Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#141

Post by devx » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:01 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #60

devx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need "legacy apps" on a tablet ? The old Windows tablets had 4 main problems: 1) apps not optimized for touch 2) OS not optimized for touch 3) expensive hardware 4) inefficient hardware/small battery life It seems to me that with devices like Surface Pro, the 1) and 3) problems are still ported to the new devices. I don't see legacy apps that aren't optimized for touch and on a 10" screen, as an "advant…

Because re-writing for a new platform isn't trivial. Because the customers want it. They're intelligent enough to know that a tablet isn't going to be as productive as a desktop/laptop. But they still want it.

> Because re-writing for a new platform isn't trivial

That's not the consumers' problem, is it?

> Because the customers want it.

That's not reflected in sales yet. If you're talking about the 100 Microsoft fans that upvote and comment all positive Microsoft stories on Reddit, HN and Verge - that doesn't count. We're talking about the market as a whole.

Also, even Microsoft themselves barely even promote the "legacy app" thing in their commercials. All they are showing is Metro. But if they think Metro is their tablets' competitive advantage, then why wouldn't the consumer just get an iPad or Android tablet instead - and for a lot less?

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#142

Post by rmrfrmrf » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:04 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #91

bosie wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> surface pro 2, (a joke of a tablet) mind sharing why you think it is a joke of a tablet?

People spend money to conform for mating rituals or to gain power. You don't conform for mating rituals by purchasing some weird thing that no one else wants. (non-engineering defined) Power comes out of what you can do with something, not meaningless specification numbers (however awful they are for the surface pro 2). So to do something powerful on a surface pro 2, you go to itunes app store for that cool new app a…

HN must have not sprayed for evopsych in a while.

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#143

Post by Zardoz84 » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:04 PM UTC

Nikker wrote: post #87

16s wrote: post #26

Microsoft turned Windows 95 into a full-fledged multi-user operating system. Segmented user space? Unix had done that for years. All users where admin and it was horrible, but lot's of apps ran on it, so people bought it and used it. Then they merged Win95 into WinNT and gave us Windows 2000. Now they are turning a full-fledged multi-user OS into a tablet OS. Let's make this tank into a bicycle. History tells us ther…

I'm curious to know what they took from W95 to give W2K. I've used NT3.5 and up and I didn't notice any w95 influence, unless you mean start button and desktop.

Since Windows 3.1 to Windows XP, the aspect and look of the Font installer tool nearly not has changed. I could say that they keep the old 16 bit tool all time with minor changes.

XP : http://www.muhammadanism.com/Unicode/fonts_add.gif 98 : http://www.yearbooks.biz/assets/images/gallery/main/287.jpg 95 : http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/pictures/ttfinst4.gif 3.1 : http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ttfinst/ttfinsta.gif

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#144

Post by jebblue » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:06 PM UTC

ohwp wrote: post #65

In the Windows prompt (admin mode) you can use the following command to monitor (it will generate a HTML file) energy usage (for 60 seconds): powercfg –ENERGY I can see some problems on my own system. For example "USB Suspend:USB Device not Entering Suspend" Maybe misconfigurations like these are also causing more power consumption than needed.

That reminds me, on Ubuntu you can install powertop and run it "sudo powertop". It's a handy tool to be sure.

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#145

Post by adolph » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:06 PM UTC

Touche wrote: post #98

SEMW wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A quick Google search shows many Windows laptops with equivalent or better battery life. I don't want to state the obvious, but different laptops have different capacity batteries. Atwood was comparing the 11" MBA to the Surface Pro 2 as they have similar battery capacities (SP2: 42 Wh, MBA: 38 Wh), and - as Maakuth notes -- are both made by companies in control of both software and hardware. The fact that you can…

Yes, of course, Windows can be comparable on similar capacities. Does this need to be stated? Go read the reviews of some Acer or Samsung laptops. Extrapolating the problems of the Surface 2 to all computers with the same OS doesn't make sense. Microsoft isn't experienced at making computers, shouldn't be a surprise that they are bad at it right now.

The article's point was that on closely comparable hardware doing nearly the same task, the operating system seems to make a significant difference in battery power. Maybe other Windows PC makers are more experienced in making efficient drivers and tuning the OS delivered on disk? In a couple of reviews I read, that isn't the case:

First Samsung laptop review I read, a NP900X3E-K01US with a 44 Wh battery:

...battery life is disappointing for such an expensive laptop... [1]

Second, a Dell XPS 12 review:

50WHr battery ... Wi-Fi browsing test ... seven hours and 58 minutes

[1] http://www.cnet.com/laptops/samsung-ativ-book-9/4505-3121_7-...

[2] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/review-xps-12s-haswel...

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#146

Post by nbevans » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:06 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #101

nbevans wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the Windows NT kernel is both newer and more maintainable for Microsoft than OSX is for Apple. At the core of OSX is a ton of legacy Unix monolith written in the 70s that I suspect very few in Apple dare ever touch. This can be seen by the fact that Microsoft has never shied away from improving their OS kernel. Recent stand-out improvements such as ASLR, UAC, TRIM support for SSDs, timer coalescing…

And of course the smashing success of WinFS.

I don't really think that WinFS was a core OS kernel feature. It was built on top of SQL Server, so I doubt it even had a kernel-mode component either.

ReFS would be a better example. And that's just another example of how Microsoft is keeping their core technology up to date. Apple meanwhile is still using HFS+ which even Linus Torvalds called out as being utterly crap.

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#147

Post by Major_Grooves » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:09 PM UTC

I bought a new HP laptop reecntly, with Windows 8 and touchscreen, to replace my dead Packard-Bell laptop. My old PB usually gave me about 4h battery life, and sometimes up to 6 hours. I was told my new laptop would give me 5-7h battery life, which seemed pretty good to me.

In reality I get 2.5 hours maximum. It's so bad that I actually returned the first one I got as I though something was wrong with it. Nope, 2.5 hours is it. Not even enough for a half-day working in a cafe.

So I guess 5-7h only applies if the screen is turned off, no programmes running and no wifi. Useful. :/

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#148

Post by Argorak » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:11 PM UTC

rplnt wrote: post #129

mistermann wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But both Windows and Linux are more than capable to get this all sorted. Like Google showed with the Nexus 7 - focus is all that's needed. It's just harder for Microsoft considering everything they need to juggle. Couldn't they just hire someone and say "Fix this. Identify the problem and we will support your findings to get the fix implemented." It's not like they lack the financial means. I just don't think there…

It's not their problem most of the time, it's 3rd party apps and drivers. They do however have various levels of tests and certifications for both apps and drivers, some of which focus on energy efficiency.

Microsoft has a certfication programs. Sadly, those programs are notoriously weak (see the outrage about "Vista certified" machines not actually being able to run the hardware accelerated desktop). This was done to please hardware manifacturers and allow them to put new hardware out quickly. Applying pressure here and denying certification to drivers not implementing power features properly would have been the way to go.

Microsoft does have leverage, they just didn't use it for a long time to allow for a quantity over quality approach.

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#149

Post by drewcrawford » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:11 PM UTC

gnaffle wrote: post #116

blinkingled wrote: post #93

Windows and Linux are general purpose OSes. The same kernel runs on high throughput servers and low power tablets. The apps are written with little focus on battery life. The drivers too. Microsoft doesn't write their own drivers and then there's firmware too. It's the one area where Apple has really taken advantage of the vertical integration - they do everything from firmware to most apps people use. But both Windo…

That might be true, but doesn't the whole "vertical integration" argument get thrown out the window when he describes the problem on Microsofts own hardware, the Surface Pro? Certainly Microsoft should have the ability or money to optimize those drivers for maximum battery efficiency.

Quite simply, no.

Performance optimizations are all about trade-offs, and what might be a good trade-off for Microsoft's own hardware could be a bad trade-off for 95% of the other hardware on the market.

In theory, Microsoft could ship a second set of bits for their own hardware. But now you start to have nightmares about the antitrust lawsuits in the 90s. Why is Microsoft keeping a secret faster Windows that only it gets to use? That's the headline anyway.

The only way for Microsoft to achieve the kind of vertical integration that Apple has would be if it was willing to destroy its existing OEM partnerships. And risk a lawsuit from the DOJ. And this is a crazy strategy, because Apple has all the experience manufacturing hardware, and Microsoft has very little.

Re: Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

#150

Post by nbevans » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 2:13 PM UTC

hannibal5 wrote: post #138

nbevans wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the Windows NT kernel is both newer and more maintainable for Microsoft than OSX is for Apple. At the core of OSX is a ton of legacy Unix monolith written in the 70s that I suspect very few in Apple dare ever touch. This can be seen by the fact that Microsoft has never shied away from improving their OS kernel. Recent stand-out improvements such as ASLR, UAC, TRIM support for SSDs, timer coalescing…

For mobile applications Windows has been constantly behind Android and iOS. One part of Nokia's problems was that MS could not deliver drivers for new hardware. For example, Nokia could not move to high resolution screens because Windows could not handle them. Being constantly 6-12 months behind because software is not up to dates was devastating.

Stop comparing Windows, a desktop OS, to mobile-first optimised OSes like Android and iOS. Even Windows RT is not technically mobile-first optimised like those two.

Windows Phone 8 vs Android/iOS would be a fair comparison. Because WP8 has undergone the same treatment and has been optimised for high battery efficiencies whilst still retaining the Windows NT kernel at its core.

WP8 has always had support for high-resolution displays and Nokia et al have not had issues with it. WP7.x was a different story but that was a different OS kernel (WinCE not NT). During this time Microsoft was busy creating a minimised edition of the Win8 kernel that would be suitable for use on a smartphone, much like the work Apple did to OSX in order to create iOS.