Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:

> Why the hell did they invent suspend-to-disk?

I take it you don't like the idea ?

My only laptop is OS X, and I tend to leave so much open (text files of temporary notes, a gazzillion web pages/tabs, mail (home), mail (work), and a few others. To boot takes several minutes*, sleep takes a second or two.
But for a while I was using a laptop without a working battery, and then suspend to disk was a godsend. Takes a little longer writing 8G to disk and reading it in again when waking, but really really made sense for me - and as implemented in OS X works very well.
While I now have a working (more or less) battery, it will still suspend to disk if the battery is almost down when I sleep it.

As an aside, a lot of years ago with a different hat one, we had a customer who moved around a lot - but didn't actually need "portable" use. Laptops weren't common back then, and Apple's "portable" cost £4.5k, had a crap display, and was generally descibed by others as "luggable" (I've seen smaller batteries on a motorbike !) In the end, he settled on a Mac LC (original version, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_LC) with an extra keyboard, mouse, and monitor. The computer itself was small enough (just) to go in a briefcase.
Suspend to disk would have been just brilliant for that application.

So personally, I think it's a wonderful idea. If there are problems in some implementations, I'd say you should direct your displeasure to the implementation rather than the concept.

* As discussed before, the "system" boot time is fairly irrelevant - the system isn't usable for my workload for a couple of minutes after the services have loaded. 10 or 20 seconds either way would be irrelevant.