Comments on: More Data Suggests XP Offers More Battery Life than Windows 7

By: Theguywhohasacomputer

Theguywhohasacomputer — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:16:41 +0000

Before I got Win 7 Ultimate, my battery life was 3 hours (Vista HP), I have 3GB RAM, and now, on the lowest brightness, my battery life is 1hr 10mins…

By: Decade

Decade — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:44:52 +0000

For me, the reasons are:

Search-based everything. No more having to care about Microsoft’s insane control panel arrangements. No more having to scroll through uselessly categorized Program menus in the Start Menu, if you know what program you want to launch.

More nifty keyboard shortcuts. Especially for dealing with multiple monitors: Windows-P for managing external monitors (P for Projector), Shift-Windows-Left and -Right for moving windows between the internal and external monitor, Windows-Down for Restore and Windows-Up for maximize, and so on.

Not really nifty, but important in this sad era: Able to restart video drivers without crashing the whole system. On that note, for the newer drivers that are available in both XP and Vista/7, the Vista/7 drivers sometimes seem to have better performance. On a couple Vostros with Intel graphics that my organization bought recently, the XP version seems so laggy, while the Vista version is pretty snappy.

By: Decade

Decade — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:32:36 +0000

Vista and Windows 7 have an option that’s supposed to increase responsiveness and, incidentally, battery life: Use a spare SD card in the ubiquitous SD card reader for a ReadyBoost cache.

ReadyBoost is a little computationally intensive, with its data tracking and compression and 128-bit AES. But it seems like an intriguing option to try.

By: Luscious

Luscious — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:41:02 +0000

I think once Intel, VIA and AMD begin dropping their next-gen processors and chipsets into netbooks, Windows 7 will be the only “Windows” OS option to go for. I say this for two key reasons:

1. Drivers for new chipsets/hardware will be more than likely coming in Win 7 flavors as opposed to XP.
2. Moving away from 45nm to 32nm/28nm will alleviate the current battery discrepancies.

So while the big majority of users may be happy with XP for now on current hardware, I would be cautious of next year’s gear not necessarily coming with driver support for XP, but exclusive to the newer/current Windows 7.

By: Lukas Okmis

Lukas Okmis — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:06:59 +0000

What are the “killer” features of 7 compared to XP?

I still dont know why I should make the switch…except docking windows…

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:58:22 +0000

@gmazin — not necessarily. Microsoft claimed that Win7 offers 11% better battery life than Vista.

http://jkontherun.com/2008/11/06/windows-7-shoul/

By: gmazin

gmazin — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:47:12 +0000

Wouldn’t this be a granted? Software (XP) designed for old hardware will run more efficiently (at the expense of features) than a new piece of software developed for the modern PC.

My battery runtime stayed almost exactly the same on the 900HA though

By: AdamBv1

AdamBv1 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:34:10 +0000

I have noticed the same thing on my full size laptop but I personally find that all the new Windows 7 features and better usability offset any battery loss. This is however my opinion, YMMV.