microsoft
Report a problem

Windows 7 will give your laptop longer battery life

Brad Sams   on 02 September 2009 - 12:29 · 46 comments & 12482 views

Advertisement (Why?)
It's no surprise that Windows 7 is getting good reviews and praise as the operating system is proving itself to be a rock solid platform. It seems as the news is only getting better as Microsoft and Intel showed off how Windows 7 when paired up with Intel's new processor line will increase battery life for laptops, according to PCMag.com.

The two companies worked together to help develop technologies that will allow for sustained performance while improving battery life in the next generation of Intel processors.

"The dramatic leap in battery life appears tied to a technology known as Windows 7 timer coalescing, a technical term for minimizing the time in which the processor enters a high-performance, full-power state. In the past, different applications have called for the processor's performance at varying times, requiring the CPU to ramp up performance and then down again, frequently. By synchronizing the timers, Intel managed to boost battery life tremendously. Intel executives said they also expect to take more advantage of this technology in future platforms."

The bottom line is that when comparing two identical laptops one with Windows XP SP2, the other with Windows 7, the Windows 7 machine was able to last 1.4 hours longer than the XP machine while playing a DVD. This was based on current products and did not include Intel's upcoming i5/i7 processors line.

The extended battery life will benefit the consumers and Intel claims that its upcoming line of i5/i7 processors will be able to expand on the battery life improvements by implementing the new technology. AMD has also stated that they will offer the new technology too in their processors in the future.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 46 additional comments
(7 replies) #1 Pharos on 02 Sep 2009 - 12:46
I just wish my Macbook lasted longer running Windows 7. Sometimes the fan starts running at full speed even if I'm at the desktop WITH NOTHING OPEN, and it doesn't go down. In Snow Leopard the fans only come on when I'm browsing Flash intensive websites. That's the only reason why I don't run Windows full time on my Macbook - really poor battery life. I wonder if it's driver related.
#1.1 Darth Icee on 02 Sep 2009 - 12:50
I cannot speak for Macbooks, but PC's CPU cooling fans in laptops come on and adjust their speed based on the CPU's core temp and nothing more.
#1.2 MioTheGreat on 02 Sep 2009 - 13:41
Pharos said,
I wonder if it's driver related.


Probably. Apple doesn't have as much interest in you running Windows as they do OSX. That's blatantly obvious by everything they've ever written for Windows.
#1.3 dtomilson on 02 Sep 2009 - 13:50
Pharos said,
I just wish my Macbook lasted longer running Windows 7. Sometimes the fan starts running at full speed even if I'm at the desktop WITH NOTHING OPEN, and it doesn't go down. In Snow Leopard the fans only come on when I'm browsing Flash intensive websites. That's the only reason why I don't run Windows full time on my Macbook - really poor battery life. I wonder if it's driver related.


It's because your macbook has a POS X3100 graphics processor is more likely.
That integrated card is a POS. Reason I am selling my laptop... What a waste of money it was 1.5 years ago and bigger waste to whoever purchases it now.. I knew it would be lousy but never get an integrated graphics solution by Intel!
#1.4 waruikoohii on 02 Sep 2009 - 14:19
Pharos said,
I just wish my Macbook lasted longer running Windows 7. Sometimes the fan starts running at full speed even if I'm at the desktop WITH NOTHING OPEN, and it doesn't go down. In Snow Leopard the fans only come on when I'm browsing Flash intensive websites. That's the only reason why I don't run Windows full time on my Macbook - really poor battery life. I wonder if it's driver related.

Which Macbook is it? The new one?

The Macbook (the one with the 9400), and the Macbook Pro, have been observed to not clock their GPU's down when idle. It might be a driver bug, or a firmware bug, but that explains part of the battery life issues (and the extra heat issues).

Windows is perfectly capable of clocking GPU's down when idle, so it's a bug on Apple's end (or it might not be a bug, it might be intentional. No way of knowing).
#1.5 Julius Caro on 03 Sep 2009 - 00:16
The CPU fans adjust their speed based on the CPU temp, that's right, but the CPU temp depends on the usage so that suggest that windows uses more the CPU than osx does.

#1.6 Owenw on 03 Sep 2009 - 01:19
It speeds up "On a flash intensive website"? That's all lolz.
#1.7 cakesy on 03 Sep 2009 - 02:24
MioTheGreat said,
Probably. Apple doesn't have as much interest in you running Windows as they do OSX. That's blatantly obvious by everything they've ever written for Windows.

What a load of drivel. Firstly, they released bootcamp which makes it incredibly easy to install another OS on the machine, something Microsoft has never done. And secondly, of course they want you to run there OS, why the hell would they develop and OS and the go ahead and plug an inferior OS from Microsoft?
(9 replies) #2 chadlachlanross on 02 Sep 2009 - 12:47
Battery life on my Asus G1S went from an average of 2.5 hours with Windows Vista to around 3.25 hours with Windows 7. I've since added a SSD and now get around 3.5 hours of battery life under typical usage.

Not stellar massive improvements, but not insignificant either.
#2.1 Huffdady on 02 Sep 2009 - 13:58
Wait, your saying adding an extra 45 min's to your 2 1/2 hour battery time is insignificant? That's a 33% increase. I am not saying it is best thing since sliced bread but it sure is significant. What if someone told you they could give you 33% more mileage out of your car 1 tank of gas? Or 33% more food when you go shopping at the grocery store? That's pretty much the same thing, it is significant.
#2.2 ekw on 02 Sep 2009 - 15:06
For me: 3 hr 50 min on vista, 4 hr 30 on windows 7.
#2.3 chadlachlanross on 02 Sep 2009 - 15:55
I didn't say it wasn't significant. I said it wasn't massive.
#2.4 billyea on 02 Sep 2009 - 16:20
chadlachlanross said,
I didn't say it wasn't significant. I said it wasn't massive.

But what did you expect? 5 hours? You're really downplaying exactly how much of a leap forward this is.
#2.5 Huffdady on 02 Sep 2009 - 20:01
I am sorry, I guess I got confused with the double negatives. it does say it is not insignificant. May bad.
#2.6 Raa on 02 Sep 2009 - 23:03
Agreed though, it's still VERY impressive.
#2.7 cakesy on 03 Sep 2009 - 02:25
chadlachlanross said,
Battery life on my Asus G1S went from an average of 2.5 hours with Windows Vista to around 3.25 hours with Windows 7. I've since added a SSD and now get around 3.5 hours of battery life under typical usage.

Not stellar massive improvements, but not insignificant either.

I would prefer a comparison with XP, since Vista is a complete hog. I would be surprised if there is any different to battery life.
#2.8 epple on 04 Sep 2009 - 13:39
cakesy said,
chadlachlanross said,
Battery life on my Asus G1S went from an average of 2.5 hours with Windows Vista to around 3.25 hours with Windows 7. I've since added a SSD and now get around 3.5 hours of battery life under typical usage.

Not stellar massive improvements, but not insignificant either.

I would prefer a comparison with XP, since Vista is a complete hog. I would be surprised if there is any different to battery life.
Read the article: "The bottom line is that when comparing two identical laptops one with Windows XP SP2, the other with Windows 7, the Windows 7 machine was able to last 1.4 hours longer than the XP machine while playing a DVD. This was based on current products and did not include Intel's upcoming i5/i7 processors line."
#2.9 Nick Brunt on 08 Sep 2009 - 22:51
cakesy said,
chadlachlanross said,
Battery life on my Asus G1S went from an average of 2.5 hours with Windows Vista to around 3.25 hours with Windows 7. I've since added a SSD and now get around 3.5 hours of battery life under typical usage.

Not stellar massive improvements, but not insignificant either.

I would prefer a comparison with XP, since Vista is a complete hog. I would be surprised if there is any different to battery life.


Read this review: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1023/1/

It compares lots of aspects of Windows 7's performance against those of XP.

I'm not sure if a netbook is the best platform for a test of this nature though, maybe a proper laptop with a more powerful processor would be better.
(1 reply) #3 Pegus on 02 Sep 2009 - 12:56
Just to clarify - was this based on existing processors? Or does it benefit any speedstep enabled processor?
#3.1 Raa on 02 Sep 2009 - 23:03
The article clearly states that's using current generation processors.
I would imagine that's any speedstep enabled CPU
(1 reply) #4 Wombatt on 02 Sep 2009 - 13:09
Well, this is pretty good news. even with Intel speedstep technology, windows never really automatically work with it in the best possible way. its always been the laptop trying to control the O/S which never really works well...
#4.1 waruikoohii on 02 Sep 2009 - 14:25
Wombatt said,
Well, this is pretty good news. even with Intel speedstep technology, windows never really automatically work with it in the best possible way. its always been the laptop trying to control the O/S which never really works well...

What do you mean? Ever since the P4M's (or was it the Pentium M's?), SpeedStep has been an OS demand based system. The OS will vary the CPU speed depending on the current load.

Or do you mean that the CPU frequencies and voltages are set by the BIOS? If that's what you mean, then what would you suggest?
#5 daniel_rh on 02 Sep 2009 - 13:40
Hmm, interesting, maybe it's true that Windows 7 uses in a better way latest CPU's power saving features because I had not noticed 'till now that my Dell XPS 1330 last 3hrs and even more with a full charge, using wireless, internet, IE, and some other softwares
#6 Manson_AAN on 02 Sep 2009 - 13:43
On a Dell XPS 1210 ( i think) before it ran about 4hours (everything on low, wlan and just surfing). With windows 7 I can hit 4 hours and 45 minutes! If I'm lucky 5 hours! I'm loving it
#7 M_Lyons10 on 02 Sep 2009 - 13:55
What an interesting technology. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes in years to come. It's a rather smart way of increasing battery life IMO.
(4 replies) #8 LOLING on 02 Sep 2009 - 14:07
So... how do we feel about productivity and XP now people?
#8.1 iamwhoiam on 02 Sep 2009 - 15:11
Why should it concern anyone if another is still using XP?
#8.2 LOLING on 02 Sep 2009 - 15:32
more battery life = more time = more productivity
#8.3 UHYVE on 02 Sep 2009 - 15:41
iamwhoiam said,
Why should it concern anyone if another is still using XP?

Is that comment really relevant to what he is saying? Plus it's actually really obvious why people should want other people to finally move on, look at the IE6 stupidity.
#8.4 cakesy on 03 Sep 2009 - 02:27
UHYVE said,
Is that comment really relevant to what he is saying? Plus it's actually really obvious why people should want other people to finally move on, look at the IE6 stupidity.

IE6 was one of the biggest POS that anyone has ever created. Not so for XP, which is not a bad OS. I think we can all understand why we want to move on from IE6 (well, maybe not hte fanboys). But can you give me a reason for us to move onto W7?

I won't be doing it, until I get a new laptop, and if it isn't a Mac.
(2 replies) #9 aarste on 02 Sep 2009 - 14:54
I had to go back to XP on my MSI Wind U100. 7 (since RC, beta was fine) sucked my battery up faster, and word is its the Intel onboard GPU drivers causing it.
#9.1 Raa on 02 Sep 2009 - 23:04
There will be new drivers soon!
#9.2 LiquidSolstice on 03 Sep 2009 - 02:17
Raa said,
There will be new drivers soon!


I really hope so! I put up with it on my ASUS Eee PC. I used to get about 10 hours with XP, now I get around 7, so I'm assuming it has to do with those drivers.
#10 Omen1393 on 02 Sep 2009 - 15:21
On my ASUS 15.4" laptop I was lucky to get an hour and 5 minutes worth of battery life with vista, but when I installed windows 7 my battery life went up to a about 2 hours. Huge improvement for me.
(2 replies) #11 powerade01 on 02 Sep 2009 - 16:56
This is intresting. I actually think my battery life has gone down.

Optical ilusions I guess....
#11.1 cakesy on 03 Sep 2009 - 02:28
powerade01 said,
This is intresting. I actually think my battery life has gone down.

Optical ilusions I guess....

It really depends what you are doing. If you are on wireless all day, playing games, it will chew up your battery life. If you are just editing a word document, you will get a lot more time.
#11.2 powerade01 on 03 Sep 2009 - 11:28
cakesy said,
powerade01 said,
This is intresting. I actually think my battery life has gone down.

Optical ilusions I guess....

It really depends what you are doing. If you are on wireless all day, playing games, it will chew up your battery life. If you are just editing a word document, you will get a lot more time.


Im comparing with wireless all day, bluetooth on, etc before and after Windows 7. The laptop is exactly the same except it has Windows 7 instead of Windows Vista.
(2 replies) #12 Shadrack on 02 Sep 2009 - 17:17
Does this super duper battery technology exist in the Windows 7 RC? On my Samsung NC-10 netbook, my battery life is better with Windows XP SP3 than it is with Windows 7 RC.
#12.1 kInG aLeXo on 02 Sep 2009 - 19:34
Shadrack said,
Does this super duper battery technology exist in the Windows 7 RC? On my Samsung NC-10 netbook, my battery life is better with Windows XP SP3 than it is with Windows 7 RC.

Maybe that's why they made this comparison on XP SP2 not SP3 ?

Last edited by kInG aLeXo on 02 Sep 2009 - 19:55
#12.2 cakesy on 03 Sep 2009 - 02:29
Shadrack said,
Does this super duper battery technology exist in the Windows 7 RC? On my Samsung NC-10 netbook, my battery life is better with Windows XP SP3 than it is with Windows 7 RC.

Ha, that is why you wont get them comparing W7 to xpSP3, because XPSP3 is better. Everyone will compare it to Vista, which is a POS anyway.
#13 Litespeed on 02 Sep 2009 - 21:19
My wife's new Inspiron 14 gets about 4 hours on a full charge with Windows 7.
#14 helios01 on 03 Sep 2009 - 04:14
A step in the right direction. MS has been doing rather well lately with their products, just around the time when Gates left...
#15 tuxplorer on 03 Sep 2009 - 12:02
Under similar conditions I created (same programs and services running, same power saving plans, only the OS different), battery life on XP was around 10 mins more on my laptop. Vista and Windows 7 was same, only 10 mins less. Not bad. Is that their point? Because no one can magically get more battery life on a newer Windows OS compared to an older one, if they're getting it, it's because maybe they're testing it wrong, under dissimilar conditions (in XP their power plan might be set to "Always on" or "Max performance" and in Windows 7 to "Power saver". What MS HAS done though is not worsened their battery life compared to Vista which many reported as a step back. Windows in general though needs to improve its battery life performance dramatically compared to OS X as shown by those recent tests by Anandtech.
#16 em_te on 09 Sep 2009 - 15:41
...requiring the CPU to ramp up performance and then down again, frequently.

Wait. Weren't we brought to to think that CPU cycles get consumed regardless of whether it's busy? So a busy computer uses the same amount of CPU as a stagnant computer?
#17 andylee on 11 Sep 2009 - 17:43


To maximize your Laptop Battery Performance,You had better circle the it at least once a month.
Leaving a Hp Laptop Battery
in a laptop while using an electrical outlet for long periods of time will keep the battery in a constant state of charging up and that will reduce the life cycle of the battery.
Do not expose the Fujitsu Laptop Battery pack to high heat or freezing temperatures. Do not leave your battery in your car in the summer. Hot batteries discharge very quickly, and cold ones can't create as much power.
New battery for dell laptop come in a discharged condition and must be fully charged before use it. It is recommended that you fully charge and discharge your new dell Laptop Battery 3 times to allow it to reach its maximum rated capacity.
Fully charging and then fully discharging the dell Laptop Battery at least once every two to three weeks.With lithium-ion batteries packs, partial charges and discharges are best on a regular basis. These batteries do not suffer from the memory effect.
Avoid piercing, hitting, crushing or any abuse use of the dell Laptop batteries.
Laptop Battery should always be stored in a fully charged state and kept in a cool, dry and clean place.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)