2 ms·

It might be a guess, but it's one that we know is almost certainly correct. Windows has an enormous amount of legacy code, and behaviors that were perfectly fin

It might be a guess, but it's one that we know is almost certainly correct. Windows has an enormous amount of legacy code, and behaviors that were perfectly fine even just a few years ago now can devastate battery life. Windows is an eminently pluggable system, fully able to take advantage of low power states in hardware, ACPI, etc. Fundamentally there is no reason for it to be a power pig. But it is, because the choices made in it were made for a different world of computing.

kyberias 13y ago
> "almost certainly correct". Yes, that's why I wrote it's an obvious guess. > Windows has an enormous amount of legacy code, and behaviors that were perfectly fine even just a few years ago now can devastate battery life. Ok, you seem to know this. Can you tell us now EXACTLY what legacy code is there in Windows that causes the "busy-loops" and bad battery performance? > But it is, because the choices made in it were made for a different world of computing. That's a very vague statement. What choices exactly? Come on people, anyone can make these claims! This is almost the same as saying: "There is some software in Windows that is causing the bad battery performance." It's patently tautological! The other guess is "there's some power-hungry components in Windows devices causing it!"
- corresation 13y ago
  You have some unwarranted hostility and defensiveness about this, when everyone has openly stated that this is all guessing. Yet the empirical evidence is that on the same hardware, with the same capacity to preserve battery, and on similar workloads, Windows yields a much worse battery life. Which has to come down to the operating system not sleeping when it should sleep, and doing more when it could do less. Anyone who has ever programmed ever knows that the primary cause of such work is polling.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

kyberias 13y ago

> "almost certainly correct". Yes, that's why I wrote it's an obvious guess. > Windows has an enormous amount of legacy code, and behaviors that were perfectly fine even just a few years ago now can devastate battery life. Ok, you seem to know this. Can you tell us now EXACTLY what legacy code is there in Windows that causes the "busy-loops" and bad battery performance? > But it is, because the choices made in it were made for a different world of computing. That's a very vague statement. What choices exactly? Come on people, anyone can make these claims! This is almost the same as saying: "There is some software in Windows that is causing the bad battery performance." It's patently tautological! The other guess is "there's some power-hungry components in Windows devices causing it!"

corresation 13y ago
You have some unwarranted hostility and defensiveness about this, when everyone has openly stated that this is all guessing. Yet the empirical evidence is that on the same hardware, with the same capacity to preserve battery, and on similar workloads, Windows yields a much worse battery life. Which has to come down to the operating system not sleeping when it should sleep, and doing more when it could do less. Anyone who has ever programmed ever knows that the primary cause of such work is polling.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]