The off button?

[Goldfish4209]

I just read the article on the graphics testing platform and was pleasantly suprised to find out that the sleep button in vista can be changed to being the off button, as logic (and the icon) would suggest. How is this done?

Thanks in advance.

 

[SilentRunning]

Control Panel->Hardware and Sound->Power Options->Change Plan Settings(for selected plan)->Change Advance Plan Settings->Power Button and Lid Options->Start Menu Power Button->Setting->Shutdown

Edit OOPS meant Control Panel

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209
I just read the article on the graphics testing platform and was pleasantly suprised to find out that the sleep button in vista can be changed to being the off button, as logic (and the icon) would suggest. How is this done?

Thanks in advance.

Why would you want to do this?

 

[Goldfish4209]

Thank you, silentrunning.

bsobel: It was extremely disorienting when I first switched to vista, and I prefer shutting down over sleeping.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209
Thank you, silentrunning.

bsobel: It was extremely disorienting when I first switched to vista, and I prefer shutting down over sleeping.

Why? It doesnt save any power to shut down over sleep, and takes a hell of a lot longer to boot than resume from sleep.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209
Thank you, silentrunning.

bsobel: It was extremely disorienting when I first switched to vista, and I prefer shutting down over sleeping.

Why? It doesnt save any power to shut down over sleep, and takes a hell of a lot longer to boot than resume from sleep.

..then he can hibernate if he prefers.
but it does save power, both CPU and memory are running when in sleep mode.

personally, I don't trust sleep mode in Windows, I have too much hardware that I don't believe can wake up properly (graphics, RAID, USB on monitor etc.)

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209
I just read the article on the graphics testing platform and was pleasantly suprised to find out that the sleep button in vista can be changed to being the off button, as logic (and the icon) would suggest. How is this done?

Thanks in advance.

Technically, the original icon is correct for standby. When you change it to shut down, the icon changes symbols to reflect that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_symbol

That's not to say that I wasn't confused when I first hit that button.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209
Thank you, silentrunning.

bsobel: It was extremely disorienting when I first switched to vista, and I prefer shutting down over sleeping.

Why? It doesnt save any power to shut down over sleep, and takes a hell of a lot longer to boot than resume from sleep.

..then he can hibernate if he prefers.
but it does save power, both CPU and memory are running when in sleep mode.

personally, I don't trust sleep mode in Windows, I have too much hardware that I don't believe can wake up properly (graphics, RAID, USB on monitor etc.)

The CPU isnt running in sleep mode. Only the memory. Power savings are negligible (within 1W) over hibernate/shutdown, the amount of power used during boot probably cancels the difference out.

I've had very few sleep problems in Vista, you should give it a try. Shutting down is so quaint. Thats why they made sleep the default, as outside of a system update/forced reboot theres no *good* reason to shut down.

 

[postmortemIA]

okay, you sold me, but if my RAID array breaks... I won't be much happy. At least I keep all media on different non-RAID drive.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
okay, you sold me, but if my RAID array breaks... I won't be much happy. At least I keep all media on different non-RAID drive.

Why would it break your raid array? Its just powering off the drives, same as shutting down.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Count me among the many who feel that power-management modes in Windows suck the big one, and almost never work quite correctly.

I prefer good old power-on, power-off. Though I tend to keep my machines booted for months at a time. (If I could ever achieve uptime greater than a month, which is difficult it seems with XP.)

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Count me among the many who feel that power-management modes in Windows suck the big one, and almost never work quite correctly.

I prefer good old power-on, power-off. Though I tend to keep my machines booted for months at a time. (If I could ever achieve uptime greater than a month, which is difficult it seems with XP.)

Hopefully you have a good job and/or low power rates in your area. You're just flushing money down the toilet - running systems 24/7 costs quite a bit. Your average system pulling 125 watts or so runs about $10-15 a month just to power it. I can think of much better things to spend that money on.

I had a few sleep issues here or there, mostly with XP, but they were almost always related to overclocking too high.

 

[n7]

You know, for my desktops, i've always used shut down or 24/7.

I let my notebook sleep/hibernate the majority of the time though.

I just realized i actually don't really have a good reason presently for using shut down vs. sleep/hiberate on my main rig, unless some issues crop up.

So, BD2003, thanx for the convincing i suppose...sometimes i get so set in my ways i forget why i do them.

 

[BD2003]

Yeah, I used to do the very same thing - leave them on 24/7, until I discovered how little power S3 sleep uses (its basically the same amount of power as shutting down), how quickly it resumes, and how much it cost me to actually run them 24/7 (hundreds a year). Now the only system I leave on is my server which pulls only 50W, all the other systems are set to go to sleep after 15 mins of idle, if I don't do it myself.

I'd highly suggest sleep over hibernate - hibernate is a really ugly solution that belongs only on a laptop you wont be using or charging for days (a notebook will last quite a few days in S3). It shuts down completely, but doesnt save much more power. It gets back to the desktop much slower, and even then it has quite a bit more loading to do, because it doesnt 100% return memory to its prior state - all the file caches get flushed, so you'll notice that theres quite a bit of slowness and grinding after a hibernate because of that. Sleep is a few seconds on or off, no grinding at all. It also helps if you live with others and have separate accounts - sleep can knock it back to the login screen on resume so other users dont have to log you out (or screw around on your account).

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
okay, you sold me, but if my RAID array breaks... I won't be much happy. At least I keep all media on different non-RAID drive.

Why would it break your raid array? Its just powering off the drives, same as shutting down.

because it happened back in day when RAID controllers weren't the best. At wake up RAID has to re reinitialized, and you already have running OS and file system, it is not trivial.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Count me among the many who feel that power-management modes in Windows suck the big one, and almost never work quite correctly.

I prefer good old power-on, power-off. Though I tend to keep my machines booted for months at a time. (If I could ever achieve uptime greater than a month, which is difficult it seems with XP.)

Hopefully you have a good job and/or low power rates in your area. You're just flushing money down the toilet - running systems 24/7 costs quite a bit. Your average system pulling 125 watts or so runs about $10-15 a month just to power it. I can think of much better things to spend that money on.

I had a few sleep issues here or there, mostly with XP, but they were almost always related to overclocking too high.

Flushing money down the toilet? I do distributed computing, none of the cycles are going to waste, I can assure you.

Since you mentioned overclocking, Gigabyte boards (of which mine are) have issues with sleep/resume working once you overclock the FSB over 300-odd Mhz. It seems to be a BIOS bug that Gigabyte refuses to fix, since other mfgs boards don't seem to have that issue. Regardless, I don't mess with sleep or hibernate. Too cutting-edge for me.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209
I just read the article on the graphics testing platform and was pleasantly suprised to find out that the sleep button in vista can be changed to being the off button, as logic (and the icon) would suggest. How is this done?

Thanks in advance.

Technically, the original icon is correct for standby. When you change it to shut down, the icon changes symbols to reflect that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_symbol

That's not to say that I wasn't confused when I first hit that button.

Have to love that someone decided there needed to be a popular culture section for power symbols.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Count me among the many who feel that power-management modes in Windows suck the big one, and almost never work quite correctly.

I prefer good old power-on, power-off. Though I tend to keep my machines booted for months at a time. (If I could ever achieve uptime greater than a month, which is difficult it seems with XP.)

Hopefully you have a good job and/or low power rates in your area. You're just flushing money down the toilet - running systems 24/7 costs quite a bit. Your average system pulling 125 watts or so runs about $10-15 a month just to power it. I can think of much better things to spend that money on.

I had a few sleep issues here or there, mostly with XP, but they were almost always related to overclocking too high.

Flushing money down the toilet? I do distributed computing, none of the cycles are going to waste, I can assure you.

Since you mentioned overclocking, Gigabyte boards (of which mine are) have issues with sleep/resume working once you overclock the FSB over 300-odd Mhz. It seems to be a BIOS bug that Gigabyte refuses to fix, since other mfgs boards don't seem to have that issue. Regardless, I don't mess with sleep or hibernate. Too cutting-edge for me.

I have a gigabyte 965P-DS3 OCed to 410mhz that works just fine.