Windows 7
- Thread starter almighty
- Start date
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That may work for some people, but myself I have to switch between Date Modified, Name, and Type quite frequently.
It's a little disheartening to think they've changed this.
Regards,
SB
hoom
Veteran
Tried it, reverted back to plain Hybernate.
This machine just doesn't like Sleep (I don't think I ever had one that does).
I get fans come on at max like just before a Post & a bit of HDD activity but nothing onscreen, no beeps & fans never drop to their normal post Post speeds until I reset
Maybe my next PC...
Tried it, reverted back to plain Hybernate.
This machine just doesn't like Sleep (I don't think I ever had one that does).
I get fans come on at max like just before a Post & a bit of HDD activity but nothing onscreen, no beeps & fans never drop to their normal post Post speeds until I reset
Maybe my next PC...
I get exactly the same thing on my PC, it's never been able to sleep properly.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Maybe you should let it work a bit harder so that its gets tired enough to want to sleep. So less leeching porn and more doing of whatever makes your pc sweat.
I've not had a problem with S3 sleep in over five years, under XP, Vista nor now W7. Some bits of hardware used to cause problems (waves at Creative Labs, hi boys!), and BIOSes default to S1 in general I think. But with the right h/w and s/w config it works without issue.
I discovered that my ancient Abit BF6 mobo (440BX!) has a suspend to RAM jumper. I have never tried it out.
I use S3 suspend on all of my PCs. I even have a Athlon XP doing it. It really is amazing. It's interesting to see the PC turn entirely off and then turn back on and be ready to go in like 3 seconds.
Both XP and the newer OSs do it fine IMO. I never used it on older Windows OSs enough to remember how well it works. It seemed to be a feature almost limited to notebooks back then. The biggest difference that I've noticed between XP and Vista/7 is the USB wakeup feature. XP needs you to hit the power button.
I have never tried it out.I use S3 suspend on all of my PCs. I even have a Athlon XP doing it. It really is amazing. It's interesting to see the PC turn entirely off and then turn back on and be ready to go in like 3 seconds.
Both XP and the newer OSs do it fine IMO. I never used it on older Windows OSs enough to remember how well it works. It seemed to be a feature almost limited to notebooks back then. The biggest difference that I've noticed between XP and Vista/7 is the USB wakeup feature. XP needs you to hit the power button.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Never could get XP to reliably work with Sleep mode. One of the benefits of when I moved to Vista, it just worked.
And now that I've been using it, there's just no way I can live without it. I have to use hibernate on my laptop, and omg I hate it because it's soooooo slow.
The instant on of sleep mode has pretty much spoiled me.
Regards,
SB
That's my experience also.
The only problem I have with Vista's (never tried it with 7) sleep is when I install graphics drivers hacked to work on my laptop videocard. It's such a realiable test that I now test sleep right after installing any new graphics/sound/network driver and roll back if there are any problems.
Never could get XP to reliably work with Sleep mode. One of the benefits of when I moved to Vista, it just worked.
And now that I've been using it, there's just no way I can live without it. I have to use hibernate on my laptop, and omg I hate it because it's soooooo slow.
The instant on of sleep mode has pretty much spoiled me.
Regards,
SB
XP sometimes has troubles switching to S3 standby and uses S1 standby instead. It's easily fixed with the dumppo.exe utility. I haven't seen a computer not sleeping properly with XP since Intel's i8xx chipsets. Crashes/etc on standby/resume usually are caused by bad drivers for certain add-in cards like soundcards, videocard, etc.
Hehe, Suspend-to-RAM (S3) has been around for ages. It was just a matter of your hardware reliably supporting it which is why it was initially disabled on a lot of boards. When I switched to Win2k ten years ago it worked flawlessly on an otherwise shitty VIA board (plus PIII 550 yay!)
By the way, anyone else hate it when people call the Phenom processors P3 or worse PIII ?!?
PS: Don't mean to distract people from shelling out for Microsoft's latest and greatest, but people gushing over something so trivial struck me as funny
By the way, anyone else hate it when people call the Phenom processors P3 or worse PIII ?!?
PS: Don't mean to distract people from shelling out for Microsoft's latest and greatest, but people gushing over something so trivial struck me as funny
The major problem with S3 (or other sleeps) is still related to some incompatible hardware (and/or drivers). Of course, now these hardwares are rare, but it was pretty common back then. I remembered that one of my notebook failed to S3 or hibernate without updating to the latest display driver. And it's a notebook, without any additional add-on cards! It's not hard to imagine what would happen on a normal PC with a lot of different add-on cards installed.
The beauty of Windows 7 (or Vista, for this matter) is that many hardware have their drivers built-in, which are supposedly verified to work well with S3. That's why more and more people "rediscover" the beauty of S3 and hibernation.
On the other hand, some latest hardware still have problems with S3! For example, my X58 motherboard had problems with S3 (unable to wake up from S3) with some earlier BIOS. That's quite unforgivable.
The beauty of Windows 7 (or Vista, for this matter) is that many hardware have their drivers built-in, which are supposedly verified to work well with S3. That's why more and more people "rediscover" the beauty of S3 and hibernation.
On the other hand, some latest hardware still have problems with S3! For example, my X58 motherboard had problems with S3 (unable to wake up from S3) with some earlier BIOS. That's quite unforgivable.
Blazkowicz
Legend
ironically you are prone to BIOS or hardware bugs with highest end bleeding edge hardware
I remember being excited by Win95 having drivers for all my hardware. Trust me, it's a temporary thing. It actually kinda makes the hardware feel dated to me.
I remember being excited by Win95 having drivers for all my hardware. Trust me, it's a temporary thing. It actually kinda makes the hardware feel dated to me.
But things are different now. Back then, people have to install sound cards, network cards, USB cards, TV capture cards, and maybe IEEE 1394 cards, etc. All these cards have the potential to have some incompatibilities between them.
Now, most people don't buy these cards anymore, because many of them are already built-in the motherboard. And many other devices are now available in USB interface and have standard drivers. For example, most USB audio devices (such as those USB microphones) and USB camera use standard drivers.
Similar threads
