Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Keep computer on or turn off after use?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:37:20 PM

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

Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
computer off?

More about : computer turn

Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:37:21 PM

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

Joe K <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote in:

> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
> computer off?

You'll save on the electric bill if you don't leave it on when you're not
using it.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:37:21 PM

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

In news:%233oVzziiFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
Joe K <JoeK@alt.microsoft> typed:

> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days
> work
> turn computer off?


Either is OK. You'll find who will advise you to do one or the
other, but in practice it seldom makes much difference either
way.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Related resources
July 16, 2005 6:06:20 PM

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

Ron Martell wrote:

> The principle that I have used for the past 20 years is
> to turn computers on and off once a day.
>
> My opinion is that turning a computer on and off once has
> an equivalent long term cumulative effect on the computer
> to leaving it running for 24 hours.

Care to explain that useless statement?
July 16, 2005 6:07:52 PM

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

William Hart wrote:

> Personally, I use a 3-hour rule. If I'm coming back to the
> PC in less than 3 hours, I leave it powered on; otherwise,
> I power it off.

BFD and woo-hoo for you!

What is the basis for your doing that, other than superstition?
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 7:13:08 PM

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

In article <#3oVzziiFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Joe K
<JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote:
>Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
>computer off?

I think that both are OK.

I keep my main computer on 24/7, with the power options configured to
turn off the monitor after 15 minutes of no activity on the computer.

I wouldn't turn a computer on and off more than once per day because
of the possible stress that it would put on the power supply and other
components.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 8:05:26 PM

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

Either way. Mine is on 24\7 365 days.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Joe K" <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote in message news:#3oVzziiFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
> computer off?
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 8:57:57 PM

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

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question328.htm

"Steve Winograd [MVP]" <winograd@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:7rtid15qrcjcro3oca5sra7qsgql2jadl8@4ax.com...
> In article <#3oVzziiFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Joe K
> <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote:
>>Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
>>computer off? <snip>
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 9:03:15 PM

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

In article <ecFr2FliFHA.3164@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, "Jone Doe"
<fake@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
>http://www.howstuffworks.com/question

I disagree with that page where it says "A typical PC consumes
something like 300 watts". A typical PC might have a power supply
with a maximum rating of 300 watts, but a PC doesn't consume anywhere
near that much power when idling or running normally.

I agree with the statement "There is no single right answer". This
question can become something like a religious issue, with the "turn
it off" and the "leave it on" people having impassioned arguments,
with no possibility of anyone convincing anyone to change.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 9:08:38 PM

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

On this date, Jone Doe extended this wisdom for the
consideration of other readers...

> http://www.howstuffworks.com/question328.htm

Good site, but it came complete with its own pop-up.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 10:50:15 PM

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

"Joe K" <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote in message
news:%233oVzziiFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
> computer off?

Your choice, possibly less failure leaving it on as less thermal shock vs.
additional cost of power.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 11:05:03 PM

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

Personally i prefer to make sure that my machine if off when it is not in
use or, for that matter, when it is left unattended for a long time. For a
quicker boot method i simply use Hibernate.
Leaving the machine on 24/7 not only increases electicity costs but there is
also the fire hazard aspect should anything untoward happen while the
machine is left on. Remember a pc generates a lot of heat.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org


"Joe K" <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote in message
news:%233oVzziiFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
> computer off?
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 12:45:38 AM

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

Joe K <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote:

>Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
>computer off?

The principle that I have used for the past 20 years is to turn
computers on and off once a day.

My opinion is that turning a computer on and off once has an
equivalent long term cumulative effect on the computer to leaving it
running for 24 hours.


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

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 1:41:23 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:41:11 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>Joe K <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote in:
>
>> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
>> computer off?
>
>You'll save on the electric bill if you don't leave it on when you're not
>using it.

This is neglible if even noticeable (the increased electric bill) if
your computer is less than 3 to 5 years old. New systems have drives
that spin and power down after so long with no use. The monitors
power down to standby, drawing hardly any juice (just enough in my
monitor at work and home to light the little tiny LED around the power
buttons). The computer itself goes pretty much into hibernation, just
waiting for a mouse movement or keyboard click to power itself back
up. The amount of electricity you need to trickle to memory and keep
it alive is so tiny you can't count it in your electric bill!
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 1:58:35 AM

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

"Joe K" <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote in message
news:%233oVzziiFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
> computer off?

Personally, I use a 3-hour rule. If I'm coming back to the PC in less than 3
hours, I leave it powered on; otherwise, I power it off.

--
WH
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:04:55 AM

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

"Curmudgeon" <krmujn@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:1121548072.085943.235310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What is the basis for your doing that, other than superstition?

Yaaaawwwnnn!
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:32:12 AM

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

My computer is always in use so there's no "after use" in
which to turn it off.

The only time my computer gets turned off is if a power cut
lasts more than 30 minutes or so and the UPS shuts the
computer down.

Other than that, I try and find a reason to reboot at least
once every 24 hours or so. Fortunately WinXP and the
programs running under it make this easy.

--
Bob
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:32:13 AM

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

In article <11dj6bpgof5407e@news.supernews.com>, "Opinicus"
<gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote:
>My computer is always in use so there's no "after use" in
>which to turn it off.
>
>The only time my computer gets turned off is if a power cut
>lasts more than 30 minutes or so and the UPS shuts the
>computer down.
>
>Other than that, I try and find a reason to reboot at least
>once every 24 hours or so. Fortunately WinXP and the
>programs running under it make this easy.

What's the reason for rebooting each day?

I often leave my computer running for weeks at a time without
rebooting. That's easy in WinXP, unlike Win 95/98/Me which bog down
or crash much sooner.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 10:53:52 AM

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

"Joe K" <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote in message
news:%233oVzziiFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
> computer off?

My Windows Server 2003 machine stays on 24/7.

I used to keep my desktop machine on 24/7 as well (and still do every now
and then), but since I currently do all my work away from home (I used to
work from home) I find myself turning off my machine at night and not
turning it back on until I get home from work the next evening. My home
computer is now only on about 2 or 3 hours a day (during the week), but
despite this adjustment, I haven't noticed any difference in the electricity
bill.

Good Luck,

Carl
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 2:02:04 PM

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

Joe K wrote:
> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work
> turn computer off?

Your choice. Each has its benefits. But if you have continuous broad band
internet connection you might consider the increased possibility of virus or
other intrusion. I have a continuous cable connection. I plugged my cable
modem power cord into my surge protector and sometimes power it down if I'm
going to leave my computer on unattended for long periods of time. Lately
I've been using Norton Internet Security 2005 option of clicking on the
"block traffic" icon, blocking all internet traffic when not using the
internet. Then, when I want to use the internet again I simply click on the
"allow traffic" icon.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:17:09 PM

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

NobodyMan <none@none.net> wrote in:

> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:41:11 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Joe K <JoeK@alt.microsoft> wrote in:
>>
>>> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
>>> computer off?
>>
>>You'll save on the electric bill if you don't leave it on when you're not
>>using it.
>
> This is neglible if even noticeable (the increased electric bill) if
> your computer is less than 3 to 5 years old. New systems have drives
> that spin and power down after so long with no use. The monitors
> power down to standby, drawing hardly any juice (just enough in my
> monitor at work and home to light the little tiny LED around the power
> buttons). The computer itself goes pretty much into hibernation, just
> waiting for a mouse movement or keyboard click to power itself back
> up. The amount of electricity you need to trickle to memory and keep
> it alive is so tiny you can't count it in your electric bill!

I can tell by your post the electric rates where you live are much cheaper
than they are here!

BTW, drives that power down, monitors that power down, etc. are set by the
users as to when and/or if.


--
David R. Norton MVP
<d_r_norton@yahoo.com>
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:39:46 PM

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

Joe K wrote:
> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
> computer off?
Thanks everyone for your reply.I will consider them all.
July 17, 2005 4:08:17 PM

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

David R. Norton MVP wrote:

> I can tell by your post the electric rates where
> you live are much cheaper than they are here!

Maybe not. Chances are that his house is all-electic and his computer
usage is minimal compared to cooking, heating/AC, lights, etc., etc.

In that case, a few up or down might not be that noticable.
July 17, 2005 5:38:39 PM

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

Curmudgeon wrote:
> Ron Martell wrote:
>
>
>>The principle that I have used for the past 20 years is
>>to turn computers on and off once a day.
>>
>>My opinion is that turning a computer on and off once has
>>an equivalent long term cumulative effect on the computer
>>to leaving it running for 24 hours.
>
>
> Care to explain that useless statement?
>
I think that he's referring to the fact that when the computer is first
turned on (cold boot), it goes through a lot of stresses. Sort of like
starting a car that's been sitting outside all night. Leaving it on
constantly would (in Ron's Oppinion) cause about the same amount of
stress as constantly turning it off, then back on. I think this is what
he meant, anyways.

--
Evil criminals don't just catch themselves, ya know. Except for Dr. Van
Kruglor's Self Catching robots. Those were just confusing.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:00:34 PM

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

Power cycling is destructive. One component that has a
very poor number of power cycles was an IBM disk drive - rated
for 40,000 cycles. That is seven power cycles every day for
..... 15 years. So yes. Power cycling is destructive when
talk is subjective. But with numbers, then the conclusion
takes a 180 degree turn.

Numbers are where you begin. Concepts not tempered by the
numbers and other real world facts are nothing more that junk
science reasoning. Once we apply the numbers, then power
cycling a computer is just as destructive as power cycling the
TV.

More numbers. Semiconductors thermal cycle some tens of
degrees in normal operation. Is this thermal stress? If so,
then semiconductors that are manufactured by thermal cycling
400 and 500 degrees never work. How do they get working
semiconductors out of the fab?

IOW thermal cycling by powering on and off is near zero
temperature - to semiconductors. Even thermal cycling at
hundreds of degrees is not destructive. Just another example
of what happens once we apply numbers to speculation. Too
many posts only speculate - don't provide numbers and other
facts from datasheets.

One citation even claimed thermal stress when power cycling
light bulbs. That stress is also mythical. Again, we first
consult the numbers from light bulb manufacturers. Power
cycling is not destructive. For if it was, then the orange
turn signal inside traffic lights - the light that flashes all
night - would be the first to fail. Orange is by far the last
to fail. Power cycling is not destructive to light bulbs.
Hours of operation and mechanical shock when hot are the
destructive factors. Manufacturers even provide equations for
those hours of operation. But again, junk science reasoning
will dispute what numbers and facts even from the
manufacturers report.

Numbers are where you start. Which posts only provided
speculation? Which ones provided numbers? Power cycling to
computers is significant when component - typically rated for
100,000 power cycles - is going to be used 40 years. Numbers
that myth purveyors forget to include when claiming power
cycling is destructive.

Why is this topic so controversial? Note the many who just
know without consulting or providing numbers. No numbers is
essential to promoting junk science reasoning. Power cycle it
just like you do a TV, radio, or incandescent lamp. Why? The
numbers.

Joe K wrote:
> Joe K wrote:
>> Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days
>> work turn computer off?
> Thanks everyone for your reply.I will consider them all.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:00:35 PM

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

w_tom wrote:
> Why is this topic so controversial? Note the many who just
> know without consulting or providing numbers. No numbers is
> essential to promoting junk science reasoning. Power cycle it
> just like you do a TV, radio, or incandescent lamp. Why? The
> numbers.

Tell people, "If they have a reason to keep their system on 24/7 and can
afford it and just 'want to' - go ahead. If they do not have a reason or
they cannot afford it and just 'don't want to' - don't leave it on."

It's all a moot point (numbers or not) if you maintain your system and back
it up as you should. I know of systems left on for 7+ years(sans long power
outages), no problems. I know systems turned on/off nearly every day -
likely multiple times on some days - for 7+ years - no problems. I also
know of systems that were turned on the very first time as a complete unit
and the power supply died.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 11:57:59 AM

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

"Curmudgeon" <krmujn@ameritech.net> wrote:

>Ron Martell wrote:
>
>> The principle that I have used for the past 20 years is
>> to turn computers on and off once a day.
>>
>> My opinion is that turning a computer on and off once has
>> an equivalent long term cumulative effect on the computer
>> to leaving it running for 24 hours.
>
>Care to explain that useless statement?

1. Computers chips are semiconductors, made up of layers of many
different materials. There are chemical interactions that occur where
these layers join. These processes are slow, but in the very long
term they do lead to the eventual failure of the semiconductor. The
speed of chemical processes is relative to temperature so if the
computer is on and the chips are warm the chemical processes occur at
a faster rate (but still very slow) than they do when the computer is
off and the computer is at room temperature. Therefore the more the
computer is left on the faster the internal "aging" of the
semiconductors will occur.

2. When computers are turned on, the components are warmed by the
electrical power they consume and they therefore expand somewhat.
Different materials expand at different rates, and this will create
stresses at the points where these different materials are joined.
When the computer is turned off the components cool and contract back
to their normal (cool state) size. Repeated stressing and
unstressing of the internal components can eventually result in "metal
fatigue" at the point of stress, and the component will fail.

Add to this the fact that hard drives contain electric motors, and
electric motors most often fail when they are under the greatest
stress, which is when they are initially powered on.


In my opinion the aging effect (1) of leaving a computer running for
24 hours is approximately equal to the stress effects of turning the
computer on and off once. Perhaps it might be clearer if I said that
turning a computer on and off 5,000 times would about the same over
all effect on the computer as leaving it running coninuously for 5,000
days.


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

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:30:57 PM

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

Not quite as you say.

The Power supply outputs 5V to 12V. The Mobo is powered by 5V and the drives like the HD and CD drives at 12V.

The color of the output wires of the Power Supply is as follows

+ means positive - means negative

+5v for the red and the load current is 4.5A at DC

-5v for the white with a load of 0.1A at DC

+12v for the yellow with a load of 1.8A at DC

-12v for the blue with a load of 0.1A at DC

and ground being Black with the load current PG

The biggest factors of damage to the Mobo and the Drives is spikes when the current (AC) receives a surge and in turn pushes the output of the

Power Supply up by 3-8v DC (maximum). This can cause damage to all outputted DC like the Mobo and the Drives. If your case is well ventilated by fans and the case is not put in a place where it cannot breathe then there is no problems. Also the higher the Watt rating of the Power Supply the easier it is for it to disperse the surge when it gets one.

We have a P1 with a Spacewalker Mobo that was purchased in 95 and has never been shutoff with the exception of a power failure,maintenance and the occasional reboots.

All Electronic parts can get tired and Fail at any time from heat (user fault by bad ventilation at location or selection of Case) or fault of manufacture but leaving on a computer 24\7 will not cause any issues to electronic parts as you describe.

We have over 32 systems running at 24\7 and some for the last 3 yrs and nothing like what you described has ever happened aside from what I described on it on the above.


--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tenmd1tfhf1b4o4e8ilbo0i23apvcpvpk7@4ax.com...
> "Curmudgeon" <krmujn@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >Ron Martell wrote:
> >
> >> The principle that I have used for the past 20 years is
> >> to turn computers on and off once a day.
> >>
> >> My opinion is that turning a computer on and off once has
> >> an equivalent long term cumulative effect on the computer
> >> to leaving it running for 24 hours.
> >
> >Care to explain that useless statement?
>
> 1. Computers chips are semiconductors, made up of layers of many
> different materials. There are chemical interactions that occur where
> these layers join. These processes are slow, but in the very long
> term they do lead to the eventual failure of the semiconductor. The
> speed of chemical processes is relative to temperature so if the
> computer is on and the chips are warm the chemical processes occur at
> a faster rate (but still very slow) than they do when the computer is
> off and the computer is at room temperature. Therefore the more the
> computer is left on the faster the internal "aging" of the
> semiconductors will occur.
>
> 2. When computers are turned on, the components are warmed by the
> electrical power they consume and they therefore expand somewhat.
> Different materials expand at different rates, and this will create
> stresses at the points where these different materials are joined.
> When the computer is turned off the components cool and contract back
> to their normal (cool state) size. Repeated stressing and
> unstressing of the internal components can eventually result in "metal
> fatigue" at the point of stress, and the component will fail.
>
> Add to this the fact that hard drives contain electric motors, and
> electric motors most often fail when they are under the greatest
> stress, which is when they are initially powered on.
>
>
> In my opinion the aging effect (1) of leaving a computer running for
> 24 hours is approximately equal to the stress effects of turning the
> computer on and off once. Perhaps it might be clearer if I said that
> turning a computer on and off 5,000 times would about the same over
> all effect on the computer as leaving it running coninuously for 5,000
> days.
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> http://aumha.org/alex.htm
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:03:48 PM

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

In article <894jd197j3cq9s7bo0b64crrku2h47hfor@4ax.com>,
winograd@pobox.com says...
> In article <ecFr2FliFHA.3164@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, "Jone Doe"
> <fake@nowhere.org> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.howstuffworks.com/question
>
> I disagree with that page where it says "A typical PC consumes
> something like 300 watts". A typical PC might have a power supply
> with a maximum rating of 300 watts, but a PC doesn't consume anywhere
> near that much power when idling or running normally.
>
> I agree with the statement "There is no single right answer". This
> question can become something like a religious issue, with the "turn
> it off" and the "leave it on" people having impassioned arguments,
> with no possibility of anyone convincing anyone to change.

Quite true. I have been working with desktop computers since the 70's
and have always left them on, all the time, unless I go on vacation. I
have all my computers running off of quality UPS devices, set to have
the monitors enter sleep mode after 15 minutes, the PC's have the drives
sleep after 1 hour, but the machines run 24/7/365. During the last 10
years I've only lost a system due to the bad CAP problem or had a drive
die during the initial 30 days, all my systems have not been impacted by
storms, power blips, etc...

At the same time, with almost 30 stations/devices in the house, I tend
to spend about $200+/month for electricity, even in the winter (and I
have Gas heat).

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:48:04 PM

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

In article <e1bUoz5iFHA.708@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, okf22@hotmail.com
says...
> We have over 32 systems running at 24\7 and some for the last 3 yrs and nothing like what you described has ever happened aside from what I described on it on the above.

I agree, and even have a small computer from 1976 and 10MB (not GB, MB)
hard drives that still work just fine. As long as the CAP's don't dry
out and you keep the fans clean (working also) you can use these things
for a LONG time.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 11:11:17 PM

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

Well that's a lot of color and voltage that explains
nothing. Even this statement is technically erroneous:
> The biggest factors of damage to the Mobo and the Drives is
> spikes when the current (AC) receives a surge and in turn
> pushes the output of the Power Supply up by 3-8v DC (maximum).

That damage is mythical for too many reasons if power supply
that meets defacto standards of 30 years ago and meets Intel
requirements. One who actually learns which component has
failed AND why would also know about the required overvoltage
protection. Instead, Peter Foldes wildly speculates that
output voltage rises 3-8v. Absolute nonsense based upon no
technical knowledge - due to no knowledge of OVP.

Peter Foldes has posted classic example junk science
reasoning. He should first learn the simple stuff such as
destructive AC line spikes typically bypass the power supply.
He used junk science reasoning to claim that leaving a
computer on is best - citing personal experience that tells us
nothing useful.

Power cycling is destructive. One component that has a
very poor number of power cycles was an IBM disk drive - rated
for 40,000 cycles. That is seven power cycles every day for
..... 15 years. So yes. Power cycling is destructive when
talk is subjective as Peter has posted. But with numbers,
then the conclusion takes a 180 degree turn. Informed people
get numbers from manufacturer datasheets. Informed people
don't invent a 3-8v rise in output voltage. Informed people
don't write so much fiction.

Peter Foldes provides useless numbers such as the voltages
for each colored wire. Completely ridiculous information
provided only to make him sound knowledgeable. When Peter
designs computers at the capacitor and resistor level (reads
datasheets), then he can start talking about what is and is
not destructive. When Peter fixes computers by finding the
defective IC and replacing only that IC, then he can talk
about what is destructive. Its called knowing 'the underlying
facts and principles'. When Peter quotes numbers from
component data sheets, only then does he provide relevant and
useful information. Peter does not even know of required
functions inside those power supplies. He repeated what was
heard in urban myth forums. He does not provide a single
useful number.

Those with numbers, experience, and who repair by actually
replacing ICs suggest power cycling the computer as one would
a TV, radio, or automobile. Those who post as Peter has just
done are using only personal speculation - not using relevant
numbers - to sound important.

Turn it off (or hibernate it) when done. Don't worry about
nonsense: that power cycling is most stressful. A myth
promoted by human 'feelings' and not based in manufacturer
numbers, rational science, or valid experience. Power cycling
is destructive. Then we apply the numbers to say, "Who cares!
The thing will long be in landfills before that failure
happens."

Power cycling is not the controversy. How some people such
as Peter post nonsense - no useful numbers to make sweeping
conclusions - is the controversy. Peter even claims AC line
spikes create a 3-8v increase power supply output. That is
bullshit that he invented. He has insufficient technical
knowledge. He promotes urban myths. Those who promote such
urban myths are the real controversy.

This is not an attack on Peter. This is an attack on the
junk science logic that so many often use to claim power
cycling is destructive. No numbers and personal speculation
is why they post junk science reasoning. Peter only
demonstrated why the controversy of power cycling exists.
Power cycling is not controversial. Power cycling is not
destructive once numbers put everything into perspective. The
controversy are the many who know power cycling is destructive
- without first learning any numbers.

Peter Foldes wrote:
> Not quite as you say.
>
> The Power supply outputs 5V to 12V. The Mobo is powered by 5V and the drives like the HD and CD drives at 12V.
>
> The color of the output wires of the Power Supply is as follows
>
> + means positive - means negative
>
> +5v for the red and the load current is 4.5A at DC
>
> -5v for the white with a load of 0.1A at DC
>
> +12v for the yellow with a load of 1.8A at DC
>
> -12v for the blue with a load of 0.1A at DC
>
> and ground being Black with the load current PG
>
> The biggest factors of damage to the Mobo and the Drives is spikes when the current (AC) receives a surge and in turn pushes the output of the
>
> Power Supply up by 3-8v DC (maximum). This can cause damage to all outputted DC like the Mobo and the Drives. If your case is well ventilated by fans and the case is not put in a place where it cannot breathe then there is no problems. Also the higher the Watt rating of the Power Supply the easier it is for it to disperse the surge when it gets one.
>
> We have a P1 with a Spacewalker Mobo that was purchased in 95 and has never been shutoff with the exception of a power failure,maintenance and the occasional reboots.
>
> All Electronic parts can get tired and Fail at any time from heat (user fault by bad ventilation at location or selection of Case) or fault of manufacture but leaving on a computer 24\7 will not cause any issues to electronic parts as you describe.
>
> We have over 32 systems running at 24\7 and some for the last 3 yrs and nothing like what you described has ever happened aside from what I described on it on the above.
November 12, 2009 10:46:24 AM

Well I'll sum it up like this... Numbers or not, it doesn't matter. Computers, like all electronic devices, operate just like the lottery. They might work for a day, they might work for 100 years. They might be bad out of the box. Who knows?

I say, do whatever is easiest. I leave my computers on all of the time, because I don't want to have to wait on them to start up... I just sleep my monitors; LCD back lights do have a limited life.

My time is worth more than the cost of electricity. Because from what I've seen that is the only --definite-- savings you can incur.

!