I wonder if the only system to suffer that bug is the T61, which clearly does experience a difference in usage.
So the conclusion could be that Windows and Linux are both affected by the BIOS bug.
Or, it could be that none of the systems have a buggy BIOS.
TFA misses the most interesting point.
I wonder if the only system to suffer that bug is the T61, which clearly does experience a difference in usage.
Eerrrr... Michael... Why is the pro version of Windows 7 on powersave? I demand you press and hold [Windows]+[x] and see the battery getting sucked dry in 3 seconds. I can tell by the compoziting being turned off. Even if not; Windows 7 Pro doesn't have it disabled by default. No people; we can conclude that Linux without powersave and with the BIOS bug, is even more power efficient than Windows without the bug on power-save. ROFL.
What i'd like to see is a non-Ubuntu comparison. See the power consumption of Arch or Gentoo
Because of this Tom's Hardware article where Ubuntu 11.04 has 40% less battery life than 11.10 (and windows too).
Tom's hardware should write some clarification about Ubuntu's power usage now.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/0...nd-Performance
Yes, it would certainly be interesting to see the results using the workaround as well as with an older Ubuntu release. But yes, it is rather surprising that they are so close in terms of power consumption. Also interesting that Catalyst performed nearly the same or better on Linux here, although this is a single case. Having a very similar system to the last one (Phenom II), it's rather relevant to me.
Would be interesting to see this comparison for an Atom. My very unprofessional personal experience with an Inspiron 1018 (Atom N455) is:
Ubuntu 11.04: 8.5 W idling
Windows 7 home premium: 5.5 W idling
So in my case it seems as if Windows is a lot more power efficient. And I run Ubuntu already with the "pcie_aspm=force" kernel option.