On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 14:51:31 +0200 Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 10:30:25PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > > > > Just curious; why do you ever want to do s2ram instead of s2disk? > > > > I meant s2both, duh... > > It's a waste of battery power. > > s2ram only takes about two seconds, alone the "snapshotting machine" takes > at least 10 seconds on my machines. > With suspend to RAM the machine is already woken up again while suspend to > disk is not even writing. That it takes some extra time to suspend is not a problem, IMHO. If I put it a sleep, I generally want that to be longer than 2 sec ;) I really like the safety net that s2both provides, but apparently that's personal;) grts Tim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________ Suspend-devel mailing list Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel
