In news:4aadf955$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:05:57 +0100:
[...]
> Unfortunately, my laptop has something that wakes it up at least
> every 24 hours, and I have so far completely failed to track it down.
> Without the battery, I hibernate the laptop, but I do have to
> remember to disconnect the AC.

What does the event logs say? It should be in there that wakes it up I
would think.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:h8ljv4$pm2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:4aadf955$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
> M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:05:57 +0100:
> [...]
>> Unfortunately, my laptop has something that wakes it up at least
>> every 24 hours, and I have so far completely failed to track it down.
>> Without the battery, I hibernate the laptop, but I do have to
>> remember to disconnect the AC.
>
> What does the event logs say? It should be in there that wakes it up I
> would think.
>

I'm way ahead of you. The event log only lists the processes that run at
wake up. Unfortunately, there are quite a few that obviously run as soon as
they are able (and not always in the same sequence - I had hoped that the
first one was the culprit). But the event log doesn't pinpoint which one
actually does the waking up and how it achieves it (it isn't being done via
the normal means - as indeed it doesn't have to). None of the processes
identified is a time sensitive process that has the necessity to run at a
particular time or indeed at all.

Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

In news:4aaf3860$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
M.I.5¾ typed on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:47:13 +0100:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:h8ljv4$pm2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In news:4aadf955$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
>> M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:05:57 +0100:
>> [...]
>>> Unfortunately, my laptop has something that wakes it up at least
>>> every 24 hours, and I have so far completely failed to track it
>>> down. Without the battery, I hibernate the laptop, but I do have to
>>> remember to disconnect the AC.
>>
>> What does the event logs say? It should be in there that wakes it up
>> I would think.
>>
>
> I'm way ahead of you. The event log only lists the processes that run
> at wake up. Unfortunately, there are quite a few that obviously run
> as soon as they are able (and not always in the same sequence - I had
> hoped that the first one was the culprit). But the event log doesn't
> pinpoint which one actually does the waking up and how it achieves it
> (it isn't being done via the normal means - as indeed it doesn't have
> to). None of the processes identified is a time sensitive process
> that has the necessity to run at a particular time or indeed at all.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

Well it shouldn't be that hard. I have seen this before and it is
usually either the LAN or WiFi connection causing this.

Check the BIOS and toggle off wake on LAN if your BIOS supports it.

If you don't use LAN, disable it in the BIOS and see if the problem
disappears.

Next I would check those two under Windows device properties. And check
the wake or power saving settings.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

On Sep 11, 11:36*pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Forgetting the original question entirely, you have removed the laptop
> battery, which is appropriate, but in this situation you should invest
> in a low-capacity UPS (300VA is plenty) so that power interruption isn't
> an issue (even while you are actually using the machine). *Cost of a low
> capacity UPS like this is $20-$30 if bought right.
>
>
>
> Roy wrote:
> > Thanks for all the replies!
> > It boils down that there is not a benefit if I have to use the sleep
> > mode or even hibernate mode as the same amount of power is used plus
> > the risk of theloss of data if anything goes awry....?
> > Hmm so that tried and tested; boot and reboots still holds water than
> > either( sleep and hibernate mode)...in terms of *running the desktop
> > replacement in regular basis
>
> > Roy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for that Barry
I had a related question.....
Another laptopof mine had a different set ...its consist of standby,
turn off and restart...
How does this standby compares with the hibernate and sleep .....?

Roy wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:36 pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> Forgetting the original question entirely, you have removed the laptop
>> battery, which is appropriate, but in this situation you should invest
>> in a low-capacity UPS (300VA is plenty) so that power interruption isn't
>> an issue (even while you are actually using the machine). Cost of a low
>> capacity UPS like this is $20-$30 if bought right.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roy wrote:
>>> Thanks for all the replies!
>>> It boils down that there is not a benefit if I have to use the sleep
>>> mode or even hibernate mode as the same amount of power is used plus
>>> the risk of theloss of data if anything goes awry....?
>>> Hmm so that tried and tested; boot and reboots still holds water than
>>> either( sleep and hibernate mode)...in terms of running the desktop
>>> replacement in regular basis
>>> Roy- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Thanks for that Barry
> I had a related question.....
> Another laptopof mine had a different set ...its consist of standby,
> turn off and restart...
> How does this standby compares with the hibernate and sleep .....?

Standby is the usual denomination for "sleep".

--
John Doue

>Standby is the usual denomination for "sleep".

Maybe you mean "denotation"?

Bob Villa wrote:
>> Standby is the usual denomination for "sleep".
>
> Maybe you mean "denotation"?

May be, indeed!

--
John Doue

On Sep 15, 7:36*pm, Bob Villa <pheeh.z...******.com> wrote:
> >Standby is the usual denomination for "sleep".
>
> Maybe you mean "denotation"?

Thanks!
Roy

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:h8neqa$8t9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:4aaf3860$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
> M.I.5¾ typed on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:47:13 +0100:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>> news:h8ljv4$pm2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In news:4aadf955$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
>>> M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:05:57 +0100:
>>> [...]
>>>> Unfortunately, my laptop has something that wakes it up at least
>>>> every 24 hours, and I have so far completely failed to track it
>>>> down. Without the battery, I hibernate the laptop, but I do have to
>>>> remember to disconnect the AC.
>>>
>>> What does the event logs say? It should be in there that wakes it up
>>> I would think.
>>>
>>
>> I'm way ahead of you. The event log only lists the processes that run
>> at wake up. Unfortunately, there are quite a few that obviously run
>> as soon as they are able (and not always in the same sequence - I had
>> hoped that the first one was the culprit). But the event log doesn't
>> pinpoint which one actually does the waking up and how it achieves it
>> (it isn't being done via the normal means - as indeed it doesn't have
>> to). None of the processes identified is a time sensitive process
>> that has the necessity to run at a particular time or indeed at all.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
>
> Well it shouldn't be that hard. I have seen this before and it is usually
> either the LAN or WiFi connection causing this.
>
> Check the BIOS and toggle off wake on LAN if your BIOS supports it.
>
> If you don't use LAN, disable it in the BIOS and see if the problem
> disappears.
>
> Next I would check those two under Windows device properties. And check
> the wake or power saving settings.
>

Both wake on LAN and wake on WLAN are disabled. The conclusion has been
that something has installed a task scheduler separate to the windows one.
But attempts to identify it have, thus far, failed.

In news:4ab1ea45$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
M.I.5¾ typed on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:50:47 +0100:
> Both wake on LAN and wake on WLAN are disabled. The conclusion has
> been that something has installed a task scheduler separate to the
> windows one. But attempts to identify it have, thus far, failed.

And it wakes up from what mode(s), i.e. off, standby, hibernation, etc.?
If it even does this after being shutdown, Windows wouldn't be even
running to do anything.

If it only happens in standby and hibernation modes... I wonder what
happens if you can get standby to work from safemode? If you can, as I
never tried it. If that won't work, killing all startup applications
would be my next step.

I know, I too would just remove the battery too. But the answer is
starting to kill me. How about you?

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:h8u7td$93l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:4ab1ea45$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
> M.I.5¾ typed on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:50:47 +0100:
>> Both wake on LAN and wake on WLAN are disabled. The conclusion has
>> been that something has installed a task scheduler separate to the
>> windows one. But attempts to identify it have, thus far, failed.
>
> And it wakes up from what mode(s), i.e. off, standby, hibernation, etc.?
> If it even does this after being shutdown, Windows wouldn't be even
> running to do anything.
>
> If it only happens in standby and hibernation modes... I wonder what
> happens if you can get standby to work from safemode? If you can, as I
> never tried it. If that won't work, killing all startup applications
> would be my next step.
>
> I know, I too would just remove the battery too. But the answer is
> starting to kill me. How about you?
>

It only self starts from standby and hibernate modes. It would ne a very
neat trick if it managed it for shutdown. Standby is indeed unavailable
from safe mode.

Disabling all startup apps does not change anything. I would have suspected
malware, but if it is, waking up the machine is its sole purpose as nothing
runs that one wouldn't expect to run on an active machine, and there is no
other suspicious behaviour.

I have given up worrying about it as I now just make sure there is no power
available when the machine is hibernated.

Roy <roybasan******.com> writes:
>Hello group
>As I am using my desktop replacement regularly for an average of 8
>hours a day. Its permanently plugged in the socket and the battery is
>removed.
> I was thinking how about if I just let it sleep instead of shutting
>down.
>What are the effect of such in my power consumption etc?

It should consume just a few watts in Sleep, compared to almost nothing
in either Shutdown or Hibernate.

If you are running XP, Sleep is quickest to shut down and restart, but
you lose everything you have open and haven't saved if the power goes
off momentarily (because you don't have a battery installed).

You might want to try Hibernate, which restores everything just like
Sleep, but saves to disk instead of RAM so no power is needed while
hibernating. It takes a little longer to enter and leave Hibernate
compared to Sleep.

If you have Vista, there's a third option. Vista has a sort of 'dual
sleep' mode that's on by default for desktop machines. When you tell it
to go to sleep, it saves system state in RAM but *also* writes
everything to a disk file, just like Hibernate. Normally, power stays
on, and when you restart the machine it starts from RAM in a few
seconds, just like regular Sleep. But if power went off during sleep
and the RAM contents were lost, the system starts up from the Hibernate
file instead. Either way, you're back where you were without a full
boot. This takes a bit of extra time when shutting down, but is as fast
as Sleep in starting up as long as power was not interrupted.

Now, this dual sleep mode is apparently normally turned off for Vista
laptops, since laptops normally have a battery and can survive short
power failures, and don't want to waste battery power writing gigabytes
of data to the disk. But there should be a setting somewhere that lets
you tell Vista you do want the dual-mode sleep, since your machine is
effectively a desktop (AC power only).

Dave