Failure of monitor to wake-up when PC does.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Dear all,

Your assistance is required once again...

When I tried to 'wake up' my PC last night (Compaq Presario 5000 with
MV540 monitor), the PC burst into life, but the monitor remained on
stand-by.

after switching both PC and monitor on and off repeatedly (I can
ususally hear a relay clicking away when normal wake-up is achieved),
I disconnected the monitor and powered it. It displayed the usual RGB
'check-cable' indication, so I took the monitor to be working OK.

I eventually got the monitor working by removing the video card
(NVIDIA GeForce) and re-fitting it. Everything then powered normally.

Is it likely to be a video card fault, or a motherboard fault? Any
suggestions appreciated!
--

Kind Regds,

Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
5 answers Last reply
More about failure monitor wake does
  1. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    Most likely the video card. Either replace it or avoid sleep mode.
    HH

    "Russell W. Barnes" <rwbarnes@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:f3860a72.0410182359.7781f4a5@posting.google.com...
    > Dear all,
    >
    > Your assistance is required once again...
    >
    > When I tried to 'wake up' my PC last night (Compaq Presario 5000 with
    > MV540 monitor), the PC burst into life, but the monitor remained on
    > stand-by.
    >
    > after switching both PC and monitor on and off repeatedly (I can
    > ususally hear a relay clicking away when normal wake-up is achieved),
    > I disconnected the monitor and powered it. It displayed the usual RGB
    > 'check-cable' indication, so I took the monitor to be working OK.
    >
    > I eventually got the monitor working by removing the video card
    > (NVIDIA GeForce) and re-fitting it. Everything then powered normally.
    >
    > Is it likely to be a video card fault, or a motherboard fault? Any
    > suggestions appreciated!
    > --
    >
    > Kind Regds,
    >
    > Russell W. B.
    > http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
  2. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    I'll place my money on the video card, especially if the inside of the computer
    chassis has/had a lot of dust and dirt inside. If the nVidia card has a fan
    clogged with dust, the graphics chip can overheat with resulting unpredictable
    operation. nVidia cards have a reputation for hot chips in more ways than one.
    The transistors inside a chip begin to break down when a chip is overheated for
    too long of a period of time... Ben Myers

    On 19 Oct 2004 00:59:30 -0700, rwbarnes@globalnet.co.uk (Russell W. Barnes)
    wrote:

    >Dear all,
    >
    >Your assistance is required once again...
    >
    >When I tried to 'wake up' my PC last night (Compaq Presario 5000 with
    >MV540 monitor), the PC burst into life, but the monitor remained on
    >stand-by.
    >
    >after switching both PC and monitor on and off repeatedly (I can
    >ususally hear a relay clicking away when normal wake-up is achieved),
    >I disconnected the monitor and powered it. It displayed the usual RGB
    >'check-cable' indication, so I took the monitor to be working OK.
    >
    >I eventually got the monitor working by removing the video card
    >(NVIDIA GeForce) and re-fitting it. Everything then powered normally.
    >
    >Is it likely to be a video card fault, or a motherboard fault? Any
    >suggestions appreciated!
    >--
    >
    >Kind Regds,
    >
    >Russell W. B.
    >http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
  3. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    Thanks, guys...

    I fitted a new graphics card (NVIDIA BFG with 64M ram), and all now
    OK. Considering I don't do games, there are all sorts of twiddles on
    this new card!

    My normal practice is to leave the PC switched on (Presario 5000
    5WV254), and - when finished - put it into standby and turn the
    monitor off altogether, switching it on when next needed, and thus
    avoiding 'standby' mode (unless away for a short time). Is this wise
    practise? I remember years ago, on my old 8088 IBM, having trouble if
    I switched the monitor off, but I thought things had come on since
    then.
    --

    Regds,

    Russell W. B.
    http://www.huttonrow.co.uk


    > I'll place my money on the video card, especially if the inside of the computer
    > chassis has/had a lot of dust and dirt inside. If the nVidia card has a fan
    > clogged with dust, the graphics chip can overheat with resulting unpredictable
    > operation. nVidia cards have a reputation for hot chips in more ways than one.
    > The transistors inside a chip begin to break down when a chip is overheated for
    > too long of a period of time... Ben Myers
    >
    > On 19 Oct 2004 00:59:30 -0700, rwbarnes@globalnet.co.uk (Russell W. Barnes)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Dear all,
    > >
    > >Your assistance is required once again...
    > >
    > >When I tried to 'wake up' my PC last night (Compaq Presario 5000 with
    > >MV540 monitor), the PC burst into life, but the monitor remained on
    > >stand-by.
    > >
    > >after switching both PC and monitor on and off repeatedly (I can
    > >ususally hear a relay clicking away when normal wake-up is achieved),
    > >I disconnected the monitor and powered it. It displayed the usual RGB
    > >'check-cable' indication, so I took the monitor to be working OK.
    > >
    > >I eventually got the monitor working by removing the video card
    > >(NVIDIA GeForce) and re-fitting it. Everything then powered normally.
    > >
    > >Is it likely to be a video card fault, or a motherboard fault? Any
    > >suggestions appreciated!
    > >--
    > >
    > >Kind Regds,
    > >
    > >Russell W. B.
    > >http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
  4. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    There are two schools of thought regarding whether one should turn off the power
    on a computer or not.

    One school says that shutting down the computer entirely eliminates wear and
    tear on moving parts, most notably hard disk drives and cooling fans. But
    powering up a computer causes a momentary surge of current which can wear out
    sensitive integrated circuits.

    The other school says that keeping a computer powered up preserves the
    electronic parts, which do not receive a slight power surge every time the
    computer is powered up. If the operating system AND the motherboard design
    together do a superb job of managing standby mode, the hard drive spins down,
    the CPU generates less heat, and the cooling fans either stop spinning or spin
    only occasionally. Unfortunately, neither Microsoft nor motherboard
    manufacturers have gotten standby mode to be 100% foolproof. Not yet.

    Certainly if one lives in an area of unreliable electric power, powering down
    the computer is probably best. When electrical current returns after a power
    outage, it sometimes surges and burns out the power supply, occasionally taking
    other components out if the surge is strong enough.

    I've been a member of the former school of thought ever since the days of the
    original IBM PC. My reasoning is that the data on the hard drive of my computer
    is the most valuable and most difficult to replace (even with regular backups).
    If the computer is powered down when not in use for extended periods of time (my
    rule of thumb is 3 or 4 hours), and it is protected by a good quality surge
    protector, then the hard disk will escape damage from transient power surges and
    other unpleasant electrical phenomena. EVERYTHING else in a computer can be
    replaced at reasonable cost. The data on the hard disk cannot.

    The choice is yours. I've tried to provide an objective view of both sides of
    the argument... Ben Myers

    On 20 Oct 2004 01:04:16 -0700, rwbarnes@globalnet.co.uk (Russell W. Barnes)
    wrote:

    >Thanks, guys...
    >
    >I fitted a new graphics card (NVIDIA BFG with 64M ram), and all now
    >OK. Considering I don't do games, there are all sorts of twiddles on
    >this new card!
    >
    >My normal practice is to leave the PC switched on (Presario 5000
    >5WV254), and - when finished - put it into standby and turn the
    >monitor off altogether, switching it on when next needed, and thus
    >avoiding 'standby' mode (unless away for a short time). Is this wise
    >practise? I remember years ago, on my old 8088 IBM, having trouble if
    >I switched the monitor off, but I thought things had come on since
    >then.
    >--
    >
    >Regds,
    >
    >Russell W. B.
    >http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
    >
    >
    >> I'll place my money on the video card, especially if the inside of the computer
    >> chassis has/had a lot of dust and dirt inside. If the nVidia card has a fan
    >> clogged with dust, the graphics chip can overheat with resulting unpredictable
    >> operation. nVidia cards have a reputation for hot chips in more ways than one.
    >> The transistors inside a chip begin to break down when a chip is overheated for
    >> too long of a period of time... Ben Myers
    >>
    >> On 19 Oct 2004 00:59:30 -0700, rwbarnes@globalnet.co.uk (Russell W. Barnes)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Dear all,
    >> >
    >> >Your assistance is required once again...
    >> >
    >> >When I tried to 'wake up' my PC last night (Compaq Presario 5000 with
    >> >MV540 monitor), the PC burst into life, but the monitor remained on
    >> >stand-by.
    >> >
    >> >after switching both PC and monitor on and off repeatedly (I can
    >> >ususally hear a relay clicking away when normal wake-up is achieved),
    >> >I disconnected the monitor and powered it. It displayed the usual RGB
    >> >'check-cable' indication, so I took the monitor to be working OK.
    >> >
    >> >I eventually got the monitor working by removing the video card
    >> >(NVIDIA GeForce) and re-fitting it. Everything then powered normally.
    >> >
    >> >Is it likely to be a video card fault, or a motherboard fault? Any
    >> >suggestions appreciated!
    >> >--
    >> >
    >> >Kind Regds,
    >> >
    >> >Russell W. B.
    >> >http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
  5. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    Many answer this 'leave power on or turn it off' question
    without doing step one - first learn the numbers. Too often,
    the answer is simply based upon wild speculation about
    stresses that don't really exist. Power cycling does affect
    life expectancy. The numbers: A power switch is rated for
    about 100,000 cycles. IOW that is power cycling the machine
    seven times every day for ... 39 years. The lowest power
    cycling number I had ever seen was on a IBM disk drive rated
    for 40,000 cycles - which is power cycling seven times every
    day for .... 15 years.

    So yes, they did not lie when they said power cycling can
    shorten the life of a computer. And then we apply the number
    they forgot to learn. 15 and 39 years? Who cares? In
    reality, power cycling has no adverse effect on properly
    functioning hardware. Hours of operation is a more critical
    numbers because excessive hours of operation are more often a
    reason for system not powering on. After too many hours, the
    weakened component fails on powerup.

    Again, if numbers or manufacturer datasheet specs are not
    provided, then the 'expert' is no expert. Instead he meets the
    definition of 'junk scientist'. Junk scientists fear
    numbers. Furthermore, if power on is so destructive to
    computers, then power on is also destructive to TVs, radios,
    and all other household appliances. Leave all TVs on 24/7 if
    you believe those half truths about computer power on.

    No, there is little debate among the experts. Turn the
    machine off or put it to sleep when done. Myth purveyors
    claiming to be experts never provide numbers. No numbers
    means he is a junk scientist. The myth purveyor did not lie.
    He simply deceived by forgetting to provide the numbers.

    As for a plug-in protector, it can even contribute to damage
    of the adjacent and powered off machine. It does not even
    claim to provide protection from electrical transients that
    typically damage computer hardware. This is another and
    longer topic best answered elsewhere. Do you think that silly
    little box adjacent to a computer will stop, block, or absorb
    what miles of sky could not? The surge protector must do just
    that to accomplish the protection that others claim. Even the
    manufacturer does not claim to protect from the typically
    destructive type of transient. Details on effective
    protection that costs about $1 per protected appliance is
    introduced in "Pull the wall plug or not?" in nz.comp on 7
    Sept 2004 at
    http://tinyurl.com/5ttwl

    Turn the machine off or put it to sleep when done as the end
    of the day. Is that monitor causing video card damage? Step
    one - do both monitor and PC share the exact same wall
    receptable and is that wall receptacle the three wire (safety
    grounded) type? Is the wall receptacle safety ground pin
    actually connected to safety ground? Yes, power on could
    created trivial little transients that are normally grounded
    by the safety ground. No safety ground on either machine or
    separated safety grounds can result in a destructive ground
    loop through low voltge video cables into video controller.

    Ben Myers wrote:
    > There are two schools of thought regarding whether one should turn
    > off the power on a computer or not.
    >
    > One school says that shutting down the computer entirely eliminates
    > wear and tear on moving parts, most notably hard disk drives and
    > cooling fans. But powering up a computer causes a momentary surge
    > of current which can wear out sensitive integrated circuits.
    >
    > The other school says that keeping a computer powered up preserves
    > the electronic parts, which do not receive a slight power surge
    > every time the computer is powered up. If the operating system
    > AND the motherboard design together do a superb job of managing
    > standby mode, the hard drive spins down, the CPU generates less
    > heat, and the cooling fans either stop spinning or spin only
    > occasionally. Unfortunately, neither Microsoft nor motherboard
    > manufacturers have gotten standby mode to be 100% foolproof.
    > Not yet.
    >
    > Certainly if one lives in an area of unreliable electric power,
    > powering down the computer is probably best. When electrical
    > current returns after a power outage, it sometimes surges and
    > burns out the power supply, occasionally taking other components
    > out if the surge is strong enough.
    >
    > I've been a member of the former school of thought ever since the
    > days of the original IBM PC. My reasoning is that the data on
    > the hard drive of my computer is the most valuable and most
    > difficult to replace (even with regular backups). If the computer
    > is powered down when not in use for extended periods of time (my
    > rule of thumb is 3 or 4 hours), and it is protected by a good
    > quality surge protector, then the hard disk will escape damage
    > from transient power surges and other unpleasant electrical
    > phenomena. EVERYTHING else in a computer can be replaced at
    > reasonable cost. The data on the hard disk cannot.
    >
    > The choice is yours. I've tried to provide an objective view
    > of both sides of the argument... Ben Myers
Ask a new question

Read More

Compaq Monitors Computers