On MovieTome: SEX AND THE CITY clips are here!

Search:
Go!


Alpha Blog: CNET's gadget & tech news and opinions blogged by our editors
May 27, 2006, 10:29 PM PDT
Windows Vista eats laptop batteries for lunch
Posted by: Robert Vamosi

Windows Vista Aero
This is Windows Vista with Aero graphics.
[+] Enlarge photo
Windows Vista Standard (without Aero graphics)
This is Windows Vista Standard (without Aero graphics).
[+] Enlarge photo
Living with Windows Vista beta 2: Day 2.

In yesterday's installment, I loaded some drivers and applications on Vista. Part of that day was spent away from an electrical outlet. The dual-core Acer TravelMate 8200 rated pretty highly in our CNET review, especially in terms of battery life, yet I returned to my desk midmorning yesterday to find that Vista had shut down prematurely because I'd run out of battery life.

So I spent nearly all of my Saturday trying to prove this. I must admit that my colleague at CNET News.com Ina Fried also tipped me off to this potential bug in Vista, so I volunteered to investigate. Short of a full-on CNET Labs test, I decided upon three simple tests. First, operating on a fully charged battery, I would play a DVD movie in Windows Media Player 9 on Windows XP and record that time, then I'd repeat the above in Windows Media Player 11 on Windows Vista running with Aero (Microsoft's new 3D graphics system). Finally, I'd run the test again in Windows Media Player 11 in Windows Vista Standard mode. It's the new Vista graphics system, called GPU, that's the issue; when it's engaged, it really eats up battery life.

If you don't already know, Vista will run differently depending on the hardware. Lower-end machines will have a choice between Windows Vista Classic and Windows Vista Standard, which both give you many of the features in the new OS but without the 3D graphics. Higher-end machines will have those choices, plus Windows Vista Basic, which gives you more features, and Windows Vista Aero (the version with all the 3D bells and whistles). Mostly to get Aero, you must have a relatively new graphics card with a lot of built-in video memory.

One thing I found in conducting the test is that Microsoft doesn't make it easy to switch between these modes. For desktop users, it's a moot point; you have AC power. But if you're working on a notebook and want to conserve every last second of battery life, you'll want to switch to a less graphics-intensive envirnoment. To do so in Vista, you first need to find Personalization And Appearance in the Control Panel, then choose Personalization > Visual Appearance. From Visual Appearance, click to Appearance Settings, then click "Open Classic appearance properties." Under Color Schemes, you have all the choices listed above, plus four monochromatic color schemes. The process of reducing or increasing your graphics output is not exactly intuitive.

OK, so what did I find? Under Windows XP, my Acer TravelMate 8200 enjoyed a comfortable 3 hours and 15 minutes of battery life--more than enough to watch any major motion picture released these days. But under Windows Vista Aero, my battery life dropped considerably, to a mere 2 hours. Under Windows Vista Standard, battery life did improve--to a whopping 2 hours and 15 minutes--better, but not enough to justify doing without all the glitz and glammor of Vista Aero.

But once you've seen Vista Aero in action, it's really hard to do without. Microsoft's planning its whole Vista marketing campaign around Aero, though in reality many, many people will upgrade only to a relatively bland Vista Standard or Basic--sure you'll have built-in search and a new file structure, but it's the transparent windows and flip 3D effect you'll be wanting. For that, you'll need to buy a whole new machine with Windows Vista preinstalled. If you've bought a new PC within the last two years, I'd recommend staying with Windows XP until you absolutely need to upgrade, then buy a new Windows Vista machine.

Check back tomorrow to see what I uncover next.


TalkBack
16 messages

Vista Battery Saver

Have you tired new beta of Vista Battery Saver?
http://www.codeplex.com/vistabattery/
by utamir (See profile) - July 27, 2007 2:34 AM PDT

Vista Standard vs. XP Battery Life

Battery life for a laptop is a basic requirement/issue before even considering which laptop to buy. An operating system which isn't even a productive program for a user reducing battery life by 1 hour? Simple conclusion. That kills Vista until they can fix it.
by dougjp (See profile) - June 3, 2006 4:36 AM PDT

Wow... Come on CNET

It's really quite sad and scary that you don't know about the Intel Core Duo bug that has been around ...well since the inception of the Core Duo's. I will go out on a limb and assume that is the source of your battery troubles.

I've been using it on my Dell Latitude 810 with a 1.86Ghz Pentium M - Dothan ...and I see easily 3:00 hours of battery life with the battery setting on "balanced" ...in XP I was seeing 3:25 minutes...I would hardly call that Vista eating batteries.
by xxdesmusxx (See profile) - May 31, 2006 12:09 PM PDT

A broad view.

Of course this "battle" between MacOS and Windows will last a bit longer, but we need to look at the broad view. The thing is that Windows has 90% (or more) of market share and that is fault of, from above all, Apple.
Remember that the OS first developed by them is contemporary to the first Windows, but Apple decided to close it to their unique environment; that's how everything started. And that's how MacOS is more stable that XP, it is confined to Macs. They do the software AND hardware... Come on!
And it's safeness is just a story: of course, who will waste their time writing viruses for Mac? when they can hit almost every computer in the world writing it for Windows. Very serious security holes have been found in MacOS, but nobody exploited them and Apple quickly fix them.
MacOS and Windows will never compete head to head until Apple lets its software out in the real world. And I think they are just too comfortable now to adventure out. That's how it's going to be: Apple for their fans (and some very specific companies), and Windows for the rest of the world, 90% of it.
by GonzalezRick (See profile) - May 29, 2006 5:52 PM PDT
5 out of 5 users found this comment helpful | 2 comments

OSX/Not trying to bash Windows...

I love Windows as much as the next guy, which might sound bad, but I
understand and live with its usefulness...it just does stuff I need to do
sometimes. But guess what? Mac OSX looks and works the same on pretty
much every computer running it. Sure, it'll slow down sometimes, but I'm not
stuck looking at an "enhanced" version of the same OS I was using five years
ago--the one that looks nothing like the promised next-gen OS of the future.
Now that's just sad.
by averber (See profile) - May 28, 2006 12:38 AM PDT
5 out of 10 users found this comment helpful | 8 comments

May 2006 archive

S M Tu W Th F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

for Alpha.CNET.com

1x1
 

advertisement



© 2008 CNET Networks, Inc., a CBS Company. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use