Linux Vs Windows on power consumption?

[Nao57]

So... I was very curious to ask if Linux uses very much less power than Windows?

I've been plugging my laptop into a solar system during certain hours of the day. I don't have to do that, and do have normal electricity. But doing so got me very curious about this.

With Windows, its biggest flaw is that it gets jammed up trying to run everything it possibly can all the time, as much as it can, to the point of not being able to really even use the computer anymore. This being said, it would seem that Windows should use much more power than Linux(?) But I'm curious to confirm it.

It should be slightly different for gamers as more graphics eat stuff up. But it still should be less.

What do you think on this?

 

[Terminal Velocity]

I know that the batteries of the laptops running Linux last less than they last with Windows, so it is more likely Linux to be more energy intensive

 

[pamojja]

What do you think on this?

Newbee to Linux. After 3 years on an Android tablet which runs on rediculous low 3 Watt total, I wanted to buy a Shiftbook bundle, which is designed to run Windows10 or Ubundu, with the special feature of everything repairable or replaceable (ie. battery). Its quite expensive. Therefore asked support for battery run-time. With Windows10 the 50Wh battery lasts 5 hours, alledgedly due to better power saving options, while Ubuntu for 4 hours only. On such easy things like browsing, office or videos.

 

[The Duck]

Get one of these and you will have real world answers.

Amazon.com : watt-hour meter

 

[Deleted member 147986]

That. Get measurements, not manufacturer claims.

Unless you verify the truth for yourself you'll have no clue what is happening.

 

[KGIII]

I'd EXPECT to find similar levels of power consumption, that is reasonably close to each other, in the real world and like-for-like comparisons. So, a full blown desktop browsing the 'net and streaming videos on both OSes would likely be similar. (It's the same hardware, after all.)

But, it'd be easier (again, I would EXPECT) to make Linux more energy efficient than it would be to make Windows more energy efficient.

Note the capitalized word. I have done absolutely no testing and the only way to find out would be to measure over a long period and then average it out. Without any data, it's just speculation.

An above post mentioned that batteries last longer with Windows. I don't know if that's due to any actual efficiency so much as it's down to software that manages batteries better and battery OEMs interacting with Windows better. In other words, if Linux had the same access and control over the market, Linux might have similar results with battery efficiency (if that makes sense). Battery firmware is likely written with Windows in mind and optimized for use with Windows battery management software.

All of this is pure speculation.

 

[The Duck]

An above post mentioned that batteries last longer with Windows. I don't know if that's due to any actual efficiency so much as it's down to software that manages batteries better and battery OEMs interacting with Windows better.

Windows has the driver support from the manufacturers and Linux doesn't.
There's more money made from Windows OSs always has been and always will be because most people want Windows not Linux.

In other words, if Linux had the same access and control over the market, Linux might have similar results with battery efficiency (if that makes sense). Battery firmware is likely written with Windows in mind and optimized for use with Windows battery management software.

All of this is pure speculation.

It's not speculation it's true manufactures cater to Windows and not Linux it's all about the money.
Companies go into business to make money not be good Samaritans.

 

[dos2unix]

Windows has the driver support from the manufacturers and Linux doesn't.

Mostly true, but it does occasionally happen that Linux gets the drivers first.

 

[KGIII]

It's not speculation it's true manufactures cater to Windows and not Linux it's all about the money.

It's still speculation on my part. I do not know for a fact that this makes a difference with battery technology and if the firmware is indeed optimized for Windows.

It's not speculation to say that hardware companies optimize for Windows, but I'd be speculating with the specific claims I made. I strongly suspect it matters, but don't really have any confirmation of this - with regards to batteries and overall efficiency.

 

[The Duck]

I know a few Linux users that have laptops.
Their biggest complaint is the amount of run time on battery.
They all say it's half of what it was when using Windows OS.
That's all I have to go by because I don't own any laptops.
They can't all be wrong.

 

[KGIII]

They all say it's half of what it was when using Windows OS.

That doesn't seem right.

To give one example that I've tested, I have a modern MSI laptop that is tiny but gives me about 9 hours of active use. Meaning, I can stream video (specifically YouTube) for 9 hours before it runs out of juice. It's not even an expensive laptop. It's just an MSI Modern 15.

So, there's likely a difference, but a 50% difference doesn't seem realistic in my experience.

I have other mobile devices with fairly similar results. Perhaps they're using old batteries and comparing it with the published figures when the device was new? (I believe I commented about this when I got the laptop. I think I was expecting maybe 8 hours of use, but got another hour. It's a great device, by the way.)

 

[The Duck]

How old is your laptop.
I'll guarantee people I know they're using 5 year old to 10 year old laptops.
People I know are old skinflints like myself we can afford new but don't want to spend the cash.
The reason I don't is new electronics from my experience just don't last.
I bought a $100.00 TV lasted 1 year that sucks imo it should have lasted at least 3 years.
I bought a new 22 inch or 24 inch computer monitor didn't last 90 days.
Went back to using the 10 year old HP 19 inch monitor.
All of our newer desktops computers have all failed.
What are we using the old Windows XP desktop computer and the old Windows Vista desktop computer.
New electronics is crap imo.

 

[MikeWalsh]

@The Duck :-

New electronics is crap imo.

Oh, yah. Couldn't agree more. Planned obsolescence has a lot to answer for.....but unfortunately, is factored into most manufacturing companies future growth/expansion plans as standard now.

What happened to taking pride in building something to stand the test of time, hmm?

No, these days it's all about constant, continuous expansion/growth. As though any halfway decent manufacturer couldn't survive without this vile practice.....

And reporting ever-expanding quarterly profit figures, of course!

The consumer, despite always being right, and being the raison d'être at the end of the day, is frequently the very last thing to be figured into the equation.....especially when new products are being "blue-skied".

Small wonder many are skeptical of the constant upgrade path encouraged by most manufacturers....


Mike.

 

[PuppyHome]

The consumer, despite always being right, and being the raison d'être at the end of the day, is frequently the very last thing to be figured into the equation.....especially when new products are being "blue-skied".

That being said the consumers of today EXPECT updates, renewals and what have you because "everyone" is saying they should otherwise "things will get unreliable" and out of date and (the magic word) unsafe...........I agree with your post entirely.

See that is exactly why I like Puppy so much because in a huge way it did (and DOES) stand the test of time as one could use an "old" version right now AND tomorrow without loosing usability and security and have an up to date portable web browser just to be sure combined with an "old(school) piece of hardware.

I'm not saying:"Older is better." But I will say that: "New(er) isn't necessary."

 

[The Duck]

Man both of you are right inside of my head reading my thought exactly it's good to know I'm not alone.
As for newest and latest I don't need them give me tried and proven over newest and latest.

 

[The Duck]

See that is exactly why I like Puppy so much because in a huge way it did (and DOES) stand the test of time as one could use an "old" version right now AND tomorrow without loosing usability and security and have an up to date portable web browser just to be sure combined with an "old(school) piece of hardware.

I've used Puppy Linux off and on because it took me awhile to figure things out.
I'm not sure I have figured Puppy Linux out.
I do a frugal install to a usb flash drive and run it on my 13 year old Dell desktop.
I also use Easy OS installed as a frugal install on a usb flash drive on the same Dell desktop.
The old desktop doesn't even have a hard drive installed don't need one.
I never realized I already owned SSDs I just never looked at a flash drive being a solid state drive,
I feel stupid.

I'm not saying:"Older is better." But I will say that: "New(er) isn't necessary."

I agree with that 100%.

 

[KGIII]

How old is your laptop.

That one's pretty new.

An old laptop isn't going to get anywhere near the claimed length unless they buy a new battery. It's just the nature of batteries.

 

[dos2unix]

I know a few Linux users that have laptops.
Their biggest complaint is the amount of run time on battery.
They all say it's half of what it was when using Windows OS.

It's usually an apples an oranges comparison. I do have some distro's that are pretty close to windows battery life.

... however... (there's always a but somewhere ) Most do not. ... why?

Because I tend to load those suckers up, I run multiple VMs and LAPP stacks, and compile code,
and run multiples databases. So yeah, they don't get the battery life some of the others do.

For some reason my 6.4 liter V8 doesn't get the same gas mileage as 2.4 liter 4cylinder.
But one scoots down the road a little better and will tow a battleship.

I have some atom and i3 laptops with 4GB or RAM, for some reason they don't last as
long as my Threadripper and i7 laptops with 32GB of RAM.

But I do have a dual boot laptop, pretty much all I use it for is Web Browsing, ( or office apps in a browser )
If it isn't plugged in, while in Linux mode it usually dies after 6 hours or so. Under the same circumstances,
in Windows mode, it usually dies after 6 hours and 10 mins. So yeah Windows usually wins by 10 or 15 mins.
But it isn't enough for me to lose sleep over.

I do have a laptop that I run Win2012 server on. With MSSQL and IIS running most of the time.
I have to leave it plugged into AC almost the time. I'm lucky if I get 2-1/2 hours out of it.

I think what you're doing with it has more to do with it than anything. Linux tends to run more stuff
in the background, for example Windows doesn't usually run a ssh server in the background by default.
However using RDC to connect to the windows laptop uses a lot more resources than SSH.