How come soft-restart switches have disappeared from computers today? Perhaps the engineers who design them live in a world where computers never break, but on Earth, that still happens. Every once in a while, my PCs hang when they're restarting or shutting down. In the good old days, I would either hit the soft-restart switch to simulate a hard reboot without cycling the power, or I would just cut off the power.
But today, since the power switches now communicate with the OS, if the OS becomes unresponsive, that leaves me with one option: pull the power cable out of the back of the machine. That's a pain, and it creates wear-and-tear on the electronics (because when I plug it back in, the circuits will recieve a jolt of electricity.) What's the rationale behind removing the switches? I see no advantage here.
My el cheapo Walmart computer has one. Actually, it is surpisingly geek-friendly since its case is made up of panels that can be removed individually and there is lots of room to work inside the case. Much nicer than a compact Gateway I once had where you had to unscrew and remove the power supply just to get to the RAM.
Macs still have them ... nyark, nyark, nyark
Macs still have them ... nyark, nyark, nyark
Oh, is that what makes them cost twice as much as PCs. And I always thought it was the colored plastic...
You should be able to override the OS by holding the power switch down for about ten seconds or so. That will force the computer to shut off. Then you can hit it again to boot up.
But I agree with you that reset switches are useful things.
Even at twice the price, that's still five times the quality per buck.
Uhhhhh......
Mac Mini... 499.00 plus tax....
Also, since it runs UNIX you can get into terminal and issue a kill command, something you can't do on the Peeeceee...
But... at least I admint I am biased.
John
Also, since it runs UNIX you can get into terminal and issue a kill command, something you can't do on the Peeeceee...
Sure you can, if you run Linux (as I do).
The rationale behind changing the behavior of these switches is that people would kill their OS by just flicking the switch instead of selecting shut down or "turn off" as it's currently labeled. The real puzzler is why they don't put explanatory text next to the button on how to get the old behavior back with the new switches. It's generally covered in the manual but who reads that these days.
The rationale behind changing the behavior of these switches is that people would kill their OS by just flicking the switch instead of selecting shut down or "turn off" as it's currently labeled.
Does pressing the power button on a Windows XP box not shut the power off immediately? I thought it did, but I rarely use XP boxes (barring public computers) and don't remember ever pressing a power button on any Windows box except when it has crashed (though I usually used the three fingered salute in those cases, when it worked).
There's a hardware specification for how Windows XP PC's are supposed to behave. Pressing the power button for a moment should trigger the "Turn Power Off" actions in XP. Pressing it for 5 seconds will immediately power down. The absence of a "start the power-up sequence without powering down" button is a consequence of XP trying very hard to close files and shutdown in an orderly, recoverable way. XP really was a huge step forward in reliability and the times when XP has not be able to do a normal "turn off" or "restart" have been a very few and only when I'm doing something experimental with the hardware. This is an explanation for why's there's no reset button.
This is an explanation for why's there's no reset button.
And for why my PC has one: it was sold with no OS. Thank you for the explanation.
I am sure that I have held down my power switch on my laptop (Win2k) and desktop (WinXP) machines, and often the power does not shut down at all. Personally, I'd rather have the option of resetting the computer, consequences be darned.
Hey, Poster, you can buy and iMac mini for $499, if you already have a keyboard and monitor.
Hey, Poster, you can buy and iMac mini for $499, if you already have a keyboard and monitor.
Or rather for $674.00, since 512 megs of RAM is the minimum that I find acceptable and I cannot install my current internal DVD writer in the Mac Mini. In addition I'd either have to buy an Apple keyboard or a USB-to-PS2 adapter since none of the keyboards I have are PS2, so at least an even $700.
I think I'll pass for now. My $328 PC running Mandrake Linux is serving me well and I don't have $700, or even $499, lying around begging to be spent. If Apple gets any of my money in the foreseeable future, it will be for the $200 iPod mini, not for a new computer.