On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 22:54:33 +0200 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Lu, 03 mar 14, 11:27:59, Celejar wrote: > > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Depending on RAM size and what you were running at the time you set your > > > computer to hibernate it may just take longer to resume (i.e. read the > > > stuff from slow storage) than to cold boot. This may have been solved in > > > > When you say longer than cold boot, do you really mean longer than cold > > booting plus starting all the stuff you had running in RAM and getting > > them to the state they were in? > > As I said, I have little practical experience with hibernate myself, > this is just what I picked up here on the list. Besides, I wouldn't > trust hibernate with unsaved files and I use lightweight apps as much as > possible, so for me the benefits are just not worth it. I, too, don't like trusting unsaved files to hibernate. But I also wouldn't trust all my individual applications autosaving of files (even where such exist). So when I need to power down the machine, I have two choices: halt and hibernate, and in any event, I'll want to save all important work first. So why would I reboot instead of hiberate? Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303172104.dbb5c61de4fdb7c257e37...@gmail.com
