Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:18:25 -0700 From: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com> To: "'Michael Nottebrock'" <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>, "Fischer, Oliver" <plexus@snafu.de> Cc: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>, CURRENT@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: [OT] ACPI based support for suspend to disk? Message-ID: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7F4E@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Michael Nottebrock [mailto:michaelnottebrock@gmx.net] > > You are right. My PC supports this via BIOS too. The > > disadvantage is, that the bios handle it. I like W2K's > > feature to do it ACPI based (?). This gives my the freedom > > to suspend my W2K to disk and to reboot with FBSD. Later I > > reboot again and choose W2K and it restores it previous > > state. If the bios does it, it restores always the last > > suspended OS. > > AFAIR, the Win2k-Suspend2Disk is not ACPI-based. Win2k suspend to disk (STD) (aka hibernate aka ACPI S4) is using ACPI. ACPI defines 2 kinds of STD, S4 and S4BIOS. S4 is completely done by the operating system, and then uses the ACPI interface to turn the system off. S4BIOS...uses the BIOS, usually to a dedicated suspend partition. Having the OS save the system image to disk is generally considered the way to go. But of course that requires that your OS have that added capability. So yes I guess you *are* right in that ACPI doesn't actually do the suspend to disk, but it is involved in the process. Regards -- Andy To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7F4E>