to gagarine :
* because currently the reasoning goes that manufacturers should set appropriate settings (because they should know what their hardware is capable of)
* because applying an apm of 254 might cause the harddrive's temperature too increase too much for some harddisks
* because it isn't trivial to find the right power management settings. An apm of 192 is different for each harddisk.
* because it is not only power management which causes this issue. It's a combination of disk access and power management.
* because this workaround also uses 254 also when running on battery. When running on battery the disk you don't want to disable parking of the head to protect the harddisk. I based the ugly fix I recommend *only* for heavily affected users who understand what they are doing on this workaround and other comments : http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3675960
to gagarine : ubuntuforums. org/showpost. php?p=3675960
* because currently the reasoning goes that manufacturers should set appropriate settings (because they should know what their hardware is capable of)
* because applying an apm of 254 might cause the harddrive's temperature too increase too much for some harddisks
* because it isn't trivial to find the right power management settings. An apm of 192 is different for each harddisk.
* because it is not only power management which causes this issue. It's a combination of disk access and power management.
* because this workaround also uses 254 also when running on battery. When running on battery the disk you don't want to disable parking of the head to protect the harddisk. I based the ugly fix I recommend *only* for heavily affected users who understand what they are doing on this workaround and other comments : http://
I think this bug should get a higher priority. IMHO wishlist is too low. Some suggestions about what might be done : /bugs.launchpad .net/ubuntu/ +source/ acpi-support/ +bug/59695/ comments/ 185
https:/