6 ms·

It is not really surprising. All the window composition with frame-buffer effects (such as multiple layers of blur) takes a toll. Enabling “Reduce transparency

It is not really surprising. All the window composition with frame-buffer effects (such as multiple layers of blur) takes a toll. Enabling “Reduce transparency” and “Reduce motion” in accessibility preferences also causes a considerable battery gain on Macs.

malchow 9y ago
So is there a guide to battery-optimal MacOS settings? That would be useful.
- CharlesW 9y ago
  These might be useful for you: https://www.apple.com/batteries/maximizing-performance/ https://www.apple.com/batteries/maximizing-performance/ http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac/17-tips-increase-mac-battery-life-macbook-3634090/ http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac/17-tips-increase-mac-b...
  - ameesdotme 9y ago
    > Use Invert Colours to save battery life. It takes less battery to display black pixels than white ones. There's a lot of junk and mostly obvious stuff in the second article.
- LeoNatan25 9y ago
  The tips above (reduce motion and transparency) also work great on iOS devices. Disabling AppNap is also important on battery. On iOS, the system does a lot when entering battery saving mode.
joelrunyon 9y ago
I think the snark is unnecessary. This is surprising because 1) The time - it's a full 2 hours and change - is not nothing. 2) It's not immediately obvious to many active computer users. I know it's cool to pretend like nothing is surprising these days, but this is something that's legitimately surprising to many people.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
artursapek 9y ago
Exactly. I would be disappointed if this wasn't the result.
exhilaration 9y ago
Well, yes, it is really is surprising that you can go from 8.5 hours of battery life to almost 11.5 hours just by going from a windowed video to full screen. Apparently only you and Apple know the secret to this because similar battery improvements weren't seen when trying this trick in Windows on the same machine. Microsoft should hire you.
- LeoNatan25 9y ago
  Microsoft crippled their DWM and cut out (as in, remove the code) all the Aero effects (blur). Compare how Windows 7 looks and how Windows 8 and 10 look, and you will see. It was done, partly, for batter life reasons. So… it seems, in addition to Apple and me, Microsoft has also figured out the secret to having a battery life–conscious window manager.
  - jagger27 9y ago
    Not only that, but one that can handle HiDPI scaling in a way that doesn't make you want to rip your hair out.
    - LeoNatan25 9y ago
      Actually, on a technical level, on anything but the native scale (in display settings), Apple’s approach is more computationally heavy, as they render a larger texture and then rescale it to the native pixel size. On Windows, in a perfect world, a non–multiple scale should render still at native resolution.
      - jagger27 9y ago
        It's worth the trade off.
  - 0xffff2 9y ago
    "Crippled" is a weird word to choose here. They made a design decision to prioritize battery life over fancy graphics. I don't particularly care about the fancy graphics, so that's a clear win for me. Is there something more I'm missing to justify the claim of "crippled" software?
ygra 9y ago
As they note at the end, this only applies to OS X with QuickTime, but not to Windows 10 on the same hardware. So while it may be an obvious optimization to some people it doesn't seem to be implemented everywhere it could be. Or the DWM is more efficient than OS X's window composition stuff and there's no difference between windowed and fullscreen modes. Either option probably will annoy some fanboys one way or the other. One thing that they may have done is to simply change the refresh rate of the display to match the played video's (akin to GSync/Freesync) in fullscreen mode. You can't do so in windowed mode since it will affect other applications, but when a fullscreen video is shown you can safely do so and it may save a bit of power.
- mikewhy 9y ago
  > As they note at the end, this only applies to OS X with QuickTime, but not to Windows 10 on the same hardware. > > Using the Windows Media Player in Bootcamp, power consumption was at a much higher 28.2 W, and we found absolutely no difference between regular and full screen playback. Windows was less efficient overall, just with no difference in full-screen.
  - bwat49 9y ago
    They should have tested with the 'movies and tv' app that is now the default video player in windows 10. From benchmarks I recall seeing, it's by far the most battery efficient video player on the windows platform. edit: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3023430/hardware/tested-vlc-vs-windows-10-video-player-the-winner-may-surprise-you.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/3023430/hardware/tested-vlc-v...
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      Interesting, and I'm curious why its like that. The only thing being tested is 4k video though. More tests are needed beyond 4k. Case in point: I don't own a mobile Windows device so it doesn't matter to me. On my MBP (2880 x 1800) 4k wouldn't apply either. I'd run either XviD or DVD.
    - dagaci 9y ago
jclardy 9y ago
It takes a toll, but not a 2 hour difference kind of toll. The OS has to be equipped to take advantage of the state for it to be that effective. Does the same test run on W10 or any linux distro do the same? I highly doubt it.
- LeoNatan25 9y ago
  On Linux, if you use a desktop environment that has many GPU-heavy effects, you will see a worse drop off. On Windows 10, it doesn’t compare, as the most heavy effect DWM has to deal with is alpha blending (status bar transparency). Microsoft dropped all of Aero to save battery life. We’ll see how it fares once the new design elements (with blurred backgrounds) start appearing in future betas.
coldtea 9y ago
>Is it really that surprising? Yes. >All the window composition with frame-buffer effects takes a toll. Which would be relevant if they were moving windows around, instead of just watching a movie in full screen mode vs typical window mode. So not much (if any) composition and no frame-buffer effects in place. At worst, the tiny rect with the clock on the menubar was changing.
undersuit 9y ago
Ancient Unix Secret[1]. Maybe it is related to "unredirect fullscreen" optimizations many Linux desktops employ. The people saying they don't get similar improvements in Windows by going fullscreen on the same hardware should run the test again with all the Windows 10 graphical improvements disabled. [1]http://losca.blogspot.com/2012/11/game-performance-improvement-for-ubuntu.html http://losca.blogspot.com/2012/11/game-performance-improveme...

malchow 9y ago

So is there a guide to battery-optimal MacOS settings? That would be useful.

CharlesW 9y ago
These might be useful for you: https://www.apple.com/batteries/maximizing-performance/ https://www.apple.com/batteries/maximizing-performance/ http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac/17-tips-increase-mac-battery-life-macbook-3634090/ http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac/17-tips-increase-mac-b...
- ameesdotme 9y ago
  > Use Invert Colours to save battery life. It takes less battery to display black pixels than white ones. There's a lot of junk and mostly obvious stuff in the second article.
LeoNatan25 9y ago
The tips above (reduce motion and transparency) also work great on iOS devices. Disabling AppNap is also important on battery. On iOS, the system does a lot when entering battery saving mode.

joelrunyon 9y ago

I think the snark is unnecessary. This is surprising because 1) The time - it's a full 2 hours and change - is not nothing. 2) It's not immediately obvious to many active computer users. I know it's cool to pretend like nothing is surprising these days, but this is something that's legitimately surprising to many people.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

artursapek 9y ago

Exactly. I would be disappointed if this wasn't the result.

exhilaration 9y ago

Well, yes, it is really is surprising that you can go from 8.5 hours of battery life to almost 11.5 hours just by going from a windowed video to full screen. Apparently only you and Apple know the secret to this because similar battery improvements weren't seen when trying this trick in Windows on the same machine. Microsoft should hire you.

LeoNatan25 9y ago
Microsoft crippled their DWM and cut out (as in, remove the code) all the Aero effects (blur). Compare how Windows 7 looks and how Windows 8 and 10 look, and you will see. It was done, partly, for batter life reasons. So… it seems, in addition to Apple and me, Microsoft has also figured out the secret to having a battery life–conscious window manager.
- jagger27 9y ago
  Not only that, but one that can handle HiDPI scaling in a way that doesn't make you want to rip your hair out.
  - LeoNatan25 9y ago
    Actually, on a technical level, on anything but the native scale (in display settings), Apple’s approach is more computationally heavy, as they render a larger texture and then rescale it to the native pixel size. On Windows, in a perfect world, a non–multiple scale should render still at native resolution.
    - jagger27 9y ago
      It's worth the trade off.
- 0xffff2 9y ago
  "Crippled" is a weird word to choose here. They made a design decision to prioritize battery life over fancy graphics. I don't particularly care about the fancy graphics, so that's a clear win for me. Is there something more I'm missing to justify the claim of "crippled" software?

ygra 9y ago

As they note at the end, this only applies to OS X with QuickTime, but not to Windows 10 on the same hardware. So while it may be an obvious optimization to some people it doesn't seem to be implemented everywhere it could be. Or the DWM is more efficient than OS X's window composition stuff and there's no difference between windowed and fullscreen modes. Either option probably will annoy some fanboys one way or the other. One thing that they may have done is to simply change the refresh rate of the display to match the played video's (akin to GSync/Freesync) in fullscreen mode. You can't do so in windowed mode since it will affect other applications, but when a fullscreen video is shown you can safely do so and it may save a bit of power.

mikewhy 9y ago
> As they note at the end, this only applies to OS X with QuickTime, but not to Windows 10 on the same hardware. > > Using the Windows Media Player in Bootcamp, power consumption was at a much higher 28.2 W, and we found absolutely no difference between regular and full screen playback. Windows was less efficient overall, just with no difference in full-screen.
- bwat49 9y ago
  They should have tested with the 'movies and tv' app that is now the default video player in windows 10. From benchmarks I recall seeing, it's by far the most battery efficient video player on the windows platform. edit: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3023430/hardware/tested-vlc-vs-windows-10-video-player-the-winner-may-surprise-you.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/3023430/hardware/tested-vlc-v...
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    Interesting, and I'm curious why its like that. The only thing being tested is 4k video though. More tests are needed beyond 4k. Case in point: I don't own a mobile Windows device so it doesn't matter to me. On my MBP (2880 x 1800) 4k wouldn't apply either. I'd run either XviD or DVD.
  - dagaci 9y ago

jclardy 9y ago

It takes a toll, but not a 2 hour difference kind of toll. The OS has to be equipped to take advantage of the state for it to be that effective. Does the same test run on W10 or any linux distro do the same? I highly doubt it.

LeoNatan25 9y ago
On Linux, if you use a desktop environment that has many GPU-heavy effects, you will see a worse drop off. On Windows 10, it doesn’t compare, as the most heavy effect DWM has to deal with is alpha blending (status bar transparency). Microsoft dropped all of Aero to save battery life. We’ll see how it fares once the new design elements (with blurred backgrounds) start appearing in future betas.

coldtea 9y ago

>Is it really that surprising? Yes. >All the window composition with frame-buffer effects takes a toll. Which would be relevant if they were moving windows around, instead of just watching a movie in full screen mode vs typical window mode. So not much (if any) composition and no frame-buffer effects in place. At worst, the tiny rect with the clock on the menubar was changing.

undersuit 9y ago

Ancient Unix Secret[1]. Maybe it is related to "unredirect fullscreen" optimizations many Linux desktops employ. The people saying they don't get similar improvements in Windows by going fullscreen on the same hardware should run the test again with all the Windows 10 graphical improvements disabled. [1]http://losca.blogspot.com/2012/11/game-performance-improvement-for-ubuntu.html http://losca.blogspot.com/2012/11/game-performance-improveme...