and basically any way of spinning bad battery life as a good thing.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3666&p=16
AnandTech found Windows 7 to have superior battery life under Power Saver mode, and with Balanced losing to XP by only a matter of 10 minutes during general usage. When watching a DVD Windows 7 won in both modes.
Try it with CP/M.
I swear my life on the underclocking working via the power settings in Windows 7. Big benefit to battery life when I make use of such settings.
Yeah, these tests are kind of pointless. Windows 7 has more programs running in the background, and more eye candy to power. It only makes sense.
Not really. You can turn all the fancy junk off, yet still get the improved stability and usability that 7 offers over XP.
I dunno how they did their tests, but I get at least 45 more minutes per charge on my NC10 after switching to Win7 7100 then XP, and everything just runs so much more smoothly. Not sure why this is, but it definitely is.
YMMV, however.
Yeah, AeroGlass, AeroPeek, AeroShake and fancy tab previews and animations that make life easier will naturally take up battery life. Look how simple XP is, that's why it doesn't use as much power, it's nearly 9 years old!
transparent things on win7, animation etc should be turned off.. anyways netbook users are misers.
"Yeah, AeroGlass, AeroPeek, AeroShake and fancy tab previews and animations that make life easier will naturally take up battery life."
Animations that "make life easier"? No. Animation in a UI is almost NEVER beneficial. It's there to look cool in commercials and store demos, but it hampers real user interaction while you're trying to get things done. How cool is it while you wait for it to finish the 10,000th time?
And transparent UI elements? STUPID. What possible benefit is there in putting UI elements over a mottled background that serves only to obscure them? Next up: books with transparent plastic pages.
Not to mention all the other usability regressions in Windows 7 (many of which are undoubtedly holdovers from Vista). And now we hear it's a bloated power hog? Shocking!
Throw Windows 7 into power saver mode, it'll switch off Aero Glass and easily beat out XP. At least, it does on my friend's Aspire One A150.
@ Information Central
No, these are not just for commercial and displays. I upgraded to Windows 7 partially because of the new Aero features. It does make everything much smoother. It cleans all the taskbar clutter from older OS's and is nice to look at.
I use Ubuntu as my primary, and I actually wish there were versions of the Aero features (notably Aero Shake), though Compiz is kickass.
Just another troll trying to get off at Engadget huh?
Actually, the tests aren't pointless, because.. get this.. laptop users LIKE to have better battery life!
The eye candy stuff definitely will take a toll on battery life, but I'm not convinced it should be that much -- a bit more CPU and video card activity while you're performing actions. However, those actions *already* most likely required the CPU to be active (switching tasks, going thru Explorer, whatever). The eye candy stuff shouldn't be sucking any CPU when you're sitting there browsing the web (though I'm sure Flash will kill your battery) or writing a Word document.
So I'd think in 8 years it should have been possible to write code that was better optimized for today's notebook processor technology in terms of battery life. Remember, XP wasn't ever written for today's hardware.
"Remember, XP wasn't ever written for today's hardware."
Ah... but wasn't today's hardware written for XP though... think about that. ;)
Yea I guess i'm just going to stick with XP because it has better batter life on "netbooks".....lol not.
Why not? What can W7 do that XP can't and that you use every day?
to Inu:
Be supported in the future by Microsoft???
Anyway, my Eeee901 has been ahppily running Win7 for months now & it's quicker off the block on every way than XP so I'm happy to lose a few minutes (although I haven't noticed) battery life in exchange for being able to do things faster
LordPaul @ That didn't answer my question in any way.
Does that support by MS really matters? Companies are still dishing out software for XP like there was no tomorrow since most people still use it even tho W7 has been trying to get everyone's attention since August at least.
It's gonna take a long time before this system is dead too unless they release one that's fast, low on resources needed intuitive and with clean organization like XP.
Windows 7 (and Vista) are a million times more stable than XP, and when programs crash they don't take the OS with it. These are actually pretty significant reasons alone to upgrade.
It's not always about the feature set in terms of what is supported. Windows 7 simply does the same things in an improved way.
To Inu (again)
Your argument is moot. If someone asked me what my brand new Citroen can do that me 10 year old ford escort did, there is very little I could come back with other than "it's new & shinier & has better "
The same can be said in this case, and in most cases of software upgrades.
@ lnu:
I'll give you two features that by themselves would have been enough to justify my upgrade to Vista over XP:
- The fact that on Vista, an error during a copy or move operation actually shows the name of the problematic file and allows you to simply skip that file and continue the operation rather than XP's behavior of saying "An error has occurred" and abandoning the entire process. I can't tell you how many times I've had to drill down into folders to figure out exactly where the operation left off and identify the offending file. The first time I saw this on Vista, I was sold.
- Shadow copies (aka Previous Versions). It's a great feature to guard against user error, which is important in my job as a desktop administrator. I've even had some times where I deleted a file (like a TV show) and wished I still had it a few days later. With Previous Versions, I do. It's also saved me from some bonehead moves on my part.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of other things to like about Vista/7. Like the fact that it can take an image of your system while it's running, UAC (yes, I actually like it for the added security), breadcrumb folder navigation, etc.
@Inu:
Aero Snap. Enough said.
@ Inu
This isn't my problem but my friends mom can't run her AutoCAD software on XP which is something she uses everyday.
@ lnu:
No BSOD's! I haven't experienced a SINGLE blue screen of death, even since running Win7 beta back in October 2008. Not one, and I push my PCs to the max with 15+ apps open all the time. Not to mention better device support, much improved task bar & interface. Of course I'm a power user and some people like you probably just surf the net and edit a word doc or two every so often, so you're saying "what's the point?"
Win7 is far better than XP, for people who actually a computer more often than most, lol
Just had to mention the biased crapple test? How much does Steve Jobs pay Engadget?
i think you mean engadgets 3 sources... nubtron...
How exactly are they biased?
This should be accepted windows fact by now. Each succeeding OS has higher resource usage and is less efficient ON THE SAME HARDWARE than the previous. The same was true of 98/95, Me/98, XP/2K and Vista/XP so there's absolutely no need to defend 7 or any other OS on this basis alone. This only signals progress (in most cases) and should not make a Vista or 7 fanboy out of anyone.
I for one have not bothered installing Vista and I wont be installing 7 for quite some time; I love my resources just the way they are. As far as the Start menu and other 'advantages' go:
http://www.windowsxlive.net/seven-transformation-pack
http://www.windowsxlive.net/assets/galleries/227/7tp_desktop.jpg
http://www.windowsxlive.net/assets/galleries/227/7tp_flip.jpg
Lower battery life doesn't mean something is more efficient. Windows has far more features and processes going on then XP to help get things done quicker, and they do work.
Why is XP even being used anymore? I know its because many programs don't work with Vista/7, but at this much later point in Vista's release, it comes down to developers of those programs not ensuring their program are compatible.
You can't blame an OS if its developer base doesn't feel like updating their software to be supported.
@ p0p0:
Ok then, does it mean something is LESS efficient?? Especially given the fact that I qualified the statement and stressed THE SAME HARDWARE?? ;)
In any case, the experts seem to disagree w/ you.
[American Heritage Dictionary]
ef·fi·cient (¹-f¹sh“…nt) adj. 1. Acting directly to produce an effect... 2.a. Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. b. Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input.
Err... see the part about minimum of waste, expense and effort?? Have you ever looked at your resources under Vista and 7 and compared them to XP on the same machine?
So what do you think that translates into?
IOW (I sincerely hope you're better at cars), wouldn't a straight 4 or V6 pulling a 3000 pound frame have a harder time pulling a frame that weighs 6000 lbs (other things remaining equal)?
No. It has more to do w/ the fact that ppl are opting to use common sense and not running after shiny trinkets. Again, the Start menu, search and navigation are much better. If much of your time is spent flipping through windows and locating files, then upgrading may make more productive workdays. Most ppl, however, browse the web and interact w/ apps other than explorer. The widgets?? There are better ones available.
Maybe not; but you sure CAN blame the OS' dev for breaking compatibility w/ said programs, because 1) they have the power to break or not to break, and 2) its in their best interest to ensure maximum compatibility. As a small dev, its sometimes not worth the added resources to update (Adobe and other big fishes can afford to).
In closing, the following may cause you (and others) some real hurt but I have to:
Windows on multicore: Why XP reigns supreme
http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/operating-systems/windows/how-to/index.cfm?articleid=2026
Sh!t, the quotes are not showing. Could someone delete my post immediately above this one (is this even being actively monitored?)?
Thx! and sorry for the double.
@ p0p0:
"Lower battery life doesn't mean something is more efficient."
Ok then, does it mean something is LESS efficient?? Especially given the fact that I qualified the statement and stressed THE SAME HARDWARE?? ;)
In any case, the experts seem to disagree w/ you.
[American Heritage Dictionary]
ef·fi·cient (¹-f¹sh“…nt) adj. 1. Acting directly to produce an effect... 2.a. Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. b. Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input.
Err... see the part about minimum of waste, expense and effort?? Have you ever looked at your resources under Vista and 7 and compared them to XP on the same machine?
"Windows has far more features and processes going on then XP..."
So what do you think that translates into?
IOW (I sincerely hope you're better at cars), wouldn't a straight 4 or V6 pulling a 3000 pound frame have a harder time pulling a frame that weighs 6000 lbs (other things remaining equal)?
"Why is XP even being used anymore? I know its because many programs don't work with Vista/7..."
No. It has more to do w/ the fact that ppl are opting to use common sense and not running after shiny trinkets. Again, the Start menu, search and navigation are much better. If much of your time is spent flipping through windows and locating files, then upgrading may make more productive workdays. Most ppl, however, browse the web and interact w/ apps other than explorer. The widgets?? There are better ones available.
"...but at this much later point in Vista's release, it comes down to developers of those programs not ensuring their program are compatible.
You can't blame an OS if its developer base doesn't feel like updating their software to be supported."
Maybe not; but you sure CAN blame the OS' dev for breaking compatibility w/ said programs, because 1) they have the power to break or not to break, and 2) its in their best interest to ensure maximum compatibility. As a small dev, its sometimes not worth the added resources to update (Adobe and other big fishes can afford to).
In closing, the following may cause you (and others) some real hurt but I have to:
Windows on multicore: Why XP reigns supreme
http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/operating-systems/windows/how-to/index.cfm?articleid=2026
@F.C.
double page-long post - you sir, are a tool. Go write your own blog or take it to PM. You're wasting my screen-space and time.
I can't believe how many apologists there are here today. Turning off the eye candy is of course a necessity if you want to absolutely maximize battery life.
However, even with the eye candy on, a 2009 operating system designed for today's hardware should KILL a 2001 operating system in terms of battery life.
And a bunch of generic platitudes about how Win7 helps you get stuff done faster so you don't need as much battery? WTF?? Look, the many improvements in Windows 7 are all good reasons to upgrade, but they're not reasons to plug your ears and yell LA LA LA LA when people start talking about worse battery life.
Hopefully MS improves power consumption in a future service pack.
@phenoum:
get gizzed! I did apologize, for an honest mistake, didn't I? I did request that the post be deleted, did I not? Go complain to the admins; I have no control over it at this point. And since when is this your space? Guess I'm breathing your air too.