including urls might be nice.
also the feature comparison webpage
does not mention bios at all.
Till now I used SOFTWARE_SUSPEND because
it works fine, whereas PM_DISK somehow uses the
bios, and does not work (dell latitude c600,
I don't have that magic partition the dell bios
expects).
SWSUSP2 will be like SWSUSP concerning this issue?
regards, Andreas
Hi.
On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 10:35, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> including urls might be nice.
>
> also the feature comparison webpage
> does not mention bios at all.
True. Feel free to produce a column; I don't have any experience with
BIOS support for suspending, so don't know what it can/can't do and
whether this varies from computer to computer.
> Till now I used SOFTWARE_SUSPEND because
> it works fine, whereas PM_DISK somehow uses the
> bios, and does not work (dell latitude c600,
> I don't have that magic partition the dell bios
> expects).
>
> SWSUSP2 will be like SWSUSP concerning this issue?
I'm not sure that PM_DISK does use the bios. In fact, I'm pretty sure it
doesn't. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Regarding the relationship with SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, the answer is yes.
Software Suspend 2 works in a very similar way to Software Suspend.
Nigel
--
My work on Software Suspend is graciously brought to you by
LinuxFund.org.
Hi!
> including urls might be nice.
>
> also the feature comparison webpage
> does not mention bios at all.
> Till now I used SOFTWARE_SUSPEND because
> it works fine, whereas PM_DISK somehow uses the
> bios, and does not work (dell latitude c600,
Its simple bug somewhere in PM_DISK code... it should not use the
bios...
> SWSUSP2 will be like SWSUSP concerning this issue?
Yes.
Pavel
--
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]