Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Oct 2013 14:01 UTC
Windows

Jeff Atwood:

I had a brief Twitter conversation with Anand Shimpi of Anandtech about this, and he was as perplexed as I was. Nobody could explain the technical basis for this vast difference in idle power management on the same hardware. None of the PC vendors he spoke to could justify it, or produce a Windows box that managed similar battery life to OS X. And that battery life gap is worse today - even when using Microsoft's own hardware, designed in Microsoft's labs, running Microsoft's latest operating system released this week. Microsoft can no longer hand wave this vast difference away based on vague references to "poorly optimized third party drivers".

The new Surface Pro 2 gets 6.6 hours of web browsing battery life. The MacBook Air 11", which has more or less the same hardware and battery, gets more than 11 hours.

I have a Surface RT - the first generation - and as such, I know why. Windows 8 might have Metro running on top of it hiding a lot of it, but Windows 8.x carries just as much baggage, cruft, and outdated shit with it as previous versions of Windows have. Windows 8/8.1 - and Metro in particular - simply suck. Slow, clunky, jarring, cumbersome, battery-sucking, restricted, and limited, with a crappy selection of rush-job, rarely updated applications. You know how resizing windows on Windows 7 or OS X is all nice and fluid? Why, then, is it a slow and jittery operation that brings Windows 8 Metro to its knees?

It's simple: just like battery life, it's a symptom of Microsoft's Windows team not having the balls to truly go for a clean break, as the Windows Phone team have done. And lo and behold, Windows Phone - even WP8, which runs on the same NT kernel - has none of the slowness and crappiness issues that continue to plague Windows 8 Metro (although WP has its own set of issues unrelated to these).

If you want a smooth, modern laptop today - get a MacBook. If you want a smooth and modern tablet, get the Nexus 7 or an iPad. Microsoft still has nothing to show for itself in these areas.

Thread beginning with comment 575112
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Slow progress
by PhilPotter on Mon 21st Oct 2013 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Slow progress"
PhilPotter
Member since:
2011-06-10

I've modded you up as I agree with you that modding down based on your comment/opinion is wrong. However, I need to point out that (although it isn't fully mainstream in the various distros yet) the Linux kernel radeon module has had DPM for a fair few months now, and it works as well if not better than catalyst in terms of power savings.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Slow progress
by WereCatf on Mon 21st Oct 2013 17:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Slow progress"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

However, I need to point out that (although it isn't fully mainstream in the various distros yet) the Linux kernel radeon module has had DPM for a fair few months now, and it works as well if not better than catalyst in terms of power savings.


Well, the person I replied to never mentioned how recently he tested this, nor did he mention his GPU. I don't know if he tested this before the Radeon - module got DPM implemented or if it wasn't a Radeon in the first place, I just offered something that could have explained the difference. At least it did make a big difference in the past.

Reply Parent Score: 2