320LX vs. 360LX battery life

For some reason--less RAM, slower CPU, inferior screen-- my 320LX has much better battery life than the 360LX. If I forget about the 320 for a few days, it still has plenty of power left when I turn it on. But the 360 has drained its batteries to where the low power warning screen comes up saying the backlight is disabled.

I attempted to run powertime (tried both versions 1 and 2) on both systems to compare quantitatively the batteries discharge over time, but powertime got confused on the 360. It said 100 percent even when the Power control panel said less than 33 percent. Powertime works ok on the 320, in agreement with the Power control panel.

Both devices have Win CE 2.0 ROM cards, 32MB Sandisk in the CF slot, and are running on "Amazon Basics 2000mah" batteries. I tried swapping the batteries between them but it didn't make any difference.

Is there something that makes the 360 a power pig compared to 320? The few 300-series reviews I can still find are mostly lamenting the Win CE bloat-up and poor efficiency compared to the DOS palmtops.

The white backlight uses more power than the 320's green backlight does. The CPU is 16Mhz faster and it has to charge double the RAM and double the ROM. Why the app wouldn't work on the 360 though... that one is odd! Try a hard reset?

Sorry, I didn't make clear that I use the backlight almost never on both devices. Mostly they're used for outdoor reading so its not much help. Can this massive difference in battery life really just be due to higher clock speed, more RAM, and different LCD? Suspended for a few days with no cards inserted, the 360 is still a power pig.

Even with the illumination off , the 360LX screen is outstanding for its time; I've seen e-ink screens that do not look this good. (On the other hand, the 320's looks gameboy puke-o-tron green under all but the brightest external lighting conditions. )

It isn't possible to swap the screens between the 320 and 360, is it? I'm guessing no because they look different....