Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think the idea is that Windows will occasionally not wake up properly, leaving the user to “choke it out” (power button for 5 sec to force a hard shut down, power button to power up). Sorry if you had any unsaved work.

Personally, Hibernate works great, doesn’t require any battery life to sustain it, and always comes back with state intact, so it’s my go to.




> Hibernate works great

Seconded. All of these modern "smart sleep" solutions are uniformly worse than just giving me a got-danged hibernate option.


> uniformly worse

Extremely false: hibernate is way slower. Sleep happens within a second and awakes within a second. Hibernate requires writing all your memory to disk; if you have, say, 15GB of memory in use and a disk that can read and write at 1 GB/sec (far from the fastest, but also extremely far from the slowest), that’s fifteen seconds. For many (probably most) people’s realistic situations, hibernate will take over a minute.

(Heh, my own laptop takes 4–8 minutes to hibernate if its CPU is slowed to 400 MHz to minimise power consumption, which incidentally happens automatically when it’s almost down to 0% battery power, shortly after which it triggers a suspend-then-hibernate, and the extra time that makes it take it brings it perilously close to running out of power before it finishes. Not certain why limiting the CPU has such a massive effect, but I’ve compared it when manually inducing similar circumstances by giving the CPU an impossibly low power envelope with `ryzenadj --stapm-limit 100 --fast-limit 100 --slow-limit 100`, which limits all cores to 400 MHz, and yeah, that makes hibernate slow.)


Hibernate is just slow, especially if you dual boot and have to wait through grub.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: