XP Still Beats Windows 7 in Netbook Battery Life

Status
Not open for further replies.

touchdowntexas13

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2009
759
0
19,010
6
Eventually we will just need to invent better batteries...

The OS and PC components can't continue to get better if the batteries don't get their fair share of improvements
 

marsax73

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2006
110
0
18,680
0
Well duh! If the OS can run on 100 megs of memory and barely touch the swap file, yeah it will last longer. I had Vista on a laptop and all I saw was my hard drive light constantly blinking (and it had 3 gigs of memory).
 

gwellin

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2008
62
0
18,630
0
Wait, Stop the press. Are you telling me that a more demanding OS that only been released for a couple of week isn't as battery efficient as a "How many years old highly polished" OS. Thank you captain obvious.
 

pbrigido

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2008
529
0
18,980
0
and I bet battery life is better with Windows 9x over XP. Speaking for myself, I am more than happy using an OS that is a month old over one that came out almost a decade ago.
 

marsax73

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2006
110
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]pbrigido[/nom]and I bet battery life is better with Windows 9x over XP. Speaking for myself, I am more than happy using an OS that is a month old over one that came out almost a decade ago.[/citation]

In the IT world, most will take time-tested and stable over something new and flashy. The only thing Win 7 does is sell more memory and faster cpu's to handle all of the processes. Poor netbooks don't have a chance.
 

Drag0nR1der

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2007
245
0
18,680
0
There was a time when Tom's Hardware would have run a test themselves to confirm this, and then looked at the effect of turning off various W7 features (like aero) to see if this could bridge the gap... oh well.

Turn off aero and it still looks better than XP (which always reminded me of a fisher price toy for 2 year old, with its giant start button and horrible primary colours ... windowsblinds was a must for me with XP)
 

jerther

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
286
0
18,780
0
Oh well my last comment doesn't make sens, the news' about NETbooks. Geez then they just confirm the obvious with this test! But which version of 7 did they test? What about the Starter edition? Since they talk about netbooks should we assume they're talking about Starter Edition?
 

sidran32

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
147
0
18,680
0
Yes, because all newer OSs should be so well optimized that they can run progressively better and better on progressively weaker and older hardware...
 

jerther

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
286
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]And I will bet windows 95 gets even BETTER battery life....this is why technology advances...?[/citation]
I think not. Power Management was really bad on 9x. At least WAY worst than on 2000+.

I did my own tests back then: on the same machine, IDLE cpu would run HOT with 98, and cool with 2000.
 

pbrigido

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2008
529
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]marsax73[/nom]In the IT world, most will take time-tested and stable over something new and flashy. The only thing Win 7 does is sell more memory and faster cpu's to handle all of the processes. Poor netbooks don't have a chance.[/citation]

I totally agree. Microsoft did an incredible job at providing us with a beta program for Windows 7 to work out the majority of problems before the release. Windows 7 was time-tested by thousands of people, on thousands of different machine configurations, with thousands of different software installed during the beta releases. Hell, you can even include Vista in the time-test...which was a few years ago. Lots of learning has happened since and Microsoft has done an incredible job with Windows 7

Moving beyond XP is a must...even as good of an OS as it was. Windows 7 is the perfect opportunity to do so.
 

rooket

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2009
1,097
0
19,280
0
My laptop gets 1 hour less now since I found the option to speed up the HDD in bios. Win XP or Win 7 your choice either is cool but I'm not overly impressed with how you have to save power with the hardware that is in some of these things. I don't just go blaming it all on the o/s.
 

wildwell

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2009
658
0
19,060
50
With all else equal, better batteries are going to increase the price of a netbook. What about an inexpensive, slimmed down version of Win 7? Something still solid in web security (or at least as 'solid' as Windows can be) and pretty looking but without all the extra hardware drivers, etc.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Sorry but......these tests were obviously ran by idiots. The way to increase your battery life is by simply changing the default power save settings that xp's testing was probably done on. For example: screen shuts off after 1 minute of idling, HD shuts off after 30 minutes. This is also assuming your preforming the same tasks in each situation, even browsing at different rates severely impacts your battery due to wireless or even a (draining) Ethernet port.
 

brockh

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2007
513
0
19,010
19


Windows 7 Starter...
 

Drag0nR1der

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2007
245
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]wildwell[/nom]With all else equal, better batteries are going to increase the price of a netbook. What about an inexpensive, slimmed down version of Win 7? Something still solid in web security (or at least as 'solid' as Windows can be) and pretty looking but without all the extra hardware drivers, etc.[/citation]

What the hell do hardware drivers have to do with battery life?

Just use windows 7, and optimise the settings (turn off aero, and windows search (which will reduce the amount of time hard drive is active), search shouldn't be necessery on a netbook, and it looks better than XP without aero (though no aero peek... which is useful, but you're probably not overly multitasking on a netbook)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY