One of the really nice things that Microsoft added to Vista was three different power plans, and also provided the ability to create your own if you so desire. By default the operating system ships with a power saver, balanced, and high performance plan. I can really attest to the power saver plan squeezing every bit of juice out of your battery, but most people will likely never switch out of the “balanced” plan that Microsoft has set as the default.
Naturally you would expect performance to suffer when using the balanced plan when compared to the high performance plan. After all, the balanced plan is more friendly on your pocketbook and the environment. Interestingly enough that’s not turning out to be the case according to some recent CrystalMark benchmarks by PocketTables (here and here).
What they found was that Vista’s balanced power plan beat out high performance on two different machines that they tested. You would expect it to be pretty darn close since the balanced plan is supposed to kick up performance when it’s needed, but to flat-out beat the high performance plan in nearly every test is just crazy.
If you’ve been using the high performance power plan maybe it’s time you kick it “down” to the balanced option. 
[via jkOnTheRun]
Enjoyed the post? Subscribe to our feed to get a daily dose of CyberNet!
Tags: Software, Windows, Performance, Windows Vista
Related Posts:
- How To Modify The Boot Manager In Windows Vista
- Improve Vista’s Battery Life By Disabling Aero?
- Vista Computers Save about $75 per Year in Energy
- Microsoft Announces They Have No Plans for Major Vista Service Pack
- Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 Performance Tests
I was having horrible battery life, even on power saver, on my XPS1330. I knew it wasn’t Vista as I had ran Vista with great battery life on an older Dell laptop.
After a couple months of just figuring my new notebook was a power hog, I did some testing and found out it was because I was using 802.11n.
When I switched to 802.11g or 802.11b, my battery life was great, even under balanced.
I guess Intel’s first ABGN chip isnt very well optimized for 802.11n yet.
That’s really interesting… I would have never guessed that 802.11n would take up so much extra power.