Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus
Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it’s no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life
at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it’s no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
Like I said, I fully expected to take a bit of hit on battery life with
Vista. But clearly 50% is a bit much. The funny thing is, even turning off Aero (as suggested in the article) has made no appreciable difference. I would think that going with Windows Basic and applying all the other power settings I mentioned would bring me somewhere close to the battery life I was getting under XP, but this has not been the case in my experience. After turning of Aero and even indexing, I just don't understand where the power drain in coming from with Vista. "Theo" wrote: See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it’s no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
When your laptop is unplugged and "idle" what is the CPU utilization? And
do you see any process using a lot of CPU power? "VA" wrote in message ... Like I said, I fully expected to take a bit of hit on battery life with Vista. But clearly 50% is a bit much. The funny thing is, even turning off Aero (as suggested in the article) has made no appreciable difference. I would think that going with Windows Basic and applying all the other power settings I mentioned would bring me somewhere close to the battery life I was getting under XP, but this has not been the case in my experience. After turning of Aero and even indexing, I just don't understand where the power drain in coming from with Vista. "Theo" wrote: See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it's no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
Please remember that a "new" battery with a heavy load will act entirely
different than an OLD battery under the same load. It is the law of chemistry and electricity coming into play, and it can not be circumvented. People get a new battery and think that up until the moment it dies it will supply the same current (ampere hours) as when new. It just doesn't work that way. If your battery is more than a year old it may be time for a replacement. Also, is a laptop made specifically to Vista specifications supplied with a heavier duty battery? I don't know, but I would think that the battery specs are contained within the general Vista hardware guidelines for the equipment manufacturers. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... Like I said, I fully expected to take a bit of hit on battery life with Vista. But clearly 50% is a bit much. The funny thing is, even turning off Aero (as suggested in the article) has made no appreciable difference. I would think that going with Windows Basic and applying all the other power settings I mentioned would bring me somewhere close to the battery life I was getting under XP, but this has not been the case in my experience. After turning of Aero and even indexing, I just don't understand where the power drain in coming from with Vista. "Theo" wrote: See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it’s no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
CPU utilization is low and there is no thrashing of the hard drive. I even
took the extra step of completely turning off all indexing. This cripples the Search functionality, but I can do without it. Unfortunately this did not improve the battery situation. "JW" wrote: When your laptop is unplugged and "idle" what is the CPU utilization? And do you see any process using a lot of CPU power? "VA" wrote in message ... Like I said, I fully expected to take a bit of hit on battery life with Vista. But clearly 50% is a bit much. The funny thing is, even turning off Aero (as suggested in the article) has made no appreciable difference. I would think that going with Windows Basic and applying all the other power settings I mentioned would bring me somewhere close to the battery life I was getting under XP, but this has not been the case in my experience. After turning of Aero and even indexing, I just don't understand where the power drain in coming from with Vista. "Theo" wrote: See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it's no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
This isn't an issue with an aging battery (granted my notebook is about a
year old and I recall getting longer battery times when it was new). But I know what kind of battery times I was consistently getting just a few days ago with XP (3-4 hours) and I am now getting half those times under Vista after "upgrading" (1.5-2 hours). Once you turn Aero off, turn indexing off, fiddle with the numerous power saving settings Vista provides -- a 50% decrease in battery time is simply unacceptable. "Richard Urban" wrote: Please remember that a "new" battery with a heavy load will act entirely different than an OLD battery under the same load. It is the law of chemistry and electricity coming into play, and it can not be circumvented. People get a new battery and think that up until the moment it dies it will supply the same current (ampere hours) as when new. It just doesn't work that way. If your battery is more than a year old it may be time for a replacement. Also, is a laptop made specifically to Vista specifications supplied with a heavier duty battery? I don't know, but I would think that the battery specs are contained within the general Vista hardware guidelines for the equipment manufacturers. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... Like I said, I fully expected to take a bit of hit on battery life with Vista. But clearly 50% is a bit much. The funny thing is, even turning off Aero (as suggested in the article) has made no appreciable difference. I would think that going with Windows Basic and applying all the other power settings I mentioned would bring me somewhere close to the battery life I was getting under XP, but this has not been the case in my experience. After turning of Aero and even indexing, I just don't understand where the power drain in coming from with Vista. "Theo" wrote: See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it’s no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
Look at it this way please.
If you connect one 1 1/2 volt lamp to a rechargeable 1 1/2 volt flashlight battery the battery will last for X amount of time (when new). Now connect three 1 1/2 volt lamps (in parallel) to the same 1 1/2 volt battery and the battery life will decrease by X. Do the same test after 100 recharge cycles and you are very likely going to see the length of time to dead battery decrease substantially. The battery can no longer take a full charge, nor effectively deliver the charge to the load. Battery design also enters into the picture here. Some battery technologies are better than others, but they all wear out and fail to accept a full charge - some sooner than others. Aside from that, the original battery was designed for one 1/1/2 volt lamp to be connected (consider this Windows XP graphics, hardware usage etc.) . By connecting three 1 1/2 volt lamps (consider this Vista graphics, hardware usage etc.) you are overloading the battery, whether it is new or old. I am not saying that your battery, or anyone's battery, is not up to the task. I am just pointing out the variables that may come into play. It will happen that the battery manufacturers will have to design more powerful batteries for Vista, due to the increased load placed upon the power source. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... This isn't an issue with an aging battery (granted my notebook is about a year old and I recall getting longer battery times when it was new). But I know what kind of battery times I was consistently getting just a few days ago with XP (3-4 hours) and I am now getting half those times under Vista after "upgrading" (1.5-2 hours). Once you turn Aero off, turn indexing off, fiddle with the numerous power saving settings Vista provides -- a 50% decrease in battery time is simply unacceptable. "Richard Urban" wrote: Please remember that a "new" battery with a heavy load will act entirely different than an OLD battery under the same load. It is the law of chemistry and electricity coming into play, and it can not be circumvented. People get a new battery and think that up until the moment it dies it will supply the same current (ampere hours) as when new. It just doesn't work that way. If your battery is more than a year old it may be time for a replacement. Also, is a laptop made specifically to Vista specifications supplied with a heavier duty battery? I don't know, but I would think that the battery specs are contained within the general Vista hardware guidelines for the equipment manufacturers. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... Like I said, I fully expected to take a bit of hit on battery life with Vista. But clearly 50% is a bit much. The funny thing is, even turning off Aero (as suggested in the article) has made no appreciable difference. I would think that going with Windows Basic and applying all the other power settings I mentioned would bring me somewhere close to the battery life I was getting under XP, but this has not been the case in my experience. After turning of Aero and even indexing, I just don't understand where the power drain in coming from with Vista. "Theo" wrote: See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it’s no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
Richard, if I understand what you're saying and Microsoft has done this by
design with Vista, then Microsoft has set back mobile computing by at least a couple of years if not more. Lithium-ion battery technology is what it is today. There is no new battery technology readily available which will dramatically improve what we have today. I suppose you can make the batteries bigger, but that flies in the face of the ultraportable trend of the last 18 months or so. I would hope my experience is the exception and not the rule, because I can't fathom that the marketplace will accept drastically reduced battery times or, alternatively, be forced to lug around much larger/heavier batteries to compensate. "Richard Urban" wrote: Look at it this way please. If you connect one 1 1/2 volt lamp to a rechargeable 1 1/2 volt flashlight battery the battery will last for X amount of time (when new). Now connect three 1 1/2 volt lamps (in parallel) to the same 1 1/2 volt battery and the battery life will decrease by X. Do the same test after 100 recharge cycles and you are very likely going to see the length of time to dead battery decrease substantially. The battery can no longer take a full charge, nor effectively deliver the charge to the load. Battery design also enters into the picture here. Some battery technologies are better than others, but they all wear out and fail to accept a full charge - some sooner than others. Aside from that, the original battery was designed for one 1/1/2 volt lamp to be connected (consider this Windows XP graphics, hardware usage etc.) . By connecting three 1 1/2 volt lamps (consider this Vista graphics, hardware usage etc.) you are overloading the battery, whether it is new or old. I am not saying that your battery, or anyone's battery, is not up to the task. I am just pointing out the variables that may come into play. It will happen that the battery manufacturers will have to design more powerful batteries for Vista, due to the increased load placed upon the power source. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... This isn't an issue with an aging battery (granted my notebook is about a year old and I recall getting longer battery times when it was new). But I know what kind of battery times I was consistently getting just a few days ago with XP (3-4 hours) and I am now getting half those times under Vista after "upgrading" (1.5-2 hours). Once you turn Aero off, turn indexing off, fiddle with the numerous power saving settings Vista provides -- a 50% decrease in battery time is simply unacceptable. "Richard Urban" wrote: Please remember that a "new" battery with a heavy load will act entirely different than an OLD battery under the same load. It is the law of chemistry and electricity coming into play, and it can not be circumvented. People get a new battery and think that up until the moment it dies it will supply the same current (ampere hours) as when new. It just doesn't work that way. If your battery is more than a year old it may be time for a replacement. Also, is a laptop made specifically to Vista specifications supplied with a heavier duty battery? I don't know, but I would think that the battery specs are contained within the general Vista hardware guidelines for the equipment manufacturers. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... Like I said, I fully expected to take a bit of hit on battery life with Vista. But clearly 50% is a bit much. The funny thing is, even turning off Aero (as suggested in the article) has made no appreciable difference. I would think that going with Windows Basic and applying all the other power settings I mentioned would bring me somewhere close to the battery life I was getting under XP, but this has not been the case in my experience. After turning of Aero and even indexing, I just don't understand where the power drain in coming from with Vista. "Theo" wrote: See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it’s no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |
|
|||
Poor Battery Life
I do believe I read somewhere about 3-4 months ago that the battery
manufacturers were aware of the increased loads that Vista would be placing on batteries and are in the process of addressing the concern at this time. That is not going to help anyone with an older laptop though, I don't suppose. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... Richard, if I understand what you're saying and Microsoft has done this by design with Vista, then Microsoft has set back mobile computing by at least a couple of years if not more. Lithium-ion battery technology is what it is today. There is no new battery technology readily available which will dramatically improve what we have today. I suppose you can make the batteries bigger, but that flies in the face of the ultraportable trend of the last 18 months or so. I would hope my experience is the exception and not the rule, because I can't fathom that the marketplace will accept drastically reduced battery times or, alternatively, be forced to lug around much larger/heavier batteries to compensate. "Richard Urban" wrote: Look at it this way please. If you connect one 1 1/2 volt lamp to a rechargeable 1 1/2 volt flashlight battery the battery will last for X amount of time (when new). Now connect three 1 1/2 volt lamps (in parallel) to the same 1 1/2 volt battery and the battery life will decrease by X. Do the same test after 100 recharge cycles and you are very likely going to see the length of time to dead battery decrease substantially. The battery can no longer take a full charge, nor effectively deliver the charge to the load. Battery design also enters into the picture here. Some battery technologies are better than others, but they all wear out and fail to accept a full charge - some sooner than others. Aside from that, the original battery was designed for one 1/1/2 volt lamp to be connected (consider this Windows XP graphics, hardware usage etc.) . By connecting three 1 1/2 volt lamps (consider this Vista graphics, hardware usage etc.) you are overloading the battery, whether it is new or old. I am not saying that your battery, or anyone's battery, is not up to the task. I am just pointing out the variables that may come into play. It will happen that the battery manufacturers will have to design more powerful batteries for Vista, due to the increased load placed upon the power source. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... This isn't an issue with an aging battery (granted my notebook is about a year old and I recall getting longer battery times when it was new). But I know what kind of battery times I was consistently getting just a few days ago with XP (3-4 hours) and I am now getting half those times under Vista after "upgrading" (1.5-2 hours). Once you turn Aero off, turn indexing off, fiddle with the numerous power saving settings Vista provides -- a 50% decrease in battery time is simply unacceptable. "Richard Urban" wrote: Please remember that a "new" battery with a heavy load will act entirely different than an OLD battery under the same load. It is the law of chemistry and electricity coming into play, and it can not be circumvented. People get a new battery and think that up until the moment it dies it will supply the same current (ampere hours) as when new. It just doesn't work that way. If your battery is more than a year old it may be time for a replacement. Also, is a laptop made specifically to Vista specifications supplied with a heavier duty battery? I don't know, but I would think that the battery specs are contained within the general Vista hardware guidelines for the equipment manufacturers. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "VA" wrote in message ... Like I said, I fully expected to take a bit of hit on battery life with Vista. But clearly 50% is a bit much. The funny thing is, even turning off Aero (as suggested in the article) has made no appreciable difference. I would think that going with Windows Basic and applying all the other power settings I mentioned would bring me somewhere close to the battery life I was getting under XP, but this has not been the case in my experience. After turning of Aero and even indexing, I just don't understand where the power drain in coming from with Vista. "Theo" wrote: See the article: Vista Could Sap Notebook PC Battery Life at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12.../article.html# This appears to be the norm with Vista. VA wrote: I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate (RTM from MSDN) on my 1 year-old Asus Z70VA notebook. Overall, the process went pretty well and I'm generally pleased with the new OS. However, the one big issue I am having is with battery life which has essentially been halved by Vista compared to what I was used to with XP. I used to get upwards of 3 - 4 hours with XP but with Vista it’s no more that 1.5 to 2 hours tops! I have tweaked all the available power options under Vista to maximize power savings. I turn down the display brightness when not plugged in. I ran CPU-Z to confirm that the processor was being throttled down when running on battery. I have maxed out the ATI PowerPlay setting for the video card. I even turned off Aero and resorted using the Windows Basic theme when running on battery (Microsoft really needs to make it easier to switch to this mode for notebook users). None of this has improved the poor battery life. I expected that Vista, with all its bells and whistles, would require more juice but a 50% reduction in battery life is pretty steep considering all the power saving measures mentioned above. Before installing Vista I imaged my XP installation. I am now considering going back. Vista is nice OS and offers several improvements over XP, but it's simply not worth the cost in battery life I am experiencing. |