3 ms·

Might be worth trying Linux on that. At least you'd have more control over the sleep issues. I have a Dell Precision 7540 that I was having issues getting slee

Might be worth trying Linux on that. At least you'd have more control over the sleep issues. I have a Dell Precision 7540 that I was having issues getting sleep to work. It would panic on resuming I think because of WiFi but I couldn't fix it. So I enabled "hybrid-sleep" which is like hibernate and sleep together. Before it sleeps, it flushes the RAM to disk. When it wakes up, it tries to boot from RAM and, if successful, it deletes the hibernation data. But if it crashes before it deletes the files, you just reboot and it resumes from disk. So I never "lose" my status but 95% of the time my computer resumes normally. There are certainly other frustrating bits with Linux, but at least the flexibility to fix the issues is within your grasp. That was my biggest gripe with OSX and Windows. You just aren't always able the fix the issue and it's very mentally painful (for me). :P

fluffything 7y ago
I have arch linux on that same machine and there are indeed a million knobs to tune these things. I haven't yet managed to make it work as good as a macbook, after putting in around ~100h by now into the problem. I went back to macbooks ~1 month ago. The Dell is still brand new (4 months old, ~4000$ fully spec'ed), but my employer does not want it back, so it is now sitting in a drawer in my office. I ended up billing my employer for the ~120h I spent on "configuring" the laptop over the 4 months. With that included, the laptop costed my employer about 14.000$. Now I'm using my personal 2013 macbook air instead, and am finally able to get something done, yet I'm not happy with having to use my own laptop for work. Had they buy me a macbook for 1.500$ instead, like I requested, that would have saved them ~13.000$ + my lost respect + my continued lost respect for requiring me to use my own 7 year old personal laptop for work.
- neurostimulant 7y ago
  Why did you use arch instead of other distro that known to work on many laptops, such as Ubuntu?
  - ahmedalsudani 7y ago
    This is pure FUD in my opinion. Arch has always run better on every computer I’ve owned, especially newer ones. The people for whom Ubuntu works usually have fewer requirements or are not as particular about things working _just right_. That’s not to say I haven’t had issues with Arch, but there were fewer and they were easier to figure out. Now if you want a distro where you can update packages without manual intervention several times a year, then it’s probably best to look past Arch.
    - neurostimulant 7y ago
      I mean if he's having problems and spent hundred of hours trying to fix it, instead of giving up why not just try one of the mainstream distro and see if it works? There is a chance (however slim it is) that it'll work due to higher number of users exposing hardware support issues to the maintainers.
      - ahmedalsudani 7y ago
        Well, I will point you to fluffything’s response > Arch was the best distro I could find that used the latest kernel by default. Audio worked there. That mirrors the experiences I’ve had. Most distros ship with broken old software and custom patches that make troubleshooting a nightmare. They also don’t have the resources to support the wide variety of hardware out there. Microsoft spends billions on Windows and vendors spend billions of their own to make sure hardware is mostly plug and play. In Linux land, the mainstream distros ship with fragile duct-taped components that work if you’re lucky but are a complete pain to troubleshoot and are a bigger pain as time goes on and you have major upgrades. Arch is the only sane distro with wide adoption and it’s a joy to use. I get the latest kernel with its bug fixes and hardware support. Packages are updated on a rolling basis so there are a few instances every year where I need to manually intervene, but not major breakages every 2 years. Granted, it’s not for everyone. You have to recreate the fragile duct-taped components you get in other distros, which is an investment of time. You will know how and why your computer works though and will not have to resort to the Ubuntu stack exchange (or their other communities) for the magic formula that will fix your issues. I’m hoping we can change hearts one by one with this message: Arch is not scary; it might solve the problems you’ve been having :D

fluffything 7y ago

I have arch linux on that same machine and there are indeed a million knobs to tune these things. I haven't yet managed to make it work as good as a macbook, after putting in around ~100h by now into the problem. I went back to macbooks ~1 month ago. The Dell is still brand new (4 months old, ~4000$ fully spec'ed), but my employer does not want it back, so it is now sitting in a drawer in my office. I ended up billing my employer for the ~120h I spent on "configuring" the laptop over the 4 months. With that included, the laptop costed my employer about 14.000$. Now I'm using my personal 2013 macbook air instead, and am finally able to get something done, yet I'm not happy with having to use my own laptop for work. Had they buy me a macbook for 1.500$ instead, like I requested, that would have saved them ~13.000$ + my lost respect + my continued lost respect for requiring me to use my own 7 year old personal laptop for work.

neurostimulant 7y ago
Why did you use arch instead of other distro that known to work on many laptops, such as Ubuntu?
- ahmedalsudani 7y ago
  This is pure FUD in my opinion. Arch has always run better on every computer I’ve owned, especially newer ones. The people for whom Ubuntu works usually have fewer requirements or are not as particular about things working _just right_. That’s not to say I haven’t had issues with Arch, but there were fewer and they were easier to figure out. Now if you want a distro where you can update packages without manual intervention several times a year, then it’s probably best to look past Arch.
  - neurostimulant 7y ago
    I mean if he's having problems and spent hundred of hours trying to fix it, instead of giving up why not just try one of the mainstream distro and see if it works? There is a chance (however slim it is) that it'll work due to higher number of users exposing hardware support issues to the maintainers.
    - ahmedalsudani 7y ago
      Well, I will point you to fluffything’s response > Arch was the best distro I could find that used the latest kernel by default. Audio worked there. That mirrors the experiences I’ve had. Most distros ship with broken old software and custom patches that make troubleshooting a nightmare. They also don’t have the resources to support the wide variety of hardware out there. Microsoft spends billions on Windows and vendors spend billions of their own to make sure hardware is mostly plug and play. In Linux land, the mainstream distros ship with fragile duct-taped components that work if you’re lucky but are a complete pain to troubleshoot and are a bigger pain as time goes on and you have major upgrades. Arch is the only sane distro with wide adoption and it’s a joy to use. I get the latest kernel with its bug fixes and hardware support. Packages are updated on a rolling basis so there are a few instances every year where I need to manually intervene, but not major breakages every 2 years. Granted, it’s not for everyone. You have to recreate the fragile duct-taped components you get in other distros, which is an investment of time. You will know how and why your computer works though and will not have to resort to the Ubuntu stack exchange (or their other communities) for the magic formula that will fix your issues. I’m hoping we can change hearts one by one with this message: Arch is not scary; it might solve the problems you’ve been having :D