Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Windows 7 to Reduce Energy Consumption

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 29 comments

Windows 7 to be more green.

When we think about reducing power consumption of our systems, it's typically through more efficient hardware. Improvements in manufacturing allowing for die shrinks is a clear way to reduce power consumption, but there's also something that software can do.

Microsoft claims that Windows 7 will be better than Windows XP or Windows Vista in power management.

"With Windows 7 we've gone a lot further, focusing on core innovation to enable energy efficiency, when both in use and in idle mode," said Elliot Katz, Windows Client product manager for Microsoft Canada, in an ITBusiness story. "And not only have we focused on the OS, but we continue to be engaged directly with our hardware and software partners to continue to improve the efficiency. The whole world is looking at being more energy efficient, and with Windows 7, we've taken some strong steps on delivering that from an OS perspective."

Windows 7 now manages hibernation and standby modes more reliably and efficiently, thus now users would likely be more inclined to use those features rather than leaving the computer on all the time. Furthermore, new IT management and troubleshooting tools are built into Windows 7 to help improve power management. These tools will also help diagnose devices and applications that are causing power issues.

The upcoming operating system is also smarter in power management when idle. Katz said that Windows 7 is better able to manage power saving  at times even between keystrokes, which should not only reduce the electricity bill but also stretch laptop battery times.

"PCs are idle for long amounts of time and short amounts of time, and idle efficiency is critical because that's where you gain a lot of power savings," said Katz. "When it's one of those days where you have lots of meetings and you forget to bring your power supply, these kinds of features really help your battery go a lot further."

Discuss
Display all 29 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 11 Hide
    duckmanx88 , July 6, 2009 5:59 PM
    aspireoneloverI'm sorry to say this, but windows 7 certainly didn't reduce my netbook's power consumption, but instead made my battery life shorter. What does this mean? it means it consumes more power.Many sites has done many tests to see if this "claim" was true. And after all, it wasn't true.In order to consume less power, the OS itself will need to use less system resources. That's the keypoint.


    maybe you should read that the win7 rc is by default the ultimate version and not the netbook version. TH just did an article about it last week.
  • 10 Hide
    sdcaliceli , July 6, 2009 5:55 PM
    Quote:
    I'm sorry to say this, but windows 7 certainly didn't reduce my netbook's power consumption, but instead made my battery life shorter. What does this mean? it means it consumes more power.
    Many sites has done many tests to see if this "claim" was true. And after all, it wasn't true.
    In order to consume less power, the OS itself will need to use less system resources. That's the keypoint.


    Considering that Win7 isn't finalized, nor are you using the recommended Win7 version on your netbook (i.e. Starter Edition)...
Other Comments
  • -3 Hide
    jhansonxi , July 6, 2009 5:51 PM
    Considering all the hype and hot air it probably has greatly contributed to global warming.
  • 9 Hide
    krazynutz , July 6, 2009 5:53 PM
    Perhaps this what's being fixed for the RTM version. Remember, what we're using is still beta.
  • 10 Hide
    sdcaliceli , July 6, 2009 5:55 PM
    Quote:
    I'm sorry to say this, but windows 7 certainly didn't reduce my netbook's power consumption, but instead made my battery life shorter. What does this mean? it means it consumes more power.
    Many sites has done many tests to see if this "claim" was true. And after all, it wasn't true.
    In order to consume less power, the OS itself will need to use less system resources. That's the keypoint.


    Considering that Win7 isn't finalized, nor are you using the recommended Win7 version on your netbook (i.e. Starter Edition)...
  • 11 Hide
    duckmanx88 , July 6, 2009 5:59 PM
    aspireoneloverI'm sorry to say this, but windows 7 certainly didn't reduce my netbook's power consumption, but instead made my battery life shorter. What does this mean? it means it consumes more power.Many sites has done many tests to see if this "claim" was true. And after all, it wasn't true.In order to consume less power, the OS itself will need to use less system resources. That's the keypoint.


    maybe you should read that the win7 rc is by default the ultimate version and not the netbook version. TH just did an article about it last week.
  • 4 Hide
    aspireonelover , July 6, 2009 6:07 PM
    duckmanx88maybe you should read that the win7 rc is by default the ultimate version and not the netbook version. TH just did an article about it last week.

    Yeah, but this article "didn't" specify which version. It simply said Windows 7.
    sdcaliceliConsidering that Win7 isn't finalized, nor are you using the recommended Win7 version on your netbook (i.e. Starter Edition)...

    Starter Edition is the "included" OS in order to keep costs down. Not necessarily for netbooks. (If I read some articles right :p )
    Didn't expect to have thumbs down, cause it was my point of view.
  • 1 Hide
    zodiacfml , July 6, 2009 6:23 PM
    yes, if win7 power management had the sophistication of RM cpu clock utility.
  • 1 Hide
    tipoo , July 6, 2009 6:32 PM
    Good thing. Did anyone else see the battery life vs watt hours for laptops on Anandtech? Macs had double the ammount as Windows Laptops.
  • 3 Hide
    WheelsOfConfusion , July 6, 2009 6:33 PM
    Does this mean the Windows 7 scheduler will work properly with AMD's Phenom I chips with Cool 'n Quiet enabled, the way Vista didn't?
  • 1 Hide
    TheZander , July 6, 2009 6:40 PM
    I saw worse battery performance than Vista, XP, Linux and OSX with both the Beta and the RC (using a MBP) but I'm currently testing the RTM. We'll have to see how it does. So far, it doesn't seem too bad, but I need to do some more timed runs.
  • 0 Hide
    gorehound , July 6, 2009 6:48 PM
    Windows 7 will reduce power consumption by automatically turning off your computer for 30 minute intervals every 60 minutes it is turned on...
  • 2 Hide
    theuerkorn , July 6, 2009 6:48 PM
    Quote:
    Windows 7 now manages hibernation and standby modes more reliably and efficiently, thus now users would likely be more inclined to use those features rather than leaving the computer on all the time.

    I would agree that this could help reducing energy consumption, though many (business) users are probably turning it off anyway since they don't want the screen to go dark (i.e. during presentations) and are not concerned about running the computer idle.
    I think the biggest savings still would come from hardware changes, but how the OS manages each component (when not in use) certainly leaves enough room for improvement which I am excited about. (I.e. shut down the PhysX card since it's really not used most of the time)
  • 0 Hide
    fulle , July 6, 2009 7:22 PM
    People are rating down Aspire for not buying into improved safemode/hibernation as a way to justify saying Windows 7 is more power efficient?

    Freaking fanboys. From what I've seen in Windows 7 RC, it has a lower memory footprint, runs stable, has minimal driver issues, a slightly improved GUI, good performance (I've seen gains in FPS even when compared to Windows XP), and overall is a nice improvement over Vista. That said, Microsoft has done very little to prove any of their claims that 7's more power efficient and all early indications show that it, as Aspire has pointed out, actually uses MORE power.

    And using the "its not the starter addition" as the excuse is a joke. Who's going to be using the crappy starter edition anyway? I'm not. If you people aren't just enthusiasts, and actual professionals, maybe you should start looking at an OS as an OS, and take both the benefits and limitations in consideration, rather than dancing around with huge smiles on your faces worshiping Bill Gates.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , July 6, 2009 7:27 PM
    I’d love to believe this but the only things that have been reduced with each Windows iteration is the amount of hard disk space and memory available on my pc
  • 0 Hide
    Blessedman , July 6, 2009 7:45 PM
    I just can't believe they are sticking with the name Windows 7...
  • 5 Hide
    Regulas , July 6, 2009 8:00 PM
    It doesn't take much to outdo Millennium II, aka Vista with it's never ending hard drive access for no apparent reason.
  • 0 Hide
    jacobdrj , July 6, 2009 8:01 PM
    I'll believe it when I see it. My tablet has been running hotter since installing 7RC than it ever did on Vista...
  • 0 Hide
    jarnail24 , July 6, 2009 8:01 PM
    I don't see much of a difference on my notebook.
  • 0 Hide
    tipmen , July 6, 2009 8:17 PM
    aspireoneloverI'm sorry to say this, but windows 7 certainly didn't reduce my netbook's power consumption, but instead made my battery life shorter. What does this mean? it means it consumes more power.Many sites has done many tests to see if this "claim" was true. And after all, it wasn't true.In order to consume less power, the OS itself will need to use less system resources. That's the keypoint.


    Be happy that you can run it on that netbook most likely atom with 1gb memory.The bottom line is that Microsoft is releasing a better product this time and this time we will hopefully see less system resources being used then XP or Vista.
  • -1 Hide
    hemelskonijn , July 6, 2009 8:53 PM
    fulle:

    I rated him down like i guess many others because he simply stated it did use more power.
    This is his conclusion after running on one netbook and most likely running the RC.
    Also he did not state what options he used or tried to use to conserve power or what version of the OS he tested against what version of which other OS.
    His post has a very high i was first so i will spew some random shit out rating even though this doesnt have to be the case.

    You might have read some of my other posts and know i am by far a fanboy for any type of OS or hardware (maybe a bit pegasos fan though).
    That being said i have to say i came to the conclusion a long time ago that windows vista uses way more power on both my desktops as on my laptop then XP and linux less then XP this however depends on your settings and if you just "ok/next" the installation there is not much difference between any of them.
    However windows 7 now comes close to linux while i have less work to get the power saving features to work.
    If they tweak it some more it might even get better over time and beat linux from its pedestal.

    Keep in mind that linux is way more tweakable then windows and this might be the reason why i get better results though its still cool to see that windows 7 can be more energy efficient then XP while using more resources.
Display more comments