Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

on or off

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
November 30, 2004 8:27:07 PM

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

The more I read the posts, the more uncertain I am now about the on or off
question. Power use? power surges? cycling? more dust build up? damage to
parts? wear on HD? quick availability?
What do most of you out there actually do?
Perhaps a reply with just the words 'on' or 'off' would give us a flavour
as to general feeling.

More about : question

Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:27:08 PM

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

always on for mine
off when not in use for my son's
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:27:08 PM

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

On when I use it. Off when I don't.

Ginger or Mary Ann?
Mary Ann.
Coke or Pepsi?
Pepsi.
Hip Hop or Rock?
Rock.
Automatic or Manual?
Manual.

"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:L32rd.187800$Np3.7656800@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> The more I read the posts, the more uncertain I am now about the on or off
> question. Power use? power surges? cycling? more dust build up? damage to
> parts? wear on HD? quick availability?
> What do most of you out there actually do?
> Perhaps a reply with just the words 'on' or 'off' would give us a flavour
> as to general feeling.
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 11:04:16 PM

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

On most of the day. Off at night and when I leave home.
Gene K

Kevin wrote:
> On when I use it. Off when I don't.
>
> Ginger or Mary Ann?
> Mary Ann.
> Coke or Pepsi?
> Pepsi.
> Hip Hop or Rock?
> Rock.
> Automatic or Manual?
> Manual.
>
> "Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
> news:L32rd.187800$Np3.7656800@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>>The more I read the posts, the more uncertain I am now about the on or off
>>question. Power use? power surges? cycling? more dust build up? damage to
>>parts? wear on HD? quick availability?
>>What do most of you out there actually do?
>>Perhaps a reply with just the words 'on' or 'off' would give us a flavour
>>as to general feeling.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
December 1, 2004 11:36:31 AM

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

It just doesn't matter.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 5:08:15 PM

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

How to separate the responses. Do they provide numbers? Do
they mention information from manufacturer datasheets? Do
they explain the science behind the reasoning? Do they reply
using principles you were taught in Junior High School science
- it must have both theoretical reasoning - the principles AND
it must include experimental evidence - the actual numbers
from industry experiments and datasheets.

A power switch has a life expectancy of (typically) 100,000
cycles. Clearly power cycling a switch is far more
destructive than leaving it on. Lets see. Power cycling
seven times every day for ... 39 years.

Another device that has a particularly small 'power cycle'
life expectancy is one particular IBM hard drive - 40,000
cycles. That is seven times every day for ... 15 years.

The idea that power cycling shortens life expectancy is
correct - until we apply engineering numbers and put those
numbers into perspective. Then power cycling worries belong
in a myth category. Some devices may have a shorter life
expectancy such as that power switch and that disk drive. But
who cares? Once numbers are applied, then reality takes on a
whole different perspective.

Some components, such as CPU are power cycling most severely
when in normal operation. Did they forget to mention that?
If power cycling was so destructive to a computer, then it is
also so destructive to a TV. If power cycling shortens a
computer's life expectancy by a factor of ten, well, who cares
if the computer is still working 150 years from now.

Those who say 'leave it on' never meet the criteria for
scientific response. A glaring missing detail - they post no
numbers. That alone says the post has no credibility. No
numbers suggests junk science reasoning. When done, turn it
off or put it to sleep. Clearly the best solution is we
eliminate those who post only their personal speculations -
not tempered by the numbers.

Too much 'general feeling' is easily confused by those who
don't have numbers. Too many eyes glaze over when the numbers
are provided. But the answer to your question is found in
numbers - that junk scientists fear.

We speculate because we don't have numbers. Then get
numbers so that we have knowledge. Now start filtering out
posts that only speculate. Your final answer will become
obvious.

Happy wrote:
> The more I read the posts, the more uncertain I am now about the on
> or off question. Power use? power surges? cycling? more dust build
> up? damage to parts? wear on HD? quick availability?
> What do most of you out there actually do?
> Perhaps a reply with just the words 'on' or 'off' would give us a
> flavour as to general feeling.
December 1, 2004 6:13:17 PM

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

In news:41AE169F.C88F9D29@hotmail.com,
w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> typed:

> How to separate the responses.

<snip>

On my goodness! I can't believe there is still life in this thread, in this
particular newsgroup, being that the topic has been beaten well-past death
all over the Internet for years.

The "*ANSWER*" was given a long time ago, as I recall;

These days? You're *far* more likely to replace a machine because it's
obsolete, than you are to replace any individual component of the *same*
machine which failed due to any kind of "power" issue.

(E-Latrines, and unprotected lightning strikes excepted.)

And please don't ask me to cite. :-)
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:46:18 AM

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

w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> How to separate the responses. Do they provide numbers? Do
>they mention information from manufacturer datasheets? Do
>they explain the science behind the reasoning? Do they reply
>using principles you were taught in Junior High School science
>- it must have both theoretical reasoning - the principles AND
>it must include experimental evidence - the actual numbers
>from industry experiments and datasheets.
>
> A power switch has a life expectancy of (typically) 100,000
>cycles. Clearly power cycling a switch is far more
>destructive than leaving it on. Lets see. Power cycling
>seven times every day for ... 39 years.
>
> Another device that has a particularly small 'power cycle'
>life expectancy is one particular IBM hard drive - 40,000
>cycles. That is seven times every day for ... 15 years.
>
> The idea that power cycling shortens life expectancy is
>correct - until we apply engineering numbers and put those
>numbers into perspective. Then power cycling worries belong
>in a myth category. Some devices may have a shorter life
>expectancy such as that power switch and that disk drive. But
>who cares? Once numbers are applied, then reality takes on a
>whole different perspective.
>
> Some components, such as CPU are power cycling most severely
>when in normal operation. Did they forget to mention that?
>If power cycling was so destructive to a computer, then it is
>also so destructive to a TV. If power cycling shortens a
>computer's life expectancy by a factor of ten, well, who cares
>if the computer is still working 150 years from now.
>
> Those who say 'leave it on' never meet the criteria for
>scientific response. A glaring missing detail - they post no
>numbers. That alone says the post has no credibility. No
>numbers suggests junk science reasoning. When done, turn it
>off or put it to sleep. Clearly the best solution is we
>eliminate those who post only their personal speculations -
>not tempered by the numbers.
>
> Too much 'general feeling' is easily confused by those who
>don't have numbers. Too many eyes glaze over when the numbers
>are provided. But the answer to your question is found in
>numbers - that junk scientists fear.
>
> We speculate because we don't have numbers. Then get
>numbers so that we have knowledge. Now start filtering out
>posts that only speculate. Your final answer will become
>obvious.
>

The last definitive numbers that I saw on this were from the mid-1980s
and were based on a study of computers at a University. These were
IBM AT (80286 CPUs) models. One group of the computers were installed
in a computer lab where they were turned on at the beginning of each 1
hour class and turned off at the end of that class. The other group
were installed in administration and faculty offices where they were
switched on at the beginning of each work day and off at the end of
the day.

The computer lab machines began to encounter high rates of hardware
failures (hard drives, RAM chips, motherboards, etc) after 18 months
of use while the admin and faculty office machines were pretty well
failure free after 3 years of use.

Of course hardware reliability has improved by at least one order of
magnitude since the mid 1980s but I believe that the factors
identified with regard to the above noted study are still relevant.
These specifics include:

1. Hard drives contain electric motors, and like all electric motors
are under the greatest load and therefore the most stress when they
are first powered up. The vast majority of electric motor failures of
all kinds, including refrigerator compressors, washing machine pumps,
etc. occur when the machine is powered up not while it is actually
running.

2. Electronic components are comprised of different layers of
materials. When power is applied to these components they become
heated and with this heating there is expansion. However the
different materials have different rates of expansion and therefore
when they expand there will be stressed placed on the joins between
these materials. And when the power is turned off the materials
contract and the stresses are relieved. Repeated stressing and
unstressing an object at the same point gives rise to a condition
known as "metal fatigue" and the stressed item is likely to break or
crack at some point because of this. Such a breakage or cracking
within an electrical components would, of course, most likely result
in the total failure of that component.

But as "Bill" pointed out in his response the improvements in hardware
reliability means that computers will be disposed of due to
obsolescence long before these hardware effects reach any sort of
critical level.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
December 2, 2004 7:00:13 PM

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

Bill said the following on 01/12/2004 20:13:
> In news:41AE169F.C88F9D29@hotmail.com,
> w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>
>> How to separate the responses.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> On my goodness! I can't believe there is still life in this thread, in this
> particular newsgroup, being that the topic has been beaten well-past death
> all over the Internet for years.
>
> The "*ANSWER*" was given a long time ago, as I recall;
>
> These days? You're *far* more likely to replace a machine because it's
> obsolete, than you are to replace any individual component of the *same*
> machine which failed due to any kind of "power" issue.
>
> (E-Latrines, and unprotected lightning strikes excepted.)
>
> And please don't ask me to cite. :-)
>
Therefore depends entirely on who pays the energy bill!

Roy
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:27:27 PM

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

Constant operation causes heat sensitive components to wear
or oxidize when powered. This destructive wear from too many
hours of operation makes hardware tend to fail on powerup.
Others then blame powerup rather than hours of operation.

Yes power cycling is destructive. And then we apply
numbers. 15 and 39 years. These numbers today are also
higher than numbers from the first small disk drives on 1980.
Numbers demonstrate that power cycling 'worries' are classic
urban myth. Too many observations not tempered by the
technical details - fundamental principles and the numbers -
create urban myths.

In the meantime, using personal experience of something
under 100 computers - almost all problems were with computers
left powered 24/7. Like the university experiment - it tells
us nothing useful, unless information such as what failed and
why is included. Autopsies are performed at the IC level to
learn why failures happen. Summary observations are not
sufficient and can create myths.

The Challenger exploded. That proves that god does not want
man in space? Without details and underlying theory, that too
could be proposed as a valid conclusion. Those who suggest
power cycling is destructive also cannot provide those details
- and the numbers.

Again a most damning example: If power cycling is so
destructive to a computer, then it is also equally destructive
to all expensive radios and TVs. Why power down those other
appliances? Either leave all radios, TVs, and computers on,
or power them all off when done. Consistency. One cannot
have it both ways. Disk drives wear most and therefore fail
due to hours of operation. A spec that most every component
manufacturer provides because hours of operation is the most
relevant number for failure. A disk drive with too many hours
of operation will wear and therefore experience failure most
often during power up. Those without the underlying knowledge
wildly speculate that power up did the damage when, in
reality, damage was due to too many hours of operation. Since
they never learn details, the naive just wildly assumed
powerup did the damage. This is how classic urban myths are
invented.

The numbers say something completely different. Damage from
power cycling becomes totally irrelevant once numbers put a
problem into perspective. Power it down or put it to sleep to
maximize value from that computer. After too many hours of
operation, a computer is most likely to fail on power up.
Powerup did not cause the failure. Too many hours did the
wear and damage.

If power cycling damages semiconductors, then power off
semiconductors when not in use. Digital semiconductors power
cycle constantly. Early Pentiums even went from less than 1
amp to more than 10 amps in microseconds. Far more
destructive than an AC power on. Even more nonsense is
massive expansion and contraction for thermal cycling. Please
show me one IC that failed because the substrate cracked.
Damage occurs during switching - during normal operation. One
example is electro-migration. AC power cycling does not cause
electro-migration.

Thermal cycling is many hundreds of degrees cycled many
times. And yet semiconductors are not damaged by this thermal
cycling. Now we are told than tens of degrees causes damage
that hundreds of degrees does not? Bull. Again, apply
numbers. More wild speculation that power cycling causes
damage - eliminated as soon as we apply a new perspective -
the numbers. If expansion and contraction caused transistor
failure, then it occurs when expansion and contraction
actually occurs - during manufacturing. That failure from ten
times more degrees just does not happen.

If thermal cycling is so destructive, then it occurs during
normal operation when most temperature changes occurs fastest
- during the so many less than 1 amp to more than 10 amp
demands for current. To avoid such damage, then don't leave
the computer on 24/7.

Those who claim powerup causes failures don't provide the
supporting numbers. No numbers means junk science reasoning.
Turn it off or put it to sleep when done - to maximize
computer value. Too much posted about 24/7 advantages is
provided without numbers - also called wild speculation or
myth.

The quick sound byte conclusion is that power cycling does
damage. Reality means the post must be long. Must provide
underlying principles and numbers. Turn it off or put it to
sleep when done - once we replace myth with long posts based
on science principles and experience.

Ron Martell wrote:
> The last definitive numbers that I saw on this were from the mid-1980s
> and were based on a study of computers at a University. These were
> IBM AT (80286 CPUs) models. One group of the computers were installed
> in a computer lab where they were turned on at the beginning of each 1
> hour class and turned off at the end of that class. The other group
> were installed in administration and faculty offices where they were
> switched on at the beginning of each work day and off at the end of
> the day.
>
> The computer lab machines began to encounter high rates of hardware
> failures (hard drives, RAM chips, motherboards, etc) after 18 months
> of use while the admin and faculty office machines were pretty well
> failure free after 3 years of use.
>
> Of course hardware reliability has improved by at least one order of
> magnitude since the mid 1980s but I believe that the factors
> identified with regard to the above noted study are still relevant.
> These specifics include:
>
> 1. Hard drives contain electric motors, and like all electric motors
> are under the greatest load and therefore the most stress when they
> are first powered up. The vast majority of electric motor failures of
> all kinds, including refrigerator compressors, washing machine pumps,
> etc. occur when the machine is powered up not while it is actually
> running.
>
> 2. Electronic components are comprised of different layers of
> materials. When power is applied to these components they become
> heated and with this heating there is expansion. However the
> different materials have different rates of expansion and therefore
> when they expand there will be stressed placed on the joins between
> these materials. And when the power is turned off the materials
> contract and the stresses are relieved. Repeated stressing and
> unstressing an object at the same point gives rise to a condition
> known as "metal fatigue" and the stressed item is likely to break or
> crack at some point because of this. Such a breakage or cracking
> within an electrical components would, of course, most likely result
> in the total failure of that component.
>
> But as "Bill" pointed out in his response the improvements in hardware
> reliability means that computers will be disposed of due to
> obsolescence long before these hardware effects reach any sort of
> critical level.
!