Battery life difference with Vista

The title says it all...how big is the difference in battery life between Vista and XP?

I am currently using xp and I do like to play games, so far xp seems to have better compatibility and I don't have a dx10 card so it seems that vista would be...unnecessary. Especially with the new "7" os coming out in a few years and all.

 

Battery life difference really depends on the type of power management software you use. For example, my Asus gives me PowerGear for XP, plus I undervolted my laptop. In windows XP, I got around 3.5h about a year ago. Now, it's decreased to around 3h. Normal wear and tear.

In Vista, I used to be getting 2h45min a lot, but I also downloaded the PowerGear Extreme for vista once Asus updated it, and also undervolted again. Results were very similar.

Aside from looking a bit better than XP, I didn't think Vista was all that different for what I need it to do. I'd say stick to XP... Or dual boot with linux...

 

I been getting about the same battery life with either on my R60.

 

Other than higher RAM needs I can't think where or why OS would take more power? If it used significantly more CPU or any other component that would be interfering with other programs potentially reducing performance, really not a plus for a OS. Also as far as RAM goes I don't think it charges up then down so that might not even come into play. Any reason why this question? The hardware affects the power supply needs not OS, look at desktops no one has ever mentioned different power supply needs based on OS, hardware yes.

 

I couldn't crack 4h15m or so on my Gateway after the usual tweaks with NHC. In comparison, I can easily set up 5h+ in XP. Aside from that, my fan ran constantly in V, and the laptop was hotter, surely contributing to battery drain. In XP, my fan rarely turns on.

Battery life differences between XP and Vista is a rather well-accepted phenomenon - check out the Google. Microsoft themselves have admitted you'll get better life out of XP, and suggest disabling Aero to prolong battery life. I'd suggest disabling Vista.

 

Here's one of the Windows Team blog guy who wrote about the battery life being cut by 1-4%.

I get about 2 hours and 25 minutes in Vista and about 16 minutes more in XP.

 

I get about the same in both XP and Vista, but my Turion x2 is undervolted to .75v on the lowest multiplier.

 

You have a 11% loss in battery life. You should on the high end have 6 minutes on the low end 1.5 minutes. I can clearly tell that your expierience is anecdotal like everyone else. You need to run your computer at idle same programs running same demands and time it with both. Then you need to run under load that can be duplicated with both OS's. Until you do that no scientific basis for what you say. If it was really an issue what would have been pointed out, is, in “Task Manager” my CPU usage would be higher creating power draw and creating heat causing the fans to run and draw power. Or GPU same thing. Fella's this is a zero sum equation. No Voodoo! And it is not adding up! Vista may take more but not so much it matters!

 

You don't have to run a scientific experiment to tell the difference between the way your computer behaves under one operating system and the way it behaves under another. You just need to be familiar with your computer's habits and battery life. And if an operating system with *zero* programs installed runs several degrees hotter than an operating system with dozens of programs installed, the first one is unequivocally stressing the computer more than the second. If one OS provides ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty minutes less battery life - brand new, out of the box, with zero programs installed - than another OS on the same computer - one with a regular suite of programs installed - that's straight proof that OS 1 is harder on the battery than OS 2. The only way to deny this is to be in deep, deep denial.

 

Great points but wrong, sorry. First when you say installed programs I hope you mean running programs? I will give you that, I know what you meant. Now you won't even do anything to try to create an even playing field between the 2 OS's, not good. And finally you are talking about a battery life quantity difference that is bordering on the Idiotic between these OS's, no one else is talking 60 minutes but you? Did you make that number up to win? Please respond to what is written, I may have things to learn, I know I don't know it all but give me something to learn not all the reasons I posted.

Do you know what I mean by zero sum? I don't think you do!

 

okay...so the point is...there is a trend that laptop users that are now running Vista notice a decrease in Battery life compared to XP, the loss may be small but when talking portable, every minute counts. As well the driver support from notebook manufacturers are spotty (I have an LG so...yeah...) and there is nothing vital that Vista can do that XP cannot. Aside from DX10. So at the moment upgrading is unnecessary. Perhaps unnecessary till Vienna/7...agree?

 

Well MS is still using all of you as their lab rats since SP1 has not offically released and I heard the beta was delayed (correct me if I'm wrong)? So... There are still compatibility issues with drivers and hardware. I would still want XP but I'm not sure if dual booting is the way to go. The issue is transition. Once Vista becomes more efficent, the question is "how can I transfer old programs/games from XP to Vista if I dual boot"?

 

^ I was able to transfer my Firefox profile, passwords and all, from XP to Vista when I tried it in June. Nothing was lost. However, realizing how much better XP was, I deleted the V partition and went back to single-booting. But it's quite possible to transfer certain things.