Are there good reasons to leave your computer on?
James
hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170 if 2
cents per hour.
h
"James" <j006...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8190553d-c364-4f39...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Considering 24X365 hours in a year, if electricity costs 1 cent per
> hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170 if 2
> cents per hour.
I need my computer at least once an hour, 16-18 hours a day. Waiting for it
to boot would waste a helluva lot more than 16-18 cents of my time.
johns
on lowers its useful lifetime to about 3 years. Then
it goes flakey, and I hear all the stupid reasons
from the users ... what "they" think is wrong.
Here's what is wrong:
Bad spots on the hard drive .. from heat and
friction. New hard drive ... $80.00
Reinstall by tech .. $80.00
Lost man-hours and data .. ?? .. $40,000.00
Bad power supply constantly rebooting during
operations ... $100.
Install by tech ... $60.
Scumbag Techs at Computer stores .. Lies and
overcharges .. $400.00 on average when replacing
your so-called "bad motherboard" and leaving
a flakey hard drive in the box so you'll come
back for the new computer you should have
bought.
Learn how to use "hibernate mode" and the thing
will reboot in about 30 seconds all the way
back to the application you left open.
johns
JonquilJan
the evenings when I am done - I unplug computer and monitor when I am
finished. Basic reason is because of sudden storms and power outages during
my sleeping/bed hours. Yes I do have a surge protector - but that doesn't
protect againist lightning - at least that's what I've been told.
JonquilJan - and open to practical information from informed others
Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying
Seerialmom
> "James" <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I agree with you on that; it's all dependent on how often you need to
access it. Right now I have an iMAC (Strawberry, 400 mhz) that I
leave in "sleep" mode and wake up by shaking the mouse. Sleep mode
does use power, but not as much as fully on/running. In the "olden
days" the reason for keeping the computer on was to avoid wearing out
the powersupply via multiple restarts. From what I understand this
isn't as much of an issue anymore; saving power expenses is.
Seerialmom
The other "good thing" that does by unplugging the computer/monitor at
night is you're killing a known energy vampire. Computers and newer
monitors (LCD's) still draw power when plugged in, even if they're off
(motherboard will show a light, monitor will show the orange light).
Dennis
wrote:
I have mine set to go to sleep (the lowest level of standby, HD off,
fans off) after a period of inactivity. Power use goes low (less than
4W, measured) and it only takes about 7-9 seconds to wake up.
Works for me.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
Rod Speed
> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>> "James" <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8190553d-c364-4f39...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Considering 24X365 hours in a year, if electricity costs 1 cent per
>>> hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170 if 2
>>> cents per hour.
>>
>> I need my computer at least once an hour, 16-18 hours a day. Waiting
>> for it to boot would waste a helluva lot more than 16-18 cents of my
>> time.
>
> I agree with you on that; it's all dependent on how often you need to
> access it. Right now I have an iMAC (Strawberry, 400 mhz) that I
> leave in "sleep" mode and wake up by shaking the mouse. Sleep mode
> does use power, but not as much as fully on/running.
And hibernation speeds up the boot dramatically too.
> In the "olden days" the reason for keeping the computer on
> was to avoid wearing out the powersupply via multiple restarts.
Nope, that is not correct.
> From what I understand this isn't as much of an issue anymore;
It never was.
> saving power expenses is.
Not really. And like you say, its trivial to fix that if you want to.
Rod Speed
> I build those things for a living.
But dont have a clue about the basics.
> Leaving a pc turned on lowers its useful lifetime to about 3 years.
Like hell it does.
> Then it goes flakey,
Nope.
> and I hear all the stupid reasons from the users ... what "they" think is wrong.
> Here's what is wrong:
We'll see...
> Bad spots on the hard drive .. from heat and friction.
Mindlessly silly. There is no 'friction', the heads fly above the platters.
> New hard drive ... $80.00
> Reinstall by tech .. $80.00
> Lost man-hours and data .. ?? .. $40,000.00
Not when you have enough of a clue to have what matters backed up.
> Bad power supply constantly rebooting during operations ... $100.
> Install by tech ... $60.
> Scumbag Techs at Computer stores .. Lies and
> overcharges .. $400.00 on average when replacing
> your so-called "bad motherboard" and leaving
> a flakey hard drive in the box so you'll come
> back for the new computer you should have bought.
> Learn how to use "hibernate mode" and the thing
> will reboot in about 30 seconds all the way
> back to the application you left open.
And sleep brings it back much faster than that.
Rod Speed
> Don't know if this helps or not
Not really unless there is a very close lightning strike.
> - but I not only turn the computer off in the evenings when I
> am done - I unplug computer and monitor when I am finished.
Too much farting around for me for the microscopic reduction in risk.
> Basic reason is because of sudden storms and power outages during
> my sleeping/bed hours. Yes I do have a surge protector - but that
> doesn't protect againist lightning - at least that's what I've been told.
What you have been told is just plain wrong. It does
help with lightning that isnt very close to your house.
I dont even bother to unplug the systems when there is real lightning around
and that has worked fine for the 40+ years I have been using computers too.
Rod Speed
That power use is microscopic tho.
Seerialmom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, it's a baby vampire then :p
Seerialmom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes it is correct. That was the thinking about 10 years ago; maybe
not in your neighborhood but here around Silicon valley it was. It
was common thinking that multiple cycles would shorten the life of the
powersupply. Kinda like flicking a light switch off/on can kill a
light bulb faster than leaving it on.
Rod Speed
>>>>> Considering 24X365 hours in a year, if electricity costs 1 cent
>>>>> per hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170
>>>>> if 2 cents per hour.
>>>> I need my computer at least once an hour, 16-18 hours a day.
>>>> Waiting for it to boot would waste a helluva lot more than 16-18
>>>> cents of my time.
>>> I agree with you on that; it's all dependent on how often you need
>>> to access it. Right now I have an iMAC (Strawberry, 400 mhz) that
>>> I leave in "sleep" mode and wake up by shaking the mouse. Sleep
>>> mode does use power, but not as much as fully on/running.
>> And hibernation speeds up the boot dramatically too.
>>> In the "olden days" the reason for keeping the computer on
>>> was to avoid wearing out the powersupply via multiple restarts.
>> Nope, that is not correct.
>>> From what I understand this isn't as much of an issue anymore;
>> It never was.
>>> saving power expenses is.
>> Not really. And like you say, its trivial to fix that if you want to.
> Yes it is correct.
Nope, fraid not.
> That was the thinking about 10 years ago;
Nope, fraid not.
> maybe not in your neighborhood but here around Silicon valley it was.
Nope, fraid not.
And you can use groups.google to show that it wasnt even a common belief around Silicon valley either.
> It was common thinking that multiple cycles would shorten the life of the powersupply.
Only the fools that didnt have a clue about the basics.
> Kinda like flicking a light switch off/on can kill a light bulb faster than leaving it on.
Nope, nothing like. The reason you get that effect with an incandescent light bulb
is because you get a large inrush current with the cold filament because the resistance
of the filament varys dramatically with the temperature of the filament and the large
inrush current can blow a filament that has been thinned by evaporation of the filament.
There is no effect anything like that with a PC power supply and there never was either.
Rod Speed
> Ok, it's a baby vampire then :p
It isnt even a baby vampire. Not even a glow worm.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>Considering 24X365 hours in a year, if electricity costs 1 cent per
>hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170 if 2
>cents per hour.
Those numbers are meaningless. Figure out how much juice *your*
computer uses. There can be wide variations.
Then ask yourself the same question about a light bulb using the same
watts. Any good reason to leave it on when you're not using it?
I boot my computer at least 3 times a day. Been doing it for years.
Never had any failures I'd attribute to that.
Don't mind waiting for it to boot, since I flip on the nearby TV to
keep me occupied, or start the computer a few minutes before I know
I'll use it. Not staring at the computer monitor as it boots is a
good habit
I pretty much treat it like a light bulb as far as turning it off.
If I think I'll be away more than 1/2 hour or so I turn it off.
Not telling anybody else what to do.
No way I would leave it on if I leave the house.
Power supplies and CRT's occasionally catch on fire, so like any other
appliance keep your computer away from curtains or anything that can
feed a fire.
--Vic
Frank
>
> > In the "olden days" the reason for keeping the computer on
> > was to avoid wearing out the powersupply via multiple restarts.
>
> Nope, that is not correct.
>
Yes it is correct. That was the thinking about 10 years ago; maybe
not in your neighborhood but here around Silicon valley it was. It
was common thinking that multiple cycles would shorten the life of the
powersupply. Kinda like flicking a light switch off/on can kill a
light bulb faster than leaving it on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree! That was the thinking too over 30 years ago when Andy Grove was just
an author of a good solid state book and Bill Gates was in school. Not only
the power supply but the hard disk and other components as well. Its the
switching transients that kill components, i.e., di/dt. I know companies
than that leave the computers and lights on 24/7. Cost of early computers
were much more expensive. A desktop CPM computer based on the Intel 8080
chip could run over $20K and energy was very cheap. Further, cost of
maintaining light fixtures and lamps were higher than cost of energy. So it
was cost effective just leave it on 24/7.
h
"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g8mdc4tltlf8leitk...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:56:45 -0400, "h" <tmc...@searchmachine.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"James" <j006...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:8190553d-c364-4f39...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>> Considering 24X365 hours in a year, if electricity costs 1 cent per
>>> hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170 if 2
>>> cents per hour.
>>
>>I need my computer at least once an hour, 16-18 hours a day. Waiting for
>>it
>>to boot would waste a helluva lot more than 16-18 cents of my time.
>>
>
> I have mine set to go to sleep (the lowest level of standby, HD off,
> fans off) after a period of inactivity.
Well, yeah, doesn't everyone? Of course it's set to "sleep" or "hibernate"
or whatever they're calling it this year, but it's still "on" all the time.
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
> I build those things for a living. Leaving a pc turned
> on lowers its useful lifetime to about 3 years. Then
> it goes flakey, and I hear all the stupid reasons
> from the users ... what "they" think is wrong.
>
I used my first desktop computer for 8 years, and I left it on most of
the time.
Learn how to use "hibernate mode" and the thing
> will reboot in about 30 seconds all the way
> back to the application you left open.
I actually had problems with the hibernation mode. After using it for
a couple months, my computer started crashing a few times an hour. The
tech help told me the hibernation mode was only for short times, not
overnight, or for more than an hour or so. After I quit using the
hibernation mode, the crashing problem stopped.
Rod Speed
> johns <johns...@moscow.com> wrote
>> I build those things for a living. Leaving a pc turned
>> on lowers its useful lifetime to about 3 years. Then
>> it goes flakey, and I hear all the stupid reasons
>> from the users ... what "they" think is wrong.
> I used my first desktop computer for 8 years, and I left it on most of the time.
Yep, he doesnt have a clue.
>> Learn how to use "hibernate mode" and the
>> thing will reboot in about 30 seconds all the
>> way back to the application you left open.
> I actually had problems with the hibernation mode. After using it for
> a couple months, my computer started crashing a few times an hour.
> The tech help told me the hibernation mode was only for short times,
> not overnight, or for more than an hour or so.
They didnt have a clue.
> After I quit using the hibernation mode, the crashing problem stopped.
Coincidence.
Seerialmom
Standby is for short times; hibernate is for longer, including
overnight. The tech was feeding you a line of horse hockey! Not
saying that some systems don't have problems with hibernate, but it's
usually due to some legacy driver that conflicts.
Dennis
wrote:
If the the goal is minimal power usage along with minimal time to come
back to a usable state, then standby mode is a good tradeoff. As I
wrote (and you snipped), I've measured less than 4W of power
consumption in sleep mode on my PC (vs. 80-100W awake but idle).
Note that I'm not talking about a screen saver, but S3 standby mode of
the PC, with HD and fans off and minimal power to MB/CPU/memory.
There is a nice tool for setting up standby and other power management
controls on Windows available for free download at:
http://slicksolutions.eu/mst.shtml
I have used this tool and found it useful.
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
Gary Heston
>> > In the "olden days" the reason for keeping the computer on
>> > was to avoid wearing out the powersupply via multiple restarts.
>> Nope, that is not correct.
>Yes it is correct. That was the thinking about 10 years ago; maybe
>not in your neighborhood but here around Silicon valley it was. It
>was common thinking that multiple cycles would shorten the life of the
>powersupply. Kinda like flicking a light switch off/on can kill a
>light bulb faster than leaving it on.
[ ... ]
No, the power supply is only one issue. Thermal cycling is bad for
anything with soldered connections--like the ones holding all the
components to the motherboard, video adapter, drive electronics,
keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc.
Enough thermal cycling can cause the joints to crack, leading to
lots of problems.
Better for the electronics for it to remain at a stable temperature.
I keep my core systems on full-time (I have supported distributed
computing projects in the past; those are not up at the moment). Then
again, I'm a network administrator; most people are't running Windows
Server 2003 Enterprise (legal, retail package) at home. I have very
little reliability issues with my systems.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Why is it that these days, the words "What idiot" are so frequently
followed by the words "at Microsoft"?