Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

From reading Intel's docs it sounds like this "technology" does the same thing as regular Windows' Hibernate, but it saves less data, which supposedly on start up has to read smaller "hibernation" file which in turn bring it out standby faster.

My C: drive is a 128GB SSD. When I enabled this Rapid Start, it automatically created a separate hidden 10GB partition (I have 8GB of RAM). Yet I still have 6.5GB c:\ file..

Does it make sense to use Rapid Start with SSD instead of regular hibernation/hybrid sleep? 10GB of disk space is a significant amount to lose here..

EDIT: Maybe this matters where with Laptops it's better to S4 them instead of S3 to save battery, but I'm not sure about desktops and hybrid sleep.

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007, Simon Sheehan, 8088, Nicole Hamilton, Dave Dec 26 '12 at 7:05

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

10 GB on a 128 GB SSD is costly to lose due to difference in 'sleep' methods. New technology does not always have to mean better. Everything always has a catch. – Spandan Chatterjee Dec 25 '12 at 3:37

Browse other questions tagged .