Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

On or off??

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
November 24, 2004 6:46:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I have been using a computer for 20+ years, and have never really heard an
answer to the question-- it is better to turn it off overnight, or when
you're not using it, or leave it on?

More about : question

Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:46:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:j12pd.184547$Np3.7472698@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca,
Happy <happy@trial.ca> typed:

>I have been using a computer for 20+ years, and have never
>really
> heard an answer to the question-- it is better to turn it off
> overnight, or when you're not using it, or leave it on?



You still won't hear a real answer, because people with opposite
points of view are still arguing about it.

At the one extreme, there are those who say that the hardest
thing on electronic components is thermal shock, resulting from
turning it on and off. They never turn it off.

At the other extreme are those who claim that parts (especially
the mechanical components, like disk drives) wear out by running.
They turn it off whenever they are not using it. This group
includes the subgroup of those who ignore the actual question
asked--what's better for the computer--and advise you to turn it
off because you save electricity by doing so).

In practice, I think it probably matters very little. Most of the
time, you'll replace the computer because it becomes obsolete,
not because the components have failed by being left on or turned
off. Personally, I take a middle ground. I power on when I get up
in the morning and power off when I go to bed. I have it off at
night, but keep it on all day--not particularly because it's
better for the computer, but because it's convenient for me to do
that.

By the way, although I answered you, your question really should
have been asked in a hardware newsgroup, not a Windows one. It's
off-topic here.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:46:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I basically agree with Ken. I have been at this for some seven years--old
Windows 95- and back then it was advised to turn things off to permit
"housecleaning".

An additional consideration: Windows XP can get into a real mess if power
fails. If you don't have an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) obtainable
at most electronic stores like Circuit City. There is provision for setting
it up in Control Panel>Power options>UPS tab.

Malv

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:#in1sGl0EHA.824@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> In news:j12pd.184547$Np3.7472698@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca,
> Happy <happy@trial.ca> typed:
>
> >I have been using a computer for 20+ years, and have never
> >really
> > heard an answer to the question-- it is better to turn it off
> > overnight, or when you're not using it, or leave it on?
>
>
>
> You still won't hear a real answer, because people with opposite
> points of view are still arguing about it.
>
> At the one extreme, there are those who say that the hardest
> thing on electronic components is thermal shock, resulting from
> turning it on and off. They never turn it off.
>
> At the other extreme are those who claim that parts (especially
> the mechanical components, like disk drives) wear out by running.
> They turn it off whenever they are not using it. This group
> includes the subgroup of those who ignore the actual question
> asked--what's better for the computer--and advise you to turn it
> off because you save electricity by doing so).
>
> In practice, I think it probably matters very little. Most of the
> time, you'll replace the computer because it becomes obsolete,
> not because the components have failed by being left on or turned
> off. Personally, I take a middle ground. I power on when I get up
> in the morning and power off when I go to bed. I have it off at
> night, but keep it on all day--not particularly because it's
> better for the computer, but because it's convenient for me to do
> that.
>
> By the way, although I answered you, your question really should
> have been asked in a hardware newsgroup, not a Windows one. It's
> off-topic here.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:46:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:41a4e427$0$27767$8b463f8a@news.nationwide.net,
Malvern <thisis@fak> typed:

>I basically agree with Ken. I have been at this for some seven
> years--old Windows 95- and back then it was advised to turn
> things
> off to permit "housecleaning".


Thanks, Malv. I just want to add one point here: Don't confuse
rebooting (for the reasons you cite) with powering off. You can
reboot and still keep the power on, if you believe that powering
off decreases the life of the components.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> An additional consideration: Windows XP can get into a real
> mess if
> power fails. If you don't have an uninterruptible power supply
> (UPS)
> obtainable at most electronic stores like Circuit City. There
> is
> provision for setting it up in Control Panel>Power options>UPS
> tab.
>
> Malv
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:#in1sGl0EHA.824@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> In news:j12pd.184547$Np3.7472698@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca,
>> Happy <happy@trial.ca> typed:
>>
>> >I have been using a computer for 20+ years, and have never
>> >really
>> > heard an answer to the question-- it is better to turn it
>> > off
>> > overnight, or when you're not using it, or leave it on?
>>
>>
>>
>> You still won't hear a real answer, because people with
>> opposite
>> points of view are still arguing about it.
>>
>> At the one extreme, there are those who say that the hardest
>> thing on electronic components is thermal shock, resulting
>> from
>> turning it on and off. They never turn it off.
>>
>> At the other extreme are those who claim that parts
>> (especially
>> the mechanical components, like disk drives) wear out by
>> running.
>> They turn it off whenever they are not using it. This group
>> includes the subgroup of those who ignore the actual question
>> asked--what's better for the computer--and advise you to turn
>> it
>> off because you save electricity by doing so).
>>
>> In practice, I think it probably matters very little. Most of
>> the
>> time, you'll replace the computer because it becomes obsolete,
>> not because the components have failed by being left on or
>> turned
>> off. Personally, I take a middle ground. I power on when I get
>> up
>> in the morning and power off when I go to bed. I have it off
>> at
>> night, but keep it on all day--not particularly because it's
>> better for the computer, but because it's convenient for me to
>> do
>> that.
>>
>> By the way, although I answered you, your question really
>> should
>> have been asked in a hardware newsgroup, not a Windows one.
>> It's
>> off-topic here.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 10:51:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Been discussed in the Windows newsgroup over and over, if you might research
the numerous posts.

The answer is: yes, no, or whatever cranks your tractor ;-)

Tom
"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:j12pd.184547$Np3.7472698@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
| I have been using a computer for 20+ years, and have never really heard an
| answer to the question-- it is better to turn it off overnight, or when
| you're not using it, or leave it on?
|
|
|
November 25, 2004 2:13:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Hi,

Its depends on you mostly. Do you use the computer a lot? Are there times
when the computer isn`t used at all, like a couple of days? Is your
computer in a computer friendly environment, low humidity, cool temp,
computer case able to keep the system from overheating, stuff like that.
For me, my computers are on 24/7, one reason is I access them a lot and run
Seti@home when I`m away, so the computing time isn`t wasted. When I build
my 4th computer to add to my home network, I will install a program from
World Community Grid
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/join_now/join_now.htm... to run their
program when I`m not using it.

So its up to you to decide. I know with the older computers, with the
materials the board were made with, some tend to become brittle with the
constant heating up and cooling down from on/off, but now a days, I don`t
think that is much of a problem.

Jeff

"Tom Pepper Willett" <tompepper@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:o XBzqFp0EHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Been discussed in the Windows newsgroup over and over, if you might
> research
> the numerous posts.
>
> The answer is: yes, no, or whatever cranks your tractor ;-)
>
> Tom
> "Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
> news:j12pd.184547$Np3.7472698@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> | I have been using a computer for 20+ years, and have never really heard
> an
> | answer to the question-- it is better to turn it off overnight, or when
> | you're not using it, or leave it on?
> |
> |
> |
>
>
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 11:59:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

How much wear? Where are the numbers? How much
temperature? Why do manufacturer numerical specs not list all
this wear?

Expansion and contraction is so minimal as to be
insignificant. IOW once we apply numbers, then damage from
thermal expansion becomes another classic urban myth.

Lets example semiconductors. Some claim that thermal
expansion and contraction is destructive. If the tens of
degrees C were so destructive, then hundreds of degrees must
be devastating. Semiconductors are made by thermal cycling
hundreds of degrees tens of times. Where is all this damage?
Damage exists only in myths. Once we apply numbers to all
that thermal expansion - well yes - it will destroy the
semiconductor in how many hundred years? Who cares?

Unfortunately David Candy demonstrates why junk science
reasoning results in the 'Don't power cycle' myth. Again,
where are his numbers. Where is the underlying theory that
proves thermal expansion and contraction is so destructive?
No numbers means junk science reasoning.

Junk science reasoning is common among computer users.
David even avoided a damning fact. If power cycling a
computer is so destructive, then so is power cycling every
radio and TV. How does he explain the anomaly? He ignored
it.

Ignore urban myths about destructive power cycling. These
myths never arrive with supporting facts or numbers. No
numbers means junk science reasoning.

David Candy wrote:
> Cycling does cause wear from thermal expansion and contraction.
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 4:03:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:41A78656.5B2A087C@hotmail.com,
w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> typed:

> Again, the damning fact that "leave it on" advocates must
> avoid. Why do they turn off their TVs and radios? Notice they
> fear to respond to that question.


I am not an "always leave it on" advocate, but for the moment
I'll pretend that I am and answer your question:

Because if the radio fails, I am out only a few dollars. If the
television set fails, I am out a few more dollars, but it's still
only money. If my computer fails, I am out not only the money,
but I may also be out all the data stored on my computer. I have
a far greater investment (in much more than just the monetary
sense) in my computer than I have in a radio or television set.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 4:15:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

You are a complete idiot. Go bend a metal coathanger a few thousands times. Does it break?

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:41A68DF8.2ED4AE78@hotmail.com...
> How much wear? Where are the numbers? How much
> temperature? Why do manufacturer numerical specs not list all
> this wear?
>
> Expansion and contraction is so minimal as to be
> insignificant. IOW once we apply numbers, then damage from
> thermal expansion becomes another classic urban myth.
>
> Lets example semiconductors. Some claim that thermal
> expansion and contraction is destructive. If the tens of
> degrees C were so destructive, then hundreds of degrees must
> be devastating. Semiconductors are made by thermal cycling
> hundreds of degrees tens of times. Where is all this damage?
> Damage exists only in myths. Once we apply numbers to all
> that thermal expansion - well yes - it will destroy the
> semiconductor in how many hundred years? Who cares?
>
> Unfortunately David Candy demonstrates why junk science
> reasoning results in the 'Don't power cycle' myth. Again,
> where are his numbers. Where is the underlying theory that
> proves thermal expansion and contraction is so destructive?
> No numbers means junk science reasoning.
>
> Junk science reasoning is common among computer users.
> David even avoided a damning fact. If power cycling a
> computer is so destructive, then so is power cycling every
> radio and TV. How does he explain the anomaly? He ignored
> it.
>
> Ignore urban myths about destructive power cycling. These
> myths never arrive with supporting facts or numbers. No
> numbers means junk science reasoning.
>
> David Candy wrote:
>> Cycling does cause wear from thermal expansion and contraction.
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 11:50:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Which then raises another important question. If the data
is so important, then leaving a disk drive running constantly
causes greatest wear and potential loss of data. Furthermore,
if the data is that important, then the data is routinely
backed up elsewhere.

Greatest failure to disk drives is hours of operations. We
can speculate this is due to bearing wear, deterioration of
platter surfaces due to constant disk head access, etc. All
is really only speculation. Previously postes was the
smallest spec for power cycling a disk drive. This unusally
low number was on one IBM disk drive and was posted in a
previous example. Power cycle seven times every day for 15
years. Power cycling is not the destructive condition.
Leaving the disk drive running constantly exposes data to
greater threats. A greater threat without even mentioning
external threats such as a defective power supply or malware.

Returning to the same point. There is no proof that leaving
a computer on 24/7 will extend its life expectancy. TV and
radios power cycled every day last for how long? This
computer is now in its 12th year, power cycled repeatedly
every day, and is the reliability I expect from every power
cycled electronic device.

Ken Blake wrote:
> I am not an "always leave it on" advocate, but for the moment
> I'll pretend that I am and answer your question:
>
> Because if the radio fails, I am out only a few dollars. If the
> television set fails, I am out a few more dollars, but it's still
> only money. If my computer fails, I am out not only the money,
> but I may also be out all the data stored on my computer. I have
> a far greater investment (in much more than just the monetary
> sense) in my computer than I have in a radio or television set.
November 27, 2004 10:06:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

There is definitely a complete idiot here. The connection between coat
hangers and semiconductors seems bizarre to say the least.

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:%237$fa310EHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
You are a complete idiot. Go bend a metal coathanger a few thousands times.
Does it break?
November 27, 2004 10:09:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Ken are you telling us you don't have backups. Everything fails at some
time. What kind of expert would tell us they are not prepared for failure.
You need to return to reality from pretending.

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:%23yLCCM$0EHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> In news:41A78656.5B2A087C@hotmail.com,
> w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>> Again, the damning fact that "leave it on" advocates must
>> avoid. Why do they turn off their TVs and radios? Notice they
>> fear to respond to that question.
>
>
> I am not an "always leave it on" advocate, but for the moment I'll pretend
> that I am and answer your question:
....blah, blah, blah
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 11:14:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:eaWn8HP1EHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
anyone <any1@nospam.com> typed:

> Ken are you telling us you don't have backups.


Of couse I'm not. I replied to an argument that I think holds no
water, even though I basically don't disagree with the thought
behind the argument.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup



> Everything fails at
> some time. What kind of expert would tell us they are not
> prepared
> for failure. You need to return to reality from pretending.
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:%23yLCCM$0EHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> In news:41A78656.5B2A087C@hotmail.com,
>> w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> typed:
>>
>>> Again, the damning fact that "leave it on" advocates must
>>> avoid. Why do they turn off their TVs and radios? Notice
>>> they
>>> fear to respond to that question.
>>
>>
>> I am not an "always leave it on" advocate, but for the moment
>> I'll
>> pretend that I am and answer your question:
> ...blah, blah, blah
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 7:20:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

You don't realise they have very small wires from the IC to the pins of the IC's case.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"anyone" <any1@nospam.com> wrote in message news:u4CZ8HP1EHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> There is definitely a complete idiot here. The connection between coat
> hangers and semiconductors seems bizarre to say the least.
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:%237$fa310EHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are a complete idiot. Go bend a metal coathanger a few thousands times.
> Does it break?
>
>
>
November 28, 2004 10:12:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Actually as someone who designed and supervised the design of semiconductors
for 20 years I think I do realize that but thank you for bringing it to my
attention. I stand by my initial comment.

Ever heard of metal migration, that is what kills most semiconductors.

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:uLYw5nQ1EHA.1152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
You don't realise they have very small wires from the IC to the pins of the
IC's case.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"anyone" <any1@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u4CZ8HP1EHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> There is definitely a complete idiot here. The connection between coat
> hangers and semiconductors seems bizarre to say the least.
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:%237$fa310EHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are a complete idiot. Go bend a metal coathanger a few thousands
> times.
> Does it break?
>
>
>




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 4:43:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Wittless tomcat is an idiot and is saying entrophy doesn't exist. Materials decay for lots of reasons.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"anyone" <any1@nospam.com> wrote in message news:41aa887b$1_4@127.0.0.1...
> Actually as someone who designed and supervised the design of semiconductors
> for 20 years I think I do realize that but thank you for bringing it to my
> attention. I stand by my initial comment.
>
> Ever heard of metal migration, that is what kills most semiconductors.
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:uLYw5nQ1EHA.1152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You don't realise they have very small wires from the IC to the pins of the
> IC's case.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.uscricket.com
> "anyone" <any1@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u4CZ8HP1EHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> There is definitely a complete idiot here. The connection between coat
>> hangers and semiconductors seems bizarre to say the least.
>>
>> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
>> news:%237$fa310EHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> You are a complete idiot. Go bend a metal coathanger a few thousands
>> times.
>> Does it break?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
!