so far on my hp mini 110 i can consistanly get a half hour mor life running windows 7 over xp. i do have mine set to turn off the fancy graphics while on battery. could it be the version that was used in the test. im using the test version of 7 ultimate, 500gb spinning drive and 2gb of ram

I also experienced slightly less (probably about 10%) battery life with W7 than XP on my Dell Mini 10 (along with many issues with suspend/resume).

Win 7 is very good, but I've returned to using my Macbook and haven't looked back.

I have read in a number of placed that Win7 is supposed to increase battery life.

Ubuntu Remix is out which has yet to be reivewed. I did come across a blog where he mentioned that he was going to test it out.

I will post the update once I test out the Netbook Remix

I purchased my Acer Aspire D250 with Windows XP and 6 cell 5200 Mha and I was getting like 6 hours battery life out of it, however when I upgraded to Windows 7 I was only getting around 4.5-5 hours so I know that Windows 7 reduces your battery and I run my system under the balanced power setting.

Mk124 you are correct, I have noticed when I wake my system from idling I can check the battery meter it often shows that the systems battery power has increased from when I am constantly using the system. However this is what they should relay to the consumer instead of using such bland terminology.

On my 1000HE, running Win7 gets me about an hour less of battery life. Considering the extra features I'm running and that the battery is already around 9 hours on XP, I'm not at all upset.

Indeed, this is the best way to run the test. If you used your laptop for even a little you could have different battery expectancy on each machine. Using the same machine/hardware will remove this problem. Just for shits and giggles it would be interesting to boot up in xp, run the test, then boot up in 7, run the test, and then go back to xp, etc. This way as you cycle the batter so too is the software being cycled.

check out the notebookreview.com's review of the win 7 version of 1008ha
they said that the battery life is about the same for both win 7 and xp

I've got Win 7 RC running a WUBI dual boot of Ubuntu 9.04 UNR on my HP Mini 1000 (which came with HP MIE on it) and of all three OS's, without a doubt, my Win 7 has the longest battery runtime. I have not yet tried 9.10 UNR..but it should be about the same as Win 7 for battery.

I installed Win7 Ultimate on my Asus1000HA and got much shorter battery life than with WinXP. I set everything to to maximum power save and I still got much worse battery life. I have an extended battery which gives me about 11 hours with wifi off and low screen brightness. The battery was reduced to about 7 hours with Win7. I uninstalled Win7 and went back to WinXP.

It's likely that drivers have a significant impact on battery usage. Sucky drivers = more power used. It's possible that in some cases the XP drivers are more power efficient and in other cases the Vista/7 drivers are more efficient. That might be why on some machines one OS gets better battery life and on other machines and the other one does better.

I think you might be missing the purpose behind Battery Eater. The program attempts to disable all battery saving features of the operating system in order to benchmark the battery. It's not the right test to run to see how well an operating system helps out with energy savings- because this program will disable every advantage Windows 7 has over Windows XP. With everything even, you're left with a new graphically intensive operating system against one that is not- and it's only obvious which one will win.

To test the two operating systems correctly, forget about Battery Eater (it doesn't test the OS, it only tests the battery). Set two systems side by side, power them up with their maximum power saving settings enabled (making sure no third party power saving utilities interfere, and making sure they don't go to sleep or hibernate or anything), and let them sit for a few hours. Finally, make sure the battery circuit is shutting the system down, not the operating system.

Also, you need something that will display the results of the stresses being placed on hardware (not just the battery life results). My reasoning is that one system is actually doing more work than the other system, or is clocked at a different speed and voltage. A system doing less work or operating at a slower clock speed with a lower voltage will naturally last longer. Manufacturers like ASUS include their own third party power saving utilities (SuperHybridEngine) that could be interfering with the battery results. It seems possible that this program is running on the stock Windows XP installation, but was not installed on Windows 7.

Windows 7 has many tweakable power settings. I'm sure if the system is able to use them, you should see a noticeable battery life improvement on the Windows 7 system compared to XP. But when those power settings are disabled, you are left with a new bloated operating system against an old less bloated one. XP will win every time.

Kind of reminds me of the old PowerPC G5 benchmark campaign that Mac did in 2003. It showed the G5 was faster than what Intel had to offer, but only after all of the performance features of the Xeon and P4 were disabled to level the playing field. Essentially, that's what Battery Eater is doing. With the playing field leveled, XP will win. But let 7 do its thing, and you should see an improvement.

did anyone think to check and see if they turn off Aero? i mean obviously XP will have the better battery life if Aero is enabled in Windows 7. Yes, i love eye candy too, but for someone with a netbook that just wants to get on the internet i think can do without the Aero. I think Windows 7 power management runs beautifully, i think just as good as XP. The Luna Interface adds more color, but to be honest, it isnt really graphics intensive nor does it add any “pizazz” to the OS, unlike Aero where there is some form of functionality.

I read a few articles about this issue, and to point out that there is an uneven playing field. I think Windows Vista/7 comparison is equal b/c they both utilize Aero and have similar aesthetics. I think the true test should be to turn off fancy UI's (Luna in XP and Aero in Both Vista and 7) to have a true test. Then i think thats where the answer will be. Don't Forget, especially in windows 7, the Aero UI adds some functionality to the OS so i would assume extra processes will be running the background among the fancy graphic changes. Plus with the more graphics intensive the OS is, the more power is required for the battery would have to output for the display adapter alone, not much but even a small amount will make a difference.

i installed win7 ultimate on aspire one (with SSD) and i get more than 20% less battery life. but it is win7 ultimate and using all graphic interface stuff.

Laptos battery does not depends on the operating system.It's depends on the graphics that you are using.You have to use dark color graphics for more battery life because it use less power.

This is an issue that Microsoft is trying to ignore. W7 has MAJOR issues with the ACPI which make them potentially liable for the damage to millions of laptop batteries. On Microsofts own Technet forums this has been raging for 6 months with MS refusing to comment.
See http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w…

Well, on my hp 6735 since i installed windows seven, my battery died and am asked to replace it…at the first installation i lost one hour of the battery and slowly the battery died
(u will excuse ma english) I am French

I would have to agree that Windows 7 does hurt battery life. At least with netbooks. But here is my thoughts on why. I believe for whatever reason the fan cycles more with Windows 7 then Windows XP. Maybe its because I do run Windows 7 Premium. Maybe its because manufactures have not released a tuned BIOS for Windows 7 for their netbooks. Maybe its because Windows 7 is better tuned for other CPU's.
Its probably a compbination of all of those that lead to reduced battery life. I for one like Windows 7 better then XP, so I will put up with the lower battery life. Although I have begun to turn off things like Aero when I want to save. Windows 7 does this automatically in Power saver mode so even Microsoft must think Aero is bad for power consumption.

Hey guys everything's fine now.
I have the NB200 (the EU version of the NB205).
I was getting like 8 hours under XP with the TOSHIBA PM.
When I put 7 on I just wanted to go in the closet and cry something like 4 to 5 hours ;(
Since TOSHIBA didn't release any version of their power manager for 7,I started searching and changing settings…and actually it's quite simple just go in the Power Management in the Control panel create your own personalized power profile,put everything to minimum,but the most important part was Processor management I put that to 20-25% which is fine.
Now I'm 8:30-9 hours of battery life in Windows 7
Skype,8-10 Chrome tabs,and some note taking programs run smoothly,you can watch normal quality videos too.
Cheers! (thumbsup)

if more efficient use to the hardware is to blame. squeezing more power out of the silicon means more power is squeezed out of the battery

Do us a favour and get some English lessons before you put another post up here.

From it is born, have never use windows 7, but xp is familar