PDA

View Full Version : More good news for Ubuntu: " Windows Vista eats laptop batteries for lunch "



RAV TUX
May 29th, 2006, 06:12 AM
The blunder of Micro$oft will benefit Ubuntu, and the demise of Bug #1.
This will lead to a nice evolution too Dapper.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Notebooks/4531-10921_7-6534816.html?tag=blog

May 27, 2006, 10:29 PM PDT

Posted by: Robert Vamosi (http://reviews.cnet.com/Notebooks/4532-10921_7-0.html?authorId=4999154&tag=blog) on Cnet

Living with Windows Vista Beta 2: Day 2

In yesterday's installment (http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6534214.html?tag=blog) 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 (http://reviews.cnet.com/Acer_TravelMate_8200/4505-3121_7-31679411-2.html?tag=nav) rated pretty high 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 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 pretty 3D bells and whistles). Mostly to get Aero you need to have a realtively 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 you 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 Appearence in the Control Panel, then choose Personalization, then Visual Appearence. From Visual Appearance you 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.

Okay, 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 only upgrade 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.








'

briancurtin
May 29th, 2006, 06:13 AM
laptop batteries are a joke. they typically dont last no matter what you are using, at least in my experiences.

benuski
May 29th, 2006, 06:29 AM
laptop batteries are a joke. they typically dont last no matter what you are using, at least in my experiences.

I've had my Dell laptop for about two years, and my battery life is down to about two hours unplugged... i need to get a new battery, and soon. That just not cool

prizrak
May 29th, 2006, 07:48 AM
It was extremely obvious that Vista would suck on laptops. Just look at recommended specs what laptop, that is actually portable, has specs like that? In my experience I actually get better battery life on Ubuntu than I did on XP but it was like a 10 minute difference at the most. The biggest issue is that even the new laptop I'm looking at will not be Vista ready and for a good reason. I don't want to carry 20lbs of back up batteries and a 10lb laptop to boot.

Mr_J_
May 29th, 2006, 06:21 PM
I don't see where this is news...

Even Ubuntu with XGL will suck the batteries out pretty fast.
The nice thing about Ubuntu might be a laptop with XFCE or some other lightweight.
this can also be achieved in Vista by turning off loads of extras they put into default standarts. Like Aero, Indexing, and loads of other available even in XP.

The GPU is another thing that requires energy, along with bluetooth and wifi cards... The less you have on the more that baterie lasts.

prizrak
May 29th, 2006, 06:43 PM
I don't see where this is news...

Even Ubuntu with XGL will suck the batteries out pretty fast.
The nice thing about Ubuntu might be a laptop with XFCE or some other lightweight.
this can also be achieved in Vista by turning off loads of extras they put into default standarts. Like Aero, Indexing, and loads of other available even in XP.

The GPU is another thing that requires energy, along with bluetooth and wifi cards... The less you have on the more that baterie lasts.
That's the point though, even with Aero turned off it sucks the power out. MS with all it's money could have easily created a laptop edition that would turn off all that crap automagically when running on batteries. Of course the user should have the option not to be but still.

Mr_J_
May 29th, 2006, 07:31 PM
Do you know how much trouble that would arise?

Windows giving the user such a choice?!
The world would colapse on itself!

prizrak
May 30th, 2006, 06:54 AM
Do you know how much trouble that would arise?

Windows giving the user such a choice?!
The world would colapse on itself!
Yeah, lets face it no one who is smart enough to be able to use a computer would ever be able to make such a difficult choice.

ed_agamemnon
May 30th, 2006, 11:03 AM
Ubuntu actually eats significantly more battery power than Windows XP; even with Metactiy/some light-weight WM.

wrtpeeps
May 30th, 2006, 11:08 AM
this was inevitable anyway.

XQC
May 30th, 2006, 11:21 AM
Since Vista is still beta, nobody can say if they won't care about that.

All these beta reviews are nice but you can only make a judge when the final product is ready.

hesee
May 30th, 2006, 11:44 AM
Ubuntu actually eats significantly more battery power than Windows XP; even with Metactiy/some light-weight WM.

Is that right? If it is, why is that so? Any experiences, links to some reviews etc...?

bruce89
May 30th, 2006, 12:14 PM
It is also even more delayed - "early 2007" instead of January 2007. - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31929

prizrak
May 30th, 2006, 03:48 PM
Ubuntu actually eats significantly more battery power than Windows XP; even with Metactiy/some light-weight WM.
Not in my experience.

Mr_J_
May 30th, 2006, 04:05 PM
Honestly I believe that MSFT will end up using heavier systems to support their new OS.

We all know Wintel is a long lasting partnership and the new Core are going to leave the system with the same 2 or 3 hours laptops usualy have.

The main problem will be resolved with the Vista light versions they will brand as lappy happy or something like that. Aero is not a good idea towards laptops because it requires the gpu to work all the time.

I expect the new upgrades to become more and more shown... A few energy savers have been spoken about for quite some time and they are probaly going to come out with Vista. I don't expect MSFT to allow such a shiny system to come out without a fuss.

News in the lappy world and home front.

And so what if people need to recharge batteries evey hour or two?
Fuel Cell batteries are going to come around soon, and with solid state memory lappies will get an increase to a huge 4 hours even tho they're using Vista with full capabilities.

Of course I'm betting Vista will most likelly loose competition to a competitor like Ubuntu if correctly prepared.

In my humble opinion Windows needs to get the Windows Legacy version.
The new stuff gets put on Windows "Whateverthenewnameis" and then there is the legacy version.

OLD TIMERS version!!

YourSurrogateGod
May 30th, 2006, 06:04 PM
Good news for Ubuntu? Frankly, it would be more like bad news for Vista. I don't know of many Linux distros that work flawlessly on laptops. That and there's a good chance that this issue will be quickly fixed by Microsoft after a deluge of patches and what not, so it's not time to celebrate.

RavenOfOdin
May 30th, 2006, 08:07 PM
That and there's a good chance that this issue will be quickly fixed by Microsoft after a deluge of patches and what not, so it's not time to celebrate.

Oh boy, and then they put out more patches to fix the patches that fixed the patches that fixed the patches that fixed the problem and we're at the same bloatware as before. Yippee.

prizrak
May 30th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Good news for Ubuntu? Frankly, it would be more like bad news for Vista. I don't know of many Linux distros that work flawlessly on laptops. That and there's a good chance that this issue will be quickly fixed by Microsoft after a deluge of patches and what not, so it's not time to celebrate.
While I agree that it won't do much for the Linux community since Linux on laptops is pretty crappy (more or less hit or miss) I highly doubt that Vista would EVER be good on laptops. It's just simple issue of power required to run the OS and the physics of power consumption. Any desktop replacement laptop will have little issue with Vista but anything portable just doesn't have the power (especially in the GPU).
In order for Vista to be more power efficient it would take quite a bit of redesign and tuning, I just don't see it done with patches.

Rackerz
May 30th, 2006, 11:48 PM
It will only be good news for Ubuntu if more people knew about it when they found out Vista sucked.