|
|
It seems to me replacing the CMOS battery is, if not the first thing to do after a computer malfunction, always a good idea if you can't recall the last time you performed such routine maintenance. That said, in all the years that I favored my DELL Inspiron ... I couldn't even say whether it had a CMOS battery (because I certainly never consciously reupped one).
Just for FAILSAFE purposes, pull the CMOS battery ... to see that the BIOS resets. You really couldn't go wrong "testing" that, right? If not for running up the "Fast Startup" colors, just to refresh your own non-routine routine Windows use behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's certainly interesting. A few times I've had strange driver-related bugs, and (knowing that a restart is not quite the same as a shutdown/startup) I've done a full shut down, waited 10 minutes, and started up - expecting that if I tell Microsoft to shut the system down, it will do as I've requested. This explains why "hard" reboots like this do not clear driver faults, because the drivers (and other system processes) are not actually being restarted.  WTF, Microsoft?
Option now changed. And I will need to do SWMBO's machine too as that has all sorts of nasty behaviour that has persisted across multiple last-ditch attempts to clear stuff by SHUTTING DOWN AND RESTARTING. (In CAPS because I'm metaphorically shouting at *@*&% Microsoft...)
(Oh, and it seems you can only get to that screen via Control Panel NOT via system settings / power plans)
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: Option now changed. And I will need to do SWMBO's machine too as that has all sorts of nasty behaviour that has persisted across multiple last-ditch attempts to clear stuff by SHUTTING DOWN AND RESTARTING. (In CAPS because I'm metaphorically shouting at *@*&% Microsoft...)
I agree 100%
|
|
|
|
|
Power & Sleep Options in Settings. Then click "Additional power settings" under "Related settings" heading on far right.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately by design. "Fast Startup" is designed to keep your profile in memory so it can be reloaded quickly the next time you turn on the computer. Keeping the memory alive is why you see battery usage when "shutdown." Basically it's a pseudo sleep mode. Unfortunately it also prevents using shutdowns to enable reloading a profile and the only way to reload a profile when this misfeature is active is to use the "Restart" or "Logoff followed by a Shutdown". I always turn it off for this reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's my point too, the feature is probably far more problematic than it is helpful.
Imagine all the strange states that will occur when someone "shuts down" thinking everything is wiped, but then this very esoteric feature is on. REally kind of terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Another consideration:
When it's in the "hibernating" state, the file system(s) are still mounted, so on a dual-boot system you can't access them from, say, Linux.
This has bitten me in the past, but I can't recall what Windows version it was.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I turned this thing off as soon as I discovered it. It keeps the damn kernel resident in memory and turns your ram into a sort of NVRAM (at the cost of your battery).
I don't care how long it takes to boot, a desktop or laptop computer must be as dead as your great-great-great grandmother when you shutdown. The one exception being the system clock (as always) and maybe a signal monitor on your NC for remote bootup (those things are tricky to get working right)
It just ain't right...almost contra natura 
|
|
|
|
|
Great post. I agree 100% It's a crazy feature -- especially since it is _basically hidden_ to most users. I've been using Windows since Win3.1 & I muck around in Windows a lot & understand a lot of settings but this feature is quite esoteric -- and I believe it is relatively new (only implemented under Win10, right?)
It should be turned off by default & if the user wants it then they can turn it on.
My drive is a M.2 nvme anyways & my laptop starts up in about 5 seconds even without this feature.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, fair[^]
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too funny
The most expensive tool is a cheap tool. Gareth Branwyn
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
<rant>
If you want to build up some technical debt that becomes brittle, difficult to maintain, and that will eventually metastasize into a massive pus spewing ball of nightmares be sure to package your code into multiple NuGet packages that you sprinkle over your projects like hail on a greenhouse.
Do these things save time?
No.
The web of dependencies that you can build with these things is incredible and I'd argue that the time it takes to properly manage these conveniences more than offsets simply keeping all your code for a solution within that solution. I've about had it with nice little widgets you can include in a project that immediately explode when jumping from JQuery 3.5.1 to 3.5.2 - indecipherable errors and surprise failures everywhere.
Don't even get me started on the magic of code generation... that is a nice little dependency that will absolutely stab you in the back, rob you, steal your car and run off to Mexico with your girlfriend. I'm getting to the point where I hate every single freakin' pointdexter that posts a solution of some sort on GitHub - I'm glad you've managed to pad yoru resume - thanks for the headache.
|
|
|
|
|
MadGerbil wrote: NuGet ... JQuery
There's your first problem. 
Client-side libraries like Bootstrap and jQuery should never have been distributed as NuGet packages. Especially since Visual Studio now has a built-in client library manager[^] to manage them for you.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
NO!
You may be a nice, seasoned, and well-adjusted developer but I won't let you justify this nonsense or shift the blame to me. I'm mid-rant right now and you need to just let this play out.
-------------------------------------
As for the substance of your post there are many client side web packages that have very specific JQuery dependencies and so forth. It isn't as easy as just letting Visual Studio manage it. It should be that easy, but alas...
|
|
|
|
|
MadGerbil wrote: a nice little dependency that will absolutely stab you in the back, rob you, steal your car and run off to Mexico with your girlfriend.
Promise? Please? 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds to me like your Chakras are blocked or out of balance. I think you need to fine tune your meditation techniques.
Just saying...
|
|
|
|
|
Well... I mean... never use third-party code.
Always roll your own and you can always locate the culprit very easily.
modified 17-May-22 11:21am.
|
|
|
|
|
Saying this from the beginning. 90% of "programmers" are either amateurs or never work on anything safety relevant.
Every time we add some component we keep a copy under version control and it is frozen. Only new major versions or extensively customized ones may use different versions, which become frozen and bundled as well.
In my current field every software component has to have an accompanying heap of safety documents and certifications that there is no will to joyfully add crap to the codebase... and that's without considering that 64 kB of code memory might be all that we have to work with so everything is trimmed to the last variable.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say, this approach makes a lot of sense to me. I do the same thing, for the few external dependencies that I have in my codebase.
I got bitten by the (reference!) FLAC encoder / decoder recently and had to do a bit of roll-your-sleeves-up-and-get-stuck-in debugging. So now (a) I have code that works, and (b) a bug report to file (need to get round to doing that!)
Paul Sanders.
Some of my best work is in the undo buffer.
|
|
|
|
|
I posted this a while ago. It's the Marketing blurbs for Nuget.
The New Nuget Marketing Brochure
Works when it works.
Total chaos when it doesn't --- and you're alone when it doesn't. 
|
|
|
|
|
Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.
ed
|
|
|
|
|
The internet may not forget, but it can hardly remember something it almost never heard of. I'm looking for a computer that was described in Dr. Dobb's Journal (for those who remember what that was) and mentioned in another book about another computer. From these sources, I can pinpoint it to 1985 or earlier and that's about all the entire internet has to say about it so far. I don't even have any idea what it looked like.
It must have been some sort of portable computer with internal NiCd batteries. It had some sort of LCD display for 8 lines of 40 characters, a 1200 baud modem and 64k - 256k RAM. Dimensions and weight were described as 11 by 13 by 3 1/8 inches and 12.8 pounds. It also had two interchangable processor boards, one with a CMOS Z80 and the other with a (also CMOS) CDP1805. As a CMOS system, it got a decent battery life of 12 - 80 hours out of its NiCd batteries, depending of how much use you made of the display.
It was called the UDI-500 and must have been an expensive toy for managers. Does anyone have more information or even heard of it? It's like a missing relative in the family tree. How did it handle two so very different processors?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
