Please Explain Power Schemes in XP Home's Power Options Props

Can anyone either explain the confusing settings in Windows XP's Power
Options Properties dialogue, or refer me to an intelligible on-line
explanation? The Power Options dialogue's found in Control Panel. It can
also be reached via the "Power" button on the "Screen Saver" tab in the
Desktop's Display Properties dialogue. (I'm running XP's Home Edition with
SP2.)

The Power Options Properties "Power Schemes" tab lists four settings:

1. monitor off,
2. hard drive off,
3. system standby, and
4. system hibernation.

The "Power Schemes" contextual help feature provides two separate "tool tip"
explanatory texts for each of those four settings. Click the help cursor on
the "label" for any of the settings, at the left side of the "page," and
you'll be shown an explanation which makes no distinction between portable
and desktop systems. Click the help cursor on that same setting's "field"
itself, at the right side of the "page," and the help text will explain that
the setting is used when the system is "running on AC power," which suggests
the setting's relevant only to battery-powered systems.

I don't understand the relationship of the time intervals for hard drive
shut-down, for system standby, and for system hibernation. I'm assuming a
system can't enter standby or hibernation if its hard drive has already been
powered-down first. Can a drive which has been powered-down be "repowered"
in order to put the system into standby or hibernation? How can a system's
state be preserved (with respect to programs which were running and with
respect to folders and files which were open) if a drive shuts down *before*
the system enters standby or hibernation?

Thanks.

Jeff Hook, NJ, USA
(I've cross-posted this message to the Windows XP Hardware group, to the
Windows XP Help & Support group, and to the Windows XP Performance &
Maintenance group.)

"Jeffrey L. Hook" <NoOne@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:NRBlj.4742$hk4.4041@trnddc03...
> Can anyone either explain the confusing settings in Windows XP's Power
> Options Properties dialogue, or refer me to an intelligible on-line
> explanation? The Power Options dialogue's found in Control Panel. It can
> also be reached via the "Power" button on the "Screen Saver" tab in the
> Desktop's Display Properties dialogue. (I'm running XP's Home Edition
> with
> SP2.)
>
> The Power Options Properties "Power Schemes" tab lists four settings:
>
> 1. monitor off,

Sends a signal (or more accurately removes a signal) that causes the monitor
to enter its standby mode (saving energy and the backlight life).
Generally, pressing a key or moving the mouse causes the monitor to spring
back to life.

> 2. hard drive off,

Turns off the hard drive's motor and parks the head. When the drive needs to
be accessed, the drive motor has to first spin up again before data can be
recovered. The drive's firmware does not have to be reloaded so this is a
little quicker than when the drive is first turned on. There is much
controversy over whether starting and stopping causes more wear and tear
than just leaving the drive running. We have examples of disk drives that
are nearly a decade old that have never been switched off.

> 3. system standby,

Turns off almost all of the system, but retains the RAM contents. The RAM
is kept alive by the 5vSTBY output from the power supply. When windows is
restarted, it pretty well carries on where it left off. The only down side
is that an interuption in power will cause everything being worked on to be
lost (unless a save was made prior to standby).

> 4. system hibernation.
>

Almost the same as Standby except that as part of the hibernate process, the
contents of the RAM are written out to a file on the hard disc drive. When
windows is restarted, the first thing it does is look for this file and if
it finds it, reads it back into RAM. Windows then restarts as though
recovering from standby. The advantage of this mode is that a power
interuption will not lose anything being worked upon. Many users shut down
to this mode because restarting is much quicker than a full reboot.

XP's Power Options were intended for laptops, which frequently use
battery power. They also work with desktops, but with varying degrees of
success, because the hardware is different from a laptop.

This article contains a good explanation of the various power saving
states in Windows XP:

"To Sleep, Perchance To Hibernate..."
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020927S0028
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Jeffrey L. Hook wrote:
> Can anyone either explain the confusing settings in Windows XP's Power
> Options Properties dialogue, or refer me to an intelligible on-line
> explanation? The Power Options dialogue's found in Control Panel. It can
> also be reached via the "Power" button on the "Screen Saver" tab in the
> Desktop's Display Properties dialogue. (I'm running XP's Home Edition with
> SP2.)
>
> The Power Options Properties "Power Schemes" tab lists four settings:
>
> 1. monitor off,
> 2. hard drive off,
> 3. system standby, and
> 4. system hibernation.
>
> The "Power Schemes" contextual help feature provides two separate "tool tip"
> explanatory texts for each of those four settings. Click the help cursor on
> the "label" for any of the settings, at the left side of the "page," and
> you'll be shown an explanation which makes no distinction between portable
> and desktop systems. Click the help cursor on that same setting's "field"
> itself, at the right side of the "page," and the help text will explain that
> the setting is used when the system is "running on AC power," which suggests
> the setting's relevant only to battery-powered systems.
>
> I don't understand the relationship of the time intervals for hard drive
> shut-down, for system standby, and for system hibernation. I'm assuming a
> system can't enter standby or hibernation if its hard drive has already been
> powered-down first. Can a drive which has been powered-down be "repowered"
> in order to put the system into standby or hibernation? How can a system's
> state be preserved (with respect to programs which were running and with
> respect to folders and files which were open) if a drive shuts down *before*
> the system enters standby or hibernation?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jeff Hook, NJ, USA
> (I've cross-posted this message to the Windows XP Hardware group, to the
> Windows XP Help & Support group, and to the Windows XP Performance &
> Maintenance group.)
>
>

Thanks, M.I.5¾.

You said:

> We have examples of disk drives that are nearly a decade old that have
> never been switched off.

I'm aware that many systems are never shut off. I'm concerned about the
environmental effects of the use of electricity. I'm much more motivated to
reduce power plant emissions than to extend the life of my hardware. I'd
like to use my system's standby and hibernation capabilities as much as I
can for the benefit of the natural environment. I may be wrong about this,
but I think the service life of hardware devices may only be extended
negligibly if the devices are operated continuously. If that's true, then
the environmental cost of the extension of service life doesn't seem to be
justifiable.

Can we say that each of the four time-related settings on the "Power
Scheme" tab of the "Power Options Properties" "dialogue" or "sheet" refers
to a "device power-state change" which the system will make after an
interval of time which the user has chosen?

Your explanations of how the system makes each of those "power-state
changes" suggests an answer to my questions about the sequence of events,
and about how certain events can occur if the system's hard disk drive (HDD)
has already been powered-down. I said:

++++

I don't understand the relationship of the time intervals for hard drive
shut-down, for system standby, and for system hibernation. I'm assuming a
system *can't* enter standby or hibernation if its hard drive has *already*
been powered-down *first*. Can a drive which has been powered-down be
"repowered" in order to put the system into standby or hibernation? How can
a system's state be preserved (with respect to programs which were running
and with respect to folders and files which were open) if a drive shuts down
*before* the system enters standby or hibernation?

++++

These topics have been brought to my attention by a problem which I
experienced after I installed a new power supply unit. My system seemed to
enter standby automatically as I'd previously set it to do, and it left
standby in response to mouse movement, as I'd also previously set it to do,
but it seemed to be unable to restore its prior state. Instead, it
rebooted. I began to inquire about these "Power Schemes" settings in my
draft inquiry about my specific "system reboots from standby" problem, but I
thought I could increase clarity by breaking this topic out from the details
of my current problem. I'll start a new thread for my current system
problem in these same news groups later.

It looks like I failed to understand the role of RAM in the recovery of the
system's previous state from standby. I also seem to have misunderstood the
basic operation of the HDD.

Am I correct in assuming that the HDD does provide "permanent" data storage,
but its contents can only be read "in the moment," and that, to be available
"continuously," they must be stored either in RAM or in... hmmm....
"hiberfil.sys", which is merely a system file in the root of the selfsame
HDD... hmmm...

I'm still confused, but it seems I was wrong about assuming that the system
*couldn't* enter standby or hibernation *after* the HDD was powered down. I
now assume the HDD can be "switched on and off" without affecting the
system's restoration of its prior state from standby (for which it takes
data from RAM) or from hibernation (for which it takes data from
hiberfil.sys, on the HDD). I guess this suggests that, yes, the HDD *could*
be powered down first, but the system could later enter hibernation. Would
the system *always* store information about its prior state in RAM when the
HDD was powered down, and would the system then automatically power the HDD
back up in order to record prior state information to hiberfil.sys, or is
that too "baroque"? Is hiberfil.sys *always* used to store prior state
information, at *all* times, so the system would always be able to restore
its prior state directly from that file?

You offered this explanation of the system's use of RAM for its recovery
from standby:

++++

> 3. system standby

Turns off almost all of the system, but retains the RAM contents. The RAM
is kept alive by the 5vSTBY output from the power supply. When windows is
restarted, it pretty well carries on where it left off. The only down side
is that an interruption in power will cause everything being worked on to be
lost (unless a save was made prior to standby).

++++

Your explanation suggests that my system's apparent inability to restore its
prior state upon recovery from standby after the installation of a new power
supply unit *may* suggest that the new PSU *isn't* supplying power to RAM
correctly. Is that possible? If so, this thread may already be done, and
it may be appropriate for me to start a new thread in which I can offer the
details of my system hardware, etc., in case they're required for an
analysis of my "system reboots from standby" problem.

I'd be delighted, however, if anybody else chooses to add to this current
thread. Many other users may wish to know how we can use system power
management to reduce the environmental harm which is done by much of our
production of electrical power.

Thanks,
Jeff Hook, NJ, USA

Excellent, Leonard. Thanks. This helps to explain the reference to AC
power in the second of two tool-tip type contextual help texts which is
offered for each of the settings. I shouldn't be snide, because I don't have
any programming skills. Creating an OS must be a gargantuan job, and the
results aren't likely to be perfect, but, gee whiz, the use of power
management controls which simply don't work reliably doesn't seem
appropriate to me. Then again, it may be best to think of Windows as "a
work in progress"... After all, "it's only human to err..."

Thanks for the cited reference.

Jeff Hook, NJ, USA
(I've cross-posted this message to the Windows XP Hardware group, to the
Windows XP Help & Support group, and to the Windows XP Performance &
Maintenance group.)



"Leonard Grey" <Leonard@Grey.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23D5jGicXIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
XP's Power Options were intended for laptops, which frequently use
battery power. They also work with desktops, but with varying degrees of
success, because the hardware is different from a laptop.

This article contains a good explanation of the various power saving
states in Windows XP:

"To Sleep, Perchance To Hibernate..."
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020927S0028
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

I wasn't involved in the development of Windows - which works to
everyone's benefit - but I want to remind you that in XP, power options
were conceived with laptops in mind. (Don't know about Vista.) A laptop
has different hardware and a different BIOS from a desktop. It's
commonly known that power options don't always work well in desktops,
and that's largely a hardware issue.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Jeffrey L. Hook wrote:
> Excellent, Leonard. Thanks. This helps to explain the reference to AC
> power in the second of two tool-tip type contextual help texts which is
> offered for each of the settings. I shouldn't be snide, because I don't have
> any programming skills. Creating an OS must be a gargantuan job, and the
> results aren't likely to be perfect, but, gee whiz, the use of power
> management controls which simply don't work reliably doesn't seem
> appropriate to me. Then again, it may be best to think of Windows as "a
> work in progress"... After all, "it's only human to err..."
>
> Thanks for the cited reference.
>
> Jeff Hook, NJ, USA
> (I've cross-posted this message to the Windows XP Hardware group, to the
> Windows XP Help & Support group, and to the Windows XP Performance &
> Maintenance group.)
>
>
>
> "Leonard Grey" <Leonard@Grey.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23D5jGicXIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> XP's Power Options were intended for laptops, which frequently use
> battery power. They also work with desktops, but with varying degrees of
> success, because the hardware is different from a laptop.
>
> This article contains a good explanation of the various power saving
> states in Windows XP:
>
> "To Sleep, Perchance To Hibernate..."
> http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020927S0028
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
>

> It's commonly known that power options don't always work well in
> desktops, and that's largely a hardware issue.


Yes. If you wish, "stay tuned" in these same groups for my upcoming
separate thread about my current system's apparent inability to return to
its prior state after I replaced its power supply unit this past Saturday.
You can see in my reply to the prior message in this thread from M.I.5¾ that
my new PSU *may* not be supplying power to my RAM correctly. (It seems more
likely that Windows XP's Home Edition isn't using the PSU's capability
correctly.)

I've also discovered Herman van Eijk's "MCE Standby Tool," which is
discussed
at:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hveijk/mst/indexe.htm


and in this thread at The Green Button:

http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/1/2...howThread.aspx


Van Eijk said, in message 06 on 5-22-06 at (using the acronym "MCE" to refer
to "Media Center Edition" systems):
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344643

....The primary goal of the MST project is to put as many MCEs as possible
properly in and out of standby (my contribution to the prevention of the
greenhouse effect ). There are tens, possibly hundreds of reasons why a
system won't go standby as its meant to. MST is using several techniques to
work around a lot of them...

The cumulative environmental effect of more abstemious use of electrical
power by millions of computer users around the world could be significant.
I hope Microsoft will pay more attention to the operation of these power
management features now. I think Microsoft has a responsibility to improve
this functionality, due to its importance for the welfare of the natural
environment. We can all help if Microsoft gives us reliable settings which
we can use.

Jeff Hook

"(It seems more likely that Windows XP's Home Edition isn't using the
PSU's capability correctly.)"

lol...You have this "thing" about Windows XP. An operating system
doesn't 'use' a PSU rightly or wrongly, just like your television
doesn't 'use' the wall socket rightly or wrongly.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Jeffrey L. Hook wrote:
>> It's commonly known that power options don't always work well in
>> desktops, and that's largely a hardware issue.
>
>
> Yes. If you wish, "stay tuned" in these same groups for my upcoming
> separate thread about my current system's apparent inability to return to
> its prior state after I replaced its power supply unit this past Saturday.
> You can see in my reply to the prior message in this thread from M.I.5¾ that
> my new PSU *may* not be supplying power to my RAM correctly. (It seems more
> likely that Windows XP's Home Edition isn't using the PSU's capability
> correctly.)
>
> I've also discovered Herman van Eijk's "MCE Standby Tool," which is
> discussed
> at:
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~hveijk/mst/indexe.htm
>
>
> and in this thread at The Green Button:
>
> http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/1/2...howThread.aspx
>
>
> Van Eijk said, in message 06 on 5-22-06 at (using the acronym "MCE" to refer
> to "Media Center Edition" systems):
> http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344643
>
> ...The primary goal of the MST project is to put as many MCEs as possible
> properly in and out of standby (my contribution to the prevention of the
> greenhouse effect ). There are tens, possibly hundreds of reasons why a
> system won't go standby as its meant to. MST is using several techniques to
> work around a lot of them...
>
> The cumulative environmental effect of more abstemious use of electrical
> power by millions of computer users around the world could be significant.
> I hope Microsoft will pay more attention to the operation of these power
> management features now. I think Microsoft has a responsibility to improve
> this functionality, due to its importance for the welfare of the natural
> environment. We can all help if Microsoft gives us reliable settings which
> we can use.
>
> Jeff Hook
>
>

> lol...You have this "thing" about Windows XP. An operating system doesn't
> 'use' a PSU rightly or wrongly, just like your television doesn't 'use'
> the wall socket rightly or wrongly.

I appreciate the comment. It should be obvious that I'm ignorant both about
personal computer hardware topics and about electricity, so you're educating
me.

I thought a PSU performed some power-related "management" function. For
example, I saw many discussions of the provision by PSUs of appropriate
amounts of current/voltage ("whatever") to various system components via
multiple PSU "rails." Then I was confused to see that PC Power & Cooling
advocated single-rail design, arguing that multiple "rails" were obsolete.

The talk about "rails" and about the provision of various amounts and types
of power to various system components suggested that the PSU was managing or
controlling the distribution of power in response to simultaneous "demands"
by different components, which needed different voltage and amperage, etc.
I saw a small printed circuit board (PCB) inside my original PSU and in
"cover-off" photos of other PSUs. That suggested the PSU had some
computational/logic capability. For example, I assumed the PSU would need
to "shift" output from rail to rail. (However, the separate "rails" may
simply always be "flowing" with current at varying numbers of volts and of
amperes.)

The Windows XP Home "Power Options Properties" settings suggested some type
of similar power management or regulation function by the OS.

I should educate myself about these topics by conducting my own on-line
research, not by discussing them here. My ignorance of this stuff is so
extreme that an educational discussion here would be too basic to be of
interest to anyone, and it would detract from the value of this thread.

However, isn't the purpose of the "Power Options Properties" settings to
allow the user to adjust the OS's "use" of system power whether the system's
powered by a battery or by DC output of a desktop PSU? (My "thing" about
Windows XP may result from my reluctance to consider that my brand-new PC
Power & Cooling PSU may simply *not* be working correctly, "right out of the
retail box." I was thinking that, "Of course my brand new PSU couldn't be
malfunctioning; the problem must be caused by the OS." More about those
details in the separate upcoming thread about my system problems.)

Jeff Hook

"...isn't the purpose of the "Power Options Properties" settings to
allow the user to adjust the OS's "use" of system power..."

It allows you to choose how many minutes of inactivity there should be
before Windows sends a command to the hardware to power down. How the
hardware reacts to the command is not controlled by Windows. The Power
Options is also where you enable hibernation and configure your UPS
software.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Jeffrey L. Hook wrote:
>> lol...You have this "thing" about Windows XP. An operating system doesn't
>> 'use' a PSU rightly or wrongly, just like your television doesn't 'use'
>> the wall socket rightly or wrongly.
>
> I appreciate the comment. It should be obvious that I'm ignorant both about
> personal computer hardware topics and about electricity, so you're educating
> me.
>
> I thought a PSU performed some power-related "management" function. For
> example, I saw many discussions of the provision by PSUs of appropriate
> amounts of current/voltage ("whatever") to various system components via
> multiple PSU "rails." Then I was confused to see that PC Power & Cooling
> advocated single-rail design, arguing that multiple "rails" were obsolete.
>
> The talk about "rails" and about the provision of various amounts and types
> of power to various system components suggested that the PSU was managing or
> controlling the distribution of power in response to simultaneous "demands"
> by different components, which needed different voltage and amperage, etc.
> I saw a small printed circuit board (PCB) inside my original PSU and in
> "cover-off" photos of other PSUs. That suggested the PSU had some
> computational/logic capability. For example, I assumed the PSU would need
> to "shift" output from rail to rail. (However, the separate "rails" may
> simply always be "flowing" with current at varying numbers of volts and of
> amperes.)
>
> The Windows XP Home "Power Options Properties" settings suggested some type
> of similar power management or regulation function by the OS.
>
> I should educate myself about these topics by conducting my own on-line
> research, not by discussing them here. My ignorance of this stuff is so
> extreme that an educational discussion here would be too basic to be of
> interest to anyone, and it would detract from the value of this thread.
>
> However, isn't the purpose of the "Power Options Properties" settings to
> allow the user to adjust the OS's "use" of system power whether the system's
> powered by a battery or by DC output of a desktop PSU? (My "thing" about
> Windows XP may result from my reluctance to consider that my brand-new PC
> Power & Cooling PSU may simply *not* be working correctly, "right out of the
> retail box." I was thinking that, "Of course my brand new PSU couldn't be
> malfunctioning; the problem must be caused by the OS." More about those
> details in the separate upcoming thread about my system problems.)
>
> Jeff Hook
>
>