Vista Eating Battery Life

LWATCDR writes "It looks like more issues with Vista drains notebook batteries. Using the Aero interface really eats into your notebooks battery life. Of course one of the new 'features' of Vista is supposed to be better power management. This provides a great opportunity for a showdown. How long until someone loads Vista on a MacBook and compares run time? It would provide a flat playing field now that Apple makes Intel-powered notebooks."

Hmmm

processor intensive process uses more energy. turn it off. duh.

Re:AMD64

From what I've gathered about Vista, that XP would outperform it on battery life doesn't surprise.

From what I've gathered about Vista, XP would outperform it in just about every way imaginable, except in its ability to funnel vendor-locked-in cash to Microsoft.

Re:AMD64

From what I've gathered about Vista, XP outperforms it in that respect, also.

Re:AMD64

Sometimes moderators think something is particularly humourous (or are just plain overzealous on groupthink) so they mod Insightful instead of Funny, as Funny does not grant a karma bonus.

Re:AMD64

>But the Mac x86 test would be yet another "nail in the coffin" as >people move farther from Windoze.

If the coffin is a freaking mile long. There are quite a few nails to go. Reading Slashdot can give you a biased view of the real world.

Re:AMD64

I run Vista on my MacBook Pro. It eats battery life about twice as quickly as Mac OS when Aero Glass is running. That said, it has much better results on friends' computers, which are designed to run Windows.

Re:Hmmm

How's that funny? MS has to sell Vista to OEMS and OEMS want more ways to force you to upgrade your hardware...and everytime the general populous upgrades their hardware, they're forced into buying a new copy of Windows. It's mutually beneficial to both MS and the hardware industry to advertise this out the wazoo!

Re:Hmmm

The more stuff you have running, the shorter the battery life. I am paranoid, perhaps a side-effect of decades in security, and I am not interested in glitz. The first thing I always did with Vista was to turn off Glass and go into advanced security settings and optimize for performance. I then turned off the Vista sidebar. Battery life under such conditions is better than XP.

I am now running LongHorn Server Beta 3 on my notebook, running as a standard user. Glass and Sidebar are not even available, and my battery life seems to have gone up significantly, I assume because fewer processes are running. IE is hardened on server and it is certainly more secure. And yes, I have enabled the wireless functionality and search indexer. My desktop does look much like Win 2K.

Security tends to go up as you run less functionality. It appears that battery life does so as well.

Re:Hmmm

Actually, if you configure it for security, IE7 is probably less security challenged at this point than Firefox or Opera. The low rights / protected mode does add some additional barriers to exploits.

I would note that locked down as it its, it does break a lot of web sites. Paranoid as I am, I typically have explicit distrust keys for Flash and I disable all multimedia to avoid parser errors.

Re:Hmmm

What I'd like is a way to do this in power manager.. I really like Aero and the other glitz... but I'd like it turn off at x% remaining battery if it's going to cost me battery time. Personally I'm running it on a brand new laptop so I have no comparison, and I'm far too lazy to make all the adjustments and see if it changes.

Re:Hmmm

processor intensive process uses more energy. turn it off. duh.

When I was a kid, I didn't understand that the air conditioner in a car requires more engery, and operating it requires more fuel. In fact, some adults don't understand this.

Processor intensive tasks using more engery is something an average user does not understand.

Though this is the first time I have heard the aero interface uses more engery, it would not shock me if it does. If so it would be yet another case that Microsoft technicaly had a good idea with very poor execution, and ignoring larger existing issues... like for example on a laptop the annoying tendancy of loading unnessicary .dlls cluttering up physical memory making it nessicary to swap to disk, something that should be avoided on a laptop.

Re:Hmmm

Why would it be assumed that it's poor execution? Is there some open source guru out there that can do better? if so how?

See all that is rhetorical because it's based on an assumption that the implementation is incorrect, yet I've never met a developer that can add glitz to an OS desktop without consuming more resources so I see no reason for such assumption.

As for "better power management", that means the power settings configured by the end users. IE Do you want it to hibernate under certain conditions, etc. These can now be setup across networks by admins to shut down or hibernate/sleep all machines during off hours, such as on weekends. It also means notifications to running software of an impending shutdown or sleep state. Those new features are all related to management of the machine by the user. It has nothing to do with the OS using more or less power in any particular state.

Sorry guys, but this is just another "gee I wish I could find yet one more way to bash MS" story. If there is a legit grievance then hell I'll chip in, but this doesn't exactly get me up in arms hearing that *shocker* more GUI effects = more resource usage. That's common sense.

The last time....

The last time someone posted a question about "How long", it was answered in the first post.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Mac, or I'd do it. But maybe this counts: http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/reviews/index.cfm?re viewid=2215 [macworld.co.uk]

Layne

Re:The last time....

At least last time I tried to run Vista on my MBP, part of the problem was Apple drivers that weren't optimized for power saving. The processor ran at full speed all the time (where on OS X it used SpeedStep) and the HD would never spin down. Thus I don't know how much of the fault is Microsoft's and how much is Apple's.

With that in mind, I got about 60% the battery life from Vista that I got from OS X.

Still, though, OS X's decent battery life gives the lie to the idea that "it's a processor-intensive process. Duh." If the Aero interface is eating battery, then why isn't Aqua, which is just as full of eye candy?

Re:The last time....

Still, though, OS X's decent battery life gives the lie to the idea that "it's a processor-intensive process. Duh." If the Aero interface is eating battery, then why isn't Aqua, which is just as full of eye candy?

i'm no programmer, but the fact that Aqua renders nicely on my ancient G4 tower whilst Aero requires a box on steroids probably points to the underlying issue.

Obligatory Slashdot car analogy

Obligatory Slashdot car analogy:

That's like saying you're expecting great savings from a fuel management system on a V12 Aston Martin.

Re:Obligatory Slashdot car analogy

That's like saying you're expecting great savings from a fuel management system on a V12 Aston Martin.

Shame this Aston Martin runs like it's got the engine of a Lada though.

It's not a V12 Aston Martin

Vista is a Pinto with a jet engine mounted on it backwards, painted Zune Brown, with a dealer-installed decal on the side that says "XTREME!!!"

Note: not a troll nor flamebait; just having fun here with the analogy. :)

Re:It's not a V12 Aston Martin

>Vista is a Pinto with a jet engine mounted on it backwards, painted Zune Brown, with a dealer-installed decal on the side that says "WOW!". And you have to buy the Ultimate Edition for twice the price to be able to let someone else drive, or do work on the engine.

Fixed that for you.

Vista could eat kittens

and Microsoft's marketing team would still sell it by the bundles.

Vista... sucks?

Apparantly so. I have heard lots of complaints about all kinds of aspects of Vista and yet I have yet to see anyone really saying "Wow Vista is GREAT install it NOW you don't know what you're missing!!!" So, well -- why get it? Except when forced to when buying a new, Windows-pre-installed PC?

obligatory

Vista is trying to drain your laptop's battery. Cancel or Allow?

First post...NOT

I would have had first post, but I had to plug in my laptop.

Mac Notebooks Battery Life rules

The one thing I will agree to is that Apple notebooks have some of the best battery lives I've seen.

Everytime I've used an iBook or a Powerbook, I'm amazed at how long the battery lasts. While some other brands (e.g. Dell) have decent battery life compared to others (e.g. HP and Toshiba, at least in my experience), I'm always knocked off by Apple notebooks' battery life.

Now if only Apple notebooks had two mouse buttons instead of hacks around it. :)

Re:Mac Notebooks Battery Life rules

I never had a PPC unit, but the dual core x86 units aren't that great, 3 hours at best. My four year old Compaq gets about 2.5 hours.

Re:Mac Notebooks Battery Life rules

My Macbook Pro never got more than 3.5 hours of battery life. In contrast, the Acer I had before got 5 hours out of the box, and that could be upped to 8 by swapping out the cd drive for a backup battery. Battery life is probably my biggest complaint with my Macbook Pro.

There are more things than aero which drain the ba

There are more things than aero which drain the battery in vista:
aero is one of the factors, but, there is a lot of additional startup disk processing even after the ui has been started
the drm which is in there left and right adds additional processor cycles
the desktop search adds an additional processing overhead etc... etc...

or ot sum it up added automated features simply need energy!

The battery drain is less annoying than another load of idiotic features, UAC for instance is what sudo and the osx do but solved in a totally idiotic fashion, the new explorer is a lousy clone of mac osxs pathfinder (basically a clone of the worst features of finder and pathfinder), the system cofiguration tool setup is outright confusing with display settings for instance being distributed into 5-6 various tools some dont even have the slightest to do with the display settings.

the new start bar is outright annoying to hell, the search is inelegantly solved and annot be put into the tray where it really belongs, no decent desktop switcher, startup times are longer than a fully configured linux.
The Expose copy is outright useless, Vista home allows you to backup for a restore you have to upgrade to ultimate, the wireless configuration is lousy as hell. The half transparent border effect causes motion sicknes... etc...

The only positive thing I really noticed is once it is loaded programs startup in no time, netbeans takes about 4 seconds openoffice around 3 and that on a 5200rpm notebook drive. There seems to be some serious app caching going on which optimizes the load times, especially java programs benefit tremendously from it. Tomcat 0.8 seconds, netbeans 4 seconds awesome.

Re:There are more things than aero which drain the

the drm which is in there left and right adds additional processor cycles

Look, I know that DRM is really unpopular, but could we not have absolutely ridiculously stupid assertions like this that DRM is affecting everyting "left and right" and is somehow running down the battery in a noticeable way?

Sheesh.

Re:There are more things than aero which drain the

the drm which is in there left and right adds additional processor cycles

Do you have any fucking clue how DRM works on Windows Vista? It's not some magical happy service that's running all the time. It's integrated into the kernel and into Windows Media Foundation and the Windows Media Framework. Of course, it's integrated into the Kernel and Windows Media Framework on XP too.

XP has many of the same DRM and DRM-esque features as Vista (WGA/Activation, Secure Audio Path, Windows Media DRM, Signed drivers, ICT support). Try playing an HD-DVD on XP with a licensed player and a card/monitor that doesn't support HDCP. Try playing a Region 2 DVD on an XP system where the RPC1 or RPC2 region has been set to Region 1. Try playing a copy of T2 Extreme HD on XP without registering it.

Yes, there are new DRM technologies in Vista. But just like the DRM features in XP or - god forbid - Mac OS X, the solution is obvious: don't buy into bullshit DRM.

I don't have an HD-DVD drive for a very good reason - I don't want to put up with bullshit DRM. Once the DRM has been cracked (truly cracked - not just cracked for movies released prior to date X), I'll consider getting a drive. Until then, I watch plain old DVDs using VLC and my region-hacked drive.

No suprise here - same for XGL or AIGLX

I've started turning off XGL on my laptop when running on battery since it noticably eats into the battery life. This is really just FUD, it's not just a Vista issue.

ubuntu

I am curious how the bettery life compares for two relatively identical laptops with one running Vista (aero on) and ubuntu/kubuntu with beryl. Since Dell will be shipping laptops later this month with ubuntu Feisty it seems like a fair comparison...for battery life only. Mike

In Soviet Russia....

Macbook drains YOU!!!!

It could be the sidebar

Whenever you mouse over it, or anything basically happens with it your cpu gets spiked. I'd be interested in seeing if disabling the sidebar helps with battery life. Someone should also compare if certain widgets are causing problems.

Disk indexing

The indexing is most definately one of the main issues, I'd dare say even more than Aero. I have 2 fairly noisy SATA drives in RAID 0 (on a desktop machine though), and since I've moved to Vista, they're driving me insane. I have more than enough RAM to turn off swap completly without any issues on Vista, yet I hear the disks scratching sound almost continually.

Thats the only issue I've had with Vista so I guess its not a big deal, but...

Don't you have to enable Aero manually?

I don't know about notebook users, but when I purchased and installed Vista, Aero was not initially running. I had to go select it from the Themes area of the Display control panel.

So when they write the following:

When Aero is turned off, battery life is equal to or better than Windows XP systems. But with it turned on, battery life suffers compared with Windows XP.

Seems like more of an issue with educating users. Although, maybe someone will develop a miserly mobile GPU that's optimized for what Aero does.

Finally, this part of the article is a bit screwy:

Microsoft said it commissioned a study (click here for PDF) that found no difference in "responsiveness," or application load time, between a notebook with Aero disabled versus one running the fancy graphics: implying that Aero doesn't put too much of a load on the system.

I don't think the study implies that. It just says that application load time is unaffected. Aero's going to draw more power through the GPU even when applications are not being loaded...

Yeah but

The EU will maybe pass a law against minimum battery life or some such. Then there will be support for Vista!

Not so

according to Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com]. There is no difference in power consumption between XP and Vista w/ Aero.

Re:Not so

That test is severely flawed.

First off, it's a desktop, measured at the AC adapter. If a standard laptop took 150W, then the battery would only last 20 minutes. Clearly, laptops take less power overall and the differences caused by the CPU's load will be amplified.

Second, it measures the power at only two points - no load and full load. I suspect that no-load between XP and vista is about the same because they are basically doing nothing. You need a real-use benchmark to compare the two.

Oh FFS

Sheesh... "If you run the spiffy, high-overhead, bells and whistles interface, you know, the one that uses more CPU and GPU, then your battery life may be shortened." Fucking shocking. I'm shocked. I had no idea that if I use my laptop more, and if I use more intensive applications, that my battery life would be shortened. Wow. I thought batteries, just, yanno, powered things for a set amount of time, and I could play games, burn dvds, run my wireless, and turn on Aero, and it would last exactly the same amount of time as it would if I just left it sitting there.

Seriously, the story here shouldn't be "aero drains your battery". It should be "For the first time since laptops became popular, MS is offering an OS that will actually last longer, when properly configured". Vista w/o Aero lasts longer on a laptop than XP. That's pretty damn impressive, actually.

Re:Oh FFS

With OS X, battery life went up for some uses when moving from the older versions that didn't have Quartz Extreme to those that did. While it used the GPU more, it used the CPU less. Moving windows no longer triggered redraw events (which cost a lot of CPU cycles), and compositing on the GPU, which has dedicated silicon for it, was cheaper (in terms of power) than using the CPU.

Bad Drivers / Hardware?

I'll probably get modded down for this, but who cares....

Since it actually puts your video card to good use, Aero makes things faster, not slower. Would you want your fancy game to use some generic CPU instead of all the specalized functionaly provided by your GPU? Why should your OS be any different? Unless your hardware sucked, you would be a fool to turn Aero off--it just makes your CPU do more work!

What this power consumption business really means is hardware manufacturers need to optimize the parts of the GPU that Vista uses so they consume less power. In a year, new "Vista-Ready" laptops will probably use the same, if not significantly less power than their XP optimized counterparts. Less power you say? Hell yeah! Vista has all kinds of goodies for power management that didn't exist in XP; my desktop computer now suspends itself to... something.. after 5 minutes and will instantly wake up. Dunno if XP could that, but it sure as hell didn't on mine. It was default behavior on my Vista install.

Further, Aero is definitly not eye candy and I'd even argue that it is the first version of Windows that *doesn't* have eye candy. The user interface is crisp, snappy, and far more elegant than anything before it. You barely notice the OS is even there; XP & 95 are very "in your face". I personally love Vista - I dare say that when running on proper hardware it really makes you feel the PC has come of age. All prior windows versions feel clunky in comparison.

I eventually shut off Aero - what a CPU hog.

I got a Compaq Presario laptop with Vista Home Premium about two months ago. It's not a killer laptop, just an Athlon Turion 64 at 2 GHz with 1 GB RAM, but it's sufficient for why I wanted a laptop. Just listening to MP3s through Media Player would shoot the CPU level up to a consistent 35-50% CPU utilization with Aero active. The battery obviously didn't last too long. I finally got so fed up with it that I shut off Aero, dropped the system back to a 2000/XP theme, and installed WinAmp. Listening to the same MP3s that way had the CPU going at around 5-10%. Even when I'm just using it for audio editing or photo editing, now I can use it for a few hours as opposed to about an hour with Aero active.

I will give Vista credit in that the laptop comes back very quickly from sleep mode whereas that never worked well for me in XP, but that's about it. Vista with Aero is the plant from "Little Shop of Horrors" -- FEED ME!!!

Mac OS X vs Classic

The same happened with the transition to Mac OS X. Although they have improved power management with the various upgrades, on my old tibook G4 I could get a half hour or more extra battery life running mac os Classic than I could in OS X.

Quick question

This will get buried under the imminent ~400 comments, but why would anyone use battery power run a known CPU/GPU intensive component that only gives eye candy?

If you want battery life, try selecting the less complex themes in Vista (e.g. look for Windows classic), and turn off many of the enhancements that run in the background, even if they would make long-term usage easier for you.

I'm going to test this for myself!

My friend and I have the same laptop, with the same battery. I have an extra HD for my computer, I'm going to install Vista on mine and boot his and mine both to the desktop, and then unplug them.

Let's see which one dies first.


I will post my findings as a reply to this message...

From a MacBook Pro owner

Vista (with Aero) battery life, under normal conditions, is about 2/3 of the battery life that I get when running OS X on my Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro. I've noticed that Vista does have very good CPU power-savings; it doesn't use full processing power until it is necessary. What I can't figure out is why XP/Vista makes the MacBook Pro run so much hotter. OS X definitely has the higher RAM usage, and CPU usage is nearly the same, yet OS X runs cool and quiet while both Windows installations I've had run warmer. Maybe it's a driver inefficiency or something... it also did this on a Core Duo MacBook I owned. Hmm.

Vista-ready

Wait... Apple's hardware is Vista-ready?

Does it have any sort of Vista logo testing at all?

Driver improvements will help

I know that the thinkpad power manager drivers were very beta when Vista was released. This lead to extremely short battery lives - like %50 that of a properly configured XP machine.

The OS has an enormous amount of control over power consumption - from cpu, gpu, and memory speeds to hard drive caching, lcd refresh and brightness. If these drivers suck - then so will the power consumption.

As updates trickle out from Lenovo, it's improved greatly, but not close to XP. With more intensive GPU requirements of Aero (if you so wish to run it while unplugged) I don't see where you'll be able to meet XP's power consumption when running in basic theme with all the GUI features disabled.

'feature'

Of course one of the new 'features' of Vista is supposed to be better power management.

Why did the submitter put the word 'features' in quotes? Was he trying to convey a negative connotation? Couldn't be, this is a Microsoft story on slashdot. See, better power management really is supposed to be a new feature of Vista, and it's a legitimate feature (unlike the increased DRM 'feature').

The Default Power Settings Disable Aero

When you go on batter power the power settings switch to "power saver", by default.

The "power saver" profile turns off Aero, although keeps desktop compositioning enabled. (I think.)

The article wasn't clear on whether or not it was the Aero theme (with all the pretty transparencies) or the desktop compositioning, that was causing the power drain.

Solution

I'd re-install vista in 2 minutes [youtube.com] ;)

Haven't run a battery comparo, but...

I have Vista Ultimate on my MacBook Pro, and the fan runs faster in Vista with 'Dreamscene' desktop on, but the computer otherwise idle, than it runs in OS X when I have a distributed computing running 24/7.

I'll have to try a battery rundown comparison tonight when I know I'll be running the battery down.

Conflicting Stories

The fine folks at the Tech Report did a report on this months ago and found the difference between Aero and non-Aero was only about a watt. They don't disprove that Vista uses more power than XP, but I'd say they prove Aero isn't the culprit if that's the case. Oh and I at least trust the Tech Report guys - ZD Net hasn't inspired a lot of confidence lately. http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10945 [techreport.com]

why...

is anybody suprised, and further, upset about this?

XP makes no use of the 3D hardware in your computer.

Vista uses the 3D hardware to do all the GUI rendering, including lots of extra stuff like alpha blending the window layers, zooming in and out and "wobbling" the windows and dialogs. That means all that silicon that used to sit there doing nothing is now working, which means more electricity being used.

And in case you haven't noticed, 3D chips are sucking up as much or more juice than CPU's these days.

So of course, vista (with aero enabled) drains your battery faster.

Is there a half-way mode with vista? IE use the 3D compositing (which in theory takes the load off your CPU) but turn off all the blending and zooming etc? That, in theory, should give *better* battery life than XP..

A man walks into a bakery...

From the ZDnet article:

But laptop users who spent extra money on powerful laptops to handle the graphics requirements of Vista and the Aero interface are forced to run the aesthetic equivalent of Vista Basic, the low-cost version of Vista, if they care about battery life.

So the man walks in and says "I'd like to speak to the manager and file a complaint."

The salesperson behind the counter asks what the problem is.

The man says "Well my cake is gone."

The salesperson says "What did you do with it after we sold it to you?"

The man replies "I ate it. Why?"

This always seems to happen

FWIW, I'm absolutely pissed about my DV9000T always sounding like a Harrier jet and losing nearly an hour of battery life. I'll bet that the Desktop Composition team simply didn't consider battery life during its development. I'll bet it became a concern after the project signoff, and after the concern was raised: 1. Program management went off looking for excuses and workarounds 2. The engineers scrambled to tweak the code in whatever way they could 3. The PR team scrambled to tout the new sleep mode and mobility center to sell the mobility story I don't believe for an instant that Vista was designed to be power friendly at any early point in its development. If it were, it wouldn't have been an issue during beta, it wouldn't have required workarounds and clarifications, and it wouldn't have found its way to be a high profile story on CNET. I've since turned off Desktop Composition and have found Vista to perform closer to XP in terms of power usage. I suppose one day when AMD and NVidia have GPU's specially designed to not bake your laptop under Vista, this will be yesterday's news. But for now, shame on MS.

I once had vista on my laptop

I would never pay for it, but I got this OS parody via MSDN for free, so I gave it a try. Sure, it ate my batteries, but this was not the worst. Try this: 1. Plug in a mouse, then "shut" the laptop. Vista goes standby 2. Remove the mouse. Whenever I did this, Vista started the cpu fan (swooooooosh), showed the desktop (I guess, it was shut, but you could see "light"), played the "USB Device unplugged sound", and went back to standby. I don't know if this has been fixed in the meantime, but this was one major reason to switch back to xp. I won't try vista again until service pack 5 or so.

Power management

I bought my Macbook Pro specifically because it was the first notebook I had tried that ran a unix-like OS with working power management. This represented me finally giving up on having a linux notebook with fully working power management. I have since realized that I am only one of very many who have switched from Linux to Mac, at least for portable use.

Bullshit.

Unfortunately Slashdot has turned into flaming-arrow land for Vista. I'm dual-booting Vista Ultimate and Ubuntu 7.04 on a 9-month-old Dell E1405 with the normal 6-cell battery. The model is known for good battery life, and if anything, Vista makes power management *better*. There are tons of customizations, so I have it set to go all-out performance when I'm plugged in (my laptop is a desktop replacement) and to reasonably dim the monitor and dynamically underclock (with Intel SpeedStep) and such. I regularly get 4-5 hours of battery life in the default "power saver" mode in Vista. (Yes, Aero and all.) Most Linux distros have a long way to go with power management. I get great life out of Ubuntu with Beryl disabled, but I can't customize almost anything without screwing with configuration files. openSUSE was a bit better with clocking my cores down to 1.0GHz while on battery, but it still has a way to go.

shorter battery life ?

No wonder, I mean Aero might not use much CPU but it uses the GPU and surprise, your GPU runs with electricity too... Not much use for "better" power management if the GPU keeps draining power.
 

Subject is off..

...should read "Vista Eating Life". I know a part of me dies everytime I hear about Vista.

I'm Running Both On My MBP...

I get approximately 30-45 minutes (unscientifically tested) more battery life from OS X.

What boggles my mind the most of all is that Vista has no provision for automatically disabling the Aero interface based on the power source. I'm sure the power disparity would go away if Aero would disable itself as soon as I switched over to battery power. As example: I can hear a fan (presumably GPU) kick into high gear just sitting on the desktop doing nothing. To me that is completely ridiculous and Microsoft should be investigating a way to fix it.

Turn it off

I recently purchased a Fujitsu P7230. I couldn't avoid paying the Microsoft tax, even though I was going to run Ubuntu, so I got Vista Home Basic, which was the cheapest option available. I used it for a few weeks before installing Ubuntu, so I could learn about Vista. I might not use Vista full-time, but it would be a good experience. Besides, if I have to pay for it, I'm going to get something out of it.

The P7230 is an ultraportable laptop with incredible battery life. If you fill both battery bays and enable CPU frequency scaling, you can run it for 8 hours without plugging it in. In Vista without Aero (which this machine can't really handle anyway), I would get up to 11 hours of battery life. In Ubuntu I can maybe get 9. I still use Ubuntu full-time, but don't tell me that Vista has worse battery life. Turn off your useless eye-candy if you care about your battery. I'm sure beryl would kill my battery life even worse.

Why a MacBook?

Why shoehorn an Apple product into a story that has nothing to do with them? Any laptop capable of running both XP and Vista with Aero would provide a fair basis of comparison.

How is this news?

Almost every Vista post has had people mentioning battery life problems, with or without Aero. Here are the main battery-related problems I've encountered personally:

1) Vista's extra behind-the-scenes tasks make your CPU and hard drive work harder.

2) Sleep and hibernate are broken (causing you to waste battery life doing full shutdowns and startups).

3) Aero puts the graphics chip into 3D mode, which makes it rev up to full speed (and full power consumption). The graphics card companies haven't done as much work on their mobile chips to save power as Intel has, especially when it comes to 3D mode.

My laptop's battery life was almost 50% lower in Vista (compared to XP with SP2). I say was because I switched it back to XP.

fud

I'm all for MS bashing...but come on with the fud?
It takes more resources, that drains battery life faster. You can turn aero off. I found that playing Company of Heroes drained my battery life faster than having my laptop turned off.
Damn Relic. CURSE THEM!!!!

Not Entirely True

I have loaded both Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista on my HP Mobile Workstation. With WinXP, I would get about 4.5 hours on a standard battery, and about 5 hours with battery management tools. With Vista, I would get about 3.5 hours of battery life with Aero on, but after installing the same battery management tools, I would easily get about 5 hours of battery life under the same conditions.

I have even read reports about people getting MORE battery life under Windows Vista in comparison to WinXP. I believe it is all a matter of the hardware on your laptop and how well your company supports Vista with it.

If anyone has similar experiences, please discuss.

Re:4.3B last quarter

Why don't you Read that article? MSFT deferred ALL Vista sales from October 2006 to the first quarter.

So everyone who bought a PC for christmas and got a Vista voucher is also counted in that list. So all those Vista Business sales only got counted in the first quarter.

PC sales are down, how can Vista Sales be sky high? maybe because MSFT counted 1.5 quarters of vista sales in one quarter. what they did is technically legal, but one can't judge Vista sales by it because of what they did. As it artificially inflates the numbers.

Lets see who they do in this quarter. Especially with Dell selling XP machines again.

Re:4.3B last quarter

I'd like to add that everyone who bought XP earlier this year got a "free" upgrade to Vista... I know because I was one of them. However, while I paid the shipping and handling to get it ($10), it's sitting in a drawer unused. I wonder how many of those there were, because I'm sure they were counted, too.

Re:4.3B last quarter

Even if you don't count the deferred sales, Vista did extremely well and *still* beat expectations.

Here is a quote from Paul Thurrott's analysis [windowsitpro.com]:

Allow me to predict one of the weak complaints Vista bashers will make about Microsoft's financial results: They'll charge that Microsoft's earnings last quarter were artificially inflated because the company previously deferred revenue from the free and low-cost Vista upgrades offered during the 2006 holiday season. So is it true? According to Microsoft, the company deferred $1.67 billion in revenue from the last calendar quarter of 2006 until the first calendar quarter of 2007, or about $1.14 billion in profits. But even without that one-time gain, Microsoft's revenue would have been up 17 percent. More to the point, the slice of the pie that Windows is responsible for would have still jumped a whopping 30 percent. Microsoft CFO Christopher P. Liddell said that regardless of trends, sales of Vista were $300 million to $400 million higher than the company's internal projections. Sales of Office 2007 were about $200 million higher than expected.

You claim that PC sales are down, and indeed they were down, until Vista hit the market [currentanalysis.com]. Vista caused a complete reversal in the PC sales trend. This is even more surprising since Microsoft missed the holiday window for the Vista release.

So despite the best efforts of many people in the media, and certainly Slashdot, The Register, and similar anti-MS sites, Vista has done extremely well. My bet is that it would have done even better if all this FUD wasn't being spread.

Maybe, just maybe, you're all wrong about Vista. Maybe, just maybe, Vista is a really damn good OS. Stop regurgitating the FUD and try the OS for yourself.

Re:4.3B last quarter

I'm drawing my conclusions about Vista based on personal experience. I've been running it since the day it was released on MSDN in November '06.

I read these "reviews" online, which are so completely off base and inaccurate, I'm not surprised so many people think Vista is a steaming pile.

But the fact of the matter is that virtually all of the complaints about Vista are easily debunked. Whether it's the DRM FUD, the performance FUD, the "Vista is just a pretty face on XP" FUD, the "UAC is popping up CONSTANTLY" FUD, or any of the other baloney I've read.

Is Vista perfect? Hell no. But the minor issues it has are dwarfed by how much better it is than XP in virtually every way.

Re:4.3B last quarter

In fact, the idea that Vista is significantly slower than XP is FUD.

First, I run Vista on three machine, my laptop, my desktop, and my work machine. My laptop is an IBM T42P. Not exactly the fastest machine on earth. (1.8 Ghz, 1GB of ram, 128MB ATI FireGL 2) It runs Vista faster than it ran XP... or, rather, it "feels" faster thanks to things like Readyboost. My "Windows Experience Index" is 3.8.

My desktop is over 2 years old (3.8 Ghz, 2GB of ram, ATI Radeon X850XT), and it runs Vista blazingly fast. The index on this machine is 5.2.

My work machine is a crappy Dell Precision 360 that's about 3.5 years old. It has 2GB of ram, 64MB graphics card, and 3GHz CPU. Vista runs great, and has an index of 4.2.

So there are three machine, all of which are between 2 and 4 years old, and all of which run Vista just fine. Only the work machine doesn't do Aero due to a non-DX9 graphics card.

But that's just my personal experience. So why not look at some real benchmarks [techgage.com] done by 3rd parties. They show that Vista is comparable (slightly slower in some cases, slightly faster in others) to XP on the same hardware. In most cases, the benchmarks Vista does worst in are gaming benchmarks. Although we're only talking about 1-2% in most cases, these can be explain by immature drivers. Give it a few months and those drivers will likely be up to par with XP's.

Again, there is a LOT of FUD out there. I can see why it would be hard to sort through.

Re:Next up on Slashdot

fucking lollorz

Re:4.3B last quarter

1. URL to own blog
2. First words in blog entry: "Go Vista"

Where's the "-1 Shameless self-plug" moderation?