Windows 7 Battery Life Worse on Netbooks

Non-issue. I would expect Win7 to have worse life than XP... I would hope (and it seems to be the case) that it has better battery life than Vista. 7 added a lot more over XP...This seems like a non-story.

I agree. I don't think this is an issue at all. And I certainly could care less about battery on a netbook. I would be surprised if there were a lot of people who would keep their xp netbook as opposed to upgrading to Win7 just because they want to save 47minutes of battery life.

Figured there would have to be something negative about Windows 7, but is the battery life so much worse that you wouldn't want to run Windows 7?I bet not, so unless there is hours lost, my next netbook will be with Windows 7.

panache1023, well I'm glad you get to make that decision mate. Cars are a completely irrelevant. Why do people buy netbooks? Portability. A big part of that is battery life, rather than the "". I'm not saying those features aren't useful, but come on... these things are limited to begin with. So I think a massive concern when yes, a consumer can go out and buy an XP or Linux machine that will do the trick better than Win7.

I'm sure it has to do with Aero. Anyway, at one point I installed Vista onto my netbook(big mistake). It only got 2 hours of battery life. I just upgraded it to Windows 7, and the battery has boosted up to 4 hours. If i switch the power mode to "Power Saver", it gets about 4 hours and 37 minutes, about the same as Windows XP got.

sttevo said: "Cars are a completely irrelevant. Why do people buy netbooks? Portability. [...]" Not so irrelevant. Effectively people buy netbook for portability but it is always a matter of compromise ... For myself I prefer less portability if I have to use a portable computer because Netbook are just too slow even with XP... I try a toshiba netbook, god! It was a bad experience!! Just using XP is a bad experience compared with 7 so I will prefer a Laptop 15" over a netbook... If I had to choose between a Windws 7 net book and a XP net book I will not hesitate, The 7 one will win, just because the OS experience, is much more important than battery life... Be for me it is not the first problem... Net book are too slow with any OS so...

Waoow 20% more battery life is a big + for XP vs. 7 !! I would have expected 7 to consume more, but 20 % !!

sttevo, it's called an analogy for a reason. You do have some points...but maybe it's time for battery life technology to keep up with computer hardware/software technology. I would say that your point is more relevant in regards to Vista than 7.

Paul, In a small sense, you have a point. However, we all know that portable battery storage is still very much in its infancy compared to the power and duties required of most nettops running one of the best OS'es on the planet. However, the solution to this problem is very easy. Just buy a second battery. With the exception of ASUS Eee PC PC 1008HA, the other two have removable batteries. You can quite easily buy a second battery and double your power needs. When I do my research for a notebook or if I was buying a netbook, removeable battery is a must. If any model doesn't have it, I automatically reject it. In this day and age, removeable storage should be a necessity. Infact, I believe they even sell additional storage for nettops/laptops that don't have removeable batteries. A little cumbersome but at least there's a workaround. Now its up to HP, ASUS, and Toshiba to work with Microsoft to see what they can do to fix this. Maybe a driver or setting change can improve the situation here. However, nobody should go back to XP. There's no reason too. I'd rather buy the extra battery and be on a modern, secure, and the new mainstream OS of the entire PC industry. The lost average of 46 minutes is manageable with time management or a second battery pack. Honestly, would you tell some diehard Mac user to stay on Puma, Jaguar, Panther, or Tiger to maintain compatibility with the old PowerPC code? Of course not! You'd use what was the most current, supported, and has the best security. If its true of Mac users, its the same with Windows users. XP needs to die and the faster it dies, the better it is for everyone else.

The article doesn't mention whether they turned Aero on or off during the test. My assumption is that Aero was on and that accounts for the difference in battery life. I'd like to see the same test done on the same Netbooks with Aero off to show whether *those* results change from XP to Windows 7.

The biggest group of XP users are corporations, and very few of them are early adopters of a new OS. Heck, I'm thinking it may be 2013 before I can get Windows 7 on my company purchased laptop. I get a new one in spring of 2010, and I doubt they'll be sending out Windows 7 then. I'll get another XP system most likely. So I have to wait 3 years for that one to go out of service before I get another new one. If MS keeps the same release schedule for Windows 8, I'll start using 7 when 8 is out. As for battery life, how many people really rely solely on battery these days? Most people I see with laptops have the power cord with them and plug it in right away. But then most of the cheap Windows laptops (not netbooks) don't even have 3 hours of battery life, so the battery really isn't that important.

At least with most PC laptops you can swap out the battery and aren't stuck with one stupid non changeable battery, which also did away with their excellent albeit short lived hard drive and ram access. It seems the megalomaniac couldn't handle any seams on the bottom of his laptops so now most users have to waste a few days while they get their battery or oft failing hard drive replaced. Whatever the battery life when new, a year or 2 into owning a laptop the battery deteriorates significantly, meaning you take it in for an replacement, or you live with it. Another Apple "innovation" like their DVD drives that most Mac users "fix" by replacing the laptop.

"Btw, i think that Microsoft could not care less about offering great user experience to netbooks users as netbooks is trongly hurting their profit margin. Thus the fact that the Windows Team manage to have even Windows 7 ultimate work great on these devices is already a great achievement." Netbooks don't hurt Microsoft's profit margins, they hurt the hardware manufacturer's. Look at Paul's example about his netbook. He buys one for $350, then pays an $80 Microsoft Tax for the ability to run a non-crippled version of Windows 7. Sounds like Microsoft make MORE money this way. I'm sure they get $30+ plus from the Manufacturer for the Starter license. Add in the $80 upgrade and they are getting over $100.

Reason it's in an issue: Technology should get better, faster and more efficient with each revision. Win7 should be better than XP/Vista in EVERY respect including battery life. User's with XP netbooks that get excellent battery life won't upgrade as readily to a Win7 netbook. Reason it's not an issue: Microsoft has worked deals with vendors to ensure Win7 is the dominant/only OS available on a netbook at the point of sale. Just as in laptop and desktop sales Win7 will come to the most common netbook OS through a mere lack of alternatives. Reason it's in an issue: Tech savvy users will opt to install XP/Linux/Hacintosh OS's on their Win7 netbook. Microsoft will get to claim the sales numbers but actual use will decline below projections. Reason it's an issue: Batteries can't be swapped with out shutting the machine down a rebooting. Then you have to charge the spare and most netbooks only charge their battery will it's in the machine and hooked to the wall. How many users actually buy a charging unit for their spare battery? That's if they buy a spare battery at all and a charging device exists for it. Not a given. Reason it's an issue: Everything is an issue. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Every user has different needs and battery life is extremely important to a large number of us in our portable devices. Dismissing the needs of a user base is how companys lose customers.