Will "sleep camp" Boot Camp be back for Snow Leopard?

[DaSal]

Anyone have any idea of a feature that was originally going to be in Boot Camp, allowing it to switch very quickly between a hibernated version of Windows and a sleeping version of Leopard, is gonna be back for Snow Leopard?

Apparently the feature was dropped before the final version...

This would've been awesome, would love to see it back...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=591

 

[Matek]

AFAIK both OSes would be in sleep, not hibernation with this feature.

Anyhow - I was looking forward to it as well and was very disappointed when they canceled it. Hope it's in the works, although I don't think it has been specifically mentioned for Snow Leopard.

 

[NT1440]

Anyone know why that was pulled?

 

[MistaBungle]

This is one feature that I hope they integrate. Would make things so cool.

 

[Matek]

AFAIK both OSes would be in sleep, not hibernation with this feature.

I must correct myself, both would be in hibernation. But it would be cool to see both in sleep, so that you could switch in like 5 seconds. Although that would take a lot of memory.

Anyone know why that was pulled?

As far as I remember it simply disappeared with no good explanation. I guess they didn't have enough time to implement it.

 

[DaSal]

As far as I remember it simply disappeared with no good explanation. I guess they didn't have enough time to implement it.

Which is why I'm hoping they will this time around.

 

[Makosuke]

How would this have dealt with the fact that a file could easily be accessed and modified by one OS while the other was hibernating and expecting it not to change (possibly even have it open)?

Come to think of it, do the MacOS and Windows have something to deal with this in their existing hibernation systems? Normally when hibernating you wouldn't expect the internal drive's data to change, but an external could be unplugged, modified, and reconnected before thawing the hibernated state, and in the case of BootCamp even files on the internal drive could very easily be modified. If anything, that's a common use case.

Maybe difficulties dealing with that is why they disabled it?