Comments on: Netbook Battery Tests: Windows XP vs Windows 7

By: armandete

armandete — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:16:38 +0000

Ubuntu what? Please tell us how you did it, in ubuntu there are no “real” or optimized drivers, and generally it actually sounds more like an another linux-lover lie and/or idealism… I really, but REALLY don’t believe you. It’s great to like this or that OS, and defending it for it’s advantages, but linux people is just less and less credible with this kind of childness. That OR you’re having real problems in your Windows installations, because I’m getting the double in XP, about 7hs30min with light wifi use (intermitent). Almost 7hs in W7. And (like MANY pleople) about 3h30min to 4hs15min in Ubuntu. I even saw a blog saying “let’s admit it, Ubuntu’s battery life sucks”… so… stop defending your hippie society with blindness and admit that there are not ONLY advantages.

By: Kevin Shih

Kevin Shih — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:16:17 +0000

I own an eeepc 1000h Windows XP lasts about 6h25m if i have the brightness down to min, wireless and bluetooth off, and no programs running in the background. normal usage lasts around 4 hours. normal usage as in surfing the web, facebook and gmail. And occasionally youtube.

With Windows 7, i got probably at most 4h30m. 3h30m if i use it "normally"

But with Ubuntu 9.10, with proper power management, i can get around 8h55m

I also have a touchscreen mod, and it draws quite a lot of power. Maybe that's why my computer doesn't last as long as i want it to.

By: franco

franco — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:18:33 +0000

By: franco

franco — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:12:05 +0000

windows 7 es genial

By: Tion

Tion — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:51:12 +0000

Check this article: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://armandete.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/sobre-la-duracin-de-la-batera-en-windows-7-en-mi-netbook-asus-eee-1000ha/&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhj_1nuCoYeNoE0iGzVCNoL1gRtqfg
It says that after installing the Super Hybrid Engine battery life improves a lot

By: Andreas

Andreas — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:11:08 +0000

BIOS version might interfer with battery life as well (with regards to the eee test where two different netbooks were used).

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:17:15 +0000

Did you know that BAPCo’s battery life measurement benchmark, MobileMark 2007 now supports 64 and 32-bit versions of Windows 7. You just need to download the latest patch 1.06 and your ready to roll. If you sign up on the BAPCo Press Network (BPN), you will be sent a press copy.

By: Armando

Armando — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:55:51 +0000

Hello one more time (i’m talking alone at it seems), just updated my BIOS to a new versions, asus support page said: Supports windows 7. It was true! Now with official drivers and bios i’m getting about 7 hours of use (same as XP) in my eee 1000 ha :) it was matter of time until asus supports windows 7, excelent! Sorry for my english…

By: armandete

armandete — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:21:13 +0000

Hello, me again, Just posting the good news (for asus (damn it… again.. Asus? Asus’s? Asu’s? English is not that simple ahh..) Asus just released ALL the official drivers for most EEE netbooks :) super good news right!? Maybe someone else can try battery life now? I think i’ll just do the same…

Great blog by the way, i’m happy i’ve found it

By: armandete

armandete — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:01:11 +0000

Hello! Sorry about my english, I just made some tests with my Asus EEE 1000HA that Microsoft gave to me lately… (Happy!), first, I was even scared about how Windows 7 eated my battery… I could check the % satus and see 80% then have a drink and it said 78%, horrible. It used to seems that the power saving options wasn’t working very well, specially because the Atom was in 1.6Ghz all the time… then i’ve installed Super Hybrid Engine (Asus’s (or Asu’s??) power saver software) and set it to “power saving mode”, and it ran with a bottom of 650Mhz, but going to 800Mhz and very eventually 1.2Ghz… never needed to go faster as it worked very smootly… battery time did change a lot, BUT even then I still have a significative diference where XP runs longer, about 20 – 50 mins depending on what I’m doing. 20 – 50 mins means the time to get to the 50% battery level… I don’t use to pass that point anyways as it still a long duration battery…

Well I hope you forgive my english, if is too bad next time I promisse to use google translator :)!

PD: I’m going to try MOBLIN right now, it’s downloadint at this time… if I see any interesting advantage in matters of battery life, i’ll let you know ;)!

By: Kevin C. Tofel

Kevin C. Tofel — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:12:24 +0000

“Testing battery life by disabling the operating systems power management features is pointless.”

I like to know the barebones *minimum* amount of runtime I could possibly get from a device when I leave the house. This test does exactly that. Pointless to you, but not to me.

Your description for a relevant test is a totally different type of test (not any less valuable, by any means, but different) — one that would provide results for the maximum runtime.

By: kubel

kubel — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:07:08 +0000

This test is like comparing an 1989 Mustang to a 2010 Camero by removing their engines and pushing them down a hill. How fast they go is completely irrelevant when what matters is disabled.

Testing battery life by disabling the operating systems power management features is pointless. Also, third-party power management utilities can interfere.

For a relevant test, both systems must be identical (aside from the operating system), both systems must have third-party utilities removed, and both systems must be set to their most aggressive power saving features (without entering hibernation or sleep mode).

Battery Eater is designed to test the battery itself, not the operating system power savings.

By: Brad Linder

Brad Linder — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:49:10 +0000

Well, at least we know the batteries are consistently built! (And that the battery eater test is reliable… if not exactly reflective of real world use).

By: Kevin C. Tofel

Kevin C. Tofel — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:31:19 +0000

Brad, I re-ran it today with the Windows 7 Basic theme. Would you believe it ran for exactly 5 hours and 16 minutes? :)

By: Brad Linder

Brad Linder — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:22:04 +0000

I ran Battery Eater Pro in Classic Mode on a Toshiba NB205-330 that shipped with Windows 7 Starter today. The end result? 5 hours, 16 minutes.

So I’d say your test was pretty accurate.

By: bj

bj — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:01:21 +0000

Just to add more fuel… have you considered adding a 3rd OS to the mix? Especially since the main contenders in the netbook space are going to be XP, 7, & some form of Ubuntu.

I have noticed that with the recent upgrade to Ubuntu 9.10 I am getting longer battery life out of my 1410. With the crappy NA battery it is still too low but 9.10 seems better than 9.04.