hibernation feature on XP/W2K/etc.

[VirtualLarry]

Remember my ranting that XP's "Hibernate" feature was mostly broken, due to the lack of proper OS-level disk-cache semantics? How it was potentially destructive to user data and for that reason, should never be used, by most ordinary users? How some users would actually swap hardware while hibernated, and how MS should have issued a stern warning about that, but didn't? See what happens in the real world, with real users, using XP's Hibernate feature
(Granted, incorrectly, but my beef with MS is that they don't make that very clear up-front that such uses are not supported.)

 

[bsobel]

:roll: Typical VL BS. This scenario is supported, if the user had the problem as described he has something fubar'd on the system (or he cloned the externals and the have the same signature).

Yes there have been bugs in the past in this feature, but they continue to be addressed. This issue from 2002 (long ago addressed) shows that such scenarios are fully supported. As does this one.

I can't wait until we get that ignore user feature.

Bill