10 thoughts on “Intel's Remote Wake Gives PCs a Super Poke”

  1. Interesting approach to remote access. I like the Jajah integration. If you really take a step back and look strategically at this, you can see where telcos and cable operators can be put om the defensive with this.

  2. I think the big question is how/why this would be easier to use than Wake-on-LAN. I’m suspicious this is just marketing move, like Centrino, and the underlying technology will be Wake-on-LAN. Still, even if that is all it is; it will be a good thing. Awareness of the potential of WoL is very low and a surprising number of people leave home/SMB servers running 24/7 despite only having them active for short bursts throughout the day.

  3. I believe I recall reading that Remote Wake requires an Intel chipset with an additional chip (besides standard Intel chipset components, so I would be surprised if this was simple WoL.

    Not absolutely sure about this though.

  4. Nice feature but would this not also be ripe for hackers to abuse when they have been able to infect a computer?

  5. It is definitely interesting, especially since it serves to show how important reducing the power for desktops/laptops is. However it is relatively scant on the details. Also, as pointed out this solution does require an entirely new motherboard/chipset and also changes to the software (e.g. on Jajas servers etc).

    Just a shameless plug for some of the work myself and my colleagues have been doing for the past year on a project with similar goals. Our solution called “Somniloquy” is incrementally deployable in *current machines* and is a lot more configurable… Interested readers can look at the public Technical Report at:


  6. @Jim

    Sure, just like Centrino requires a bunch of Intel chips. But that doesn’t mean you can’t get the very same functionality without the Intel chips — just that you can’t call it Centrino! I’m not claiming that Remote Wake is just marketing speak for Wake on LAN, just suggesting that it might be and there is reason to be suspicious. And if it’s not WoL, what exactly is wrong with WoL, in Intel’s view?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.