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

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!"
83 answers Last reply
More about leaving dell dimension 8300 running
  1. 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"
  2. 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).
  3. 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/mbsahome.mspx

    Its MS newsgroup is: microsoft.public.security.baseline_analyzer
  4. 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 ;-) ---
  5. 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 ;-) ---
  6. 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!"
    >
    >
  7. 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!"
    >>
    >>
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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:pn5t0116j6qebehafo4mthp8vkifosm0u0@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.
  12. 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....
  13. 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/mbsahome.mspx

    Perfect! Thanks for that!


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


    --
    Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....
  14. 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}.
    > ...
  15. 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....
  16. 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*
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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/
  20. 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/
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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!"
  24. 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
  25. 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*
  26. 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.
  27. 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?
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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."
  31. 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."
  32. 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/.
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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.]
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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"
    ..
  46. 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]...
  47. 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"
    ..
  48. 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.
  49. 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!"
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Dell Virus Computers Product