Re: RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
mikus wrote: > > > Please - make sure that it takes a multi-second duration of > > > the power button to perform a *complete* shutdown. > > > > no, definitely not. training users to hold down power buttons > > is/was a huge mistake, since getting in the habit is a little > > like parking your car by letting it hit the front of your garage. > > "but it never hurt the wall before? what changed?" > > Here, I disagree with you. On all my desktop systems, I need to hold > down the power button in order for that system to drop power > *completely*. I have no wish to learn a different "remove power" doing a shutdown doesn't accomplish your goal? i.e., turning off your computer? the 4-second power-hold has always been intended for fallback use, and not as primary shutdown method. yanking the power out from under one's operating system may work most of the time, but it's not very good practice. paul > procedure for a laptop (which here happens to be the XO). > > More to the point, an "accidental" complete-power-down is more > disruptive than asking the user to hold down the power button (to > indicate an "intentional" complete-power-down). The incident I > described consisted of the XO going into complete-power-down while I was > *working* with it (trying to set it up after a new build install) -- the > sooner-than-expected suspend confused me, and I was injudicious in what > I pressed to try to get it out of its suspend -- I *certainly* did not > expect the XO to end up in a complete-power-down. [Once that happened, > I had to power-up, go into "My Settings" and disable suspend (to prevent > it from interrupting me again) -- only thus was I able to then get back > to where I had been before the catastrophic complete-power-down.] > > > > What I am pointing out is the difference in intent between pushing the > power button when the system is "awake" (then the user normally wants it > to go into sleep), versus pushing the power button when the system is > "not awake" (then the user normally wants it to come out of sleep). > > Since "going beyond sleep into complete-power-down" is so drastic, I > myself prefer *that* intent to be indicated explicitly (such as by > holding down the power button). > > mikus =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
> > Please - make sure that it takes a multi-second duration of > > the power button to perform a *complete* shutdown. > > no, definitely not. training users to hold down power buttons > is/was a huge mistake, since getting in the habit is a little > like parking your car by letting it hit the front of your garage. > "but it never hurt the wall before? what changed?" Here, I disagree with you. On all my desktop systems, I need to hold down the power button in order for that system to drop power *completely*. I have no wish to learn a different "remove power" procedure for a laptop (which here happens to be the XO). More to the point, an "accidental" complete-power-down is more disruptive than asking the user to hold down the power button (to indicate an "intentional" complete-power-down). The incident I described consisted of the XO going into complete-power-down while I was *working* with it (trying to set it up after a new build install) -- the sooner-than-expected suspend confused me, and I was injudicious in what I pressed to try to get it out of its suspend -- I *certainly* did not expect the XO to end up in a complete-power-down. [Once that happened, I had to power-up, go into "My Settings" and disable suspend (to prevent it from interrupting me again) -- only thus was I able to then get back to where I had been before the catastrophic complete-power-down.] What I am pointing out is the difference in intent between pushing the power button when the system is "awake" (then the user normally wants it to go into sleep), versus pushing the power button when the system is "not awake" (then the user normally wants it to come out of sleep). Since "going beyond sleep into complete-power-down" is so drastic, I myself prefer *that* intent to be indicated explicitly (such as by holding down the power button). mikus ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
hi mikus --
mikus wrote:
> > what do you think? 'a' or 'b'?
>
> As long as the possibility exists to manually edit a configuration file,
> I myself will change the sleep behavior to be like 'before'.
yes, the new scheme ('b') is configurable.
>
> I do not care whether it takes a keystroke, or pushing the CPU button,
> to wake from 'sleeping' -- I'll learn through experience. However, I do
> not favor using the keypad for wake-up. All too often, my wrists stray
> onto the keypad - and having the system wake up from inadvertent hand
> placement might be a distraction.
>
>
> Something I can NOT get used to is the current very short time before
> suspend. I normally use an external keyboard, and lately the XO has
> even dropped USB power (i.e., stopped accepting keystrokes) before I
> could finish typing in the __name__ that a new installation asks for.
i'll test with an external keyboard. though not the mainstream, they
should work as well as easily possible.
> I have to cudgel my brain to remember, at installation time, to get as
> quickly as possible into "My Settings" and deactivate suspend -- else
> the XO is sure to unexpectedly suspend while I am trying to apply my
> usual customizations (including suspend timing changes) to a new build.
>
>
> Regarding wake-up from a dimmed/blank screen -- likely the "normal" user
> behavior is always to press . If no screen reaction is seen, say
> within a second, the user will then probably push on the power button.
>
> [If the screen is not dimmed, the user would probably not realize
> whether the CPU is asleep or not (i.e., he would NOT be paying attention
> to any LED behaviors) -- and would continue typing, in the expectation
> that all of his input characters would be used.]
>
>
> I do have to mention one caveat -- at least once, when an XO dropped USB
> power on me *while* I was trying to enter customization commands, and my
> finger slipped on the power button -- the XO apparently thought I had
> "double pushed" (once to request it to show the "suspend choice" panel,
> and immediately again to indicate "shutdown") -- and it powered down
> completely. Please - make sure that it takes a multi-second duration of
> the power button to perform a *complete* shutdown.
no, definitely not. training users to hold down power buttons
is/was a huge mistake, since getting in the habit is a little
like parking your car by letting it hit the front of your garage.
"but it never hurt the wall before? what changed?"
paul
=-
paul fox, p...@laptop.org
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
> what do you think? 'a' or 'b'? As long as the possibility exists to manually edit a configuration file, I myself will change the sleep behavior to be like 'before'. I do not care whether it takes a keystroke, or pushing the CPU button, to wake from 'sleeping' -- I'll learn through experience. However, I do not favor using the keypad for wake-up. All too often, my wrists stray onto the keypad - and having the system wake up from inadvertent hand placement might be a distraction. Something I can NOT get used to is the current very short time before suspend. I normally use an external keyboard, and lately the XO has even dropped USB power (i.e., stopped accepting keystrokes) before I could finish typing in the __name__ that a new installation asks for. I have to cudgel my brain to remember, at installation time, to get as quickly as possible into "My Settings" and deactivate suspend -- else the XO is sure to unexpectedly suspend while I am trying to apply my usual customizations (including suspend timing changes) to a new build. Regarding wake-up from a dimmed/blank screen -- likely the "normal" user behavior is always to press . If no screen reaction is seen, say within a second, the user will then probably push on the power button. [If the screen is not dimmed, the user would probably not realize whether the CPU is asleep or not (i.e., he would NOT be paying attention to any LED behaviors) -- and would continue typing, in the expectation that all of his input characters would be used.] I do have to mention one caveat -- at least once, when an XO dropped USB power on me *while* I was trying to enter customization commands, and my finger slipped on the power button -- the XO apparently thought I had "double pushed" (once to request it to show the "suspend choice" panel, and immediately again to indicate "shutdown") -- and it powered down completely. Please - make sure that it takes a multi-second duration of the power button to perform a *complete* shutdown. mikus ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
Hi, > Why will the screen blank? Why not just deactivate the > backlight? Is the DCON's power draw sufficiently high that > blanking the screen represents real savings? Yes, it's >100mw, AFAIK. - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
On 03/23/10 15:16, Paul Fox wrote: > are you comfortable having two > laptop states: > - dark screen wakeable from keyboard > - dark screen _not_ wakeable from keyboard > that are visually indistinguishable? by the way, if you have entered "dark screen wakeable from keyboard" mode, and then you close the lid, does it change to be no longer wakeable from keyboard? (or some equivalent effect, like going right back to not-wakeable-from-keyboard sleep if it wakes up with the lid closed?) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
Paul Fox wrote: > now: > in the new scheme, the idle sequence has changed: after a > fairly brief period of inactivity, the system will suspend, > leaving the screen on. (the user may not even know this has > happened.) assuming there is still no keyboard activity, a > little later the screen will dim, and sometime after that, > the screen will blank. Why will the screen blank? Why not just deactivate the backlight? Is the DCON's power draw sufficiently high that blanking the screen represents real savings? --Ben signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
isaac wrote: > On 03/23/10 15:16, Paul Fox wrote: > > are you comfortable having two > > laptop states: > > - dark screen wakeable from keyboard > > - dark screen _not_ wakeable from keyboard > > that are visually indistinguishable? > > by the way, if you have entered "dark screen wakeable from keyboard" > mode, and then you close the lid, does it change to be no longer > wakeable from keyboard? (or some equivalent effect, like going right good question. yes, it does. paul > back to not-wakeable-from-keyboard sleep if it wakes up with the lid > closed?) > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
b. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
> We could also consider just having the touchpad be available for > wake-from-idle-sleep, and not the keyboard, since that way you wouldn't have > any side effects from the wakeup key. But I think having the side effects > isn't a big deal, so I'd go with your proposed (b). I've gotten into the habit of poking the shift key when I want to wake things up. If I poke a real key, that probably means that I know what I'm typing at and expect it to get used as input rather than wakeup. -- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
Hi, > further, if you choose 'a': are you comfortable having two I think this is "if you choose 'b'". > laptop states: - dark screen wakeable from keyboard - dark screen > _not_ wakeable from keyboard that are visually indistinguishable? > is it worth adding yet another LED blink behavior to > differentiate these states? I'd be comfortable with it, and it doesn't seem worth adding another blink state. We could also consider just having the touchpad be available for wake-from-idle-sleep, and not the keyboard, since that way you wouldn't have any side effects from the wakeup key. But I think having the side effects isn't a big deal, so I'd go with your proposed (b). Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
RFC: change to XO sleep behavior
recent releases of XO-1.5 (and also of F11-on-XO1, if we can ever get suspend/resume working properly again) have a new default behavior with regard to idle suspend. i'm soliciting opinions on how to fine-tune this new behavior. before: in the past on XO-1, the screen would dim, and after a certain duration of inactivity, the laptop would suspend (with the screen dimmed). a keystroke or touchpad gesture would waken the laptop from this state. in contrast, pushing the power button would cause the screen to blank and the laptop to go to sleep. one could leave this state only by pushing the power button again (or by closing/opening the lid). note that there was no ambiguity as to whether keyboard input would cause the laptop to wake up: if the screen was on, it would, otherwise, it wouldn't. now: in the new scheme, the idle sequence has changed: after a fairly brief period of inactivity, the system will suspend, leaving the screen on. (the user may not even know this has happened.) assuming there is still no keyboard activity, a little later the screen will dim, and sometime after that, the screen will blank. (if you care about these timings, please comment on #10034, rather than here.) now we finally come to the fine-tuning: a) currently, once the screen blanks, a keystroke will _not_ wake the laptop. as a design, it seemed to make sense that if the screen was off, and the power LED was flashing slowly, then however we got there (i.e., via power button or idleness), the laptop should behave the same. b) but having been using the laptop this way for a while, several people have requested that if the screen blanks due to idleness, that it should remain wakeable with user activity. this makes it feel a lot more like a traditional screen saver (but note that your waking keystroke will be used, not dropped). everyone seems to be agreed that the power button, like a lid closure, should result in a state where the keyboard won't wake the laptop. so, what do you think? 'a' or 'b'? (note that 'a' and 'b' are identical with respect to power consumption.) further, if you choose 'a': are you comfortable having two laptop states: - dark screen wakeable from keyboard - dark screen _not_ wakeable from keyboard that are visually indistinguishable? is it worth adding yet another LED blink behavior to differentiate these states? paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
