Vista Runs Hot on Macbook Pro

PetManimal writes "Ken Mingis, Computerworld's Mac editor, has given Vista a spin on his Macbook Pro in order to review and compare hardware performance with OS X. It's not a rigorous benchmarking, but he does notice a few issues relating to power consumption: 'Since installing Vista, I have found that my MacBook Pro runs hot. No doubt Microsoft hasn't worked on power management issues that might affect Apple hardware, which leaves me to wonder whether I'm slowly cooking the motherboard of my laptop. It's not hot enough to fry an egg on the aluminum case, but my laptop is noticeably warmer than when I use Mac OS X. I've also noticed that battery life is substantially reduced. Once again, energy management for Apple hardware is not likely at the top of Microsoft's list. Once Apple writes updated drivers to work with Vista, I'd expect these issues to be addressed.'"

Comments

this isn't exactly new

[thegoogler]

windows 2000 even always ran hotter than any other OS on my laptops, i remember hearing an explanation a long time ago that they ignore the "wait" cycles or somesuch running the cpu harder than intended.

I concur

[rajafarian]

Windows.* runs hot

Windows runs one or two degrees Celsius hotter on my workstation, (AMD XP-M @ 2.3 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 6600GT) than Linux. {Temperature read off GKrellm in Linux vs nVidia system monitor in Windows.}

My guess was that Windows' System Idle Process was using CPU cycles even when nothing else was but I stopped caring since I spend so little time in Windows anyway.

Windows Drains Battery?

[aitikin]

Everyone I know who has a windows laptop of any form has always found that the battery drains quickly. Granted I don't know too many people who condition their batteries properly or anything of the sort, but it kind of leads me to believe that Windows doesn't do a whole lot with power management over all.

Re:Better than an almost year old Sony

[Sillygates]

This guy compared a dual core apple to a single core vaio. Thats hardly a fair representation of a high end PC vs apple benchmark.

Also, acording to a few reports, the MacBook has an underclocked gpu (possibly to reduce heat), so it may not be able to even match a similarly loaded machine, at least when it comes to directX/OpenGL, Vista's territory.

Re:Better than an almost year old Sony

[feanor512]

I can confirm that. The X1600 Pro in the MBP 15" in Windows XP runs at 310/290 instead of the ATI default 475/475. I have no way of testing it in OS X though. It is unstable at 475/475 which leads me to believe that Apple has undervolted it. Also, it runs at about 400/400 in the 20" iMac.

Re:Wow

[SillyNickName4me]

Are you fucking retarded? Seriously.

Are you fucking uncapable of making a normal argument?

Microsoft fucking with OS/2's "run Windows apps without buying Windows" and Microsoft fucking with "buy a copy of Windows to run on your Mac" are two completely different things.

And the issue here is that you are lacking some rather important knowledge.

1. Microsoft did get payed for a Winows license for every copy of OS/2 that included this support out of the box

2. There existed a cheaper OS/2 for Windows version which required a Microsoft Windows 3.1 version from Microsoft.

2. is completely comparable to the situation we are talking about, and in case of 1. they were being compensated for the OS and could sell their applications.

So lets see, I wont call you retarded, ignorant hits it better.