On Sep 20, 2007, at 7:00 AM, "Levinson, Aaron N" wrote: > There are various arguments that can be made for hibernation on > MIDs. I > think there will be some users that use their MIDs irregularly, > perhaps > once or twice per day. If there are, say, 12 hours between uses, then > the standby draw and subsequent need to charge more often might be > considered more inconvenient than hibernating and having to deal > with a > short reboot. One pattern could be that the device sleeps for an hour > of inactivity and then hibernates after this hour has expired.
In our experience, consumers (and pundits!) love an instant-on capability. Instant needs to be instant - we found that even a 5sec delay while waking from sleep can be frustrating for users. MIDs are about convenience. A true instant-on capability will make these devices more convenient to people, and therefore more likely to be used. If hibernate can provide that experience then I'm all for it, but my experience with hibernate (mostly on Windows, to be sure) is that it can be frustratingly slow. I'm not an expert on the MID hardware, but our past experience suggests that this class of device should be able to sleep for >1 week on a full charge. For the target market, the convenience of an instant-on capability will greatly outweigh the inconvenience of the slight extra power draw during sleep. The hybrid sleep/hibernate approach is an interesting idea. Apple took it one step further - write an image to disk as if going to hibernate, then they go to sleep. If the battery runs down and sleep can't be maintained, the system wakes from the stored image. The user can always expect to resume to a consistent state, and most of the time resume will happen instantaneously. Steve -- Ubuntu-mobile mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-mobile
