Windows 7 to get ‘instant on’ mode?

[darksun9210]

yeah agreed on the s3 suspend..... my laptop will only sit in suspend or standby for about 30 to 45 minutes before it'll wake up all by itself. even with the screen still shut. almost like its gone, "oh darn, i havn't reported back to microsoft for at least half an hour. lets fire up and do it anyway"
bit of a bugger when its in its foam lined case in the back of the car for an hour or two, and decides to fully power on. got a mite bit toasty! :-o (till it ran out of battery) :lol:
 till i realised and now fully power off. but since going from 32bit to 64bit, startup and shutdown are pretty rapid. more than is explicable with just an OS bit depth change..


there was this "instant on" thing intel were toting around a while back. basicly all it did was mute the speakers and switch the screen off. the machine was will running at full pelt. people were confused by the "do not remove power even when switched off", and the fact the fans and drives were still spinning...

[Piru]

@the_leander

NTFS is not, nor has ever been journaled, which is why even today Vista requires ocational defragmentation.

Um, what does journaling have to do with need of defragmentation?

I never saw chkdsk run in Win2000 whenever it went down, but that does not make NTFS as seen in all of the later NT based windows releases any more a Journaled filesystem then the Amiga's FFS.

NTFS does have metadata journaling. Amiga FFS doesn't have any, not even atomic commits.

Sorry to bring up an old thread like this, but I hate seeing disinformation.

...

[Piru]

@Painkiller

Usually windows just say that it is getting ready for suspend mode and right after "everything" shutsdown it powers it self right back up

I've seen this happen with certain older desktops. Usually disabling some USB wake up options cure it.

[ZeBeeDee]

The only way to get windows loading in any kind of 'instant on mode' is to put the OS in chip form and access it directly through the hardware.

Good luck! MS will have to slim it down substantially in order to fit it all in ... plus all the mobo makers will have to gear up for a completely new design. Maybe they'll put the core routines for the new windows on a read only usb memory stick. That'll fox the pirates NOT! :lol:

Then if they wanted to go into 'cloud computing mode' they would have to make sure their servers were 100% hack proof - I recall something similar being said during the hype for windows xp and that was hacked before it's official release. Somebody posing outside the MS offices with a hacked xp cd soon put paid to that claim.

Ho hum! :lol:

[the_leander]

Piru wrote:
@the_leander

NTFS is not, nor has ever been journaled, which is why even today Vista requires ocational defragmentation.

Um, what does journaling have to do with need of defragmentation?

My understanding was that a truely journaled filesystem would not need defragmenting. That the system would, for the most part keep itself in check. I thought that was one of the main benefits of having a journaled filesystem - that fragmentation would be (again, for the most part) a thing of the past.

Piru wrote:

I never saw chkdsk run in Win2000 whenever it went down, but that does not make NTFS as seen in all of the later NT based windows releases any more a Journaled filesystem then the Amiga's FFS.

NTFS does have metadata journaling. Amiga FFS doesn't have any, not even atomic commits.

As I understood it, FFS was no better then FAT - simply a listing of files with little/nothing else added.

Piru wrote:

Sorry to bring up an old thread like this, but I hate seeing disinformation.

...

I stand corrected. Further, I withdraw my previous post.

[the_leander]

Tbh I'm still surprised that they didn't take the NT codebase and strip it down to the bare basics (ala BartPE and similar) and rig it up for windows mobile/ WinCE.

Whilst being small doesn't necesarily equate to offering flexibility. Being huge leaves a lot of openings for security issues, even if your code is relatively clean to begin with. It would seem, especially with the burgeoning Netbook market, that a slim base with a modular system would be preferable.

I was interested in what Microsoft were doing with their Singularity project and tbh I'm dumbfounded that they dumped it. Something like Singularity with a win32 sandbox (similar in principle to OSX with it's classic MacOS support) would I think be a good idea.

[Painkiller]

Piru wrote:
@Painkiller

Usually windows just say that it is getting ready for suspend mode and right after "everything" shutsdown it powers it self right back up

I've seen this happen with certain older desktops. Usually disabling some USB wake up options cure it.

THNX for the hint. I will check out if that is the problem.

[orange]

S3 standby is nice, I also use it often. but the problem with it is that memory leaks/fragmentation and similar things require reboot from time to time, probably.

[detz]

Doesn't windows do some caching of all the contents of the hard drives too during the boot in order to give the impression of instantly accessing directories etc?

[stefcep2]

Matt_H wrote:
Or they could just improve the efficiency of the damn thing so that it actually boots in 8 seconds, like another certain operating system we know...

Talk about mixed up priorities. With the power of today's PC hardware, they should be ashamed of themselves that the OS is just as slow as ever, if not slower.

Its a an absolute disgrace: We have multi-core cpu hardware that benchmarks 100 times faster than a 68060 @ 50 mhz, RAM thats bigger than most Amiga hard drives, with data transfer speed both from ram and hard drive 100 times faster and yet it still takes as long as ever to start your computer!!

This has come about because Vista has been a massive failure due to the fact that the average computer user will not play the hardware upgrade game anymore just to get a new icon theme.  MS knows they had better give people something worth their money or else people will be using their  3 gig ram XP systems for another 10 years.  I had Vista business on a HP mininote and it was a resource hog and offered NOTHING that I couldn't do faster on XP.  NOTHING.

[stefcep2]

sorry double post.

[stefcep2]

detz wrote:
Doesn't windows do some caching of all the contents of the hard drives too during the boot in order to give the impression of instantly accessing directories etc?

 Yes its called superfetch and indexing and thats why when you get a new pc with Vista the hard drive is ALWAYS on, slowing everything down to a crawl as it builds up its index. This can take a week or two depending on how often you turn it on. And it never really stops: just indexing times aren't as long. AND it defrags your drive virtually all the time.

[ChuckT]

I think it is a good idea but maybe but I hope it is not Microsoft's way of keeping other developers out of the operating system and not allowing competition.  Does anyone know how much available memory will be allowed for "instant on"?  If it is already filled with Microsoft's goodies then there won't be room to "but in" unless there is room.

[klx300r]

ah big deal...my 1200 030@50 boots up 100% ready in less than 7 seconds :-D

[AeroMan]

Wow, they recognized that Windows boot time is a complete cr*p and now making it decent is a totally new feature.

They could sell refrigerators to eskimos and make some of them scream their lives are so much better now...

[recidivist]

It gets warm in Alaska in the summer,at least warm enough for food to spoil;so Eskimos do have refrigerators.(And pickup trucks,rifles,TVs,computers,ATVs,booze,politics,.....)