Comments on: Windows 7 to Extend Laptop Battery Life by Minimum of 11% http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/windows_7_to_extend_laptop_battery_life_by_minimum_of_11-2/ the Gadget Guide | Technology and consumer electronics news and reviews Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:13:33 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Randy Robertson http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/windows_7_to_extend_laptop_battery_life_by_minimum_of_11-2/comment-page-1/#comment-12899 Randy Robertson Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:21:17 +0000 http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/windows_7_to_extend_laptop_battery_life_by_minimum_of_11-2.html#comment-12899 <p>This post is most likely misleading. I bet they were just doing something stupid in the first place- such as spinning up the DVD drive most of the time or too often. Probably any decent DVD playing software would aggressively pre-read the DVD and buffer the contents in memory.</p> <p>That Windows Media Player (I'm assuming that's what they used) didn't do this in the first place is not something Microsoft should get credit for. I'm sure most/all decent third party DVD playing software already did this trivial optimization.</p> <p>This is typical Microsoft propaganda. Pick something which they fucked up the first time, fix and then quantify the performance as though it was across the board, when it most likely is not. I'll give you another example: when Vista shipped (and for some time thereafter) the built in unzipper was ridiculously slow- like more than 5 times slower than Winzip or any other unzipping software. I'm sure they addressed this eventually, but they shouldn't be getting credit for fixing shit that shouldn't be broken in the first place!</p> This post is most likely misleading. I bet they were just doing something stupid in the first place- such as spinning up the DVD drive most of the time or too often. Probably any decent DVD playing software would aggressively pre-read the DVD and buffer the contents in memory.

That Windows Media Player (I’m assuming that’s what they used) didn’t do this in the first place is not something Microsoft should get credit for. I’m sure most/all decent third party DVD playing software already did this trivial optimization.

This is typical Microsoft propaganda. Pick something which they fucked up the first time, fix and then quantify the performance as though it was across the board, when it most likely is not. I’ll give you another example: when Vista shipped (and for some time thereafter) the built in unzipper was ridiculously slow- like more than 5 times slower than Winzip or any other unzipping software. I’m sure they addressed this eventually, but they shouldn’t be getting credit for fixing shit that shouldn’t be broken in the first place!

]]>