Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Leaving Dell Dimension 8300 running 24/7 ...?

Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)

I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.

I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
sweep.

Questions:

1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
because of software incompatibilities.

3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
specifically to the 8300?

Thanks!

--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:34:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
> I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
> way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
> Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
> my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.

it lands on your system through your browser... you visited a website
that had it and i the process of loading the page the file was saved to
disk in your jvm's cache...

being on your system doesn't necessarily make your system compromised,
however... you need a vulnerable jvm for that to happen...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:34:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D %rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...
>
> (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
> I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that
makes its
> way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa
2003
> Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can
land on
> my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.

I well understand that it is not a virus. It is, as stated, a "trojan".
It is an exploit trojan (if your Java is up to date - no worries) that
gets downloaded as a result of normal browsing (to evidently
untrustworthy sites).
Related resources
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:34:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:D %rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...

> 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on?

If the machine is operating properly, free of cooling obstructions
(dust/lint), and operated in a room that is within environmental
requirements, it should be fine.

> I'll of
> course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
> perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
> this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

There are alot of net discussions regarding the pros/cons of leaving on
vs turning off. A google web and/or groups search (keywords: leave
computer on turn off) would be worth performing.

> 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
> staying on?

Assuming your computer remains connected to the/a net and is responding
to network traffic and executing software, probably. For you're being
exposed to [potentially] hostile traffic for longer periods of time, you won't
be in a position to observe unusual behavior, etc. However, if your box
is properly secured and you promptly respond to new threats, the increased
risk would seem to be minimal.

> I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently because of
> software incompatibilities.

Well, promptly applying security updates to your OS and applications is
rule #1 in my book. If you haven't already, investigate those issues and
see whether you can make said software work with SP2 (without turning
off SP2 security features). In some cases, a firewall exception will do the
trick, in others, adding a "mark of the web" to local javascript and/or
Active-X utilizing html files will do the trick, etc.

> 3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
> specifically to the 8300?

Whether you keep your system on 24hrs/day or 2hrs/day, the same
safe computing practices apply. If you aren't well schooled in such
matters, do some googling/reading and brush up.

BTW, Microsoft's Baseline Security Analyzer can be a usefull tool:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mbsahom...

Its MS newsgroup is: microsoft.public.security.baseline_analyzer
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 10:30:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

> 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
> staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
> because of software incompatibilities.

Quite possibly - how are you connected to the net ?

If you`re on broadband, i`d *strongly* recommend a router, as it will
stop port scans or other attacks from getting through to your machine by
dropping the packets if your machine hadn`t actively requested them.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 10:30:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

I can count on one hand the number of times over the last 2.5 years that I
have turned my computer off. I have cable broadband. I take all the proper
precautions, which is why I have never been infected by a virus or spyware.
I don't have a hardware router - yet - but I agree that it's a good thing to
have. Not absolutely necessary, but it's another layer of protection, and
there's nothing wrong about that.

Ted Zieglar

"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7869af7a15552d98ae8b@news.individual.net...
>> 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
>> staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
>> because of software incompatibilities.
>
> Quite possibly - how are you connected to the net ?
>
> If you`re on broadband, i`d *strongly* recommend a router, as it will
> stop port scans or other attacks from getting through to your machine by
> dropping the packets if your machine hadn`t actively requested them.
>
> --
> Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
> --- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 2:09:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

1. You might try the free download of Zone Alarm. 1000% better than Windows
XP's flimsy ten-cent excuse for a firewall, even the SP2 firewall.

2. I agree with the notion that a router provides added protection.

3. A software firewall plus a router improves protection, but it is still not
perfect. Worth doing, though.

4. A computer powered down or physically detached from the internet is
impervious to any intrusion from the outside yet designed.

5. As a matter of course, we power down all computers before going to bed, or
when we do not expect to use them for a number of hours.

6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down when not
in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer up
24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the zero-to-60
effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those who
prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive AND
its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive,
memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I
am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:49 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
>I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
>way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
>Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
>my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.
>
>I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
>sweep.
>
>Questions:
>
>1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
>course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
>perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
>this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.
>
>2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
>staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
>because of software incompatibilities.
>
>3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
>specifically to the 8300?
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
>
>
February 13, 2005 2:09:23 AM

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

I would also suggest free Ad-aware SE, and SpyBot.
<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:420e8a32.35709247@nntp.charter.net...
> 1. You might try the free download of Zone Alarm. 1000% better than
> Windows
> XP's flimsy ten-cent excuse for a firewall, even the SP2 firewall.
>
> 2. I agree with the notion that a router provides added protection.
>
> 3. A software firewall plus a router improves protection, but it is still
> not
> perfect. Worth doing, though.
>
> 4. A computer powered down or physically detached from the internet is
> impervious to any intrusion from the outside yet designed.
>
> 5. As a matter of course, we power down all computers before going to bed,
> or
> when we do not expect to use them for a number of hours.
>
> 6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down
> when not
> in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer
> up
> 24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the
> zero-to-60
> effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those
> who
> prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings
> on
> rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive
> AND
> its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
> backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM
> drive,
> memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data.
> So I
> am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers
>
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:49 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>>
>>I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes
>>its
>>way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa
>>2003
>>Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land
>>on
>>my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.
>>
>>I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
>>sweep.
>>
>>Questions:
>>
>>1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
>>course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
>>perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
>>this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for
>>hibernation.
>>
>>2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
>>staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
>>because of software incompatibilities.
>>
>>3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
>>specifically to the 8300?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>--
>>"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
>>
>>
>
February 13, 2005 3:08:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:09:22 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
(Ben Myers) wrote:


>6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down when not
>in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer up
>24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the zero-to-60
>effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those who
>prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
>rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive AND
>its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
>backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive,
>memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I
>am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers
>

For many, many years I worked for a company with thousands of
computers ranging from PCs up to high performance multi-processor
systems. The admin systems were switched off every night. The
development systems were left on all the time. The systems that were
never switched off had a much lower failure rate than the ones that
were switched off and on daily. The failure rate of hard drives was
also greatest in the systems that were switched off every day.

So I'm in the leave it switched on camp.


--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software

EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 12:58:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

In article <d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07>, Thomas G. Marshall says...
>
> (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
> I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
> way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
> Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
> my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.
>
> I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
> sweep.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
> course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
> perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
> this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.
>
> 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
> staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
> because of software incompatibilities.
>
> 3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
> specifically to the 8300?
>
1) Yes.
2) No. But you'd benefit from using Sygate Personal Firewall or
ZoneAlarm.


--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:10:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:420e8a32.35709247@nntp.charter.net...

> 6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down
when not
> in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a
computer up
> 24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the
zero-to-60
> effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power.
Those who
> prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the
bearings on
> rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives.

IIRC the maximum wear on the harddrive is during spinup and warmup.
Less, not more, wear occurs if left running.

....but that's for another group.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:15:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

<steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p n5t0116j6qebehafo4mthp8vkifosm0u0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:09:22 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
> (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>
> >6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered
down when not
> >in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a
computer up
> >24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the
zero-to-60
> >effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power.
Those who
> >prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the
bearings on
> >rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard
drive AND
> >its contents are the most important part of my system, even with
regular
> >backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard,
CD-ROM drive,
> >memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the
data. So I
> >am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers
> >
>
> For many, many years I worked for a company with thousands of
> computers ranging from PCs up to high performance multi-processor
> systems. The admin systems were switched off every night. The
> development systems were left on all the time. The systems that were
> never switched off had a much lower failure rate than the ones that
> were switched off and on daily. The failure rate of hard drives was
> also greatest in the systems that were switched off every day.
>
> So I'm in the leave it switched on camp.

Yes, the "zero to sixty" applies to motors and bearings as well as many
electronic parts. Your anectdotal evidence backs this up.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:44:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Roger Wilco coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:D %rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...
>>
>> (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>>
>> I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that
>> makes its way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a
>> couple of circa 2003 Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck
>> such a simple file can land on my system, particularly since it's
>> such a well understood virus.
>
> I well understand that it is not a virus. It is, as stated, a
> "trojan". It is an exploit trojan (if your Java is up to date - no
> worries) that gets downloaded as a result of normal browsing (to
> evidently untrustworthy sites).


Ok. As an aside though, I no longer go through the effort to
conversationally differentiate between the various bad thangs, so long as I
identify any particular one by it's proper NAV or McAV or KAV name.

"Virus", right or wrong, has conversationally become an umbrella term.

*Thanks* though. Your (and Kurt Wismer's) point underscores the point that
this trojan is not as harmful as I might otherwise have thought.


--
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:51:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

User N coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:D %rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...
>
>> 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on?
>
> If the machine is operating properly, free of cooling obstructions
> (dust/lint), and operated in a room that is within environmental
> requirements, it should be fine.

Fair enough. Is this advice specific to the 8300 though? Some machines are
not configured for internal air travel properly. Some of the earlier
dimensions (my IT guy pointed out once) were known for not bringing enough
air by the default HD bay, and memory. Apparently in the memory case, it
was because the CPU heat sink was upstream. {shrug}.


>
>> I'll of
>> course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown
>> down perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more
>> about this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except
>> for hibernation.
>
> There are alot of net discussions regarding the pros/cons of leaving
> on
> vs turning off. A google web and/or groups search (keywords: leave
> computer on turn off) would be worth performing.


Always do---good advice. Doesn't replace a usenet discussion (nor should
it). Virtual *talking* with you all is by far the most informative.

....[rip]...


> BTW, Microsoft's Baseline Security Analyzer can be a usefull tool:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mbsahom...

Perfect! Thanks for that!


>
> Its MS newsgroup is: microsoft.public.security.baseline_analyzer



--
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:51:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Whether the heatsink was first or last in-line makes little
difference - means only single digit degrees. Case air flow
is mostly hyped by those who first did not learn the numbers.
Numbers that must come from the theory AND be confirmed by
experimentation. These are requirements as taught in junior
high school science.

Serious complication in airflow that causes heat problems is
dead space. Most every component is cooled sufficiently by an
air flow so little that your hand cannot detect it. The
difference between that airflow and dead space is a massive
increase in component temperature. Too often without first
learning these basics, then some will demand "More Fans". One
80 mm fan of Std CFM is more than sufficient airflow through a
chassis.

But what makes it sufficient? That one fan is sufficient
when room temperature is 100 degrees F. If you computer is
crashing due to heat, the solution is not more fans or where a
heatsink is located. Solution to hardware failure is heating
that component with a hairdryer on high to find and remove the
100% defective hardware. Heat is not a problem in a chassic
with one 80 mm fan. And heat is a diagnostic tool to locate
defective components.

Again, with only one 80 mm fan, that system should operate
just fine in a 100 degree F room. Why more fans for a system
in a 70 degree room? Junk science reasoning.

The IT guy's conclusion was correct ... as long as we don't
apply numbers. Apply numbers. Those few degrees of
temperature increase makes no difference. IOW without
numbers, then junk science conclusions are easily assumed.
Defined is the benchmark between myth purveyors verses those
from the world of reality. One who cannot provide the numbers
is most often from the junk science world. A few degrees
temperature difference means virtually nothing to heatsink
cooling - where tens of degrees are being discussed, and where
critically necessary air flow is so gentle as to not be
detectable by a human hand.

"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
> Fair enough. Is this advice specific to the 8300 though? Some
> machines are not configured for internal air travel properly. Some
> of the earlier dimensions (my IT guy pointed out once) were known
> for not bringing enough air by the default HD bay, and memory.
> Apparently in the memory case, it was because the CPU heat sink
> was upstream. {shrug}.
> ...
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:55:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:09:22 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
> (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>
>> 6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered
>> down when not in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer
>> to leave a computer up 24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system
>> electronics due to the zero-to-60 effect of a sudden surge of
>> current after a total absence of power. Those who prefer to power
>> down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
>> rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard
>> drive AND its contents are the most important part of my system,
>> even with regular backups. I can always replace a blown power
>> supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive, memory, or ANY other part of a
>> computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I am in the
>> power-it-down camp... Ben Myers
>>
>
> For many, many years I worked for a company with thousands of
> computers ranging from PCs up to high performance multi-processor
> systems. The admin systems were switched off every night. The
> development systems were left on all the time. The systems that were
> never switched off had a much lower failure rate than the ones that
> were switched off and on daily. The failure rate of hard drives was
> also greatest in the systems that were switched off every day.

Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate, or
would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?

BTW, your empirical evidence like this is incredibly useful--- *thanks* !


>
> So I'm in the leave it switched on camp.



--
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:55:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

We would demonstrate this 24/7 solution as a myth and
demonstrate why they jumped to erroneous conclusions. Let's
take fans as example. Why does a fan fail? Power on surge?
Myth. Unless the person has performed a forensic analysis,
then he is only wildly speculating that power on caused the
failure. One we learned underlying facts, then the '24/7 to
perverse life expectancy' myth was exposed.

Again, that fan. What causes it to fail. Hours of
operation caused bearing wear, dust buildup, and so called
'power cycling' damage. What is that 'power cycling'? Number
of times circuits turn off and on. IOW the fan that runs
constant is exposed to far more power cycles because it power
cycles so often only when on.

They ran the machines 24/7. Then when the machines were
powered off, those machines did not start. That proves that
turning machines off causes failure? Wrong. Failure from
excessive wear most often appears on startup. And when do
fans with too many hours most often fail? When powered on.
Therefore technicians *assumed* startup was destructive rather
than first learn *why* the failure occurred. Failures due to
power up were repeatedly traced to 'hours of operation'.
Excessive wear due to leaving a machine always on was being
misrepresented by technicians who did not first learn the
facts. They did not first discover why failure happens; then
jumped to wild conclusions.

Why did that fan not start? Bearing was so worn from 24/7
operation as to not start after one power off.

We know routinely that power cycling has minimal adverse
affect on electronics and their mechanical devices (ie fans).
Manufacturers also say same in their detailed spec sheets.
That's two sources - real world experience AND manufacturer
data. Some devices do have power cycling limits. That means
they fail 15 and 39 years later if power cycled 7 times every
day. Who cares after 15 years.

Best one does for computer life expectancy is to turn system
off (or put it to sleep or hibernate it) when done. The 'turn
it off' myth comes from those who only see when a failure
happens and failed to learn why it happens. Without
underlying facts, those who advocate 'leave it on' demonstrate
why statistics without sufficient underlying facts causes
lies.

The most wear and tear on computers is clearly during
excessive hours of operation. That even includes 'wear and
tear' inside the CPU. CPU is constantly power cycling only
when running.

Power cycling can create failure. And then we apply
numbers. Power cycling seven times every day should cause
component failure in a soon as 15 years. They are correct
about the destructive nature of power cycling until the
numbers are applied. After 15 years, who cares?
Furthermore, start up problems are often created by damage
from too many hours of operation. This made obvious once we
dug into technicians claims - and exposed facts they never
first learned.

"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
> Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate, or
> would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?
>
> BTW, your empirical evidence like this is incredibly useful--- *thanks*
February 13, 2005 7:15:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:55:50 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:

>> For many, many years I worked for a company with thousands of
>> computers ranging from PCs up to high performance multi-processor
>> systems. The admin systems were switched off every night. The
>> development systems were left on all the time. The systems that were
>> never switched off had a much lower failure rate than the ones that
>> were switched off and on daily. The failure rate of hard drives was
>> also greatest in the systems that were switched off every day.
>
>Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate, or
>would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?
>

Yes, it was "much lower". Computers that were left on 24 * 7 hardly
ever failed.


--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software

EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 8:13:35 PM

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

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6QJPd.54465$g16.8172@trndny08...
> User N coughed up:
>> "Thomas G. Marshall"
>> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:D %rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...
>>
>>> 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on?
>>
>> If the machine is operating properly, free of cooling obstructions
>> (dust/lint), and operated in a room that is within environmental
>> requirements, it should be fine.
>
> Fair enough. Is this advice specific to the 8300 though? Some machines
> are not configured for internal air travel properly. Some of the earlier
> dimensions (my IT guy pointed out once) were known for not bringing enough
> air by the default HD bay, and memory. Apparently in the memory case, it
> was because the CPU heat sink was upstream. {shrug}.

I was mostly generalizing. I have met some (technically cluefull) people
who own an 8300 and leave it up and running full time. But I can't recall
the specifics of their config/environment, and I don't know how that
would compare to yours.

I'm not aware of any fundamental cooling problems in the Dimension
8300 line, but that doesn't mean much. A google search of the web and
newsgroups, and a search of the Dell forums, should turn up numerous
complaints/discussions if there is some inherent design problem. I'm
not sure what capabilities your box has in terms of reporting temp for
key components, but if you are that concerned you could gather some
readings one way or another. If your box is capable of coping with
heavy use during the warmest periods in your home/business, it should
be able to cope during less demanding times. I'd be surprised if active
cooling is inappropriately curtailed in any power savings mode. But
there again, if you are that concerned you could do measurements/tests.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 12:14:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Ok, but Steve was pointing out what he saw as a bottom line, which was that
for whatever reason the systems left on seemed to have far fewer crashes.
/Regardless/ of the underlying reasons, Steve makes a cogent argument when
armed with a sampling of several computers, no?

IOW, are you saying that there /must/ be some other explanation for Steve's
observations? If so, what might it be?


w_tom coughed up:
> We would demonstrate this 24/7 solution as a myth and
> demonstrate why they jumped to erroneous conclusions. Let's
> take fans as example. Why does a fan fail? Power on surge?
> Myth. Unless the person has performed a forensic analysis,
> then he is only wildly speculating that power on caused the
> failure. One we learned underlying facts, then the '24/7 to
> perverse life expectancy' myth was exposed.
>
> Again, that fan. What causes it to fail. Hours of
> operation caused bearing wear, dust buildup, and so called
> 'power cycling' damage. What is that 'power cycling'? Number
> of times circuits turn off and on. IOW the fan that runs
> constant is exposed to far more power cycles because it power
> cycles so often only when on.
>
> They ran the machines 24/7. Then when the machines were
> powered off, those machines did not start. That proves that
> turning machines off causes failure? Wrong. Failure from
> excessive wear most often appears on startup. And when do
> fans with too many hours most often fail? When powered on.
> Therefore technicians *assumed* startup was destructive rather
> than first learn *why* the failure occurred. Failures due to
> power up were repeatedly traced to 'hours of operation'.
> Excessive wear due to leaving a machine always on was being
> misrepresented by technicians who did not first learn the
> facts. They did not first discover why failure happens; then
> jumped to wild conclusions.
>
> Why did that fan not start? Bearing was so worn from 24/7
> operation as to not start after one power off.
>
> We know routinely that power cycling has minimal adverse
> affect on electronics and their mechanical devices (ie fans).
> Manufacturers also say same in their detailed spec sheets.
> That's two sources - real world experience AND manufacturer
> data. Some devices do have power cycling limits. That means
> they fail 15 and 39 years later if power cycled 7 times every
> day. Who cares after 15 years.
>
> Best one does for computer life expectancy is to turn system
> off (or put it to sleep or hibernate it) when done. The 'turn
> it off' myth comes from those who only see when a failure
> happens and failed to learn why it happens. Without
> underlying facts, those who advocate 'leave it on' demonstrate
> why statistics without sufficient underlying facts causes
> lies.
>
> The most wear and tear on computers is clearly during
> excessive hours of operation. That even includes 'wear and
> tear' inside the CPU. CPU is constantly power cycling only
> when running.
>
> Power cycling can create failure. And then we apply
> numbers. Power cycling seven times every day should cause
> component failure in a soon as 15 years. They are correct
> about the destructive nature of power cycling until the
> numbers are applied. After 15 years, who cares?
> Furthermore, start up problems are often created by damage
> from too many hours of operation. This made obvious once we
> dug into technicians claims - and exposed facts they never
> first learned.
>
> "Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
>> Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate,
>> or would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?
>>
>> BTW, your empirical evidence like this is incredibly useful---
>> *thanks*



--
Framsticks. 3D Artificial Life evolution. You can see the creatures
that evolve and how they interact, hunt, swim, etc. (Unaffiliated with
me). http://www.frams.alife.pl/
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 4:08:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:49 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Questions:
>
>1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
>course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
>perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
>this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

My wife leaves her 8300 on all the time. No problems so far. I can
see the back of it from here and the network activity light flashes
occasionally!

Seriously, they go into standby mode and use very little power so
cooling should not be a problem.
--
Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/
February 14, 2005 12:37:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
> sweep.

Why leave a computer on 24/7 if it isn't a server? We all have to start
to look for ways to curb excessive energy use and prevent global
warming, and one of the most painless ways to do this, it seems to me,
is to turn equipment off when you aren't using it.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net
February 14, 2005 12:42:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:

> 6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down when not
> in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer up
> 24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the zero-to-60
> effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those who
> prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
> rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive AND
> its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
> backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive,
> memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I
> am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers

Same here, also for environmental reasons. I have a 7 year old Dell
Dimension XP 400 which was in daily use by me until a few months ago,
when it became my wife's computer. It has been used on average 10 hours
a day 5 days a week for all that time, always switched off at night, and
has never suffered a single hardware failure.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:41:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Tom,
I have two (2) desktop PC's, a '98 Packard Bell MM955 (333Mhz AMD) & '03
Dell Dim 4600 (2.4Ghz P4). Except for reboots for software installation,
hardware installation, when vacuming is done in the room, and the rare power
outages in my area. The Packard Bell has been running 24/7 since OCT'98. And
Dell for the same reasons mention before since JUL'03.

What I would consider doing, is to turn off the CRT monitor attached, when
not in use. Gone through two (2) generic made Proview ones for my PBell over
the same time period. Have no clue about flat screen monitors, but the
current ones should be better made.

Just make sure that the room is kept at a reasonable temperature, and PC is
kept dusted for proper ventilation.

--

Rich/rerat

(RRR News) <message rule>
<<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>



"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:D %rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...

(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)

I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.

I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
sweep.

Questions:

1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
because of software incompatibilities.

3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
specifically to the 8300?

Thanks!

--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:14:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Thomas,
If your knowledgeable about hibernation then you're ahead of Microsoft. :-)
Paul


Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
snipped

---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

snipped
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:22:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

w_tom,
If the fan failed due to bearings that would be very easy to observe
when you remove it. If it spins freely and smoothly, the bearings are
fine and the motor failed. If it doesn't rotate well then the bearings
failed and could have then caused the motor to fail.
Paul

w_tom wrote:
> We would demonstrate this 24/7 solution as a myth and
> demonstrate why they jumped to erroneous conclusions. Let's
> take fans as example. Why does a fan fail? Power on surge?
> Myth. Unless the person has performed a forensic analysis,
> then he is only wildly speculating that power on caused the
> failure. One we learned underlying facts, then the '24/7 to
> perverse life expectancy' myth was exposed.
>
> Again, that fan. What causes it to fail. Hours of
> operation caused bearing wear, dust buildup, and so called
> 'power cycling' damage. What is that 'power cycling'? Number
> of times circuits turn off and on. IOW the fan that runs
> constant is exposed to far more power cycles because it power
> cycles so often only when on.
>
> They ran the machines 24/7. Then when the machines were
> powered off, those machines did not start. That proves that
> turning machines off causes failure? Wrong. Failure from
> excessive wear most often appears on startup. And when do
> fans with too many hours most often fail? When powered on.
> Therefore technicians *assumed* startup was destructive rather
> than first learn *why* the failure occurred. Failures due to
> power up were repeatedly traced to 'hours of operation'.
> Excessive wear due to leaving a machine always on was being
> misrepresented by technicians who did not first learn the
> facts. They did not first discover why failure happens; then
> jumped to wild conclusions.
>
> Why did that fan not start? Bearing was so worn from 24/7
> operation as to not start after one power off.
>
> We know routinely that power cycling has minimal adverse
> affect on electronics and their mechanical devices (ie fans).
> Manufacturers also say same in their detailed spec sheets.
> That's two sources - real world experience AND manufacturer
> data. Some devices do have power cycling limits. That means
> they fail 15 and 39 years later if power cycled 7 times every
> day. Who cares after 15 years.
>
> Best one does for computer life expectancy is to turn system
> off (or put it to sleep or hibernate it) when done. The 'turn
> it off' myth comes from those who only see when a failure
> happens and failed to learn why it happens. Without
> underlying facts, those who advocate 'leave it on' demonstrate
> why statistics without sufficient underlying facts causes
> lies.
>
> The most wear and tear on computers is clearly during
> excessive hours of operation. That even includes 'wear and
> tear' inside the CPU. CPU is constantly power cycling only
> when running.
>
> Power cycling can create failure. And then we apply
> numbers. Power cycling seven times every day should cause
> component failure in a soon as 15 years. They are correct
> about the destructive nature of power cycling until the
> numbers are applied. After 15 years, who cares?
> Furthermore, start up problems are often created by damage
> from too many hours of operation. This made obvious once we
> dug into technicians claims - and exposed facts they never
> first learned.
>
> "Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
>
>>Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate, or
>>would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?
>>
>>BTW, your empirical evidence like this is incredibly useful--- *thanks*
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Julian coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>
>> I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily
>> viral sweep.
>
> Why leave a computer on 24/7 if it isn't a server? We all have to
> start to look for ways to curb excessive energy use and prevent global
> warming, and one of the most painless ways to do this, it seems to me,
> is to turn equipment off when you aren't using it.


Because otherwise it's too freaking cold in my computer room.

No, seriously, the reason for leaving it on 24/7 is that I *don't* want the
AV scan to run while I'm actually using it. Thus it seems that the best and
easiest way to handle that is to run the AV scan late or at least when I'm
done with it.

Unfortunately, it then becomes out of sight and mind, which means that I'll
never get around to checking for its completion and turning off the system.
And checking for that is a pain in the ass anyway.

Which brings me back to this equation:

Scanning every day == System always on

I don't like the notion very much, but it is reality. At least in my puny
universe.

--
"This creature is called a vampire. To kill it requires a stake
through its heart." "I shall drive my staff deep into its rump."
"No no, this creature is from a dimension where the heart is in the
chest." "....Disgusting."

Demons discussing "Angel", a good vampire from our dimension visiting
theirs.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Jq5Qd.21439$ya6.8903@trndny01...
> Julian coughed up:

>> Why leave a computer on 24/7 if it isn't a server?

> No, seriously, the reason for leaving it on 24/7 is that I *don't* want the
> AV scan to run while I'm actually using it. []

You seem to want a "AV" scans to be performed every day. Specifically,
what "AV" software are you referring to? Is it something that lacks the
ability to automatically scan on an as needed basis? For example, when
the filesystem opens [or closes] files?
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:27:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

So you recommend running the system and consuming all that
power to only get the same reliability as when a system is
powered down at the end of the day?

24/7 operation provides nothing significant to system
reliability, causes increased component wear, and consumes
electricity to no purpose. Wear from hours of operation is
significant on the parts that fail most often. Power up does
not cause wear despite the many myths to the contrary. Those
who promote power up as destructive do not tell us which
electrical parts failed or why they are damaged. IOW a powerup
surge is mostly wild speculation. Why consume electricity to
no purpose?

A computer should work just fine in a 100 degree room as it
does in a 70 degree room. In fact, I don't use air
conditioning. Hate the stuff. These computers of 10+ years
in constant use get run even when temperature is 100 degrees.
They still don't fail. Same is true of dust problems. Dust
problems are greatest when the naive start adding fans to
solve the mythical heat problem. Too many fans don't cause
any appreciable cooling but can cause excessive internal dust
balls. Problems created by heat and dust are common myths.

Run a new computer one day in a 100 degree room. If the
computer has marginal or intermittent components, those
defective components are best identified before the warranty
expires. A 100 degree room is not destructive to a computer
despite so many myths to the contrary. Heat is an excellent
diagnostic to find defectives before hardware fails obviously.

I've been doing computers and aerospace electronics for too
many decades to fall for these well promoted myths about 24/7
operation, heat, and dust created problems. Too many years
and too much asking questions at the electronic component
level.

RRR_News wrote:
> Tom,
> I have two (2) desktop PC's, a '98 Packard Bell MM955 (333Mhz AMD) &
> '03 Dell Dim 4600 (2.4Ghz P4). Except for reboots for software
> installation, hardware installation, when vacuming is done in the
> room, and the rare power outages in my area. The Packard Bell has
> been running 24/7 since OCT'98. And Dell for the same reasons
> mention before since JUL'03.
>
> What I would consider doing, is to turn off the CRT monitor attached,
> when not in use. Gone through two (2) generic made Proview ones for
> my PBell over the same time period. Have no clue about flat screen
> monitors, but the current ones should be better made.
>
> Just make sure that the room is kept at a reasonable temperature,
> and PC is kept dusted for proper ventilation.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:33:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Fan failure and bearing wear, as described in the earlier
post, could not be easily identified by restricted spin.
Let's get down to component level analysis. That Hall Effect
sensor may not be sitting flat on a PC board inside that fan.
Torque is significantly reduced. With but slight bearing
wear, now that fan would not have sufficient torque to startup
every time. Using a soldering iron, I once reseated a Hall
effect sensor so that it was not tilted more than 15 degrees.
A flat sitting sensor increased fan torque significantly so
that it could overcome an undetectable amount of bearing wear.

Just because a bearing still feels free and smooth does not
mean the hall effect sensor is properly seated or that a fan
has not suffered some bearing wear. Only slight bearing wear
could make the fan intermittent (another example of why QC
inspection does not create component and therefore system
reliability). Fan failed due to a combination of too many
hours of operation AND a manufacturing defect. Others may
erroneously assume fan failed due to power on surge.

BTW, fan tends to be a more frequent failing component. So
we install two fans working in series. One blows in. The
other blows out. Then when one fan fails, the other will
maintain airflow until a human finally discovers the problem.
One fan provides sufficient cooling. Two may be installed
only because fans fail so often with mechanical wear.

Yes a fan with massively worn sleeve bearings can be
apparent. But that is not the only reason why bearing can
cause fan failure. Notice the point repeatedly made. One
does not know why failures occur only because they observe.
Observation can report when a failure has happened. One must
also understand reasons why that observed failure happens to
learn something useful. The devil is in those technical
details. Many who recommend 24/7 operation for reliable
operation don't first learn underlying theory. Therefore they
can be deceived by what they have observed.

Another way to improve reliability (which is why those
Hondas and Toyotas also had higher reliability)? Keep those
human hands out. Humans are another major source of failure
when we demand the reliability I call minimally acceptable
even for household appliances. We once wanted to clean out
the massive dust inside the software development system (in my
naive and younger days). Manager of software development
would not let us - and for good reason. Major dust balls were
not a problem. But human hands do create new and intermittent
failures. Cleaning can even create problems despite a human
emotion that a clean computer is better. Don't let human
emotions or human hands reduce system reliability.

One more interesting fact. If a vacuum cleaner causes
computer failure, then the computer has internal hardware
problems. Again, too many will blame the vacuum rather than
first learn how (or why) failure happens. Therefore one may
blame the vacuum rather than a defect inside the computer.
Just another example of how observation alone leads to
erroneous conclusions. Just another example of why we want
everyone to study junior high school science. To know
something, one must first learn both the underlying theory and
obtain supporting experimental evidence. Anything less is
called junk science reasoning or wild speculation.

Paul Schilter wrote:
> w_tom,
> If the fan failed due to bearings that would be very easy to observe
> when you remove it. If it spins freely and smoothly, the bearings are
> fine and the motor failed. If it doesn't rotate well then the bearings
> failed and could have then caused the motor to fail.
> Paul
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:35:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

User N coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Jq5Qd.21439$ya6.8903@trndny01...
>> Julian coughed up:
>
>>> Why leave a computer on 24/7 if it isn't a server?
>
>> No, seriously, the reason for leaving it on 24/7 is that I *don't*
>> want the AV scan to run while I'm actually using it. []
>
> You seem to want a "AV" scans to be performed every day.
> Specifically,
> what "AV" software are you referring to? Is it something that lacks
> the
> ability to automatically scan on an as needed basis? For example,
> when
> the filesystem opens [or closes] files?


As I said in the original post, it is NAV2003.



--
"So I just, uh... I just cut them up like regular chickens?"
"Sure, just cut them up like regular chickens."
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

lol....


Paul Schilter coughed up:
> Thomas,
> If your knowledgeable about hibernation then you're ahead of
> Microsoft. :-) Paul
>
>
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> snipped
>
> ---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for
> hibernation.
>
> snipped



--
"So I just, uh... I just cut them up like regular chickens?"
"Sure, just cut them up like regular chickens."
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 4:27:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:

....[rip]...

> The development systems I mentioned were left on all the time because
> they were in use all the time running real development work round the
> clock. I was one of the people using them. The admin machines were
> switched off when they were not required. That was every night, all
> night. It's not a random sample of systems. These are two sets of
> machines. The admin systems are in the office environment, with almost
> no regular maintenance. The development systems are in large computer
> rooms and share the mainframe environment to some extent. They are
> also kept clean, that may explain some of the differences.


I find your observations to be fascinating. Would you add some to this?

1. How many machines in each group (roughly), at any given time?

2. What precisely are the difference in the two environments? I mean:

a. are the ambient temperatures different?
b. are some on the cleaner power of ups's and the like?
c. does anyone big and hairy hit them with their fists?

Thanks


>
> The data was collected from the logging system kept by the maintenance
> teams that serviced our computers. I wrote the logging system about
> twenty years ago.



--
http://www.allexperts.com is a nifty way to get an answer to just about
/anything/.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 12:39:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

In article <421133E8.65B31ACB@hotmail.com>, w_tom says...

> 24/7 operation provides nothing significant to system
> reliability, causes increased component wear, and consumes
> electricity to no purpose. Wear from hours of operation is
> significant on the parts that fail most often. Power up does
> not cause wear despite the many myths to the contrary.

Bullshit. Ever heard of thermal creep?


--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton
February 15, 2005 12:56:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:27:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:
>
>...[rip]...
>
>> The development systems I mentioned were left on all the time because
>> they were in use all the time running real development work round the
>> clock. I was one of the people using them. The admin machines were
>> switched off when they were not required. That was every night, all
>> night. It's not a random sample of systems. These are two sets of
>> machines. The admin systems are in the office environment, with almost
>> no regular maintenance. The development systems are in large computer
>> rooms and share the mainframe environment to some extent. They are
>> also kept clean, that may explain some of the differences.
>
>
>I find your observations to be fascinating. Would you add some to this?
>
>1. How many machines in each group (roughly), at any given time?
>

About 2000 in the development group. All the rest in the company I
call admin. That's every other computer in a big company - about
15,000 people and most had a computer.

>2. What precisely are the difference in the two environments? I mean:
>
> a. are the ambient temperatures different?

Admin. Normal office environment. 65 to 75F most areas air
conditioned.

Most of the development systems were in computer rooms. 70F all air
conditioned.

> b. are some on the cleaner power of ups's and the like?

Not sure what that means. If you mean power outs, they are very rare.

> c. does anyone big and hairy hit them with their fists?

Only when something goes wrong!


--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software

EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:02:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:27:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:
>>
>> ...[rip]...
>>
>>> The development systems I mentioned were left on all the time
>>> because they were in use all the time running real development work
>>> round the clock. I was one of the people using them. The admin
>>> machines were switched off when they were not required. That was
>>> every night, all night. It's not a random sample of systems. These
>>> are two sets of machines. The admin systems are in the office
>>> environment, with almost no regular maintenance. The development
>>> systems are in large computer rooms and share the mainframe
>>> environment to some extent. They are also kept clean, that may
>>> explain some of the differences.
>>
>>
>> I find your observations to be fascinating. Would you add some to
>> this?
>>
>> 1. How many machines in each group (roughly), at any given time?
>>
>
> About 2000 in the development group. All the rest in the company I
> call admin. That's every other computer in a big company - about
> 15,000 people and most had a computer.
>
>> 2. What precisely are the difference in the two environments? I
>> mean:
>>
>> a. are the ambient temperatures different?
>
> Admin. Normal office environment. 65 to 75F most areas air
> conditioned.
>
> Most of the development systems were in computer rooms. 70F all air
> conditioned.
>
>> b. are some on the cleaner power of ups's and the like?
>
> Not sure what that means. If you mean power outs, they are very rare.

IIRC, UPS's (not to spark off ;)  another debate) are known for straightening
out power surges, small spikes, and other non-conforming anti-sine-waves.
I'm guessing that a cleaner signal as such would less approximate
jump-discontinuities in the wave form, harsh slopes, etc., that might change
the wear and tear on the equipment. All educated guessing, but from my
engineering background.


>> c. does anyone big and hairy hit them with their fists?
>
> Only when something goes wrong!

Rules me out then :)  Good think I'm not part of the sampling...... I hit
machines for the heck of it.... :) 


--
Everythinginlifeisrealative.Apingpongballseemssmalluntilsomeoneramsitupyourn
ose.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:02:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Look for the let-through voltage on UPSes. 120 VAC plug-in
UPSes typically ignore all surges and noise until that voltage
exceeds 330 volts. It does nothing for harmonic problems. IOW
it does not "straightening out power surges, small spikes, and
other
non-conforming anti-sine-waves." Furthermore it only claims
protection from one, typically irrelevant, type of transient.

Most plug-in UPSes output greatest noise and spikes when in
battery backup mode. This UPS, unloaded in battery backup
mode, outputs two 200 volt square waves with a 270 volt spike
between those square waves. When not in battery backup mode,
harmonics from AC mains connect directly through the UPS.
Plug-in UPSes short the consumer of facts so that a consumer
will *assume* it protects from all types of transients.

All are encouraged to verify this UPS output power on an
oscilloscope. That 200 volt square wave is called a modified
sine wave - so that you hope it outputs cleaner power. Yes a
square wave composed of sine waves - of many frequencies which
therefore makes the power 'dirtier'.

To get the 'cleaner' power from a plug-in UPS, that UPS
would cost $500+ retail list. Such clean power is not found
in $100 plug-in UPSes. But then power supply specs as even
demanded by Intel makes this worry about 'cleaner' power
irrelevant. Power supplies are why computer grade UPSes can
output such 'dirty' power. Computer grade UPS output is so
'dirty' that it may even damage some samll electric motors.

"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
> IIRC, UPS's (not to spark off ;)  another debate) are known for
> straightening out power surges, small spikes, and other
> non-conforming anti-sine-waves. I'm guessing that a cleaner signal
> as such would less approximate jump-discontinuities in the wave
> form, harsh slopes, etc., that might change the wear and tear on
> the equipment. All educated guessing, but from my engineering
> background.
February 15, 2005 9:01:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:02:47 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:27:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
>> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> b. are some on the cleaner power of ups's and the like?
>>
>> Not sure what that means. If you mean power outs, they are very rare.
>
>IIRC, UPS's (not to spark off ;)  another debate) are known for straightening
>out power surges, small spikes, and other non-conforming anti-sine-waves.
>I'm guessing that a cleaner signal as such would less approximate
>jump-discontinuities in the wave form, harsh slopes, etc., that might change
>the wear and tear on the equipment. All educated guessing, but from my
>engineering background.
>

Ah! UPS. I read it as ups's as in ups and downs. I assumed you were
talking about supply fluctuations.

We don't need UPS. All the computer rooms and most of the offices are
on very stable supplies. Mean time between fails is years. Even the
domestic supply that my home PCs are on hardly ever fails. I can only
remember one fail in the last few years.


--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software

EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 9:22:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Ah, you're lucky. Out here in the remote wilds of Central Massachusetts, not 30
miles from the metropolis of Boston, power outages, drops, and surges are all
too frequent, even within industrial complexes. UPS equipment is a necessity
for one who cares about the reliability of ones computers and the continued
availability of ones data.

Together with the crumbling highways and aging decrepit railroads, I guess this
means that the U.S. infrastructure is falling apart even as we now speak. Or
maybe it was never as good as we all thought it was? ... Ben Myers

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:01:53 +0000, steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:02:47 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
><tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:
>>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:27:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
>>> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> b. are some on the cleaner power of ups's and the like?
>>>
>>> Not sure what that means. If you mean power outs, they are very rare.
>>
>>IIRC, UPS's (not to spark off ;)  another debate) are known for straightening
>>out power surges, small spikes, and other non-conforming anti-sine-waves.
>>I'm guessing that a cleaner signal as such would less approximate
>>jump-discontinuities in the wave form, harsh slopes, etc., that might change
>>the wear and tear on the equipment. All educated guessing, but from my
>>engineering background.
>>
>
>Ah! UPS. I read it as ups's as in ups and downs. I assumed you were
>talking about supply fluctuations.
>
>We don't need UPS. All the computer rooms and most of the offices are
>on very stable supplies. Mean time between fails is years. Even the
>domestic supply that my home PCs are on hardly ever fails. I can only
>remember one fail in the last few years.
>
>
>--
>Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software
>
>EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
>http://www.easynn.com
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 9:22:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:01:53 +0000, steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote:

[Prior exchanges involved in UPS misunderstanding snipped.]

>>We don't need UPS. All the computer rooms and most of the offices are
>>on very stable supplies. Mean time between fails is years. Even the
>>domestic supply that my home PCs are on hardly ever fails. I can only
>>remember one fail in the last few years.

>Ah, you're lucky. Out here in the remote wilds of Central Massachusetts, not 30
>miles from the metropolis of Boston, power outages, drops, and surges are all
>too frequent, even within industrial complexes. UPS equipment is a necessity
>for one who cares about the reliability of ones computers and the continued
>availability of ones data.

Indeed he is, Ben. Virginia Power gets their hamsters from the
lowest bidder. On a just-in-time basis. Which those poor,
starved, weakling hamsters never make. So even in a *good*
month, we see at least one or two power drops. Don't even ask
about winter - particularly since we aren't out of it yet. :-(
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:12:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:421133E8.65B31ACB@hotmail.com...

> Power up does not cause wear despite the many myths to the contrary.

Power up (or more accurately heat-up cool-down) causes wear to what
would otherwise be considered non-moving parts. It is no myth that
things expand with increased temperature and contract with decreased
temperature.

Electric motor circuitry experiences an amperage surge during spinup
that is above its normal operating amperage because the motor has not
yet created a sufficient back-voltage to counter the applied voltage.
Most mechanical devices are designed to operate within a certain range
of temperatures, and at power-up time it may be outside of that
specification.

I'm sure that well designed computers will suffer little ill effects
from either scenario - but that does not mean power-up wear is a myth.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:43:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:etbQd.30590$t46.28495@trndny04...
> User N coughed up:

>> You seem to want a "AV" scans to be performed every day.
>> Specifically, what "AV" software are you referring to? Is it
>> something that lacks the ability to automatically scan on an as
>> needed basis? For example, when the filesystem opens [or
>> closes] files?
>
> As I said in the original post, it is NAV2003.

Oh, so that is the only thing you'll be scanning with on a daily
basis? If so, I'd be interested to know why you feel it is
necessary to perform full NAV2003 scans every day.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:23:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Once we put numbers in perspective, then what a finger calls
'major temperature change' is near zero temperature change to
electronics. Instead, too many humans *feel* they know what
is a major temperature change; what must be stress; numbers be
damned. In reality, the trivial temperature change means
stress from power up is virtually zero.

How does temperature change affects semiconductors? Well
that semiconductor was made by temperature cycling more than
400 degrees with every (and numerous) production cycle. Why
is 400 degrees significant? Because 400+ degrees is not
significantly stressful to the semiconductor. Some will
attempt to claim temperature changes of only tens of degrees
is stressful? "Give me a break" ... I believe is the name of
that book. These are numbers. Power up is stressful to
semiconductors when we talk about many hundreds of degrees of
temperature change. Too many forget to provide numbers when
they speculate. Some think power up is stressful only because
a finger gets hot. Nonsense - or also known as junk science
reasoning.

There was this old rule in electronics design. It's not too
hot if you don't leave skin. That's right. Semiconductors
even that hot were considered within a perfectly good
environment.

Once we apply numbers to the concept, then thermal stress
during powerup is virtually zero. And that is the point.
Until he can provide numbers such as those from manufacturer
data sheets, then he is only promoting myth: junk science
reasoning. He provides no numbers based in science, nor
numbers from manufacturer data sheets. A damning fact that
every lurker should have immediately noted. Where are his
numbers? No numbers means junk science reasoning. Repeated
because too many Americans (such as those who sent seven Space
Shuttle astronauts uselessly to their death) ignored the
concepts. No numbers means junk science reasoning as too
commonly found in business school rationalizations and junk
science reasoning.

A very embarrassing question is asked. What is the
component overstressed by powerup? And don't forget to
provide the numbers.

Roger Wilco wrote:
> Power up (or more accurately heat-up cool-down) causes wear to what
> would otherwise be considered non-moving parts. It is no myth that
> things expand with increased temperature and contract with decreased
> temperature.
>
> Electric motor circuitry experiences an amperage surge during spinup
> that is above its normal operating amperage because the motor has not
> yet created a sufficient back-voltage to counter the applied voltage.
> Most mechanical devices are designed to operate within a certain range
> of temperatures, and at power-up time it may be outside of that
> specification.
>
> I'm sure that well designed computers will suffer little ill effects
> from either scenario - but that does not mean power-up wear is a myth.
February 16, 2005 5:35:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:02:47 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:27:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
>>><tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> b. are some on the cleaner power of ups's and the like?
>>>
>>>Not sure what that means. If you mean power outs, they are very rare.
>>
>>IIRC, UPS's (not to spark off ;)  another debate) are known for straightening
>>out power surges, small spikes, and other non-conforming anti-sine-waves.
>>I'm guessing that a cleaner signal as such would less approximate
>>jump-discontinuities in the wave form, harsh slopes, etc., that might change
>>the wear and tear on the equipment. All educated guessing, but from my
>>engineering background.
>
> Ah! UPS. I read it as ups's as in ups and downs. I assumed you were
> talking about supply fluctuations.
>
> We don't need UPS. All the computer rooms and most of the offices are
> on very stable supplies. Mean time between fails is years. Even the
> domestic supply that my home PCs are on hardly ever fails. I can only
> remember one fail in the last few years.

Well bless your blessed location! Locally we had a blackout 2 summers
ago and an electrical failure the summer before after a thunderstorm
(NYC area). IIRC the blackout hit about 5 PM and we didn't get the
traffic lights back on or cable service restored until about 6 AM the
next day. Regular household service flickered a couple of times, but
never went out.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 6:17:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4212F4DE.CBE60C88@hotmail.com...

> A very embarrassing question is asked. What is the
> component overstressed by powerup? And don't forget to
> provide the numbers.

Feed-throughs (in case you don't know, that is part of a circuit board).
I didn't say component failure of solid state devices, I said parts that
were otherwise considered non-moving parts. Hell - semiconductors can
fail for no reason just sitting in a parts bin - and yet to some extent
temperature (or sometimes heat) can damage them. The non-moving parts I
referred to are not actually stressed (you said stressed, not I) they
are fatigued. And as to the topic of powerup itself, it is not the
weight (stress) it's the reps (reference to weightlifting there).

Sorry, no numbers - just facts.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 6:30:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

w_tom coughed up:

....[rip]...

> Once we apply numbers to the concept, then thermal stress
> during powerup is virtually zero.


"junk science" as you put it also makes a rash assumption that numbers by
themselves mean something. Numbers and facts in general are *only as good*
as their interpretation.

*AND* numbers and concepts do not come close to being as important as actual
observations are. Steve has observed over time many machines that on/off
machines fair much worse than the 24/7 machines do.

I still don't see an answer from you resolving this.

....[rip]...


--
It'salwaysbeenmygoalinlifetocreateasignaturethatendedwiththeword"blarphoogy"
..
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 6:30:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

We gave him a newspaper article from the tabloid. He read
it and drew an obvious conclusion. We then provided the same
story from a NY Times, Washington Post, or WSJ type
newspaper. Much longer article with those underlying details
created an obvious 180 degrees different conclusion. That is
the point. The 'leave it on' theory does not provide details
and even contains contrarian facts. IOW if it was accurate,
then we must also recommend leaving on the TV, radio,
incandescent light bulbs, and CRT.

Why do they not recommend leaving a CRT on? After all,
power up inside a CRT means much higher voltage changes, and
many times higher temperature changes. Clearly if anything
was more susceptible to power on stress, it is the CRT. And
yet the same conclusion that says 'leave a computer on' also
says power off the CRT?

Reasons for this contradiction would be found in missing
details. For example some possible missing details: a
location with 2000 computers use newer Dell computers and not
any clones? Clones, both by example and for reasons
technical, have a greater failure rate. Is the building AC
power delivered properly earthed? How utilities enter a
building also will significantly affect hardware life
expectancy. So the 2000 'always left on' computers were also
in a newer steel and concrete building with properly earthed
utilities? Even the building can affect hardware life
expectancy. How much does the new equipment sleep? Then it
is really power cycling. Extending hardware life expectancy
by doing frequent power reductions and yet *assumed* to be
always on. These missing details are damning to the
observation.

Once we looked at actual failure rates considering other
variables such as quality of manufacturer, age of equipment,
how building was constructed, what actually failed, energy
star actions, and human biases, then with all things being
equal, we discovered no measurable difference but lots of
consumed electricity. The repair people just felt they were
spending less time repairing when systems were left on. They
had just observed without numbers and without the essential
details - and just knew.

Why did they not recommend leaving powered TVs, radios,
light bulbs, and the CRT? Clearly if an observation alone is
sufficient, then leaving powered all other electronics
including that CRT must be recommended. Why the
contradiction? Once underlying details were examined, such as
how things fail and what really does fail, then those 'leave
it on' observations fall apart mostly as examples of human
bias and problems created by not understanding underlying
concepts.

He made a 180 degree different conclusion once he read
details in that non-tabloid newspaper. And that is the
point. We have seen for decades that 'leaving it on' does not
preserve life expectancy once we consider the details. We see
obtain same in manufacturer data sheets. And yet, on a simple
observation without the always necessary details, one can
contradict decades of experience and published technical
numbers? Again the damning point. If leaving computers
'always powered' extends their life expectancy, then it must
also do same for TVs, radios, light bulbs, and CRTs. Why do
they not recommend leaving powered a CRT that would suffer (if
it exists) even greater from 'power on stress'? This last
sentence alone is damning. And again, the answer is found in
missing details.

Observations without both underlying concepts, numbers, and
without essential details from each example make that
observation nothing more than speculation. The concept of
'leave it on' is not justified, repeatedly, once we have those
details. The concept of 'leave it on' flies contrary to
decades of technical facts. What is missing in his example?
The numbers - important details. Provided was only a personal
observation without the always necessary facts and numbers -
the details.

Provided in a previous post were details about UPSes. IOW
those details demonstrate that plug-in UPSes (and filters, et
al) do nothing for hardware life expectancy ... if the
hardware is properly constructed to meet industry standards.
Again, many also claim improved life expectancy from a UPS
using the same observation only technique. Using observation
alone, they obtain junk science conclusions.

Without those essential and missing details, they obtained a
180 degree different conclusion. Observations alone are never
sufficient for facts. Never. Observations alone are
sufficient for speculation. Observations without "numbers and
concepts" create junk science conclusions.

"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
> "junk science" as you put it also makes a rash assumption that
> numbers by themselves mean something. Numbers and facts in
> general are *only as good* as their interpretation.
>
> *AND* numbers and concepts do not come close to being as important
> as actual observations are. Steve has observed over time many
> machines that on/off machines fair much worse than the 24/7
> machines do.
>
> I still don't see an answer from you resolving this.
>
> ...[rip]...
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 6:36:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

User N coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:etbQd.30590$t46.28495@trndny04...
>> User N coughed up:
>
>>> You seem to want a "AV" scans to be performed every day.
>>> Specifically, what "AV" software are you referring to? Is it
>>> something that lacks the ability to automatically scan on an as
>>> needed basis? For example, when the filesystem opens [or
>>> closes] files?
>>
>> As I said in the original post, it is NAV2003.
>
> Oh, so that is the only thing you'll be scanning with on a daily
> basis?

Don't know yet. I routinely scan with AVG as well.


> If so, I'd be interested to know why you feel it is
> necessary to perform full NAV2003 scans every day.

I can only assume that the retention on your news server is less than 2 or 3
days, which is very unfortunate for you. The line of my thinking is in my
original post. I am not sure of any of this, so don't pretend that I have a
strict opinion one way or the other----that is the reason for this thread in
the first place.

The fundamental reasons for me wanting more than a week scan is that an old
and well known trojan slipped right through the auto-protect, but was caught
on the scan. I am considering placing more of a burden on the scanning for
this reason.


--
It'salwaysbeenmygoalinlifetocreateasignaturethatendedwiththeword"blarphoogy"
..
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 6:46:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

In article <LGJQd.22950$ya6.7120@trndny01>,
tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com says...
> observations are. Steve has observed over time many machines that on/off
> machines fair much worse than the 24/7 machines do.

otoh, he has many more on/off to observe, iirc: the pool sizes
are very different.
having done some stats, i can say that you can't judge from the
absolute numbers, or the ones you get by dividing by the sizes
of the two pools: it's more complicated than that.
it does give you a good first estimate though

--
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT
information is ENCOURAGED.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:15:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

This is now a thread that is running 24/7. :)  ... Ben Myers

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:49 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
>I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
>way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
>Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
>my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.
>
>I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
>sweep.
>
>Questions:
>
>1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
>course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
>perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
>this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.
>
>2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
>staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
>because of software incompatibilities.
>
>3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
>specifically to the 8300?
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
>
>
!