$29.99
Still Better Battery Life Than Windows 7
Other than running Safari in 64-bit mode, the best way to hurt battery life on your MacBook Pro is to throw Windows 7 on it. I've pointed OS X's battery life advantages out before, but this is one of those things that's difficult to compare since there's only one brand of computer that runs OS X.
The best reference point I've got is still my old Thinkpad X300. It has a similar configuration in terms of battery capacity and CPU power draw to the MacBook Air, yet gets about half the battery life under Windows Vista as the Air did under OS X. Put them both under Vista and they are quite similar.
I ran a few more tests with the MacBook Pro under Windows 7 to see what the final tally was. Apparently the latest version of Boot Camp improves Windows 7 battery life, but I like having numbers to back up unverified claims.
I ran two tests under Windows 7, our light wireless web browsing test and our XviD playback test. The reason I chose these two is simple: I wanted one where the system spent a good amount of time in an idle state (up to 20 seconds between web page loads in the web browsing test) and another where the system was constantly busy (with no hardware XviD offload, the CPU has much less downtime).
Windows 7 was configured to maximize battery life, running in its power saving mode. Unlike the test I ran in the last review, I used IE8 and Windows Media Player 11 in Windows 7 while I used Safari/iTunes in OS X. The results I got were both expected and quite revealing:
| 13-inch MBP Battery Life | OS X 10.6.1 "Snow Leopard" | Windows 7 x64 | OS X Advantage |
| Light Web Browsing | 468 minutes | 263 minutes | 77.9% |
| XviD Playback | 207 minutes | 198 minutes | 4.5% |
The light wireless web browsing test echoed what I'd seen previously: OS X is better for battery life when it comes to lots of idle time (from the CPU's perspective). But look at the XviD results, the two OSes last the same amount of time.
These results appear to confirm what I'd suspected; throw enough load on the system and the OS X advantage is negligible. Keep it light and with enough idle time and you'll find OS X pull ahead. Jarred has seen similar results. One of his battery life tests involves leaving the laptop idle at the Windows desktop until it shuts off. None of his laptops have ever been able to match the battery life of the MacBook Pro in my light wireless web test.
Ultimately Apple still uses the same hardware as PC notebook manufacturers, so under load its systems shouldn't really consume any less power. But at idle Apple has much more control over the OS and drivers than a Dell or HP, the result appears to be better idle battery life. For light usage or working with a lot of pauses or downtime, OS X just lasts longer.
Long before the release of Snow Leopard Apple tried to drill all partners, driver vendors and so to deliver new 64bit builds for their plugins and extensions.
The flash plugin is provided by Adobe and only distributed by Apple. Probably cause most users would complain if flash content won't work any more.
so lets look what we got:
host-20i:~ aucl$ file /Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari
/Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
/Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
host-20i:~ aucl$ file /Library/Internet\ Plug-Ins/Flash\ Player.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Flash\ Player
/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Flash Player.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Flash Player: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Flash Player.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Flash Player (for architecture ppc): Mach-O bundle ppc
/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Flash Player.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Flash Player (for architecture i386): Mach-O bundle i386
Looks like Adobe Flash is not 64bit ready.
So i am not sure about the details in current Intel architecture, but switching between 32 and 64bit was always an expensive operation as i remember???
PS: On my mac quite everything is 64bit, and flash is "disabled" with the Click4Flash plugin.
yes, everyone knows that the unibodies are good computers and the battery-life is better than on most other pcs, but the price-aspect especially on the 17"-machine is just too big, that a normal person could honestly overlook it...
do you know what you get in the non-apple-world for 2500$+? other dimansion, just other dimension.
You Win-Nut trolls remind me of primary school kids - someone talks about something you're not into and suddenly you all start calling him names. If you're only interested in bashing Apple (and if Apple's so crap why do they threaten you so much?) go to the green grocer's, buy a box of granny smiths, and go hit them with a cricket bat. Get some of your frustration out that way. If you're interested in discussing the content of the article (ie. how to maximise battery charge) with some practical suggestions (other than "just buy a cheap windows brick and keep it plugged into the wall") then by all means post.
... why do I even bother reading Win-Nut posts??? .....
...Apple is making the mistake of stating that non-Apple hardware isn't supported]
Big fail.
you pay 2,5X more than an i7 PC (not accounting the Windows license needed to run 99% of the software), gets obsolete hardware, and ZERO support.
If I pay extra for a computer, I want to get any luxe, including the expandability.
Battery life is a mix of good hardware project and good OS drives. For that you need 45nm CPUs with at least 55nm chipstes with the OS installed in a SDD. And the OS cant suck!
I would be fine with a 2Ghz dual core (or an atom for a netbook), 9400m/4200 level graphics, 4GB RAM, 60GB SSD and at least 720p resolution together in a 11"-13" chassis. But every single netbook/subnotebook/notebook that comes close to this requirements costs an arm and a leg and fails to deliver one or more of these hardware requirements.
Most importantly though; let's not forget that the screen needs to be at least 500:1 contrast ratio, preferably 1000:1 with very high color accuracy.
Monica S
Los Angeles Computer Repair
http://www.sebecomputercare.com/?p=1178">http://www.sebecomputercare.com/?p=1178
Copyright © 1997-2012 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information
My buddy built a custom laptop for $1500 that DOMINATES any MacPro, with a better to equal screen res, oh plus the caveat of a MATTE screen, thus it's a better screen actually. It's faster, better GFX, BUILT better, completely custom, looks nice and WORKS.
There's no comparison when the elitism and snobbery of blindly knowing you got ripped off for a fluffed up Intel machine in satin and lace gloves. I have a MacPro, and other PC laptops... Guess what machine gets WORK done in the corp environment more so than the Mac needing to run silly emulations of Windows in order to get things done. But why so? If these overpriced luxo-pads really ARE "superior" then ask yourself why again hasn't Mac broken into the working world of business and corps if they are user-friendly and problem free?
You'd think a smart corp would take note and thus spend a little extra capital for these machines, as it’s part of my job to support them... Guess what, Mac's aren't going to be adopted nor switched over b/c they are mere flash and dash for the foo-foo to keep fluffing their yaps about how great it is to get SUB-PAR performance at premium prices... Oh and don’t forget Apples RIDICULOUS (strike) LAUGHABLE service requirements…
Applecare Technician cert required to work on these toys? HAHA Anyone with ½ an A+ cert can take this BS machine apart just like a PC and then some. But with Apple at the helm, you’ve gotta agree to their pricing schemes and wanna-be island in the sky certs to do work that a teenage can do. Again more hidden costs and fees associated with the wanna-be Elite crowd. Do you know why they have to charge these exuberant fees out of sight? To long bait you into their way of things, to where there’s no point of turning back once committed. The fees also help keep them afloat; remember for it not for Creative’s ideas they stole, Intels hardware, and the stupidity or nativity of it’s fan(boy) user base… “Apple” would be rancid and a DECAYING company haha… and you all know it… Botching performance specs can only keep you “competitive” for so long, until your own flock began noticing how ailing those junk G-series were haha… What a joke.
Sorta like a hopping up Civic with "euro" lights and smooth lines and then getting dogged by an American competitor that's near 30% less = interior and those "build quality" upgrades that everyone's hollering about added to surpass you.
You can get a Porsche 911 C4S for near $90K... Vs a Base vette C6 (which is still faster lol) for $60K and CUSTOMIZE it way beyond what Porsche could dream of at such a price; yes that’s BETTER; performance in every category, interior upgrades also... Apple is all fluff when it comes down to it. IT's NOT a hardware brand, it's borrowed technology from INTEL; it's master, then some BS ideology slapped onto it to appease the easily swayed/coerced. Sorry but I'm sick of the people who pay MORE for > less and have the nerve to claim superiority.
But like OMG, it’s sOOOOOO PRETTY – YAAAAAYYyyyy! That subject to OPINION and thus a forever MOOT POINT.
Who knows... Apple has been found GUILTY more than once for stealing other's innovations and pawning/spinning them off as their own. Google that FYI...
Hype and flash; smoke and mirrors... Case dismissed.