Done for 2009: The Holiday MacBook Pro Roundup
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 10, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
115 Comments
View All Comments
michael2k - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Yeah, if you mean "good code" like longer battery life in OS X than Windows?I mean, if you really believe that, buy a Mac, install Windows in VM, and get the hours of battery life of the Mac and the ability to run "good code" whenever you need it.
fitten - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
You get all that battery life when you aren't actually doing anything with the machine (it's sitting idle). As the article says... start actually, you know, using the thing instead of having it as a fashion accessory and there isn't much difference.slashbinslashbash - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
No, it's not "sitting idle." Anand got those times with Safari set to load a new page every 20 seconds, and iTunes playing music constantly. It is light usage, granted, but it's not sitting there doing nothing. Of course the CPU goes to an idle when it's not doing anything, and that's what makes the difference, because apparently Apple is handling this better than Microsoft.fitten - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Get an iPhone... mine does all that and more!darwinosx - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
Apple doesn't know how to write code? Alllllrighty then...sprockkets - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
God's don't talk to humans, even you Anand. So much for getting them to admit they are fallible.That being said, their 13" laptop is nice. Paying $2500 for a non i7 cpu isn't really a deal.
Oh, and if you are going to benchmark them, why not benchmark the Dell and HP while you are at it?
marraco - Sunday, November 15, 2009 - link
And something to add:This image on this article:
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mac/MacBookPro...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mac/MacBookPro...
Shows why this line of obsolete hardware is not worth his 2.5X price:
You can't use them as portable computers, because reflections on each place don't let you see the screen. You only see reflections.
in the image we see the lights put to take the photos.
you can't go to a park and use the apples, because of reflections.
you see only your own face on bright days.
you can't focus on the screen, and soon get a headache.
of course, ANY laptop manufacturer knows that shinny screens are a health he11, and apple knows. But apple only care about taking the innocent consumer money. For the screen problem: pay to your doctor.
The0ne - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
I'm also shocked, a bit, at how Anand loves his $2500 macbook :/ My fully spec'ed Vostro 17" ran me $800 with the Anand hot deal at the time. That's 3-4 times less than the macbook. Even being 2lbs more isn't going to justify spending that much on it.Sometimes even I don't understand why people prefer one product over even when it's at the extreme end. I love gadgets, I love designing, I love computing and I love retro-gaming but I think $2500 for a 17" laptop with "little" benefit over the competition is a bit much, especially here where most of us also use hot deals to help with our shopping.
The0ne - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
replying to my post since I'm not at work and using my Vostro. Here's the spec on it...T7500, 4Gig, 320GB, 8400M, WUXGA, DVDRW, SD reader, webcam, wireless.
I have Windows 7 Ultimate running XP SP3 and Fedora under VMWare with no hiccups. How much versatility, power, performance does Anand really need? That is subjective, being my point. And as Anand pointed out 2GB of RAM is laughable meaning 4 would be nice and 8 is ideal. But trying getting 8GB without adding a few more hundred dollars to it the price. Mind you, this was 2 years ago to boot, although not much has changed in the offering :D
Sure it's a heavier at 2lbs more but I can live with that for 1/3 the price. Wouldn't I want it lighter? Of course, anyone would if they can afford the luxury. Would I like the extended battery life? Hell yea! But how many situations call for me to use the laptop in areas without an outlet? < 10%
I'm not sure why Anand didn't include the Vostro in 17" comparison. The WUXGA screen is extremely nice. And while the Apple might be nicer if I were to working in photo's and stuff it's barely needed for "writing." As Anand said, it's the increase in workspace that is the most important.
I'm not trying to bash the review. I think it's justified one one end but on the other it seems like Anand is all giddy with the new toy :) I know I would be too hahaha But I like to put things in perspective on price/performance.
BSMonitor - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Uhhh try reading the article..As a writer, light browsing, word documents, etc gets him around 7 - 8 hours without being stuck next to an outlet. You on the other would have to visit one 3-4 times in those 8 hours with your Vostro.