I keep assuming, yeah, of course desktops have finally figured out s3 again. I had plenty of s3 sleep capable desktops across the years. But it seems like a lost/forgotten art. Wildly sad such a great capability is just inexicably missing.
Just in case it needs to be said, the reason S3 sleep is disappearing is pressure from Microsoft to switch to "Modern Standby" which is more of a "connected, always-on" state.
Worth mentioning the real reason is because the mobos concerned don't support S3, and Microsoft doesn't want to deal with problems that aren't their concern (Windows crashing trying to S3 on hardware that can't S3).
This being said, whether it's S3 or S0 or S4 (aka hibernate) I have practically never had any form of sleep function well. They're simply too unreliable and jank, I've had to reboot the machine anyway too many times because Windows just wasn't running right after coming back.
I've always just shut down and haven't had any problems. We're in the age of PCIE5 NVME SSDs, to speak nothing of PCIE4 let alone SATA3 SSDs. Booting up Windows through a proper boot sequence doesn't take time anymore. It's just not worth the time lost dealing with S3 or S0 or hibernate.
Its only ever worked well on macOS for me. I'd put my eggs in the basket of Windows and Linux having issues with suspend and hibernate because of the uncontrolled, endless possibilities of the hardware combinations. How does suspend and hibernate work on the latest Framework with AMD?
The intel Frameworks have been plagued by battery drain issues and waking up when being stored in bags or overnight, it's possibly the most complained about issue in the support forum.
I had one laptop where - after every other s3 - wifi wouldn't come back (so it had to be slept twice as a workaround). But I've had like 7 laptops dating back to 2003 and Linux s3 sleep has just worked otherwise, without any fuss.
On my last laptop I have s4 a shot, because I was tired of slow drain, and it too just worked. I've been using that since.
I can't imagine not having sleep. It's very very basic an expectation. It isn't about how long the computer takes to boot, its about whether you the human are forced to carefully close out of all your apps and then reopen all your documents/files/pages again.
It's not so much a software resuming that's the issue. It's hardware like wifi, UBS, displays or even bits of the CPU not waking up or misbehaving after suspend. I sometimes have to disable and re-enable wifi for it to work solid again.
last time i used hibernate was on windowsxp.
but I do miss it/remember it fondly. got you right back where you left off, which is of more value than just a good boot time. There are other solutions for that, but none as good/simple
Thanks for that clarification, I was thinking about the people who wouldn't know why s3 was important. The forced introduction of always-on is really concerning from a security standpoint IMHO.
s2idle on linux doesn't work for me as expected, I've just disabled because it make the laptop very hot and consume energy a lot more than S3 deep sleep, i suspect it keep the cpu running but turn fans off. it also take 30 seconds to resume from sleep.
I will cry in locked EPYC Rome. I was looking at buying 2 used 7742's or 7702's but then I saw real performance numbers vs. existing 2 7402's: negligible single-core performance and unimpressive multi-core for $1200-1600 USD. Even 2 7F52's wouldn't be worth throwing coin down for. I may wait for another generator or 2 before upgrading in DDR5 land.
