Windows 7 may be easier on battery life than Ubuntu 10.04

Canonical released the latest version of the popular Ubuntu operating system next week. And while Ubuntu 10.04 may have a new look and feel, integration with the Ubuntu One cloud-based storage service, and improved boot times, it’s not without its issues.

The folks at Phoronix have done some testing and determined that Ubuntu 10.04 uses more power than Windows 7. How much more? out of the box, Ubuntu 10.04 used 56% more power than Windows 7 Professional. At least that’s what happened when running the tests on an Asus Eee PC 1201N, which is a 12.1 inch notebook with a dual core Atom 330 processor and NVIDIA IOn graphics. It’s a fairly power hungry computer by netbook standards under the best of circumstances. Throwing Ubuntu 10.04 on the notebook looks like it could seriously impact battery life.

Phoronix also tested a Lenovo thinkPad T61 15.4 inch laptop with n Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 processor, and found that while Windows 7 still used less power than Ubuntu 10.04, the difference dropped to 14%.

Have you tried Ubuntu 10.04 yet? What kind of impact has it had on your battery life?

via The Inquirer

  • John Morris

    Well first off, until you install the closed NVIDIA drivers you get zero power management on the GPU. That is going to hurt power consumption big time.

    Next the Windows is preloaded by the OEM who knows more about the machine than they tell anyone else.

  • Mike

    I've got it on a test server, a QA desktop, and a very old laptop with a battery that dies within 10 minutes of being unplugged from the wall, so I can't comment on the battery experience… Although I will endevour to test it tonight on a more viable portable (my wife's 1005HA) and will try to throw up the results once I have them.

    On a non-battery related issue, I really like the release so far.

  • Mike

    And, to drive the point home further, if memory servers, ASUS does include custom power management software on top of Windows 7, which would not be available on a fresh install of Ubuntu 10.04..

    It would be interesting to see what happens if you wipe the hard drive on the 1201N and do a fresh install of Windows 7 and see how that performs as well, so you could get a true apples to apples fresh out of the box test of the two OS's… I'd be willing to guess that would explain the huge disparity on the 1201N… And if you actually bothered to turn on the power management features in Linux the two would probably be more equal there… I'll try that test too, as I'm able.

  • Dominic Gagliardi

    The only problem I've had is that it will say my battery is “dead” or “old” and has a “35.9%” charge once in awhile on boot up. Otherwise, I'm using an Acer Aspire One 532H-2527 and i've noticed i can run on the battery longer on ubuntu 10.04 UNE then Windows 7 Starter

  • http://gadgetmix.com Kamal DS

    Ridiculous. Bullcrap. I am sure these guys must not have activated the CPU clocking utilities. Anybody with little Ubuntu/Linux knowledge can actually make his netbook run for a longer runtime than a netbook running Windows.

    BTW, I use Ubuntu all the time.

  • ohiomoto

    I would agree that test with the 1205N is flawed but the fact that Ubuntu consumes more power than Windows is nothing new. I have Ubuntu 9.10 and Windows 7 on my Acer AS1410 and though I really don't use Windows it does appear that it is more efficient than Ubuntu. I'm even using a power saving script with Ubuntu.

    If I had to guess, I would say the 14% mentioned above is probably accurate.

  • Mike

    I guess it comes down to knowing what you are doing and hand tuning it, and just running it 'out of the box' as it were… I'd imagine that's the issue people are running into.

  • ninetynine

    Lol, wiping the hard drive so you can run an OS inefficiently on purpose is the furthest thing for fresh out of the box test.

    The idea is that people will buy the laptop and just use it, so you test it with the OS it came with, all its utilities and all its bloatware.

    This then applies to Ubuntu because the only way you get it on the laptop in the first place is with a fresh install, the most typical user (one without lots of tech knowledge) would just use it in the state it shows up in.

    To be fair, yes Ubuntu (9.10 at least) comes out of the box very unoptimized, it's not even in laptop mode unless you set it yourself. And on top of that, anyone installing Ubuntu is willing to do some tweaking, no one would just install it and think they're getting maximum performance out of the box.

    Windows will always have better battery life than Linux. It just makes sense. OEMs write drivers for Windows, not Linux. Manufacturers also make their utilities for Windows, not Linux. You can only expect so much from an OS that is free and designed to work on every machine since 2000, you sacrifice hardware optimization for that.

  • Mike

    The only quibble I have in your entire refute, is the word Always, when describing the issues Linux has compared to Windows with drivers and app supports. My only contention, is that they will have that issue as long as Linux doesn't have enough market share for them to do so. If a time ever arises that Linux can crack 20% market share, I would actually anticipate OEM's and ODM's to write drivers and apps that support Linux. Until such time, yes, you are utterly correct.

    My point with wiping the hard drive and doing a fresh install, was to point out that out of the box, I'm not sure how much of an edge Windows 7 actually has. De-optimize it, and I'd bet they are pretty close, if not identical, in battery consumption. Which I may find out. I have access to both systems, multiple hard drives, and a laptop that no one is using for anything constructive.

    I guess my point is this: I get upset when people make blanket claims like X is better than Y, when the testing methedology isn't correct. An optimized version of X may be better than an un-optimized version of Y, but that's not really what anyone is claiming, and seldom gets pointed out. They're saying it like it's a matter of fact, and that always irks me, whether it's in operating systems, code, or machinery.

  • peterkirn

    It's bogus. What good is a benchmark if you don't control for other variables? The headline, that Linux is somehow less power efficient, is overblown and irresponsible. I expect better from Phoronix.

    That's nothing against either OS – Windows 7 is a big step forward on power, too – but I just don't see the value of the analysis here.

    With the proprietary NVIDIA drivers installed, I've actually had more luck with battery savings on Linux than I have had on Windows on my Asus laptop (non-netbook — Core 2 Duo + NVIDIA 9500). Of course, that's a non-scientific, real world test. But I think for me it's had to do with having fewer running background services on my Linux install, if I had to guess. There are also nice things like the ability to, via a Compiz plugin, invert the colors of the entire UI, which has saved me in low power situations and direct sunlight use.

    Windows 7's driver support and more advanced tweakable power savings can certainly squeeze life out of a battery, but as for set-and-and-forget-it performance, I actually think Ubuntu does pretty well.

    And come on. Yes, you have to install NVIDIA's drivers. But that's about the *only* step necessary after a clean Linux install — good luck saying the same thing about Windows.

    On top of this, they didn't use one of a number of distros that are designed to support the Eee out of the box. For the Eee, I would be more interested in a netbook-specific distro.

  • lkm32

    i use a eee pc program called “Jupiter” and it gives a good 11 to 12 hours in ubuntu (barely 9 in windows)
    i mean, there are many steps that must be taken to save power in both OS's (but its easier in 7 since it came preloaded with asus's own powersaving stuff)
    either way, i rarely need over 6 hours of battery life

  • Pingback: Windows 7 Easier on Batteries then Ubuntu .()

  • Charlotte

    Ubuntu makes a Netbook Edition for machines like the Asus Eee PC 1201N. Was the Netbook Edition tested against Windows 7, or was it the regular LTS?

  • ninetynine

    Yeah I definitely understand defending Ubuntu, article's like these are read by the public and leaves the wrong impression a lot of the time. It's a pretty big statement to say 'Ubuntu sucks for battery life' based on just on this article (all 2 page, 2 graph of it).

    Not that it isn't worse all the time, plenty of people jump from Windows to Ubuntu and get the same or better battery life. It's hard to compare them when you can't establish an equal playing field.

  • Anon

    Seriously, check out Lubuntu and the developing Netbook Remix edition… Lubuntu, boot it up on only about 100MB of RAM… very quick, applications launch quick, and can even run Gnome or KDE apps with it too (from repository, and since it has NO MONO, one can look to install MONO free OpenOffice.org from the main OpenOffice site (vs using the forked Ubuntu repository version that uses MONO).

    Some of the repositories for Ubuntu had the Lubuntu GUI and netbook stuff to install, don't know if they are still up, but it looked interesting.

  • peterkirn

    It looks to me like they tested LTS.

    They also used the same set of tests for a Lenovo T61, so – perhaps I was premature, upon reflection – this is fair. But yes, it seems more likely that you would take advantage of distros tailored to the Eee.

    They do actually install the NVIDIA proprietary driver. In the Lenovo test, the two OSes are pretty much even. That makes me think there's some other power throttling thing happening (or more to the point, not happening) on the Asus.

  • cavgirl

    Ironically, I've found I'm getting better battery life on my Acer1810TZ -granted, a laptop/netbook with very good battery life anyway- after I disabled all the Acer powersaving stuff. With my Samsung NC20, my experience was the reverse. On Linux, I've had a mixed bag. In some cases, on some computers, the battery life has been stellar. In others, appalling – and I do know what to tweak in Linux for battery life!

  • supportive

    I do not know whether Windows is easier on BATTERY life than Ubuntu or not, but I do know that Ubuntu is much, much, much easier on MY life than Windows :-P

    • Cvader3

      This should be thrown out the window. i own a hp dv6 with an intel i3 330m and in windows seven(with my 6 cell battery in) i get maybe 2hours, in ubuntu 10.04 i easily break 3 hours. Ill be running tests soon on the 12 cell battery i just got for it today.

  • peterkirn

    Right, correct. And GNOME, much as I love it, does tax the CPU just a little bit with Compiz and everything turned on. If the CPU is cycling, it's using electricity. So what works on your desk with your laptop plugged in may not be your best bet if you're trying to run for half a day on battery.

    Anyway, apt-get install lxde will do the trick from any Ubuntu; then you can run LXDE side by side with GNOME. (Lubuntu's smaller size has other advantages, but yes, if it's LXDE you're after and you installed LTS…)

  • Mike

    Exactly.

  • rahul

    I have a Thinkpad X100e using a dual-core AMD L335. I noticed that battery life on it is marginally better using Ubuntu 10.04 and it runs cooler too compared to Win7 Pro.

  • Karan

    windows 7 : 2 hours 17 min …
    ubuntu 10.04 : 2 hous 46 min ….

  • saw

    Cool. Finally the truth is out.
    A Linux with polish GUI won't give you good battery life.

    • toto

      haha troll

  • sam8880

    i actually tried both Win 7 and Ubuntu. in Ubuntu the battery lasted for 3 hours and 5 min. but in Win 7 it only last for 1.5 hour the maximum .
    i feel ubuntu is more secured and reliable. iam happy with ubuntu and wanna stick with it

  • Poke

    With a system running no apps Win7 uses less power, however once you run the required 2 malware scanners at all times the Ubuntu machine is the power saver. So real life usage for me Ubuntu wins.

    • Anonymous

      Wrong. Modern antivirus/malware programs have absolutely no real world effect on performance or power draw and have not since the days of windows 98. Unless all you ever run is norton AV garbage this statement is completely false.

      Even with running an AV and anti spyware i still get about 1.5 more hours in windows 7 than ubuntu and thats after tweaking my power settings with powertop, laptop-mode etc. that do NOT come by default in ubuntu.

      I still use Ubuntu over windows but the mobile device support linux currently offers is a joke. it takes 6 hours of tweaking just to get close to the battery life you would get in windows.

      • toto

        apparently you are very new to linux or you need zoom a little( to read) when you go to system menu in ubuntu menu, there is detailed options to set it the way you want it, batter and power mode, in fact it has 2 more options than windows 7
        AND , when i turn on my laptop with my battery it automatically dims the screen, spins the hard drive when possible, etc
        O_O

      • Anonymous

        Did you even read my response or just think it was me bashing ubuntu and jump in blindly like an ignorant fanboy.Whether you want to believe it or not what i said is very true. 10 years linux experience and i have some fool telling me that because he believes ubuntu has 2 more power options (Even though he is dead wrong) than windows 7 it somehow magically means it has better power management…2 things you should note. Windows 7 has a ton more power options than ubuntus power management GUI. To even access those options that are easily available in windows 7 requires running third party programs and editing a few conf files and even then there are still LESS power management options in ubuntu than windows 7.By default all you get in ubuntu is a a few measly power options.1. When to go to sleep2. whether or not to dim display when inactive3. When to put the display to sleep4. Whether or not to reduce brightness
        5. Whether or not to spin down the discs.Anything else requires third party programs and a bunch of conf editing.In windows 7 i get.1. When to spin down the hard drives 2. Wireless adapter power saving mode3. When to go to sleep/hibernate4. USB power settings5. PCI Express power settings6. Processor power management7. Sleep time for display8. Multimedia settings9. GPU power options.Now im not sure why you have convinced yourself that ubuntu has more power options than windows 7 but its an obvious fallacy that anybody who has spent more than 10 minutes with either OS could tell you.Do a simple google search and you will find clear as day people are getting better battery life out of windows 7 and even moreso from XP than ubuntu. Especially from the netbooks where the difference becomes quite large its becoming quite the issue. Losing 30 minutes from a 3 hour battery is not very noticeable now that people are running 8 hour+ netbooks and are losing multiple hours its become quite noticeable and is getting a lot of attention.

      • http://twitter.com/jmtd Jon Dowland

        The philosophy for power management in Linux is to let the system set the correct values, and that providing lots of knobs and sliders for people to play with does not mean better battery life. So the number of options exposed and the power consumption of the OS are separate issues.

      • Anonymous

        Yet windows ends up being better with both…

        The problem with this discussion is that even though im along time user and supporter of linux the fanboys put fingers in their ears and pretend what im saying is not true and im just bashing linux.

        The sad simple fact is that windows is doing better in this area and pretending the issue dont exist wont bring any progress for anybody.

        That said there have been some recent kernels that go a long way to helping this.

      • Another NoNoob

        I agree,
        Having bought an Acer Aspire 1830TZ that came preinstalled with Win7 Pro 64bit on a standard Sata drive which I immediately replaced with an SSD disk running Ubuntu 10.04 386 Desktop edition It appears that under similar (no testsuite benchmark yet) conditions the Win7 configuration gets aprox 20% better time.
        This annoys me a lot since I ditched Windows on my home computers many years ago.
        One note though is that neither the Win7 HD nor the Ubuntu SSD has undergone any tuning. I will start searching for power tuning (which led me to this blogg) and see if can improve the battery time with some more aggressive power saving options.

  • ninetynine

    You have a dual core x100e? Do you mind writing up a review for it and posting it some where =D. Very interested to see what its performance/battery life is.

  • joel bowman

    What the hell, thats just a netbook!!! I'm sure it works better on most computers when the intel processor is like the cool fast one. Not the little atom… ANYWAYS! I like ubuntu becuase it just runs like a sweet sandwich on the beach, after surfing the net. PLUS PLUS PLUS it clouds your music. THANKS UBUNTU FOR EVERYTHING I LOVE YOU,,

    guest

  • Joe

    Err… was this test done using the desktop version of Ubuntu or the Ubuntu Netbook Edition…?

  • http://www.rob-ward.co.uk Rob Ward

    I've not tried Ubuntu on my netbook yet but on my laptop running from a penstick(also accessing the HDD) the battery life on my laptop rose by about 10% between ubunutu 9.10 and 10.04 and the battery lasts a lot longer on Ubuntu than it did 2 years ago when running windows XP, not tried windows 7 (and not going to cos I can't be arsed with the MS s**t) and to be quite frank even if I knew I could have a battery life of 2 weeks on my netbook if I were running windows 7 I still wouldn't install it because I much prefer the freedom, applications, ease of use and functionality I get with Ubuntu and will never sacrifice that.

  • Cindy

    Not for me! Ubuntu is easier on my battery and my processor. My computer does not get as hot, the cpu is not running near 100% with Ubuntu, which maybe why my battery last longer in Ubuntu than in Windows. I am extremely happy with Ubuntu.

  • rb

    There are a series of articles that came out from these Phoronix people that almost read like hit pieces vs. Ubuntu 10.4. Mega$hackles must be feeling desperate if they're starting to pay for FUD propaganda and lying with statistics vs. Linux!!!

  • peterkirn

    Wait a minute … not so fast. Testing Ubuntu's marketing claims is exactly what we should be doing. The issue is that the methodology may be flawed. But with a corrected or more complete methodology, this is useful information. Finding performance weaknesses in Linux isn't FUD; it's how you identify areas for improvement. (Anyway, as is clear from this thread, marginal differences in performance or battery life aren't exactly deal-breakers for most people. Benchmarks are reality checks, but they're not the only factor in anyone's decision.)

  • Garry

    I have noticed a dramatic reduction in battery life since upgrading my Ubuntu installation to 10.04 on my Dell Mini9 netbook.

    So dramatic it is what has prompted me to search the net on the subject and I'm glad/sad in equal measure that it doesn't seem to be just me.

  • karthik

    On an Asus ul30-vt (with the core 2 duo SU7300) and the Intel GMA 4500, I get about two hours more battery life with Windows 7 than with Ubuntu. This is when surfing, reading documents, etc.

    But those two hours the difference between nine and eleven hours, so it doesn't bother me all that much.

  • peterkirn

    Actually, I believe this is correct; some of the integrated Intel and low-power support is lagging a bit. That could be something we see in a kernel update very soon.

  • Mick

    While I'm a huge Ubuntu fan, power management/efficiency is definitely something they need to work on.
    Heck, I haven't had suspend or hibernate working in at least several releases now alone, and those is the FIRST things that need to be working correctly for any laptop. Someone at Canonical needs to get on this stuff RIGHT AWAY as a priority.

  • ohiomoto

    I agree about the power management/efficiency being a weak point for Ubuntu and it could be that it's worse on Atom's than full power processors. Also, hibernate and suspend work perfect on my two laptops. But I have seen reports of hibernate issues others have had with one of them. (Not sure why it works on mine and not theirs.) I've actually had a worse time with hibernate, suspend (and updates) with Microsoft over the years.

    We should keep in mind that Microsoft has the hardware manufactures testing (and finishing) their product for them. When I think about that fact, I'm actually amazed at how well distros like Ubuntu work out of the box. For example, I recently did a clean install of Windows 7 on my Acer AS1410, not everything worked until I installed a few Acer provided drivers. Ubuntu on the other hand required one workaround to get the microphone working and that was it. I've had the same experience with a couple of Dell Vostro laptops.

  • annawoods04

    Usually averaging more than 8 hours of battery life, the Acer Aspire Time-line notebook PC series makes all day computing a reality. Windows 7 is too limiting for me.

    Houston Weight Loss Surgery

  • Pingback: Windows 7 beats Ubuntu 10.04 on battery life « My Asus Eee PC()

  • http://twitter.com/apergl Anton

    I too use a laptop with integrated Intel graphics (in my case the ancient X3100) and with the upgrade from 9.10 to 10.04 battery life now seems to be comparable with the memory inefficient and inferior Windows Vista. However the graphics improved substantially with 9.10 and further with 10.04 which was good to see – not yet as good as the other mob though.
    There's plenty of computers with Intel chipsets out there, so I don't know whether the issues are driver related or otherwise but they need to be resolved.

  • RWind

    I concur with these findings, with a slight twist:

    I run Ubuntu 10.04 Netbook edition on my old laptop. I used to run Windows XP PRO on that old laptop before I switched to Ubuntu 10.04 NE. Under XP-PRO I would easily get 3-1/2 hours of battery life on each charge. Under UNE I barely get 2 hours!!! This is ridiculous considering that I am running the old laptop off a brand new battery!

    I am happy with UNE what with all its customization possibilities and its $0 price tag, but, I would REALLY like to squeeze all the juice out of that new battery because I paid almost $150 (shipping included) to get that battery from the original manufacturer (top brand name). And if an old OS like XP-PRO can give 3-1/2 hours of battery life then a modern OS like UNE must give me more! I hope they fix the problem and make a simple “apt-get install” pkg available to fix this problem.

    • toto

      do you realize how old is windows xp??
      or dont you?

  • ubuntufan

    I am ubuntu fan but this time i install ubuntu and win7 64 bit on same laptop and win 7 is definitely better. I do not want to talk how big problem to find drivers for MSI laptop for ubuntu, many problem are very hard to solve on ubuntu. Because of this we need to pay for windows. That is a true.

  • http://www.laptopbatteriesinc.co.uk/compaq-laptop-battery-c-3.html laptop batteries

    Phoronix tested a Lenovo thinkPad T61 15.4 inch laptop with n Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 processor, and found that while Windows 7 still used less power than Ubuntu 10.04,that's a surprise

  • http://www.laptopbatteriesinc.com/ lisa s

    I think we need high quality laptop battery,the safe of the laptop battery is most important.

  • http://www.laptopbatteriesinc.com.au/laptop-battery/acer/acer-aspire-one-battery battery life

    Thus, when reports popped up that Windows 7 was erroneously telling users to replace their batteries on perfectly healthy notebooks, many took note.

  • http://www.fspressonline.org Trinae Ross

    1. I have a little Ubuntu/Linux knowledge…so does the average user
    2. My battery life is about since using Ubuntu has been reduced about 40%
    3. The average user isn't going to know to activate CPU clocking utilities.
    4. BTW, I use Ubunut all the time. Doesn't mean the battery lasts any longer.

  • Chrisjsmithzz

    Acer 3810TZ here. 8h15m average on Win7 Home premium. On Ubuntu 10.04, even with just about every PM hack I can find, 3h15m. It sucks.

  • Daniel C.

    Unfortunately, Linux in general still have a long long way ahead until they can be trusted on notebooks.

    I have applied all powertop suggestions, did many things, removed applications (ubuntuone residents etc.). And still… the fan starts all the time pushing out the heat generated. It kills me.

    And I'm not really a noob when it comes to Linux. No, no. But it sucks on my Thinkpad X201. I deeply regret my decision of taking Win 7 away and installing Ubuntu Lucid.

    • toto

      “And I’m not really a noob when it comes to Linux. No, no ”
      YOU are really a noob , otherwise you wouldnt make such comment, also you wouldnt have a thinkpad crap.
      on my HP laptop i get:
      win 7: 2:45 hours
      ubuntu 10.04 : 3:35 hours

      the problem that your fans start all the time suggest that you have a piece of crap of laptop, no wonder its a thinkpad , LMAO
      Noooooooob

      • jonas

        Oh my… that’s why parents should keep an eye on their kids when using the Net. Let me try to be a good parent.

        First of all, go grow some hair on your balls, kid. Meanwhile, change your attitude. It won’t give you a bright future, nor make your opinion matter.

        That’s why “nobody” uses desktop Linux… as opposed to the Linux server world (where I make most of my 150-200k income ;-) ), it appears to me that the Desktop world has only a bunch of geek teens and hippies who can’t get a clue about the real world, and drive potential new users away.

        But don’t worry, been there, done that. When you grow up maybe you learn the value of perfect (less-than-perfect lately) craftsmanship of business-oriented machines that gives me 7 hours of juice on meetings, where the trainee using his HP can only get 3 and a half. ;-)

        Here speaks a happy owner of another X201 that also tried Ubuntu and noticed that it can’t compare to Win 7 on battery life.

      • matt

        not to stand up for the kid or anything, you more then likely have a 12 cell battery to his 6, as most hp laptops only ever come out of the box for these, i honestly had to buy a 12 recently so i can get more hours while in college cause all the NAC agent(so called illegal activity monitor) doesnt allow dual booting yet, so im stuck with windows until i can switch over to ubuntu again

  • Lgbeast

    The battery life problem may be true, but windows 7 has its own battery life problem: people on many notebooks noticed that their battery dropped much faster with windows 7 than xp even though it wasnt supposed to. it wasnt inefficiency though, it was hardware problems

  • http://twitter.com/albandali al-nashir bandali

    i have a sony vaio and battery life on ubuntu is considerably better

  • Magic-neophyte

    Probably their video settings were incorrect. Unfortunately, the invidious ION platform is too new to be supported by the 10.04 (i.e.'april 2010') release out of the box. But there are several websites out there detailing how things can be made to work.

    Add to that nvidia's irregular support of open source, although it has improved a bit of late…

    Linux is like wine, it gets better with age. I've found most problems are solvable with a little know-how.

  • Daniel C.

    Mike, I'm sorry to inform you that you're wrong. :-)

    As I said above (2nd comment, 06/01/2010 11:38 PM), I tried Ubuntu, tweaked it a lot, but battery life was still worse than the Win 7 Pro OEM image that Lenovo put on my X201.

    So, I later reinstalled Win 7 Pro, from a fresh install DVD.

    I just need to install the drivers… absolutely NO tweaks necessary like I did under Linux, and guess what? It is even better than BOTH Ubuntu and the OEM image preinstalled. I blame the bloatware of the OEM images!

    I could still do insane optimizations under Windows (I know how to), but that wasn't even necessary. It's clear as water that Linux needs to improve battery life and energy consumption.

    Linux is not a “green” system. I wish I could use Linux (I like it more), but I do a lot of “mobile work”, so battery life is crucial to me.

    So there you have: fresh install, or OEM preloaded, Win 7 is always better in that subject.

  • http://twitter.com/explodingwalrus Carl Draper

    +1 Damn right!

  • http://twitter.com/explodingwalrus Carl Draper

    Best way to get Lubuntu: (either from minimal install or on normal install)

    sudo add-apt-repository ppa:lubuntu-desktop/ppa
    sudo apt-get update
    sudo apt-get install –no-install-recommends lubuntu-desktop

    I noticed though that when i did a minimal install i ended up with no wireless because of lack of decent wireless manager on Lubuntu, whilst if i installed it on top of Ubuntu i could use the Gnome network manager

  • http://twitter.com/explodingwalrus Carl Draper

    Once Windows 7 is weighed down with AV / anti malware, and whatever software on top of it, you can kiss goodbye to some of that battery life.

  • http://twitter.com/explodingwalrus Carl Draper

    Well i'm sitting with a Linux (Suse) certified HP nc6120 on my laptop and _everything_ works, suspend, hibernate etc. With Google's Android and ChromeOS (which is basically modified Ubuntu) and other Linux based OSs being released better hardware support is inevitable.

  • MM

    I get >2 hours on Windows and just about 1.5 hours on Ubuntu. But I still use Ubuntu.

  • Ion_ronson

    It is the truth. Win 7 (with avast antivirus running constantly) runs for approximately an hour longer than Ubuntu 10.04 (both in powersaver mode) on my Acer Aspire 5530G with AMD Turion 2GHz and Radeon 3470 videocard (which in Windows runs in crossfire with an onboard 3200 – and despite this, it runs longer).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Assourin-Sitthikone/636061971 Assourin Sitthikone

    lol! hell yeahhhhhhhh!

  • Linuxdan

    On my EEEPC 1005PE I did notice that the battery last a bit less than with windows. I did not time the difference, so I am not sure by how much. Using the EEEPC under ubuntu 10.04 is still completely reasonable… heck I do it everyday. My wife uses Win7 which is shipped with the netbook.

    We have a dual boot set up with Wubi. The Linux filesystem is stored in large files in the Windows partition. Very practical if you don’t want to mess with partitionning the HD.

    Anyways, runs great, and the netbook is much more responsive under ubuntu than under Win7. And uses a lot less ram under ubuntu.
    Bootup with Win7 : 750 MB ram used
    Bootup with Ubuntu10.04 : 180 MB ram used

    So even if battery life is not as long under ubuntu, it is still way long enough for me and performance in general is better. At least for what I do :)

    So I’m sticking with ubuntu on the eeepc

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Prasanna-Rajan/592103506 Prasanna Rajan

    I personally love Ubuntu. I am using it only for past 8 months. When compared to Win 7, my system doesn’t freeze and I have the freedom to choose my applications.

    But this battery issue is true in the case of Ubuntu netbook edition when compared to Win 7 on my Asus 1001p. Since the support for LPIA (Low Power Intel Architecture) is stopped because of the conflict with Nvidia drivers. It is true that low memory is consumed in ubuntu when compared to Win 7. But the fan is always on in ubuntu when compared to win 7. I installed the various eee pc power management tools for ubuntu and checked the core temperature. It was around 55 – 75 degree celsisus. But when measured the core temperature for Win 7 it is around 52 degree celsius.

    I usually use my netbook for basic Internet access and movies. When I watch a movie in win 7 the battery life comes around 5 – 6 hours. But in case of ubuntu hardly 4 hours. Planning to switch to Easypeasy or eeeubuntu which still uses LPIA. But I am not sure whether most of the ubuntu packages will be supported in them.

    So it looks like on a long inter continental flight I have to stick to Win 7 to watch movies. Planning to get a Solid State Drive and I hope that cranks up the battery life of my netbook on Ubuntu…

  • Jake

    This article is consistent with my experience. I have Ubuntu 10.04 installed on my Dell Mini Inspiron 1012, and I get a maximum of 5 hours battery life on Ubuntu, compared to the 8+ I get on Windows 7 Starter. This is pretty unfortunate.

  • Krish

    I just got hp dm1 and it was showing 9.5 hours on windows preloaded.
    10.04 gives only 5.5 hours.
    Trying to improve it by tweaking stuff now.

  • abanglek

    i’m little bit late to make a comment.

    this is my experience with ubuntu, windows xp & 7 on my asus eee 900a (& my desktop).

    i can say battery life not only comparable on all os, but even better on ubuntu, so actually i feel very surprising when everyone say windows 7 is better (in my case 7 is worse, almost 30 mins short, never install vista, i don’t want to mess up my system with this s**t). just maybe, for lower system, ubuntu win this battery life game.

    but the real reason i’m migrating to ubuntu are security. 1st time i’m installing ubuntu, i simply hate because i can’t right click & refreshing desktop. then the office suite. but after years using linux, i’m simply love it. even i’m throwing vista on my office desktop to give way to linux. i’m almost forget that i should aware to virus & all the crap in windows.

    then the performance issue. both my netbook & desktop (intel dual core) have issue with windows. some feel sluggish, some feel heavy, hang, music stopped when other loading etc. performance also degrading over time so i have to spring clean the os.

    other than that, eye-candy. for me this is importance. win xp lose already, win 7 (premium) i say ok, expecially for most people that easy to satisfied. of course all of them lose to broad customization on linux, as simple as compiz.

    then i come back to this topic, battery life. both linux or windows can’t beat to my wife ipad in term of light usage (so maybe other tablet, android & webos, but still can’t beat ipad batt life). ipad can do everything, browsing, light office, gaming (ofcourse), photo/music/video editing etc. & make me think about what actually netbook for. for real computing work, i’m preferring desktop / desktop laptop replacement with as much screen resolution it can be as well as screen size, which is i can truly open few windows on 1 desktop, not hidden on maximizing windows. which is desktop laptop replacement battery life can’t be count, 3-4 hours is so good. in my case, i’m using desktop.

    & come to battery life, i just want to replace my netbook with macbook air 13″, which is security is no 1, then 12 hours real battery life is so tempting. but then maybe i’m a cheapskate, i’m just ordered intel i3 vostro v130 & 3-4 hours is good for me. of-course i will loaded with linux & find out the best setup (even though the laptop come pre-install with win7 home basic -phew $100 waste, dell mandatory in my country, come with windows)

    but then if really win7 give me so much battery life, i still consider to use it (just if)

  • Snackpack

    Obviously this is simply a pissing match.  This little exchange here is proof positive that it comes down to the individual machine’s hardware, and not the os.  Both OS’s have ways to control the power, and depending on the combination of settings, hardware, and age of hardware, each user will get a different experience.  Want a simple way to test if it is worth the switch from Windows to Ubuntu? SIMPLE! Run the live cd, and it will give you a taste of the Ubuntu os, and a (rough) estimate of the power consumption.