How do 64 bit Vista and Win 7 compare for battery consumption?

If I like I can switch over to Windows 7 64 for no cost other than taking time to install it. I certainly don't hate Vista and actually don't think it's bad. 41-47 running processes in task manager, boot times around 53 seconds and according to BatteryBar, 2h 36m of battery life for my normal watching videos/web browsing/listening to music routine. I don't have any random crashes, freeze ups or any problems. It's been very reliable.

I've read here and there that Win 7 could give better battery life but nothing that's repetitively conclusive. Much of what I've seen is concerning the RC or written even before that was released. Searching NBR didn't bring anything up even though I know I've seen things in the past on this topic.

So would I see battery life increase (what about system performance?) by switching to 64 bit Windows 7 from Vista 64? More unplugged time and cooler temperatures is most important so I'm figuring out whether it's worth the switch.

Thanks in advance.

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the two. Windows 7 will not give you worse battery life as long as there are all drivers available.

 

i don't se how that can be illegal but whatever...another reason to hate apple ^^

 

It's difficult to say, since it largely depends on the drivers. For example, for my Thinkpad T500, I experienced a general decrease in battery life by moving from Vista 64 to W7 64, but most (or all, again, hard to say) of that I have gained back with the latest drivers that were released a little while ago.

 

@RWUK:

I noticed an increase in battery life with my Asus G50, like 30 min.

 

i don't se how that can be illegal but whatever...another reason to hate apple ^^

 

Mac OS X can only legally be installed on a Mac. The only way to install it on any other computer is to hack it. You would have known that if you had read the rules. I strongly suggest that you edit your post and report it yourself before a mod finds it and gives you an infraction.

And yay post 1,000! Too bad it's going to be deleted.

 

why would i think thats illegal? I wouldn't havr ever read that becuase thats one of the most ridiculous things ever....i honestly don't see how that can possible break any laws....absurd

I know people who have installed that directly to a PC...no hacking. Mac's use pc hardware...i don't see a differance in hardware that would have limited that. They don't use bs IBM cpus anymore

 

We're not making it up. In Apples EULA its says you can't install OS X on non Apple hardware. Their product, their rules.

Now stop encouraging the OP to do something illegal!

 

lol i am not urging him lol...i saw other people do it...i claim ignorance ^^ But nm ignore what i have said it's "illegal"....shame on them ^^

EDIT: I guess your stuck with bad battery life and paying 800 bucks more for hardware ^^

Also would a linux OS do better?

 

I've read similar articles and I agree, pretty ridiculous but the mind blowing amount of things in the US that are "illegal" makes this look like 2nd degree murder. I've never liked OSX though..but much of that has to do with the company and how I have no idea how to use it.

Is it such a criminal atrocity to put Windows onto a Mac?

(and further thoughts that don't really need and answer....)
What constitutes "only a mac"? Do they have a system serial or id? A white case (Sony makes white laptops..SUE! SUE!), an (ok, I admit) beautiful screen and a mouse with 1 button are not proprietary so where is the legal line drawn? Logo? Or is it one of those 'image and likeness' deals?...

Now we're quite OT..

I want to stick with Windows because I can either stay with Vista or 7, both cost me nothing. I've recently done a clean install with the most up to date drivers so if that is what makes more of a difference than the overall OS, I don't know what if anything I'd gain at that point. I've considered getting a small SSD if something comes up worth jumping on. I'd surely do the 7 upgrade then but that may or may not happen.

 

Only if it has proper drivers, and proper Linux drivers for notebooks are rare.

 

It has to be hardware made by Apple. Yes, they do have system IDs.

And the reason you can install Windows on a Mac legally is because there's nothing that says you can't. Yeah, that's literally it.

I was just clarifying, so let's get back on topic.

 

Just to clarify, it's NOT a law you'd be breaking, it's only a EULA. Apple would have a very difficult time convincing a court that a clause that attempt to restrict personal use of a legally purchased product, especially when reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes is a recognized right. Many EULAs have been shot down in the past, or deemed not to be enforceable in certain circumstances.

Proof is, they haven't sued anyone for doing that, except for those doing it for commercial purposes (which is a whole different can of worms).

 

City Pig... apple hasn't made their own hardware in years. Outside of the case obviously.

But your other points stand of course.

 

You know what I meant.

 

Alright so lets get back to Vista vs 7. Anyone else have experience upgrading and either loosing or gaining battery life?

 

question...would running windows starter save you battery since its more robust?

 

I found the battery life on Windows 7 x64 and Vista HP x64 to be the same on my HP. The parameters were slightly different though because i used a different hard drive for Windows 7

 

Depends what you're doing in regards to battery life. Vista is a hog compared to 7, so if all you're doing is browsing the web you may not see a significant increase. If you're running applications that win7 does a better job of handling than Vista, you will see an increase.

 

no one answered my question....would windows starter giv better battery life since its smaller?

 

Somewhat since Aero is disabled by default. But you can get the same effect with other flavors of windows 7 by simply disabling Aero.

Aero requires the GPU to consume more power.

 

alright thx...i was already thinking of disabling aero would help since that will reduce power consumption but i wasn't sure if windows start also had less meat to it.

 

I've read that Win 7 starter is OEM only, has a 2GB RAM limit and 32 bit only. It also seems earlier versions of it could not run more than 3 programs simultaneously..no thanks.

Most of the time what I do on the computer is web browsing, listening to music and watching videos off the hdd, and psd & pdf (Photoshop) editing. I spent a lot of time yesterday poking around on my brother's computer with Windows 7 and there are much more similarities between it and Vista than I thought.

Which kinds of programs are 7 supposed to handle better than Vista? Many everyday programs like web browsers, media players and AV scanners are still in x86 so I can't imagine much of a difference. Maybe for more processor intensive programs?