Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows
Home > Type > News > Microsoft starts another Windows 7 blog

Microsoft starts another Windows 7 blog

Oct. 23, 2008 Paul Thurrott | Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows

... and if you thought the first one, Engineering Windows 7, wasn’t long-winded and boring enough for you, wait ‘till you get a load of this one. It’s called The Windows 7 Blog for Developers. Sounds exciting!

Welcome to the first post of a new Windows 7 blog. This blog will mainly focus on the development aspects of Windows 7 by providing valuable content for developers. We shell call this blog “The Windows 7 Blog for Developers”. By valuable content we mean that this blog will be a “one stop shop” on the road to get yourself familiar with what Windows 7 has to offer for developers and how you can “Light-Up” using Windows 7 features in your application.

With your help, this blog should evolve to become some sort of Windows 7 developer content index. If you are looking to write some code using one of Windows 7 new features, you should find some reference to that topic in this blog. If you don’t find it, please feel free to comment and we’ll try to pick the subject as quick as possible. In case you have content you want to share, ping us so we can write a post and reference your content.

You can also expect this blog to have lots of code samples, and cool demo showcasing some Window 7’s new features. You can also expect this blog to have Web Cast with different people from different parts of the Windows organization. With that in mind, some Windows folks have their own blogs which we will try to keep track and listing all the important Windows 7 content posted on these blogs.

Finally, this blog is part of an effort to highlight Windows 7 development story, a story that for some reason got lost with Windows Vista. As part of the Windows 7 Evangelism team and as developers, we hope, together with you and the rest of the community will be able to create an open and direct dialog about developing for Windows 7.

OK, so this will be interesting to a certain crowd. But if you’re looking for more in-depth looks at, say, how Windows 7 actually looks and works, stay tuned. I’ll be starting up a Windows 7 Feature Focus series as soon as I have the first pre-beta build in my hands next week. If Microsoft can’t stop boring people about Windows 7, maybe I can drum up something a little more interesting.

Discuss this Article 78

Ocean
on Oct 23, 2008
Does Apple allow its developers to blog? Someone should ask Steve that.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
Does Apple allow anyone to blog? (I mean, when Fake Steve Jobs was still around we at least had that)
gorath
on Oct 23, 2008
Paul, I find the "engineering Windows 7 blog" fairly interesting. This blog however (excluding the comments, which are, frankly bonkers) certainly has taken a nosedive of late. Almost all your posts can be summed up with the template... "I found [someone else's story] isn't that great/crap" Seriously, what's with the lack of original content?
Ocean
on Oct 23, 2008
>>Seriously, what's with the lack of original content?<< Answer(s): A. Apple has had a lot of successes lately, and he doesn't talk about those. B. MS hasn't, and he doesn't talk about that either. C. New book coming out.
gorath
on Oct 23, 2008
Actually, Ocean, you intolerable moronic 'plague'. MS has plenty of cool stuff to talk about recently, such as awards for photosynth, and also touchless, second light, sidelight, silverlight 2, etc etc. Some of these are really pretty cool.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
Ocean More likely that bunch of Apple stories lately has been because next week is the PDC and that should provide enough serious content to last for a long time so Paul may as well get the trivial stuff in now during the lag.
johnbaxter
on Oct 23, 2008
Second sentence: "We shell call this blog..." They're off to a good start. Should be useful for those in the target audience.
Ocean
on Oct 23, 2008
>>you intolerable moronic 'plague'<< Does Mommy know you're on the Internet again? >>Paul may as well get the trivial stuff in now<< Well done.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
But the real question is, will DRWAM run Windows 7 on his $400 laptop?
Nickelgreen
on Oct 23, 2008
He will, Mike.
Waethorn
on Oct 23, 2008
"MS has plenty of cool stuff to talk about " I'm waiting for SBS 2008. EBS 2008 will be launched the same day too.
Waethorn
on Oct 23, 2008
"But the real question is, will DRWAM run Windows 7 on his $400 laptop?" I'm kinda wondering....if Windows 7 is based on Windows Vista and "it won't break compatibility" (- Ballmer), will the system requirements be the same, or will it need more RAM or CPU horsepower? Or rather, will Microsoft be a little bit more realistic on the minimum requirements? 512MB runs *Windows Vista* ok for very basic tasks (internet, email, etc.), but once you put an antivirus software on there, it's a dog. 1GB is a more realistic minimum. 2GB obviously is better, but anything above that is overkill unless you're into higher-end multimedia and/or gaming. Likewise, XP can run fine with 256MB, but 512MB is a more comfortable minimum with AV software. XP has basically half the memory requirements of Vista, and obviously 2GB is the upper end of the spectrum for higher-end users on the older platform. That's a pretty rough estimation though. Obviously people that are demanding enough to use 4GB (or more) will be better suited to look at Vista 64-bit because the reality is that XP 64-bit was just done wrong, and XP 32-bit can't handle 4GB properly. Even Vista 32-bit handles >2GB more efficiently than XP can due to the improved memory management and caching system.
animositysomina
on Oct 23, 2008
Mike, people are running Vista on _NETBOOKS_ for Christ sake -> http://www.tweaktown.com/news/9678/win_vista_on_eee_pc_1000h_will_it_wor... <- and you're asking if Doc's gonna run this thing on a _REAL_ laptop with THREE GIGABYTES of RAM?
johnpapola
on Oct 23, 2008
I hope they plan to address the amazingly awful battery life: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=13 Wireless Internet Browsing DVD Playback Heavy Usage MacBook Air (OS X) 4.98 hours 3.93 hours 2.7 hours MacBook Air (Vista) 2.55 hours 2.05 hours 1.75 hours
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
animositysomina The question was whether he would, not whether he could...
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
johnpapola Seems like Apple needs to work on their power management drivers since the Lenovo X300 running Vista with a much smaller battery got better usage than the Mac Book Air running Vista. And we all know what a bang-up job Apple is know for on their Windows software...
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
"Does Apple allow its developers to blog?" Yes they do.
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
Wow, that is truly terrible battery life from Vista. Not surprised though.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
robertsjoe Really? The only Apple developers I've heard of blogging had to do it anonymously for fear Apple firing them. Glad to know that's changing. What's the URL for the blog or the RSS feed?
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
"Wow, that is truly terrible battery life from Vista. Not surprised though." Actually, let me take that post back. No need for smart-arse remarks like that. Now back to normal programming.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
robertsjoe Yeah. Apple either didn't bother updating the Boot Camp drivers to support the MBA and are using the MB power management drivers or they just decided to run Vista with more power and less battery so they could do their "Vista runs better on a Mac" ads while turning down the power to conserve battery life where nobody else could compare performance. (When you make the only hardware, it's hard to do comparison testing) So which do you think it is? Is it Apple sacrificing performance of OS X to get better battery life or sacrificing battery life on Vista to make the performance look better?
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
@mikegalos: Here are some. One no longer works there, but certainly blogged while he did. http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/ http://log.scifihifi.com/ http://outofcheese.org/ http://www.wsanchez.net/blog/ http://chuqui.typepad.com/ I'm sure there are more.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
robertsjoe Cool. Thanks.
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
@mikegalos: "So which do you think it is? Is it Apple sacrificing performance of OS X to get better battery life or sacrificing battery life on Vista to make the performance look better?" I don't think they'd sacrifice OS X performance. In fact I'd bet anything on it. Would not make any sense to sacrifice performance of their on OS on their hardware. As for your latter suggestion, one never knows. Could be that. Could be that or could be that they are happy with just getting the drivers working and going for their hardware. No need to try and tweak them if it costs more time and money. ROI I guess. So performance is one thing. Having had used Windows with BootCamp for 12 months, I will say that it works perfectly on their hardware. But one never knows if the company says, OK lets not push battery life (or some other factor) for a competitor's OS. God knows companies do that sort of thing.. I'm thinking back to the old secret APIs on Windows, and the emails that were released where MS management discussed their use for competitive advantage. That's just a known example, I'm sure it happens all the time.
nutts
on Oct 23, 2008
mikegalos said: "Seems like Apple needs to work on their power management drivers since the Lenovo X300 running Vista with a much smaller battery got better usage than the Mac Book Air running Vista." The X300 still only manages *just over half* that of the Air running OSX, and that's even considering that "the X300 uses a Core 2 Duo L7100 with a 12W TDP compared to the 1.6/1.8GHz 20W TDP processor in the MBA." Lenovo X300 (Vista) 2.82 hours 2.18 hours 1.68 hours So I guess they still have some way to go...
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
robertsjoe Power/performance is always a trade-off on laptops. My guess is you're right that they just didn't implement some of the power saving tweaks for Vista. As for the old "secret APIs" stuff, that's pretty much urban legend. The independant analysis at the time showed that Lotus used more undocumented APIs than Microsoft's apps and the ones that Microsoft did use were obsolete APIs that had been replaced with public APIs and the apps team hadn't been migrated to the new ones. But it made a great story.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
nutts. They also have just over half the battery. The Lenovo falls about mid-way between the MBA running OS X and the MBA running Vista when you look at consumption so it looks like they might still have a few tweaks left or it could be they decided that they wanted to tune for a little more performance than Apple did. It's certainly in the ballpark either way. We also don't know all the effects of this particular test in emulating real-world conditions so it'd be interesting to see more samples.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
Also, seeing that the Lenovo X300 has an option for a double size battery and, for that matter, interchangable batteries, I'd say Lenovo would be more likely to tune for performance while Apple's Mac Book Air with its fixed battery would be more likely to prompt Apple to tune for battery life. If I'm doing a long trip with the Lenovo I can take a spare battery and not worry too much about power management. With the MBA and a long trip, I need to count on battery life over all else or I end up with an expensive lunch tray until I find a place to plug in.
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
@mikegalos: I was not attacking Microsoft about the secret APIs (as difficult as that may seem), it was just a known example. The secret APIs are not an urban legend; what with emails directly from Gates himself talking about using them to gain an advantage over competitors: From Gates: "I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have away to do a high level of integration that will be harder for likes of Notes, WordPerfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage . . . We can't compete with Lotus and WordPerfect/Novell without this." So what I was suggesting is that I'm sure this happens at every company. This example was just one that was made public. As for Lotus having more secret APIs, that's just what I'm saying. Companies try to get an advantage where they can.
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
@mikegalos: Re MBA and Vista, Apple may release updated drivers for the MBA. They take their time with the BootCamp updates.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
robertsjoe It wasn't that Lotus HAD more undocumented APIs, it was the Lotus USED more of the undocumented Windows APIs than Microsoft's app division did. Most of the "undocumented APIs" were actually put in for key ISVs who needed some specific feature in the short term to get a problem solved quickly that Microsoft didn't want to do as a long-term item but agreed to put in for a single release on the condition that they would not be supported and would go away by the next version. Microsoft has always (at least back to 1988 when I started there) has a VERY strict policy of never using anything that isn't public and it's been years since you could even get a product shipped out the door without first running an internal tool that checked each OS API call made in your app's code against a list of public APIs to validate that you didn't sneak some trick in there. I was talking about the lawsuit around 1989 that turned out to be nothing (and was the famous Undocumented APIs case). It was that case that both got Microsoft paranoid about enforcing the "Chinese Wall" and that showed just how little of an issue it had ever been. As for the quotes, I'd love to see the source for them since I've never seen them and I'd like the context.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
The only case I remember back in that Undocumented API flap where an Office product did use APIs that weren't supported was a case where (and I'm making the specifics up but it shows the result correctly) there were two functions A and B that each took about 30ms to execute. The Windows team learned before release that everbody who used A immediately used B right afterwards. Because nobody called A or B without calling them as a pair, they released a function, AB, that did the equivalent of calling A and then B but that took only 50ms rather than the two individual calls that took 60ms total since it didn't have to restore state of the stack between the calls. They dropped A and B from the supported list but since the Office app still had "Call A, Call B" in the code, they didn't remove the code for A and B individually until the next release. Effectively, the Office app was slightly slower but didn't have to rewrite until the next version. That's about the worst case. And, as I said, this was also done for competitors on a regular basis so the worst that can be said is that the Windows team didn't treat Office much worse than Lotus or WordPerfect or Ashton Tate.
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
@mikegalos: Here's the original email thread: http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_5673.pdf
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
robertsjoe That isn't about an undocumented API. It's about whether to add the iShellBrowser function to Windows 95 at the last minute or to hold off on it until Windows 98. The decision to hold off apparently would cost the Capone and Marvel teams (Microsoft projects - I think this was Outlook 95 and MSN respectively but it's been 13 years so I'm not sure) some benefits for their program. If it had been use of undocumented APIs then Capone and Marvel would have been able to use iShellBrowser when nobody else did. That didn't happen. BillG said, we've got to decide to include them or not and he decided to not include them. Tom Evslin asked if there was any way to still let Marvel and Capone use them. Brad Silverberg said no. Either everybody gets them or nobody does. That's exactly how APIs are supposed to work. If anybody gets them, everybody gets them. If anybody can't get them then nobody can. A level playing field. Now, compare that to the API access Apple gives their internal iPhone developers compared with the semi-public published API with legal restrictions on what they can and can't use. Not even close to level.
johnpapola
on Oct 23, 2008
@Mike "Seems like Apple needs to work on their power management drivers since the Lenovo X300 running Vista with a much smaller battery got better usage than the Mac Book Air running Vista. And we all know what a bang-up job Apple is know for on their Windows software..." That may be true, but it still doesn't explain the massive superiority of OSX over Vista. OSX on the air gets 77%, 80% & 58% more power battery life vs. Vista on the Lenovo despite the battery having only 37% more capacity. PS - my god are you busy in these threads.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
John "That may be true, but it still doesn't explain the massive superiority of OSX over Vista." Actually, that's exactly what it does. Power management is a part of the low level drivers that are done by the hardware vendor. For the same hardware to use more power with one OS than the other means that the drivers were set up differently for power management on the two OSes. What? You thought it was magic?
johnpapola
on Oct 23, 2008
@Mike Um... what? I realize that the significantly worse battery life in Vista on an Air may be driver related. But, if you assume that the lenovo drivers for Vista are good, and you normalize the battery life for the added capacity in the Air, OSX is still MUCH more efficient than Vista. That's the point. Anand says as much. Let me walk through this. The X300 has a 27WHr battery. The Air has a 37WHr battery. That's makes the Air 37% more capacity than the X300. Now, here are the stats from anand: Wireless Internet Browsing DVD Playback Heavy Usage MacBook Air (OS X) 4.98 hours 3.93 hours 2.7 hours MacBook Air (Vista) 2.55 hours 2.05 hours 1.75 hours Lenovo X300 (Vista) 2.82 hours 2.18 hours 1.68 hours So that translates into a battery life advantage for the Air in OSX over the X300 in Vista of 77%, 80% & 58% respectively. All of which are much higher than the 37% great capacity of the Air's battery. Allow me to quote Anand since you clearly didn't read it on the link: "Figuring out why OS X seems to be better for battery life is nearly impossible, at least without the aid of both Apple and Microsoft. I've brought up this topic with a handful of PC OEMs in the past and they haven't been able to shed any more light on things, other than to confirm that Vista is a strange beast. It's quite possible that Vista's constant performance optimizations are preventing CPU and platform power management techniques from being effective, but that seems a little too simplistic of a view. All I can do for now is report the numbers as is. An unexpected benefit of OS X appears to be better battery life. Go figure."
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
Actually, on a power consumption (time used per WattHour) the Lenovo falls midway between the two MBA values. Since the MBA probably had its OS X drivers tuned for power conservation since it has no ability to change out a dead battery (got to keep the bottom pretty even if it hurts the user). The Lenovo being tuned for general use coming in between an untuned computer and one tuned for power management is exactly what I'd expect to see, And, assuming Apple didn't do power optimized drivers for the MBA running Vista that's exactly what the results show. Again, the question is why Apple didn't do a better job on the MBA's drivers in Boot Camp. Whether that's to hurt its power management and make OS X look better or to help Vista's performance so they can brag about being a good Vista platform or just plain lack of effort is up for debate.
robertsjoe
on Oct 23, 2008
@mikelagos: "Again, the question is why Apple didn't do a better job on the MBA's drivers in Boot Camp. " I think it could just be because they don't have to. It's not a pressing issue for them to improve performance to the n-th degree for Vista. Sure, you can run Vista on their hardware, but they don't have to kill themselves to do it.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
robertsjoe I agree that's the most likely case. Putting running competitive platform apps on your system as a feature is, at best, a very risky thing to do in the first place. It sold a lot of Apple ][ computers but hurt acceptance of Apple's DOS 3.3 when users bought Microsoft SoftCards to run CP/M. It killed OS/2 Warp when the developer community realized they could hit both platforms with one binary and stopped developing for OS/2 specific features.
johnpapola
on Oct 23, 2008
@Mike, I find this a perfect example of your bias. Anand, hardly an Apple booster, has arrived at an objective conclusion from these facts: A mac running OSX is more battery efficient that a directly comparable Lenovo running Vista. But you somehow delve into a whole world of impossible to determine theories in the total absence of evidence about vague "performance tuning" rather than admit the very likely possibility that Vista's battery consumption sucks. You really will say anything to avoid admitting that Apple's stuff is superior in any category. Of course, I believe it's been pretty widely established that Vista's laptop battery drain is an issue. The OS is a resource hog. Steve Ballmer himself has admitted as much: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/359541_msftmvp18.html So spare me the theories and apologies. It appears that OSX is, in fact, substantially more efficient with batteries on macs than Vista is on comparable and competitive PCs. It won't take away from your vast knowledge and intellect to simply admit the truth on this one thing. The REAL question is how someone interested in mobility could tolerate paying for a Lenovo X300 only to get dramatically worse battery life. I guess you could always bring two batteries, but that would really cut down on the mobility. I'll take 60% to 80% longer battery life with the Air over that Lenovo for on-the-go computing any day.
johnpapola
on Oct 23, 2008
"It killed OS/2 Warp when the developer community realized they could hit both platforms with one binary and stopped developing for OS/2 specific features." Here we go again. Oh Mike, OSX development isn't going the way of OS/2 Warp. That you continue to promote that despite all trends going in the opposite direction is pretty ridiculous.
Ocean
on Oct 23, 2008
Anandtechs final analysis: >>Figuring out why OS X seems to be better for battery life is nearly impossible, at least without the aid of both Apple and Microsoft. I've brought up this topic with a handful of PC OEMs in the past and they haven't been able to shed any more light on things, other than to confirm that Vista is a strange beast. It's quite possible that Vista's constant performance optimizations are preventing CPU and platform power management techniques from being effective, but that seems a little too simplistic of a view. All I can do for now is report the numbers as is. An unexpected benefit of OS X appears to be better battery life. Go figure.<< http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=13
mikegalos@msn.com
on Oct 23, 2008
So John and Ocean Let me get this straight... The Lenovo running Vista is less energy efficient than the MBA running OS X. BUT The Lenovo running Vista is more energy efficient than the MBA running Vista So, when running the same OS and thus minimizing the differences the Lenovo is more energy efficient than the Mac Book Air. And then you're saying that the reason the Lenovo running Vista is so much better at power management than the Mac running Vista: Is NOT driver tuning (since you deny that option as bias on my part) Is not Vista (it IS, after all, the same on both) So then it must be that the Mac is much worse hardware than the Lenovo since that's all that's left as a difference between the two Vista configurations. And then you speculate that OS X is just so magically wonderful that even on inefficient hardware it manages to more than make up the difference. And you say that I'm the one basing my analysis on my biases? Even when I bend over backward to find explanations that DON'T criticize Apple hardware... Wow... Seriously. Wow...
subzerohitman721
on Oct 23, 2008
I have to agree that Vista does need work with respect to battery life as we've seen this power management issue crop up on many notebooks. I've seen many former XP to Vista notebooks losing some of their battery performance. There have been quite a few articles on this. However, I've seen a few articles suggesting that Leopard tends to be just as much of a power hog as Vista is on older Mac hardware. However, I'm coming to the conclusion that both Microsoft and Apple need really take their time on the next versions of their OS. I'm hoping for at least 3 consumer betas on the Microsoft side and that Apple actually starts a beta program for Snow Leopard.
johnpapola
on Oct 24, 2008
@Mike, Real quick. I agree that clearly the MBA running Vista is less efficient than the Lenovo. Given that the OS is the same in that case, the difference is most likely in the drivers. It's very unlikely that it's the hardware given the HUGE superiority of the same MBA when running OSX over the Lenovo. Now, let's look at those runtimes normalizing for the battery capacity (dividing by the capacity). So these numbers are hours in runtime/Whr of capacity: WEB DVD HEAVY MBA (Leopard): .135 .106 .072 X300 (Vista): .104 .080 .062 -------------------------------------------------------- MBA %> X300= 29.8% 32.5% 16.1% I see only one reasonable set of conclusions: #1. Apple's Vista drivers lack power management features or optimization for the MBA. (almost 100%) #2. Lenovo's Vista drives deliver much better battery life per Whr of capacity on the X300 than Apple's do on the MBA #3. Apple's MBA battery performance on the MBA running OSX is much better than the Lenovo's under Vista normalizing for battery capacity (ranging from 16% to 32.5%). Now, either Apple has some crazy tech in the MBA power system that their Vista drivers don't enable and that the X300 just totally lacks... or (more likely) Vista is an energy pig and OSX is 16 to 32% more efficient. Given that Vista is widely reported to be an energy pig, I think it's pretty hard to come away with ANY negative conclusions about the MBA + OSX system on the battery life issue. MBA + Vista may be worse than standard Vista... but Vista notebook battery life still sucks. I think that's a pretty big selling point. In real terms, the MBA lasts MUCH longer than the X300 on a single charge running it's native OS (60 to 80% longer). If OSX works for what you need, that kind of battery life could be a deal breaker for many road warriors.
gorath
on Oct 24, 2008
I imagine that the superfetch precaching is partially responsible for reducing Vista's running time on battery power. After all, it's constantly trying to fill as much unused RAM as possibble to speed up application launches and the like. RAM uses a surprisingly large amount of electrical power, especialyl high-speed DDR2 modules. If they are continuously fully utilised, maybe that's the source of the problem?
Dipsh t Admin
on Oct 24, 2008
Take a look at the Lenovo X301, since they seem to have done a little bit of optimization with the standard 6-cell battery. Kevin Tofel over at jkOnTheRun has been able to get 4.5 hours during normal use, and nearly six hours with BatteryStrech enabled. If you need more juice, of course you can carry extra batteries, or pop in another 3-cell battery in to the DVD slot. Does Apple offer a battery you can put in to the Air's DVD slot? ;) <-- All forgiving wink http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/10/5-things-i-like.html "If OSX works for what you need, that kind of battery life could be a deal breaker for many road warriors." And conversely, if you have any Vista laptop, you can keep a hot battery spare on the ready for more computing. I don't doubt that Vista could use some better power usage, and looking at the Windows 7 blog reveals that they are very well aware of this problem. However, the OEM's also need to spend some time optimizing the hardware and drivers, which we are seeing the fruits of that labor in the market with Lenovo, HP and others.
gorath
on Oct 24, 2008
Oh, and I also reckon Mike may be right, that the Lenovo is optimised more for performance than energy savings. The fact that they have removable batteries, and also offer larger capacity batteries, I imagine, back that up. All such optimisations are a balancing act, and I think he's right as to which way the Lenovo is tipped. Either way, I'm not too bothered. I have an 18-month old Dell laptop, and I recently managed to watch over 3 hours of recorded TV on a long train journey. I probably could have watched more, but I had to get off the train to get a cab.
WebGuy3000
on Oct 24, 2008
Well, it's understandable that optimizing battery life under Vista is not at the top of Apple's to do list. In much the same way that making a decent version of Office for the Mac is not at the top of Microsoft's.

Please or Register to post comments.

Related Articles

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use
Apr. 18, 2013
Article

What I Use: On the Road 21

Every so often, I publish an updated version of my “What I Use” document, which details the technology products and services I actually use day-to-day. Since I’m currently on my third business trip in five weeks, this is perhaps an ideal time to discuss the technology products I rely on when I travel and a few related points....More
Mar. 6, 2013
Article

What I Use: March 2013 33

Lots of changes since November, including a new PC-based home server running Windows 8, several new smart phones, new PCs and tablets, new cloud backup, Office 365 Home Premium and a nice doubling of my Internet speeds courtesy of Verizon FIOS....More
WinSuperSite.com
Related Penton Sites
Copyright © 2013 Penton Media, Inc