XP Still Beats Windows 7 in Netbook Battery Life

[Darth Sushi]

http://media.bestofmicro.com/windows-7-xp-logo,J-3-214527-1.pngXP Still Beats Windows 7 in Netbook Battery Life
November 12, 2009 by Marcus Yam

" Windows XP continues to roll on with nice little things.

Windows 7 is here and it brought with it a huge list of improvements that should have many users wanting to upgrade if they haven't already – unless if you have a netbook.

Recent tests from Laptop Mag (http://blog.laptopmag.com/stick-with-xp-windows-7-battery-life-worse-on-netbooks), Liliputing (http://www.liliputing.com/2009/10/windows-7-netbooks-lower-battery-life.html)and jkOnTheRun (http://jkontherun.com/2009/10/28/netbook-battery-tests-windows-xp-vs-windows-7/)all show that netbook users will get longer battery life while running Windows XP than Windows 7. This is slightly surprising given that Microsoft have boasted about all the work that's gone into power efficiency and how it's been improved over Vista. While Windows 7 may be better than Vista, it's not besting XP just yet.

Laptop's tests found that netbooks running Windows XP ran for 47 minutes longer than those with Windows 7. Numbers across tests show varying differences in battery life, but the consistent result is that XP is a better choice for those who need all the battery life one can get.

Of course, Windows 7 is a more demanding operating system with its more advanced (and graphically pretty) UI as well as all the added security layers in the background, which may explain the drop in battery life. Either way, it seems that Windows XP isn't quite all washed up just yet. "

:source: Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/XP-Windows-7-Battery-Life,9059.html

[drpsmr]

really good to hear that
dont know why my love for XP does no go
i love xP!!

[Tv Controls you]

My Main rig runs on windows 7 because it is a 64 bit system. 64 bit xp is less compatible with software that vista sp1 64 bit.

And with 64 bit i get double the threading and support of more than 4 gigs of ram. I have 12 gb of ram (which by the way is overkill as I have never used more than 30% ever).

Also with the big boost in 64 bit computer/notebook sales, xp is becoming antiquated. Don't get me wrong on every low end 32 bit system i use xp performance, but windows 7 is definitely the way of the future.

[bpchia]

slightly off topic, but if you use 64 bit Windows 7 to take advantage of the ability to see more than 3.25GB RAM, will 32 bit apps run fine? Will the 32 bit apps just see 3.25GB RAM not the extra?

[tesco]

slightly off topic, but if you use 64 bit Windows 7 to take advantage of the ability to see more than 3.25GB RAM, will 32 bit apps run fine? Will the 32 bit apps just see 3.25GB RAM not the extra?
32bit apps run fine in a 64bit OS.
And yet they will only be able to use a limited amount of ram (Not sure about your 3.25gb figure).

[Twig]

Of course Xp will run longer on a notebook, for one it uses much less resources. Windows 7 is much nicer and I love taskbar preview :)
Also to quote bpchia, there are still many programs that do not run in 64 bit even on a 64 bit operating system. So by default they run 32.

[Expeto]

From my own experience a XP with active AV and a firewall still beats the Vista in resources and battery.

[spring62]

XP uses less energy but windows 7 is much nicer...so I choose Windows 7. BTW, when I try Windows 7 64-bit RC, it seems that most 32-bit software are compatible with the 64-bit system.

[alfrisz]

all 32bits software works on windows 7 64-bit version

[ramenchef]

I think if you ran in very basic mode, like no aero and such, win7 should eek out more power since it has much better fine tuning of the power settings.