Firefox 3.5
Bob Giddings
When I first upgraded to Firefox 3.5 last week, I was pleased
with the speed with which it loaded web pages. But it takes a
LONG time to load in the first place, compared to the previous
version.
Is this something peculiar to my setup, or do others have this
problem? Seems like the program takes two or three times as long
to load.
I just timed it. 3.5 took 30 seconds to load and present my home
page. Said like that, it doesn't sound so long. But in
subjective terms, it seems like forever.
Bob
Tom J
> When I first upgraded to Firefox 3.5 last week, I was pleased
> with the speed with which it loaded web pages. But it takes a
> LONG time to load in the first place, compared to the previous
> version.
>
> Is this something peculiar to my setup, or do others have this
> problem? Seems like the program takes two or three times as long
> to load.
Sea Monkey uses the same software I believe and it has a quick launch
setting?
I just right click on the icon in the tray & select Navigator & it
pops right in. Since Foxfire is a single function program it may just
be a single click??
Tom J
Bob Giddings
Quicklaunch is just a tray gimmick in Windows that saves a single
click. Nothing to do with speed of the program launching.
I've been through the program menu, and I can't find any setting
for quickload.
bill horne
It takes me 8 seconds to load 3.5 (homepage is Google) - but I think
previous versions loaded about twice as fast.
Maybe later I'll go back to a previous version and actually time it.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Art Todesco
the morning, it takes forever.
What I mean is that I have a bunch of
folders in the tool bar that have
all my frequent and favorite links. To
even drop down one of the
folders is what takes a long time. BTW,
my computer is on all day,
just shutting it down at bedtime. Just
now, I opened 3.5 and the
dropdowns came up almost instantly. I
haven't investigated possible
reasons, but I will play around with it
later.
bill horne
Correction/update:
Only the first time after a computer reboot does it take a long time
to load. Subsequent startups take about 2 seconds. This is from the
desktop icon, which requires a doubleclick.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
Well, damn. I don't know what's the matter. The old version
took about 5 seconds on my laptop. The new one takes 30. I
haven't changed anything else.
Once up, it is quite speedy at loading new pages.
bill horne
Actually, Quick Launch is supposed to retain part of the program in
memory so that it subsequently loads faster. This from Seamonkey Help:
------------------------------------------------------
When you installed SeaMonkey, you were given the option of enabling or
disabling Quick Launch. If enabled, Quick Launch loads part of
SeaMonkey into memory when Windows first starts (and each time
SeaMonkey first starts up). Quick Launch allows SeaMonkey to stay in
memory after you close all SeaMonkey windows. This lets SeaMonkey
quickly start up when you need it, without having to load all of
SeaMonkey. If your computer is low in memory, you can disable Quick
Launch to conserve memory.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been through the program menu, and I can't find any setting
> for quickload.
I can't either - but see my correction/update.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>Bob Giddings wrote:
Apparently we are talking about different things. I thought he
meant the Quicklaunch tool tray in Windows. You seem to be
speaking of some part of Seamonkey. As far as I can tell,
there's no comparable feature in Firefox 3.5.
bill horne
No, we're talking about the same thing, but I can't find it in
Firefox, either. Standby - or not - while I try something. Be back
shortly.
bill horne
Nevermind. It was an expectation not fulfilled.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
I can't figure it out. If it is only happening to me, it must be
peculiar to my set up, but it is far from obvious what is wrong.
Guess I'll learn to live with it, which means leaving Firefox
always on in background.
bill horne
Or you could just click on it 30 seconds before you need it.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
Unfortunately my prescience program takes 30 seconds to load all
by itself. Sometimes longer.
bill horne
Set it up for Quick Launch.
Tom J
You want me to send you a copy of 3.0.1??
;-)
Tom J
Elliot Richmond
<bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, damn. I don't know what's the matter. The old version
>took about 5 seconds on my laptop. The new one takes 30. I
>haven't changed anything else.
>
>Once up, it is quite speedy at loading new pages.
Could you have changed a setting so that it deletes the cache? Or
could Windows have done that for you? Deleting the cached files means
that the browser must reload images, applets, etc. each time it starts
up.
Elliot
Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Bob Giddings
I tried increasing the cache from 50 meg to 250 meg. It made a
little difference, but not much. Maybe it is a learning process,
and takes a little time.
Bob
Tom J
If you are loading sites with video clips, check the on line help
files.
Tom J
Bob Hatch
Bob Giddings <bobgid...@gmail.com> typed:
I'm between 7 and 10 seconds to load FF 3.5 with 7 tabbed pages as the home
page over HughesNet.
--
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism,
but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every
fragment of the socialist program until one day America
will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
Mark Jones
> I can't figure it out. If it is only happening to me, it must be
> peculiar to my set up, but it is far from obvious what is wrong.
> Guess I'll learn to live with it, which means leaving Firefox
> always on in background.
It is only the first load that is slow.
Bob Giddings
That's right. Which is why I should leave it on in the
background. Or just get over my need for speed.
bill horne
Or do as I do - drive 8 over everywhere you go.
Janet Wilder
I have had the same problem with the previous version and the new
version taking a long time to load. I only wish it was just 30 seconds.
3.5 is a little faster than its predecessor which sometimes took 90
seconds. I did find that clearing the cache more frequently helps a little.
--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.
Robert Bonomi
FALSE. 'quick launch' programs are "pre-started" _when_ you log in to the
machine (or when you turn it on, if set for a single user)
>
>I've been through the program menu, and I can't find any setting
>for quickload.
It's in the installer program. at the very end. three checkboxes:
put it on the desktop
put it on the menu
put it in quick-launch.
Robert Bonomi
Repeating: selecting quick-launch is an option in the installer. re-run
the installer.
Robert Bonomi
Is the disk mostly full? run the disk optimizer (defragmenter).
Get and run a registry cleaner. "Eusing Free Registry Cleaner" recommended.
Tell it to load a blank page on startup.
Check how much memory you have on the machine. 3.5 _is_ bigger than the
prior version. If you've got other stuff running, or are 'quick launch'ing
things you don't use, this _can_ make a significant difference.
Bob Giddings
>Firefox does not have a Quick Start option, only Seamonkey and Netscape
>do. The option in firefox is to CREATE AN ICON/SHORTCUT IN THE QUICK
>LAUNCH AREA, which in Windows is the area of the task bar next to the
>Start button.
>
>The Quick Launch area is an option in the properties of the Start button.
I did that. It is no quicker than using the menu. It is just a
convenient placement of the icon.
There was no "quicklaunch" option in the installer in the sense
you mean. Did you install Firefox 3.5?
Bob Giddings
I don't remember this at all, Robert. But I will reinstall it to
see.
Bob
John Kinney
>
> When I first upgraded to Firefox 3.5 last week, I was pleased
> with the speed with which it loaded web pages. But it takes a
> LONG time to load in the first place, compared to the previous
> version.
>
> Is this something peculiar to my setup, or do others have this
> problem? Seems like the program takes two or three times as long
> to load.
>
> I just timed it. 3.5 took 30 seconds to load and present my home
> page. Said like that, it doesn't sound so long. But in
> subjective terms, it seems like forever.
I'm not sure what happened to my earlier post, but this is a known bug.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605
Title:
Bug 501605 - very slow startup for Firefox 3.5 due to accessing IE
Internet Temporary Files and Windows Temp folder
Regards, John Kinney
Bob Giddings
Thanks, John. This is the first time I've heard this. This is
what I wanted to know.
Bob
Frank Howell
Did his disk get full after upgrade? I doubt it.
Did the upgrade defrag his disk? I doubt it.
Did the upgrade make his registry dirty? I doubt it.
>
> Check how much memory you have on the machine. 3.5 _is_ bigger than
> the
> prior version. If you've got other stuff running, or are 'quick
> launch'ing things you don't use, this _can_ make a significant
> difference.
Did 3.5 give his machine amnesia? I doubt it.
--
Frank Howell
Bob Giddings
>Yes, Firefox does not, and never has had the Quick Start Option. It's
>only in Seamonkey and Netscape.
Well, there's the answer to the question that haunted my
childhood: "What's up, Doc?"
Thanks.
Bob
bill horne
I've reinstalled Firefox with the quick launch option selected.
Seamonkey allows me to turn it on and off in Preferences.
Here's what actually happens:
When Firefox is loaded, a process - firefox.exe shows up in the task
manager.
When Firefox is closed, the process disappears, and memory used
returns to the same as before launch.
When Seamonkey is loaded with quick launch off, a process -
Seamonkey.exe - shows up in the task manager.
When Seamonkey is closed, the process disappears, and memory used
returns to the same as before launch.
If quick launch is turned on before closing Seamonkey, the process
remains in task manager, and memory does Not return to the same as
before launch.
I have to conclude that FF has no actual quick launch (partly retained
in memory), but Seamonkey does.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>Bob Giddings wrote:
John Kinney has reported that this is a known and reported bug in
Firefox 3.5 that did not appear in 3.0. I expect there will be a
patch soon. It's the sort of thing that people will complain
about.
I just dusted off Chrome again. It's lightning fast compared to
Firefox now.
Bob
Janet Wilder
> John Kinney has reported that this is a known and reported bug in
> Firefox 3.5 that did not appear in 3.0. I expect there will be a
> patch soon. It's the sort of thing that people will complain
> about.
>
> I just dusted off Chrome again. It's lightning fast compared to
> Firefox now.
>
> Bob
You might want to subscribe to news.mozilla.org. It's a free
subscription to a news server with groups that answer questions about
Mozilla products. I have gotten a lot of good information and help there.
bill horne
Except that I'm not experiencing it. My slowest load of 3.5 is the
first load after a machine reboot - about 8-10 seconds. After that, it
loads in about 2 seconds.
> I just dusted off Chrome again. It's lightning fast compared to
> Firefox now.
>
> Bob
On the half dozen or so pages I've compared (timed) them, FF 3.5 loads
the page faster than Seamonkey. In some cases, almost twice as fast.
I never compared previous versions of FF with Seamonkey.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
There is a problem, and it is not rare. But I'll probably get
used to it now that I know I'm not the only one, and people are
working on it.
Since I get much of my TV downloaded through my laptop, I've got
lots of things going on that many people might not. Plus Apple
keeps loading me up with stuff I don't use. I only use Itunes
for one album somebody gifted me with. I may just purge.
A friend of mine just got a new Macbook Pro, and I have to say
it's a sweet machine. Very light and bright and almost
completely silent. I might consider one next time around. If I
can find a map program that runs on it.
Bob
Peter Pan
"Bob Giddings" <bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23l455t3rp90jq2j4...@4ax.com...
>
> I can't figure it out. If it is only happening to me, it must be
> peculiar to my set up, but it is far from obvious what is wrong.
> Guess I'll learn to live with it, which means leaving Firefox
> always on in background.
Have you added stuff lately, or changed your swap file size? it loads faster
from a swap file, but if there is other stuff in there now, it may be
loading it fresh...
Peter Pan
add it to your start up folder, it will load on startup then, and just
ignore it, minimize it, or close it....
Robert Bonomi
If disk is mostly full, and badly fragmented, then the _new_ executable may
well be in many fragments, rather than a single contiguous section.
This fragmentation happens as a result of things that have occurred AT ANY
TIME since the install of the _prior_ version.
>Did the upgrade make his registry dirty? I doubt it.
_Lots_ of strange things go on with the registry. All it takes is for 3.5
to decide to use a single new key, that got added way at the end of a search
chain, and the look-up for that key, which the prior version *doesn't* do,
adds significantly to the load time. cleaning the registry of obsolete/unused
keys, and rebuilding the hash-tables/re-balancing the trees can make significant
difference as far as speeding up the start-up of -everything-.
>> Check how much memory you have on the machine. 3.5 _is_ bigger than
>> the
>> prior version. If you've got other stuff running, or are 'quick
>> launch'ing things you don't use, this _can_ make a significant
>> difference.
>
>Did 3.5 give his machine amnesia? I doubt it.
What the hell does 'amnesia' have to do with a bigger executable causing
a machine to start thrashing from virtual-memory contention?
Things that people 'doubt' make a difference, really can, and often *DO* make
a difference. <grin>
What he's seeing is some quirkiness more-or-less specific to _his_ machine,
so one is looking for things in the environment the application is running
in that vary from installation to installation, and that can affect
performance. Disk fragmentation, memory thrashing, and registry issues
_are_ (far and away!) the most common source for those kinds of problems.
Neon John
<bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A friend of mine just got a new Macbook Pro, and I have to say
>it's a sweet machine. Very light and bright and almost
>completely silent. I might consider one next time around. If I
>can find a map program that runs on it.
If you don't want to drink the Apple koolaid, another option that is
just as sweet is Linux and Sun's Virtual_Box. VB runs winders in a
virtual machine window.
This setup gives you the stability of Linux, (with the gnome GUI) the
familiarity of windows and for must-have windows applications, you can
run genuine windows.
I've had that setup for about 6 months now and am completely happy. I
can run Street Atlas in a VB window, along with a few other programs
like PageMaker for which there is no Linux equivalent. Windows still
misbehaves but when it BSODs, all I have to do is close the window and
open it anew to start over. No rebooting and no losing other work in
progress.
John
Bob Giddings
wrote:
How big is the speed penalty for Windows-in-a -box?
Bob Giddings
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>What he's seeing is some quirkiness more-or-less specific to _his_ machine,
>so one is looking for things in the environment the application is running
>in that vary from installation to installation, and that can affect
>performance. Disk fragmentation, memory thrashing, and registry issues
>_are_ (far and away!) the most common source for those kinds of problems.
I did a disk defrag, no difference. It's not so big a problem
that I want to get into registry tweaking. That can cause FAR
more trouble that it likely cures.
Some people have this problem, some don't. But enough DO that I
suspect they will get on it.
Bob
Elliot Richmond
>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:37:19 -0500, Bob Giddings
><bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've had that setup for about 6 months now and am completely happy. I
>can run Street Atlas in a VB window, along with a few other programs
>like PageMaker for which there is no Linux equivalent.
Do you run Open Office or Star Office under Linux? If so, how do you
like 'em?
Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Neon John
I never ran this computer on windows but it has about the same specs
as my Dell had. Comparing the two, windows-in-a-box is actually a
little faster. I wouldn't dare try to explain how virtualization
works because I'm not all that sure I understand enough to do so but
as I understand it, the virtual machine actually runs on the hardware
during its time slice. The virtualization software simply maps system
resources to the memory blocks allocated to the box. Or something
like that. In any event, very compute-intensive applications like
CDex run as fast, if not a bit faster than they did on my Dell.
John
Neon John
I use Open Office and like it a lot. I don't do much word processing
but I do use the spreadsheet a lot for engineering calculations. I've
settled on Excel 97 as my standard format. In my lab I have another
laptop running a stripped down version of XP that serves as my
software development platform. It contains the windows version of OO.
I can move files back and forth seamlessly. I like to build a
spreadsheet on this machine because I can sit back in my easy chair
and relax. Then move the sheet over to the dev machine over the
network.
I'm using Ubuntu 8.05 Linux. I've not been brave enough to try
upgrading yet. My hard drive is making a funny sound so I'm about to
replace it. That'll probably be when I do the upgrade.
Virtual Box lets you set up a Linux directory as a networked drive in
windows. I have /home/jgd, my home directory, mapped as drive Z in
virtual windows. That way I can keep all my data files on the Linux
file system and still work on them with windows applications.
One other nice thing is that peripherals that are not supported under
Linux can still be operated by VB windows. My Canon scanner for
instance. Canon is very hostile toward Linux and offers no driver
support at all. (and scolds you if you ask). Not willing to give up
my rather high end scanner, I simply fire off VB and use Irfanview to
do the scan.
John
Robert Bonomi
Bob Giddings <bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:24:39 -0500, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>What he's seeing is some quirkiness more-or-less specific to _his_ machine,
>>so one is looking for things in the environment the application is running
>>in that vary from installation to installation, and that can affect
>>performance. Disk fragmentation, memory thrashing, and registry issues
>>_are_ (far and away!) the most common source for those kinds of problems.
>
>I did a disk defrag, no difference.
Its one of those things that never hurts to do. At worst, all it does is
chew up some time.
One thing that might be worth a try -- first thing after a fresh boot-up,
launch IE and clear out all the temporary internet files. Then exit IE and
see how fast Firefox comes up. Obviously would be a nuisance to do this
regularly, but it might go a ways towards nailing the source of the problem.
> It's not so big a problem
>that I want to get into registry tweaking. That can cause FAR
>more trouble that it likely cures.
Indeed, if done improperly. That said, I've -never- had a problem with
the tool I suggested. It is fairly conservative in what it tweaks/cleans,
practically insists that you back up the registry first, and after it tells
what it finds, it *asks* which of the stuff you want to clean up. These
folks know how to write software! <grin>
>Some people have this problem, some don't. But enough DO that I
>suspect they will get on it.
It seems to be primarily those who go back-and-forth between IE and Firefox.
Fetching the 'last visited', etc. stuff from IE.
I use Firefox exclusively -- have 3.5 running off a thumb drive, and find it
loads _faster_, in the 10-20% range, than 3.0.11 off the hard disk. Also,
on start-up I load "About:blank", so I'm not having to do any DNS look-up
for resolving a URL, nor waiting for network data. Every little bit helps.:)
To use a classic phrase "go figure". <wry grin>
Bob Giddings
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>It seems to be primarily those who go back-and-forth between IE and Firefox.
>Fetching the 'last visited', etc. stuff from IE.
I hadn't heard that. And in any case it doesn't apply to me. I
use, or did use, Firefox almost exclusively. I kept IE on the
system just for those moments when certain downloads demand it.
Today I have been playing with Chrome. But the bottom line is I
am used to Firefox, and won't change just because of this one new
defect.
nothermark
>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:29:01 -0500, Bob Giddings wrote:
>
>Yes, Firefox does not, and never has had the Quick Start Option. It's
>only in Seamonkey and Netscape.
Interesting - mine has lived in quicklaunch since it was installed
when I loaded this HD last year. I'm pretty sure it was in the old PC
and it is in my laptop loads.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
You are confusing the quick launch tray with a quick launch
option .
Janet Wilder
> Do you run Open Office or Star Office under Linux? If so, how do you
> like 'em?
Hi Eilliot,
My netbook runs Open Office under Linux. It works fine. I have Open
Office on my desktop, too. While we were in Europe last year I kept a
daily travel diary. When we came home I copied it onto a thumb drive and
loaded it into the desktop. Then I put it into Word Perfect where I
edited it.
nothermark
>You mean on the left side of the Task Bar? That is the Windows Quick
>Launch AREA and that is nothing but an icon for Firefox, IE, and possibly
>windows Media Player and any other Icon a program may have stuck there.
>There is probably an Icon for Thunderbird or OE, depending on what you
>run also.
>
>QUICK START, part of Seamonkey and Netscape only, places a small Icon on
>the Notification Tray on the right hand side near the clock, and
>indicates that Seamonkey or Netscape is still running in memory and ready
>to jump to the foreground on command.
>
>Seamonkey and Netscape have 3 states, Off, Running, and idling in
>memory. FireFox has only ever had 2 states, Off or Running. No
>inbetween.
>
>You are confusing the Windows Quick Launch AREA with Quick Start. They
>are two different things.
I stand corrected by you and Bob.
I start Firefox when I start the computer anyway so I am having a hard
time wondering why you folks are worried about it. ;-)
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>
>I start Firefox when I start the computer anyway so I am having a hard
>time wondering why you folks are worried about it. ;-)
It's just an odd thing to find in a new release, that puts it at
a disadvantage vis a vis OE or Safari or Chrome. You sort of
expect these things to improve, not go backward.
I can remember when I used to have to start the computer and walk
away for 5 minutes while everything loaded. Maybe this is just a
retro thing for Mozilla, bringing back the "good old days".
I am not in the habit of leaving any program on all day. I walk
by during the day and check on things, then turn it off. Maybe I
ought to get a new habit.
Bob
The Hamster
> Maybe I ought to get a new habit.
I think you'd look good in this one....
http://www.adultcostumeshop.com.au/contents/media/l_83127-nun-costume.jpg
David "The Hamster" Malone
Bob Giddings
You have FAR too much time on your hands, David.
The Hamster
> You have FAR too much time on your hands, David.
But.... but... I only have ONE watch.
David "The Hamster" Malone
bill horne
Seamonkey has a memory leak that requires me to restart it several
times a week. Other than that, it stays loaded 24/7.
bill horne
> On Jul 9, 2:22 pm, Bob Giddings <bobgiddin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You have FAR too much time on your hands, David.
>
> But.... but... I only have ONE watch.
You being a hamster, it's probably a big one.
Robert Bonomi
If you haven't discovered it, investigate how to "hibernate" the machine
rather than the regular 'shut down'. It powers the machine _completely_
off, like a shut down, *BUT* it saves the complete machine state as of
when you hibernate, and the machine comes back on, full up, *WITH* the
same programs already running (in exactly the state you left them in, at
hibernation time), in a matter of a few (like less than 10 on a -slow-
machine) seconds.
This is one of the few things that Microsoft _really_ "got right". It
_almost_ makes up for the terrible start-up time of the O/S, and of many
applications.
The Hamster
> You being a hamster, it's probably a big one.
It is... but I don't go around bragging about it...
(Oh, you mean the watch?)
David "The Hamster" Malone
bill horne
> On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> wrote:
>
>> You being a hamster, it's probably a big one.
>
> It is... but I don't go around bragging about it...
>
> (Oh, you mean the watch?)
Yeah. It was an allusion to an old AF saying.
The Hamster
> Yeah. It was an allusion to an old AF saying.
Which is...?
David "The Hamster" Malone
Janet Wilder
> If you haven't discovered it, investigate how to "hibernate" the machine
> rather than the regular 'shut down'. It powers the machine _completely_
> off, like a shut down, *BUT* it saves the complete machine state as of
> when you hibernate, and the machine comes back on, full up, *WITH* the
> same programs already running (in exactly the state you left them in, at
> hibernation time), in a matter of a few (like less than 10 on a -slow-
> machine) seconds.
>
> This is one of the few things that Microsoft _really_ "got right". It
> _almost_ makes up for the terrible start-up time of the O/S, and of many
> applications.
I used to hibernate my lap tops all the time but some one told me not to
do it because it wasn't safe. I can't remember why.
I would love to hibernate the desk top. Firefox takes long to open only
on boot up, so hibernation would work so well, but now I'm afraid to do it.
bill horne
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> If you haven't discovered it, investigate how to "hibernate" the machine
>> rather than the regular 'shut down'. It powers the machine _completely_
>> off, like a shut down, *BUT* it saves the complete machine state as of
>> when you hibernate, and the machine comes back on, full up, *WITH* the
>> same programs already running (in exactly the state you left them in, at
>> hibernation time), in a matter of a few (like less than 10 on a -slow-
>> machine) seconds.
>>
>> This is one of the few things that Microsoft _really_ "got right". It
>> _almost_ makes up for the terrible start-up time of the O/S, and of many
>> applications.
>
> I used to hibernate my lap tops all the time but some one told me not to
> do it because it wasn't safe. I can't remember why.
I've been hibernating my laptops and desktops for years without any
problems.
> I would love to hibernate the desk top. Firefox takes long to open only
> on boot up, so hibernation would work so well, but now I'm afraid to do it.
>
--
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>Janet Wilder wrote:
I've disabled hibernation on my last two laptops by HP. Not that
anything deadly happens, but it is a pain in the ass.
Randomly, not all the time, it fails to come out of hibernation,
and I have to restart it by unplugging it and briefly removing
the batteries. Both in Vista and xp2.
There's just nothing that hibernation does that is worth the
trouble.
Bob
Lone Haranguer
LZ
>
>
Robert Bonomi
The _only_ down-side to hibernating, vs. re-booting, is that hibernating
doesn't recover any memory leaks. It is -absolutely- no different from
leaving the machine on the entire time (or letting it go into 'standby'),
*except* for the _zero_ power-consumption.o
Is is the proverbial "good idea(TM)" to save whatever you are working on
before hibernating -- on *rare* occasions, a machine won't come out of
hibernation properly, and you do have to do a 'start from scratch' boot-up.
In -that- specific situation (only!), you do lose any 'unsaved' work you
had in any applications that were open at the time.
If you can't remember who told you, and _why_, I _wouldn't_ worry about it.
I think I've _heard_of_ problems with machines coming out of hibernation
a total of 3 times, since 2002. this includes personal machines, family,
friends, and work. Probably 20+ machines, all told. So, there's around
150 machine-years of experience that says problems are *really* rare. :)