Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Why are newer Windows computers so slow in hibernation?

  1. #1
    Constant Bitrate
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    136

    Why are newer Windows computers so slow in hibernation?

    I have been using XP for several years on my carputer, and I have a lot of other computers in the house with it. But I have noticed that the last two or three years computers seems to be slower hibernating and resuming than earlier computers. My old AMD XP2000 hibernates in 6 seconds and resumes in less than 20. But none of the newer computers I have in the house can manage that feat. My Carputer is a lightning fast Aopen i975X-YDG with both IDE and S-ATA drives, and it varies between 16/45 (IDE) and 12/35 (S-ATA). And no, this isn't a memory issue. I have tried with only 512 meg RAM (I normally use 1024), the same as the older carputer, and it didn't change a thing. Does anybody have an ida why this can be?
    Tor - The MediaSUV

  2. #2
    Calm
    Down
    Or
    Get
    A
    2
    Week
    Vacation
    -Love
    The
    Forum
    Policeman
    Wiredwrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Mastiff View Post
    I have been using XP for several years on my carputer, and I have a lot of other computers in the house with it. But I have noticed that the last two or three years computers seems to be slower hibernating and resuming than earlier computers. My old AMD XP2000 hibernates in 6 seconds and resumes in less than 20. But none of the newer computers I have in the house can manage that feat. My Carputer is a lightning fast Aopen i975X-YDG with both IDE and S-ATA drives, and it varies between 16/45 (IDE) and 12/35 (S-ATA). And no, this isn't a memory issue. I have tried with only 512 meg RAM (I normally use 1024), the same as the older carputer, and it didn't change a thing. Does anybody have an ida why this can be?
    No two computers are exactly alike. No 2 setups are exactly alike, and no two computers have the same drivers, services, programs running. Hence, a change in Standby and resume.

    Now, if you made EVERYTHING the same some how (not possible with the difference in drivers and services needed between computers, unless all you are doing is changing the CPU on the MB, but then, I guess, it is not really a different computer) that might be interesting. Otherwise, I am just gonna chalk it up to a Hardware/Software difference.

    Michael
    ...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

  3. #3
    Constant Bitrate
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    136
    Normally I'd agree, but I have seen a very clear shift. I have a bunch of older computers, from 386 and up. Of course the oldest of the bunch can't run XP. But from Celeron 1000/Duron 1200 and up I have run XP on just about every one of them. And it's a clear difference. All my 6-7 P4 PC's are noticeably slower in hibernation/resume than all of the older things. I have 1 gig computers with ATA 33 that will beat my 4 gig P4 with ATA-133/S-ATA without any problems in that department. Not one of the P4 computers are anywhere near the older stuff. If I only knew where the difference was... It's not the graphics card drivers. I tore the dual X1600 setup out of my YDG, put in an old 3D Blaster Banshee, and it didn't change a second. I have three sound cards, and taking them out or disabling the built in card doesn't change anything either. The only thing I can think of that's really different is that my newer computers have newer network cards. But can it be that? Some of the older guys have USB2, Firewire and all that. And those P4's are anythying from VIA, SIS and Intel, with both PCI-X and AGP. Where would you think that the difference lies?
    Tor - The MediaSUV

  4. #4
    Maximum Bitrate
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    747
    i actually have the same problem right now with my core duo T2400 and 512meg ram running on WD caviar sata2 300gig drive with 8meg cache.
    It is noticably slower (5-10 secs) when coming out of hibernation than my old Epia 800 mhz with ata33 drives, going into hibernate is much faster than the epia.
    Transflective Lilliput 8", LV-677DC Core Duo 1,83Ghz, , Mpegbox uSDC20D, Shuttle Express, HQCT, PG XS6600 http://carpc.boyakasha.dk

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 11:23 PM
  2. Windows Vista
    By thanatos106 in forum Software & Software Development
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 06-28-2006, 10:56 AM
  3. mediaengine slow with windows me
    By qbics in forum ME Archive
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-01-2003, 04:40 PM
  4. Computers and Windows Don't Mix
    By Rob in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-22-2002, 11:11 AM
  5. Windows Me hibernation
    By rsriverrat in forum Software & Software Development
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2000, 06:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •