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.

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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA17FD69-C644-4C28-8B10-94ADC1722AC6@microsoft.com...
> 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA17FD69-C644-4C28-8B10-94ADC1722AC6@microsoft.com...
> 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BA17FD69-C644-4C28-8B10-94ADC1722AC6@microsoft.com...
> > 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BA17FD69-C644-4C28-8B10-94ADC1722AC6@microsoft.com...
> > 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3769EBFA-D4D4-400C-A0EA-837656B6727D@microsoft.com...
> 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:BA17FD69-C644-4C28-8B10-94ADC1722AC6@microsoft.com...
>> > 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3769EBFA-D4D4-400C-A0EA-837656B6727D@microsoft.com...
> > 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:BA17FD69-C644-4C28-8B10-94ADC1722AC6@microsoft.com...
> >> > 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C661836-50DD-49F3-9994-FE66EA5856FD@microsoft.com...
> 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3769EBFA-D4D4-400C-A0EA-837656B6727D@microsoft.com...
>> > 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" <VA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:BA17FD69-C644-4C28-8B10-94ADC1722AC6@microsoft.com...
>> >> > 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
>> >> >