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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.