Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Jan 2013 18:47 UTC
Permalink for comment 550881
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-09-23
Shutdown: No diskspace needed, turn off/on in 15 seconds, no battery wasted, everything is closed
Hibernate: Needs as much diskspace as you have memory, turn off/on in 1 minute (depending on diskspeed and amount of memory to write/read), no battery wasted, just continue working
Standby: No diskspace needed, turn off/on in 1 second, battery decreases 10% per 24 hours (so 7% before I start working again or 3 percent while I sleep), just continue working
For me hibernate only wins when you have battery issues and plenty of diskspace and time that you don't mind wasting. In all other scenarios standby wins.
On the surface battery life is not an issue but diskspace and time are, so standby should be used instead of hibernate.
(I loved hibernate when I used Windows XP with 1 GB of RAM. It only took 20 seconds to hibernate/restore but rebooting took 1 minute and standby sucked 50% per day)