| 1 |
On Sunday 10 January 2010 23:40:57 Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10 Jan 2010, at 18:45, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 10 January 2010 19:11:52 Frank Steinmetzger wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> one of the very last things I still need Win***s for is to wake me |
| 5 |
> >> up in |
| 6 |
> >> the morning: I set up a task schedule to launch a playlist with |
| 7 |
> >> Winamp. Do |
| 8 |
> >> you know of any way to let my laptop go on again automatically |
| 9 |
> >> after I put |
| 10 |
> >> it to sleep in its RAM? |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> In case it helps: I'm running 32 bit i686, version 2.6.30. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Sounds like a classic case of being WAAAAAAAY too complicated. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Have you considered buying a cheap alarm clock? |
| 17 |
> > Or setting your phone to play a tune for an alarm? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> This was my reaction, too, but c'mon, Linux's sleep functionality must |
| 20 |
> have a rewake feature, mustn't it? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I dunno. Think about this - in suspend, nothing is working and no user-code is |
| 23 |
running. The only power consumed is what is needed to refresh RAM. That must |
| 24 |
be there otherwise the content goes away if you try and resume. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So what part of the machine is powered to be able to wake it up? PCs don't |
| 27 |
have alarm clocks, the on-board clock can't usually do it, so the only option |
| 28 |
is for some code to be running, polling the time and cause the system to wake |
| 29 |
up. Which is exactly what suspend does not do. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Wake-on-LAN can do it, but that's not what the OP wants. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives