The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    The Unexpected: Battery Life in OS X vs. Windows Vista

    Discussion in 'Windows OS and Software' started by AnXioZ, Oct 23, 2008.

  1. AnXioZ

    AnXioZ Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    81
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    A really interesting read @ AnandTech's new MacBooks review .

    [​IMG]
     
    AnXioZ, Oct 23, 2008
    #1
  2. lixuelai

    lixuelai Notebook Virtuoso NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    463
    Messages:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Might have to do with the drivers for 9400M.
     
    lixuelai, Oct 23, 2008
    #2
  3. SHAD0W REM0RS3

    SHAD0W REM0RS3 Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    i doubt it, if you look at the internet browsing the air on os x gets almost 5 hours on vista doesnt even get 3 hours, and i'm guessing thats only on balanced performance in vista.
     
    SHAD0W REM0RS3, Oct 23, 2008
    #3
  4. PhoenixFx

    PhoenixFx Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    744
    Messages:
    3,083
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    I agree with lixuelai, may well be a driver problem, most likely nVidia. Or it could be due to Vista’s file indexing (Windows search service), one of the first things I turn off in a new Vista installation. It just thrashes the disk like no body’s business.
     
    PhoenixFx, Oct 23, 2008
    #4
  5. surfasb

    surfasb Titles Shmm-itles

    Reputations:
    2,637
    Messages:
    6,370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    They don't talk to much about the testing methodology, but interesting results never the less.
     
    surfasb, Oct 23, 2008
    #5
  6. Jakamo5

    Jakamo5 Tetra Vaal

    Reputations:
    635
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    81
    I don't think that's so unexpected for anyone who knows about Vista's background processes. I also don't think this applies to anyone who knows about Vista's background processes.
     
    Jakamo5, Oct 23, 2008
    #6
  7. Evolution

    Evolution Vox Sola

    Reputations:
    413
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    These results hold no credibility for me because macbooks are not supposed to be running windows vista :rolleyes:...
     
    Evolution, Oct 23, 2008
    #7
  8. adyingwren

    adyingwren Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    77
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Bah... I wouldn't be completely surprised if Apple didn't give ALL the necessary drivers for Windows to work properly and downclock. (or perhaps the laptop was busy page-filing the hdd seeing as this would be a new install)

    Still, interesting results. I'd like to see a comparison with Vista having most of the processes shut off as well as a linux distro.
     
    adyingwren, Oct 23, 2008
    #8
  9. surfasb

    surfasb Titles Shmm-itles

    Reputations:
    2,637
    Messages:
    6,370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    I was thinking the same thing. Note to self, don't bootcamp Vista while watching a DVD on a plane.
     
    surfasb, Oct 23, 2008
    #9
  10. cathy

    cathy Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    47
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Not really surprising to me. My Macbook Pro gets almost 3 hours of light usage on Vista and about 4 hours on Leopard. My other friends who have PC notebooks running Vista barely even get 2 hours 30 minutes, and that's quite surprising seeing how my graphics card requires more power than theirs. Mine's a 8600M GT whereas their graphic cards are 8400M GS/2400 XT. Could be due to a larger cell battery though, along with LED backlighting.
     
    cathy, Oct 23, 2008
    #10
  11. roytse

    roytse Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    88
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    anyone compared vista with linux?
    does linux has even better battery life?
     
    roytse, Oct 23, 2008
    #11
  12. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Pretty obvious that Macbooks get better battery life on OS X. They were designed for it.
     
    Phil, Oct 23, 2008
    #12
  13. Stezzus

    Stezzus Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    16
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Pretty obvious. OS X was designed to run on mac hardware, Vista was not.
     
    Stezzus, Oct 23, 2008
    #13
  14. AnXioZ

    AnXioZ Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    81
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    What do you mean by Mac hardware?
    Mac's hardware is the same thing as PC's hardware. Same manufactures same hardware. I don't see why it's so obvious. You have the same hardware, but when put in different OS environment battery life changes dramatically.
    There are possibly quite some factors that are responsible for this, but still you shouldn't be getting 100% difference.
     
    AnXioZ, Oct 23, 2008
    #14
  15. CalebSchmerge

    CalebSchmerge Woof NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    1,126
    Messages:
    2,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Mac OS is designed to run on kinda specific hardware, while Windows isn't. That allows Mac to fine tune how it runs, and tweak more out of the battery life. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury.
     
    CalebSchmerge, Oct 23, 2008
    #15