No hibernation with 4+ GB RAM - why so hardcoded ?

Hi,

I think Microsoft made rather suboptimal decision,
disabling hibernation for PC with 4+ GB RAM.

I agree with argument performance is decreased,
mostly due transfer times.

But this time is automated and still *much* shorter,
comparing to closing apps and manual state restoring.
Hibernation works pretty well for my 3 GB in Vista64
and 4 GB would not make much difference.
I like to have option not shut down everything
and launch again. ( Especially hybrid S3/S4 mode is quick ).

I suppose MS should only make it as warning recommendation,
allowing user to decide what he/she wants.

Especially on notebooks current state is silly.
Sure, one can use ac pi S1 ( POS ) or S3 ( STR ) modes,
but it still consumes energy
and state is lost if battery goes down.

IMHO MS thinks too often they know better than users, what users want.

--
Poutnik

This was a decision made for good reason at the time it was made because
recovering more than 4GB from disk took much longer than reloading.

The Windows 7 beta can hibernate more than 4GB. Hybrid sleep - the
default setting - works for me with 8GB of RAM.


Poutnik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think Microsoft made rather suboptimal decision,
> disabling hibernation for PC with 4+ GB RAM.
>
> I agree with argument performance is decreased,
> mostly due transfer times.
>
> But this time is automated and still *much* shorter,
> comparing to closing apps and manual state restoring.
> Hibernation works pretty well for my 3 GB in Vista64
> and 4 GB would not make much difference.
> I like to have option not shut down everything
> and launch again. ( Especially hybrid S3/S4 mode is quick ).
>
> I suppose MS should only make it as warning recommendation,
> allowing user to decide what he/she wants.
>
> Especially on notebooks current state is silly.
> Sure, one can use ac pi S1 ( POS ) or S3 ( STR ) modes,
> but it still consumes energy
> and state is lost if battery goes down.
>
> IMHO MS thinks too often they know better than users, what users want.
>

In article <#4BcXZojJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, dcp@dcp.fsv.co.uk
says...
>
> This was a decision made for good reason at the time it was made because
> recovering more than 4GB from disk took much longer than reloading.

I cannot imagine so slow harddisk,
where reloading windows AND manually bringing opened apps
to previous state is much faster than hibernation recovery.

And even if recovery would be slower,
it should be on user, what is more worthy for him,
speed or conveniency.
--
Poutnik