In Windows 7 Use Sleep to Resume the OS in 2 Seconds

davehc · 07 Jan 2009

"According to the graphic on the left, the power consumption of a Windows operating system in Sleep mode is comparable with that of the shut down machine. However, rebooting a Shut Down computer not only takes over 15 seconds (in ideal lab conditions, over 20/25 ideally in the real world), but also consumes more power than when the PC is simply resumed from Sleep

The Ms Engineers are starting to annoy me with statements such as this, that assume we never went to school. Under these circumstances, I will acknowledge that the computer will use precisely 11 seconds more power. perhaps an infinitely little more in the initial surge. The remainder of the verbal diarrhoea is just that - bs.
Not forgetting, if it matters, when splitting hairs over almost unreadable power savings, the wear and tear on certain parts of the computer in sleep mode.

garysgold · 07 Jan 2009

With no statement about where the break even point is, the info is fairly useless. Is 1 hour in sleep better than shutdown? How about 3 or 4 hours? Is power consumption the only consideration as the article would suggest or are things being worn out as davehc suggests? Tell me the whole story, then I will reconsider how I do things.

This reminds me of the greenies who want us all to use the squiggly light bulbs. When I am done with a light I turn it off. This on off cycle may happen 20 times in a day. The squiggles are florescent bulbs and florescent bulbs use more energy to start up than they will use in the next 2-3 hours, so am I saving with those bulbs or actually losing?

Not enough info to make a proper decision.

Gary

davehc · 08 Jan 2009

Yes. The wear and tear would, I imagine, be really negligible in either circumstance. But they will have to come up with some better detailed info to convince me.
By an absolute coincidence, by the way, the BBC an an item on the news this morning that EuroControl have banned 100 watt filament bulbs, pretty much with immediate effect. Retailers and manufacturers are allowed to sell off any surplus stocks. I havn't read any detail, but it may be a comparitive power consideration, rather than the type of bulb.

darkassain · 08 Jan 2009

garysgold said:

With no statement about where the break even point is, the info is fairly useless. Is 1 hour in sleep better than shutdown? How about 3 or 4 hours? Is power consumption the only consideration as the article would suggest or are things being worn out as davehc suggests? Tell me the whole story, then I will reconsider how I do things.

This reminds me of the greenies who want us all to use the squiggly light bulbs. When I am done with a light I turn it off. This on off cycle may happen 20 times in a day. The squiggles are florescent bulbs and florescent bulbs use more energy to start up than they will use in the next 2-3 hours, so am I saving with those bulbs or actually losing?

Not enough info to make a proper decision.

Gary

the thing is that they save power as you use them longer and longer.....

at some point these two lines (one of the usage of regular bulbs and the other floresent) will overlap and eventually the floresent will use less power in the long run (they are hoping its before the light bulb dies....

)

and yes also at some point it will be negligible the amount of power saved from a waking up from sleep compared to a cold boot....

i dont think the should be making these "statements" since these are not set in stone and could in fact be the opposite....

the only reason i would see the difference is in notebooks and netbooks where ever watt counts....
(and sleep is sometimes necessary since this usefull for portability.....)

Adamd · 08 Jan 2009

I use sleep all the time on my laptop.

Why bother waiting for it to boot up when sleep does the job!

Most of the time I have it plugged in so it really does not matter about power.

The little difference between sleep and shut down in money spent really does not bother me if there is a difference because I rather have it turn on right away!

davehc · 08 Jan 2009

Keep going guys - good thread!! In most os Europe, they are brainwashing us to switch off any standbye devices when nor in use. Microsoft are advov´cating the opposite!

garysgold · 08 Jan 2009

darkassain said:

the thing is that they save power as you use them longer and longer.....

at some point these two lines (one of the usage of regular bulbs and the other floresent) will overlap and eventually the floresent will use less power in the long run (they are hoping its before the light bulb dies....

)

Hi DA,

Didn't really want to discuss light bulbs, but they only save money if left on for hours at a time, and they only last 10,000 hrs. or whatever if they are turned on and left on. Turning them on and off cuts that down considerably. And you do realize that they contain mercury. If you break one you should use a ventilator mask while cleaning it up. As with most things, they only tell you the part of the story that supports their position and nothing else.

Davehc, watch for 95 watt bulbs in the future. Most of my bulbs are 75w or less anyway.

As for sleep vs cold boot I'm guessing the difference is already negligible unless you boot many times a day in which case sleep is a better option.

Gary

smarteyeball · 08 Jan 2009

I've never really used the sleep function so I'm probably biased. The only reason I ever left my PC on 24/7 was for torrenting. Now that I'm using a seedbox for torrents, my main PC doesn't need to be on 24/7. I can wait the 60 odd secs it takes to to switch on the PC when I first use it.

Thoughts off power saving don't even come into it

However, I can see the advantage for sleep mode and laptops.

garysgold · 08 Jan 2009

Generally I boot the 'puter in the morning when I get up and shutdown at bedtime. During the day I use sleep if I'm not going to be using it for 30 mins or more. I don't like waiting for it to boot either, but in the morning I can get a coffee while it's booting so I don't notice it.

Gary