- Status
LordConrad
Distinguished
- Jun 15, 2007
- 864
- 17
- 19,215
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Does this mean the Windows 7 scheduler will work properly with AMD's Phenom I chips with Cool 'n Quiet enabled, the way Vista didn't?[/citation]
Good question.
Anyone... anyone... Bueller?
Good question.
Anyone... anyone... Bueller?
I remember a trick I found on a mobile site to set the Mode con delay and rate of a computer lower.
But I don't expect Windows7 to do that automatically.
As things stand now with the RC, Windows 7 RC1 still uses more battery than my XP; sorry MS.
Sure it has some powersaving feats that XP does not have, but in program loadtimes, background activity, etc.. it still is the underdog for XP.
I almost want to bet, that the powersaving feats of Windows 7 better than XP, are limited to idle and coming out of idle/powering up or powering down; and hibernation.
I highly doubt Windows 7 uses less battery in normal program operating conditions.
It is an OS with a larger footprint after all. They either need to cripple the OS, limit it's performance or disable functions to make it match with XP.
I still plead here that MS might work on expanding their Defrag program, making it more advanced, and also making their OS more compatible with MLC SSD's!
If MS really want to improve their OS, they might want to modify defrag to sort all the bootup files on the outer sectors of the disk, as well as by standard sort files in their directories on the disk.
Having a program boot where it's first .dll is found on the inner sectors on the disk, and the second .dll on the outter, makes the arm of the hd continuously seek for files. That could easily be avoided by just sorting files in folders, and defragging folder by folder, leaving small spaces after frequently modified files.
Large files (eg: those above 100MB), can easily be placed in the inner circle (inner sectors) where the HD performs slower, for usually they need very little access times (given the files are defragmented), and most of the larger files are either .dat files, or .mpg/.avi/.divx/.ogv/.mkv movie files. They need no high speeds to display.
Also uninstall data, driver rollback data, and restore points, that need no frequent accessing can be placed in the slower parts of the HD.
MLC SSD's need a complete different methode of file defragmentation. On those SSD's it might be interesting that frequently modified files find themselves in smaller cells, or in a single level cell,while those smaller files that are less modified are better to share cells.
That should boost up the write times.
If MS would work on that for the release of Win 7, I'm sure it's going to be very hard to create an OS that will be improved over that.
It's almost like Windows XP, and Vista are to an OS what .wma and .mp3 is to music. If XP equals .mp3, and Vista equals .wma; then Windows 7 will be like .ogg. And to find a compression algorithm that has a higher compression ratio over Quality than .ogg is very difficult, to nearly impossible to develop.
If MS would develop this defrag improvement, I'm sure we'll purchase this OS, that will probably not be beat in the coming 10 years!
But I don't expect Windows7 to do that automatically.
As things stand now with the RC, Windows 7 RC1 still uses more battery than my XP; sorry MS.
Sure it has some powersaving feats that XP does not have, but in program loadtimes, background activity, etc.. it still is the underdog for XP.
I almost want to bet, that the powersaving feats of Windows 7 better than XP, are limited to idle and coming out of idle/powering up or powering down; and hibernation.
I highly doubt Windows 7 uses less battery in normal program operating conditions.
It is an OS with a larger footprint after all. They either need to cripple the OS, limit it's performance or disable functions to make it match with XP.
I still plead here that MS might work on expanding their Defrag program, making it more advanced, and also making their OS more compatible with MLC SSD's!
If MS really want to improve their OS, they might want to modify defrag to sort all the bootup files on the outer sectors of the disk, as well as by standard sort files in their directories on the disk.
Having a program boot where it's first .dll is found on the inner sectors on the disk, and the second .dll on the outter, makes the arm of the hd continuously seek for files. That could easily be avoided by just sorting files in folders, and defragging folder by folder, leaving small spaces after frequently modified files.
Large files (eg: those above 100MB), can easily be placed in the inner circle (inner sectors) where the HD performs slower, for usually they need very little access times (given the files are defragmented), and most of the larger files are either .dat files, or .mpg/.avi/.divx/.ogv/.mkv movie files. They need no high speeds to display.
Also uninstall data, driver rollback data, and restore points, that need no frequent accessing can be placed in the slower parts of the HD.
MLC SSD's need a complete different methode of file defragmentation. On those SSD's it might be interesting that frequently modified files find themselves in smaller cells, or in a single level cell,while those smaller files that are less modified are better to share cells.
That should boost up the write times.
If MS would work on that for the release of Win 7, I'm sure it's going to be very hard to create an OS that will be improved over that.
It's almost like Windows XP, and Vista are to an OS what .wma and .mp3 is to music. If XP equals .mp3, and Vista equals .wma; then Windows 7 will be like .ogg. And to find a compression algorithm that has a higher compression ratio over Quality than .ogg is very difficult, to nearly impossible to develop.
If MS would develop this defrag improvement, I'm sure we'll purchase this OS, that will probably not be beat in the coming 10 years!
[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom]fulle:I rated him down like i guess many others because he simply stated it did use more power.This is his conclusion after running on one netbook and most likely running the RC.Also he did not state what options he used or tried to use to conserve power or what version of the OS he tested against what version of which other OS.His post has a very high i was first so i will spew some random shit out rating even though this doesnt have to be the case.You might have read some of my other posts and know i am by far a fanboy for any type of OS or hardware (maybe a bit pegasos fan though).That being said i have to say i came to the conclusion a long time ago that windows vista uses way more power on both my desktops as on my laptop then XP and linux less then XP this however depends on your settings and if you just "ok/next" the installation there is not much difference between any of them.However windows 7 now comes close to linux while i have less work to get the power saving features to work.If they tweak it some more it might even get better over time and beat linux from its pedestal.Keep in mind that linux is way more tweakable then windows and this might be the reason why i get better results though its still cool to see that windows 7 can be more energy efficient then XP while using more resources.[/citation]
Though I did not rate you down for your comment, since I agree with some of it, my findings of installing Windows 7 RC1 on my notebook (an older C2Duo 1,66Ghz from 2006) where that Windows 7 clearly has a higher footprint and uses more power than XP.
True, I did tweak XP, and get a battery life of round about 4,5 to 5 hours at it's best with the extended battery, and 3,5hours with my standard battery.
Doing the same in Windows 7 (Which was running a bittorrent client on wifi until battery shutdown, and a second run browsing internet via LAN), I got about between 3,1 or 3,2 hours on the standard battery, about 4,3 hours or 4,5 hours at most on my extension battery.
One of the other reasons I can clearly see the difference, is with XP my notebook's fan hardly rotates. With 7 I noted that regularly the fan speeds up to a certain speed for a couple of seconds, only to return in it's low rotation mode later on.
The fan basically cools the graphics card and the CPU, no other parts;(Graphics card being an older Intel graphics card it would not surprise me if it was a 90nm design, with a 65nm C2duo).
In any case the difference is obvious on my notebook. Windows 7 runs hotter on my notebook. But not as hot as Vista.
On Linux, I think I seldomly or never really hear the fan come on. That is, a linux that has a program installed that allows my processor to downclock in idle moments to 800Mhz. But if you take an Ubuntu, with Kompiz (the 3D cube desktop), there might be times when the processor get taxed more and the notebook uses more battery than any other linux.
Though I did not rate you down for your comment, since I agree with some of it, my findings of installing Windows 7 RC1 on my notebook (an older C2Duo 1,66Ghz from 2006) where that Windows 7 clearly has a higher footprint and uses more power than XP.
True, I did tweak XP, and get a battery life of round about 4,5 to 5 hours at it's best with the extended battery, and 3,5hours with my standard battery.
Doing the same in Windows 7 (Which was running a bittorrent client on wifi until battery shutdown, and a second run browsing internet via LAN), I got about between 3,1 or 3,2 hours on the standard battery, about 4,3 hours or 4,5 hours at most on my extension battery.
One of the other reasons I can clearly see the difference, is with XP my notebook's fan hardly rotates. With 7 I noted that regularly the fan speeds up to a certain speed for a couple of seconds, only to return in it's low rotation mode later on.
The fan basically cools the graphics card and the CPU, no other parts;(Graphics card being an older Intel graphics card it would not surprise me if it was a 90nm design, with a 65nm C2duo).
In any case the difference is obvious on my notebook. Windows 7 runs hotter on my notebook. But not as hot as Vista.
On Linux, I think I seldomly or never really hear the fan come on. That is, a linux that has a program installed that allows my processor to downclock in idle moments to 800Mhz. But if you take an Ubuntu, with Kompiz (the 3D cube desktop), there might be times when the processor get taxed more and the notebook uses more battery than any other linux.
I found this site because I wanted to know if Win7 consumed more power than XP. My computer ran flawless with XP. When I installed Win7 it ran great from a while then my computer would randomly reboot itself. Sounds like a virus right!? Well, I looked it up and there's many people reporting the same thing. I put in a bigger powersupply and so far so good. No reboots. This is why Im thinking Win7 is using more power than XP.
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram