| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:30 am Post subject:
Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
Dell latitude P3 with Windows 2000. When shutting down, what is the
difference between Hibernate and the Stand By option. Are there any
battery resources being used in either and does anyone have a
preference. Many thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Doue
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:55 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
denglish48060@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | Dell latitude P3 with Windows 2000. When shutting down, what is the
difference between Hibernate and the Stand By option. Are there any
battery resources being used in either and does anyone have a
preference. Many thanks.
Stand-by merely puts "to sleep" your machine which can get back to |
operational state with seconds. Hibernation saves the state of the
memory to disk and shut down completely the machine. The machine boots
back to the state it was when sent to hibernate. The process is slightly
fast than a normal boot and gets you back where you left of.
The difference between the two: while in stand-by, the machine remains
under power and uses some (very little) to maintain its memory. Going
back and forth is very fast. Hibernation shuts the machine completely down.
Personally, I never use hibernation since, if I need my machine back in
a hurry, stand-by is what I need, and if I anticipate not using my
machine for a while, I prefer to shut it down. Advantage:upon boot-up,
the memory is totally "clean", which is not the case both in stand-by
and hibernate. Draw back of hibernate: fairly slow both ways and need a
reserve space on disk, roughtly equal to the amount of RAM (since RAM is
saved to disk).
Try both and decide for yourself, it is a matter of personal preference.
While traveling, prefer hibernation though.
--
John Doue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Park
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:26 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
John Doue wrote:
| Quote: | denglish48060@gmail.com wrote:
Dell latitude P3 with Windows 2000. When shutting down, what is the
difference between Hibernate and the Stand By option. Are there any
battery resources being used in either and does anyone have a
preference. Many thanks.
Stand-by merely puts "to sleep" your machine which can get back to
operational state with seconds. Hibernation saves the state of the
memory to disk and shut down completely the machine. The machine boots
back to the state it was when sent to hibernate. The process is
slightly fast than a normal boot and gets you back where you left of.
The difference between the two: while in stand-by, the machine remains
under power and uses some (very little) to maintain its memory. Going
back and forth is very fast. Hibernation shuts the machine completely
down.
Personally, I never use hibernation since, if I need my machine back
in a hurry, stand-by is what I need, and if I anticipate not using my
machine for a while, I prefer to shut it down. Advantage:upon boot-up,
the memory is totally "clean", which is not the case both in stand-by
and hibernate. Draw back of hibernate: fairly slow both ways and need
a reserve space on disk, roughtly equal to the amount of RAM (since
RAM is saved to disk).
Try both and decide for yourself, it is a matter of personal
preference. While traveling, prefer hibernation though.
I prerfer hibernation and use it exclusively. |
If you travel with your notebook, note that stand-by consumes power. The
notebook can get very hot inside a case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Doue
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
Jerry Park wrote:
| Quote: | John Doue wrote:
denglish48060@gmail.com wrote:
Dell latitude P3 with Windows 2000. When shutting down, what is the
difference between Hibernate and the Stand By option. Are there any
battery resources being used in either and does anyone have a
preference. Many thanks.
Stand-by merely puts "to sleep" your machine which can get back to
operational state with seconds. Hibernation saves the state of the
memory to disk and shut down completely the machine. The machine boots
back to the state it was when sent to hibernate. The process is
slightly fast than a normal boot and gets you back where you left of.
The difference between the two: while in stand-by, the machine remains
under power and uses some (very little) to maintain its memory. Going
back and forth is very fast. Hibernation shuts the machine completely
down.
Personally, I never use hibernation since, if I need my machine back
in a hurry, stand-by is what I need, and if I anticipate not using my
machine for a while, I prefer to shut it down. Advantage:upon boot-up,
the memory is totally "clean", which is not the case both in stand-by
and hibernate. Draw back of hibernate: fairly slow both ways and need
a reserve space on disk, roughtly equal to the amount of RAM (since
RAM is saved to disk).
Try both and decide for yourself, it is a matter of personal
preference. While traveling, prefer hibernation though.
I prerfer hibernation and use it exclusively.
If you travel with your notebook, note that stand-by consumes power. The
notebook can get very hot inside a case.
This is a matter of preference. But stating that, while in stand-by, a |
laptop can get very hot inside its case is non-sense. The consumption is
extremely low, just maintains the memory, and produces almost no heat at
all. The problem can be, if the laptop fails to go to standby and the
user does not notice it, then you can have a heat problem in a case.
This is why I said, prefer hibernation while traveling.
--
John Doue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bxf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
Jerry Park wrote:
| Quote: | I prerfer hibernation and use it exclusively.
If you travel with your notebook, note that stand-by consumes power. The
notebook can get very hot inside a case.
|
Nobody in their right mind would put their machine on STANDBY while
traveling with it. That is not what it's meant for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bxf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
Just to add a bit to John's comments:
I had an earlier computer where coming out of Hibernation was
significantly (in percentage terms) faster than a normal restart, so
there was a marginal advantage. I find that on my present laptop I gain
perhaps 15 seconds with Hibernation, so there's not much in it, but I
have no particular reason to NOT use it as long as I'm not short of
disk space. I still make a point of doing a complete shutdown once a
week or so, just to rid memory of any crap that may be accumulating.
STANDBY is another matter, in that there are two STANDBY levels: S1 and
S3. My own impression is that S1 used to be common, but now S3 seems to
be predominating (this is just based on my own exposure). I used to
come out of S1 within seconds, and that was useful. Now, to come out
of S3, takes me about as much time as it takes to come out of
hibernation. AND I have one device that fails to work after coming out
of STANDBY (until I disable and re-enable it). So S3 is almost useless
fo rme, and yet, it would be stupid to shutdown when I know I'll be
coming back shortly. I'd prefer to have S1 back... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Doue
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
bxf wrote:
| Quote: | Just to add a bit to John's comments:
I had an earlier computer where coming out of Hibernation was
significantly (in percentage terms) faster than a normal restart, so
there was a marginal advantage. I find that on my present laptop I gain
perhaps 15 seconds with Hibernation, so there's not much in it, but I
have no particular reason to NOT use it as long as I'm not short of
disk space. I still make a point of doing a complete shutdown once a
week or so, just to rid memory of any crap that may be accumulating.
STANDBY is another matter, in that there are two STANDBY levels: S1 and
S3. My own impression is that S1 used to be common, but now S3 seems to
be predominating (this is just based on my own exposure). I used to
come out of S1 within seconds, and that was useful. Now, to come out
of S3, takes me about as much time as it takes to come out of
hibernation. AND I have one device that fails to work after coming out
of STANDBY (until I disable and re-enable it). So S3 is almost useless
fo rme, and yet, it would be stupid to shutdown when I know I'll be
coming back shortly. I'd prefer to have S1 back...
|
I am not aware of those two stand-by levels. On the two recent laptops I
have, coming out of stand-by is a matter of at most 3 seconds. Indeed,
some device may need to be waken up but I have not found this to be the
case on my Thinkpad R51. The problem I find, is that my firewall
(ZoneAlarm) often blocks all communications after a period of standby
and I often need to unload/reload it.
Regards
--
John Doue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joel Kolstad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
"bxf" <bill@topman.net> wrote in message
news:1131627260.531403.244310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Nobody in their right mind would put their machine on STANDBY while
traveling with it. That is not what it's meant for.
|
Sure they would -- I've used laptops that would drain their batteries own,
say, 5% while in standby for a day, whereas more recent laptops often seem to
drain them 25% per day -- ouch! I suppose this is partially a result of the
fact that a laptop today often has an order of magnitude more memory than one
a handful of years ago.
With contemporary laptops, setting the power control options to something like
"standby after 15 minutes of non-use, hibernate after a couple of hours" works
pretty well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bxf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:27 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
John Doue wrote:
| Quote: | bxf wrote:
Just to add a bit to John's comments:
I had an earlier computer where coming out of Hibernation was
significantly (in percentage terms) faster than a normal restart, so
there was a marginal advantage. I find that on my present laptop I gain
perhaps 15 seconds with Hibernation, so there's not much in it, but I
have no particular reason to NOT use it as long as I'm not short of
disk space. I still make a point of doing a complete shutdown once a
week or so, just to rid memory of any crap that may be accumulating.
STANDBY is another matter, in that there are two STANDBY levels: S1 and
S3. My own impression is that S1 used to be common, but now S3 seems to
be predominating (this is just based on my own exposure). I used to
come out of S1 within seconds, and that was useful. Now, to come out
of S3, takes me about as much time as it takes to come out of
hibernation. AND I have one device that fails to work after coming out
of STANDBY (until I disable and re-enable it). So S3 is almost useless
fo rme, and yet, it would be stupid to shutdown when I know I'll be
coming back shortly. I'd prefer to have S1 back...
I am not aware of those two stand-by levels. On the two recent laptops I
have, coming out of stand-by is a matter of at most 3 seconds. Indeed,
some device may need to be waken up but I have not found this to be the
case on my Thinkpad R51. The problem I find, is that my firewall
(ZoneAlarm) often blocks all communications after a period of standby
and I often need to unload/reload it.
|
I'm not suggesting that these modes (S1/S3) are selectable. As I
understand it, your machine is set to support one or the other. There
is a fair number of posts where people try to change their BIOS
settings (and more) to force their machine to use the mode other than
the one currently in effect. I tried to change mine using some software
that looks like it's intended for thsi puprpose, and although the
reported settings are changed, there was no effect. This leads me to
believe that there are hardware issues involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bxf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:36 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
Joel Kolstad wrote:
| Quote: | "bxf" <bill@topman.net> wrote in message
news:1131627260.531403.244310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nobody in their right mind would put their machine on STANDBY while
traveling with it. That is not what it's meant for.
Sure they would -- I've used laptops that would drain their batteries own,
say, 5% while in standby for a day, whereas more recent laptops often seem to
drain them 25% per day -- ouch! I suppose this is partially a result of the
fact that a laptop today often has an order of magnitude more memory than one
a handful of years ago.
|
5% per day is indeed impressive. Still, my laptop boots in 45 seconds,
and comes out of hibernation in roughly 30. If I disconnect all my
external devices (USB TV tuner/capture device, DVD drive (plus 2 HDDs
that are usually powered off)), I think I boot in less than 30 seconds.
So why would I want to travel with my laptop in Standby? To gain 27
seconds? For those machines that resume with a mouse movement or
keyboard touch, I wouldn't feel assured that some movement is not going
to bring the machine out of Standby while I'm traveling with it. The
idea of swinging around a laptop with a spinning disk is a bit less
than delighful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:05 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
Thanks to all for your posts.
I wanted to know the difference and the battery drain was my concern
but as mentioned, its nothing to be worried about.
I have been using hibernation for about half a year with two dell c500
laptops and works well with just less that 30 start up. The thing I
suggest is to save your work each time when you hibernate due to
sometimes it requires a full boot up and anything would be lost.
Best regards.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joel Kolstad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:52 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
"bxf" <bill@topman.net> wrote in message
news:1131647808.001052.225580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | So why would I want to travel with my laptop in Standby? To gain 27
seconds?
|
Sure. Those 27 seconds can seem like eternity when you're at some business
meeting and someone says, "Hmm... you numbers don't seem to add up here and it
looks like we're about to lose some big contract... could you quick double
check your spreadsheet?" :-)
| Quote: | For those machines that resume with a mouse movement or
keyboard touch, I wouldn't feel assured that some movement is not going
to bring the machine out of Standby while I'm traveling with it.
|
I agree with that -- if you can't disable getting a mouse movement or keyboard
touch to disengage standby, it's not realiable for traveling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim T.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:14:25 GMT, John Doue <notwobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | bxf wrote:
Just to add a bit to John's comments:
I had an earlier computer where coming out of Hibernation was
significantly (in percentage terms) faster than a normal restart, so
there was a marginal advantage. I find that on my present laptop I gain
perhaps 15 seconds with Hibernation, so there's not much in it, but I
have no particular reason to NOT use it as long as I'm not short of
disk space. I still make a point of doing a complete shutdown once a
week or so, just to rid memory of any crap that may be accumulating.
STANDBY is another matter, in that there are two STANDBY levels: S1 and
S3. My own impression is that S1 used to be common, but now S3 seems to
be predominating (this is just based on my own exposure). I used to
come out of S1 within seconds, and that was useful. Now, to come out
of S3, takes me about as much time as it takes to come out of
hibernation. AND I have one device that fails to work after coming out
of STANDBY (until I disable and re-enable it). So S3 is almost useless
fo rme, and yet, it would be stupid to shutdown when I know I'll be
coming back shortly. I'd prefer to have S1 back...
I am not aware of those two stand-by levels. On the two recent laptops I
have, coming out of stand-by is a matter of at most 3 seconds. Indeed,
some device may need to be waken up but I have not found this to be the
case on my Thinkpad R51. The problem I find, is that my firewall
(ZoneAlarm) often blocks all communications after a period of standby
and I often need to unload/reload it.
Regards
|
I use Standby on my desktop and recovering is pretty fast - at least a
LOT better than restart. I use the standby button on my keyboard.
I did find that the TV driver on my ATI card prevents standby so that
I have to close it first. Also, for some reason it closes AIM, and
does not restart it. Neither of these is a biggie, and the results are
very worthwhile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bxf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
Joel Kolstad wrote:
| Quote: | "bxf" <bill@topman.net> wrote in message
news:1131647808.001052.225580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So why would I want to travel with my laptop in Standby? To gain 27
seconds?
Sure. Those 27 seconds can seem like eternity when you're at some business
meeting and someone says, "Hmm... you numbers don't seem to add up here and it
looks like we're about to lose some big contract... could you quick double
check your spreadsheet?" :-)
|
Well, not to get into an argument on the subject, but I'd say that if
I'm going into a business meeting where I may need my laptop, I'll turn
it on beforehand, such as when I am arriving at the meeting . I can't
imagine myself going through airports, etc. with a powered on machine
just because I will need it several hours down the line. BUT, to each
his own. I am sure glad that I'm not in the type of business where such
pressures may exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Helberg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: Hibernate vs Stand By |
|
|
"John Doue" <notwobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vuscf.422$JB1.285@read3.inet.fi...
| Quote: | denglish48060@gmail.com wrote:
Dell latitude P3 with Windows 2000. When shutting down, what is the
difference between Hibernate and the Stand By option. Are there any
battery resources being used in either and does anyone have a
preference. Many thanks.
Stand-by merely puts "to sleep" your machine which can get back to operational
state with seconds. Hibernation saves the state of the memory to disk and shut down
completely the machine. The machine boots back to the state it was when sent to
hibernate. The process is slightly fast than a normal boot and gets you back where
you left of.
The difference between the two: while in stand-by, the machine remains under power
and uses some (very little) to maintain its memory. Going back and forth is very
fast. Hibernation shuts the machine completely down.
Personally, I never use hibernation since, if I need my machine back in a hurry,
stand-by is what I need, and if I anticipate not using my machine for a while, I
prefer to shut it down. Advantage:upon boot-up, the memory is totally "clean",
which is not the case both in stand-by and hibernate. Draw back of hibernate:
fairly slow both ways and need a reserve space on disk, roughtly equal to the
amount of RAM (since RAM is saved to disk).
Try both and decide for yourself, it is a matter of personal preference. While
traveling, prefer hibernation though.
--
John Doue
|
In Standby is the hard drive kept spinning or is it shut down? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in