Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which is better? Leave computer on all day or start up sev..

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 6:33:24 AM

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

Running windows XP at home, using dial-up, virus check and firewall

Recently switched to XP from W98 where I left the computer on all day, with
a screensaver running all day. This new computer I have been turning off
and on several times a day and not running a screensaver. Is all that off &
on switching going to cause a problem? Thanks
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 6:33:25 AM

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

Barbara;
It is generally not a good idea to power on/off several times a day.

Leaving the computer on 24/7 may be better for the electronics of the
computer, but powering off saves electricity etc.

Either leave it on 24/7 or power it off only when it will not be used
for several hours such as overnight.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"BarbaraMN" <NOschissel@SPAMattNO.net> wrote in message
news:Udtzc.67606$Gx4.8497@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Running windows XP at home, using dial-up, virus check and firewall
>
> Recently switched to XP from W98 where I left the computer on all
day, with
> a screensaver running all day. This new computer I have been
turning off
> and on several times a day and not running a screensaver. Is all
that off &
> on switching going to cause a problem? Thanks
>
>
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 6:33:26 AM

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

Most computers are able to respond to commands from the operating system. Rt
Click on the desktop and pick Properties/ Screen Saver. Go to Monitor Power (a
misnomer) and set the system to Hibernate after, say, 1 hour. If it doesn't
hibernate, set the monitor off in 20 mins and Hard Disks off in 30. The computer
will still eat electricity but at a much reduced rate. The computer will last
forever powered up but the monitor is like a $200 light bulb and eventually will
get feeble. Screen savers are ok for short periods but letting one run full time
is making both the computer and the monitor age and eat power.

rs


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.704 / Virus Database: 460 - Release Date: 6/14/2004
Related resources
June 15, 2004 6:47:19 PM

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

Reputable manufacturers do extensive tests to insure their products meet life
expectancies. It does no harm whatsoever to power on and off. As a matter of
fact in large corporations users are required to power their systems off each
and every time they leave their office. ( Even for lunch) It saves the
corporations thousands of dollars yearly in electrical bills.
"BarbaraMN" <NOschissel@SPAMattNO.net> wrote in message
news:Udtzc.67606$Gx4.8497@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Running windows XP at home, using dial-up, virus check and firewall
>
> Recently switched to XP from W98 where I left the computer on all day, with
> a screensaver running all day. This new computer I have been turning off
> and on several times a day and not running a screensaver. Is all that off &
> on switching going to cause a problem? Thanks
>
>
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 9:38:00 PM

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

Agreed. But I had the impression that BarbaraMN is running the system at home.
The money saved can be displaced by the inconvenience of booting every time;
that's for her to decide. A computer idling with disks off and monitor off
should consume a small wattage, maybe 40?

As I don't run and have never been in a large corporation, I accept what you
say. But I'm willing to bet that anyone with a door on his or her office turns
it on in the morning and off at night. And if I'm taking down $80k gross am I
going to get an award for saving the company $20.00 in computer electricity?

rs


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.704 / Virus Database: 460 - Release Date: 6/14/2004
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 12:14:02 AM

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

Greetings --

That's utter nonsense. You've absolutely no real experience
supporting computers in a large business or government environment,
have you?

The time a piece of hardware is _most_ likely to fail is during
the power-up or power-down process. If you'd any serious experience
supporting large numbers of computers, you'd know this.

Further, intelligent enterprises running large scale networks
insist upon the computers being left on at night, so that virus scans,
application and patch installation via SMS, backups, etc., can be
scheduled and accomplished without affecting worker productivity.

The savings in electricity costs generated by powering off the PCs
prove miniscule compared to the costs of otherwise unnecessary repairs
and the lost productivity caused by scheduling/performing virus scans,
application and patch installation via SMS, backups, etc., during
business hours.

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH


"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:XZDzc.24553$eH1.11221391@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Reputable manufacturers do extensive tests to insure their products
meet life
> expectancies. It does no harm whatsoever to power on and off. As a
matter of
> fact in large corporations users are required to power their systems
off each
> and every time they leave their office. ( Even for lunch) It saves
the
> corporations thousands of dollars yearly in electrical bills.
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 2:27:05 AM

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

As both a home user, laptop owner and business network manager, I recommend
that you do not use a screen saver for the following reasons.
1. It will burn up your monitor about six times as fast as not using one.
2. Depending on the particular screen saver, the more graphics and
animation, the more resources your computer will be using, both running the
screen saver and having it in the background to turn on after a period of
time of non-use.
3 As us using a screen saver on a laptop, do not. a typical high animation
screen saver like the aquarium type, will cause your processor to heat up
and if you did not make sure that both the intake and exhaust ports for the
fan are completely unobstructed, viola, dead laptop. I have responded to
several calls where the first thing I see is that the laptop is sitting on
some sort of soft material and has sunk into it blocking the air ports.
Several office machines have been so obstructed that the obstruction is
either so heat dried as to make it a fire hazard.
Just my take...

"BarbaraMN" <NOschissel@SPAMattNO.net> wrote in message
news:Udtzc.67606$Gx4.8497@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Running windows XP at home, using dial-up, virus check and firewall
>
> Recently switched to XP from W98 where I left the computer on all day,
with
> a screensaver running all day. This new computer I have been turning off
> and on several times a day and not running a screensaver. Is all that off
&
> on switching going to cause a problem? Thanks
>
>
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 2:36:18 AM

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

Oh, forgot,
I leave both my home and office machine running 24/7 as I need to due to my
job. BUT I do turn off the monitor when I leave them un-attended for more
than an hour. Been running 24/7 for three years now.
"Bill Stillman" <icstude@advinc.com> wrote in message
news:%23LBv0l0UEHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> As both a home user, laptop owner and business network manager, I
recommend
> that you do not use a screen saver for the following reasons.
> 1. It will burn up your monitor about six times as fast as not using one.
> 2. Depending on the particular screen saver, the more graphics and
> animation, the more resources your computer will be using, both running
the
> screen saver and having it in the background to turn on after a period of
> time of non-use.
> 3 As us using a screen saver on a laptop, do not. a typical high
animation
> screen saver like the aquarium type, will cause your processor to heat up
> and if you did not make sure that both the intake and exhaust ports for
the
> fan are completely unobstructed, viola, dead laptop. I have responded to
> several calls where the first thing I see is that the laptop is sitting on
> some sort of soft material and has sunk into it blocking the air ports.
> Several office machines have been so obstructed that the obstruction is
> either so heat dried as to make it a fire hazard.
> Just my take...
>
> "BarbaraMN" <NOschissel@SPAMattNO.net> wrote in message
> news:Udtzc.67606$Gx4.8497@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Running windows XP at home, using dial-up, virus check and firewall
> >
> > Recently switched to XP from W98 where I left the computer on all day,
> with
> > a screensaver running all day. This new computer I have been turning
off
> > and on several times a day and not running a screensaver. Is all that
off
> &
> > on switching going to cause a problem? Thanks
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 2:44:31 AM

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

The bit about large corporations is totally 100% incorrect. They leave them
running all the time, for the exact reasons that Bruce has given. I do not
personally know of any large corporation that has their employees do
anything other than logoff at days end. For that matter, I've seen employees
get lectured, and had their continued employment threatened, for either not
logging off properly or for shutting down. Both actions inhibit proper
network administration.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers aka "Nutcase" MS-MVP - Windows
Windows isn't rocket science! That's my other hobby!
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WinXP - Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Win98 Help - www.rickrogers.org

"TCEBob" <tcebobc@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:uumJMEyUEHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Agreed. But I had the impression that BarbaraMN is running the system at
home.
> The money saved can be displaced by the inconvenience of booting every
time;
> that's for her to decide. A computer idling with disks off and monitor off
> should consume a small wattage, maybe 40?
>
> As I don't run and have never been in a large corporation, I accept what
you
> say. But I'm willing to bet that anyone with a door on his or her office
turns
> it on in the morning and off at night. And if I'm taking down $80k gross
am I
> going to get an award for saving the company $20.00 in computer
electricity?
>
> rs
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.704 / Virus Database: 460 - Release Date: 6/14/2004
>
>
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 1:24:06 PM

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

>-----Original Message-----
>Greetings --
>
> That's utter nonsense. You've absolutely no real
experience
>supporting computers in a large business or government
environment,
>have you?
>
> The time a piece of hardware is _most_ likely to fail
is during
>the power-up or power-down process. If you'd any serious
experience
>supporting large numbers of computers, you'd know this.
>
> Further, intelligent enterprises running large scale
networks
>insist upon the computers being left on at night, so that
virus scans,
>application and patch installation via SMS, backups,
etc., can be
>scheduled and accomplished without affecting worker
productivity.
>
> The savings in electricity costs generated by
powering off the PCs
>prove miniscule compared to the costs of otherwise
unnecessary repairs
>and the lost productivity caused by scheduling/performing
virus scans,
>application and patch installation via SMS, backups,
etc., during
>business hours.
>
>Bruce Chambers
>--

Can you say "specious"? The fact that most failures occur
during the power-up process doesn't mean that failure will
never happen otherwise, or that the power-up process, per
se, directly contributes to failure. There is no reliable
*empirical* data in existence that I know of to support
your contention. If you know of some, please provide
references. And make sure that you understand that
empirical data does not consist in quoting someone else's
unsupported assertions.

As an aside, distribution of patches and virus updates
across large networks is often done at boot time, and if
it's not, the installation ususally requires a reboot, so
lost productivity is not an issue. Of course, if you had
both a brain and experience, you'd know that.
June 16, 2004 7:22:09 PM

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

On the contrary. I am not talking about the host system in a corporation. I am
talking about the hundreds of PC terminals in all the offices. As Rick below
mentions, the user logs off and after logging off he powers off his system
(PC).
Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
news:o Ra4Xe0UEHA.4088@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Greetings --
>
> That's utter nonsense. You've absolutely no real experience
> supporting computers in a large business or government environment,
> have you? Wanna bet?
> The time a piece of hardware is _most_ likely to fail is during
> the power-up or power-down process. If you'd any serious experience
> supporting large numbers of computers, you'd know this.
> The most like time to fail in this mode is early life failures And they
will fail whether powering on and off or not.
Systems are tested for power on off cycle reliability.
> Further, intelligent enterprises running large scale networks
> insist upon the computers being left on at night, so that virus scans,
> application and patch installation via SMS, backups, etc., can be
> scheduled and accomplished without affecting worker productivity.
> I agree 100%--- But not the hundreds of PC terminals on a LAN.
> The savings in electricity costs generated by powering off the PCs
> prove miniscule compared to the costs of otherwise unnecessary repairs
> and the lost productivity caused by scheduling/performing virus scans,
> application and patch installation via SMS, backups, etc., during
> business hours. That's for the host system.
>
> Bruce Chambers
> --
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. - RAH
>
>
> "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> news:XZDzc.24553$eH1.11221391@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> > Reputable manufacturers do extensive tests to insure their products
> meet life
> > expectancies. It does no harm whatsoever to power on and off. As a
> matter of
> > fact in large corporations users are required to power their systems
> off each
> > and every time they leave their office. ( Even for lunch) It saves
> the
> > corporations thousands of dollars yearly in electrical bills.
>
>
!