MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) (03/26/90)
I am getting a new computer system and would like to ask a question on life
expectancy. Shall I leave the system on all of the time, or shall I keep
turning it on every day? (This is probally a very popular question, but please
help me, I obviously didn't see this conversation before)
The system is a Gateway 2000 386 tower case.
thanks for all help!
Mark Solsman MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET
MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDUMHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) (03/26/90)
Should I leave my computer on 24hrs/day, or should I turn it on/off each day?
The system is a Gateway 2000 386 tower.
thanks for all help!
Mark Solsman MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET
MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDUjca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (03/27/90)
MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: >Should I leave my computer on 24hrs/day, or should I turn it on/off each day? > >The system is a Gateway 2000 386 tower. > > >thanks for all help! >Mark Solsman MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET > MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDU I leave my 16 MHz 286 on all the time. It's more stressful to power on the machine everyday than to leave it on all the time. Also gives you a good burn in of the system. Just be sure to have a screen saver for your monitor. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
uri@arnor.Berkeley.EDU (Uri Blumenthal) (03/29/90)
In article <90084.220718MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu>, MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: > I am getting a new computer system and would like to ask a question on life > expectancy. Shall I leave the system on all of the time, or shall I keep > turning it on every day? I would think it's OK to keep it on most of the time (because - IMHO - for the hard drives tirn on and off is not too nice and healthy). My machine is usually on 6 days a week. If you run UNIX on your machine - you probably want to keep it on the same way. > The system is a Gateway 2000 386 tower case. Well, mine is the same (:-). You may consider changing the serial cards, though (:-). Regards, Uri Blumenthal uri@ibm.com, bywater!arnor!uri ====================================================== <Disclaimer>
gregk@ubvax.UB.Com (Greg Kendall) (03/29/90)
MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: >Should I leave my computer on 24hrs/day, or should I turn it on/off each day? > >The system is a Gateway 2000 386 tower. > > >thanks for all help! >Mark Solsman MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET > MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDU > I've heard a lot of claims about how it's "harder" on the PC to power up than to leave it on. I have yet to hear of any real data on failure rates. I also suggest that, if it can't take being turned on and off, it's such a poor design that it probably doesn't matter which you do.
morgan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dylan Kaufman) (03/29/90)
In article <28294@ubvax.UB.Com> gregk@ubvax.UB.Com (Greg Kendall) writes: MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: >Should I leave my computer on 24hrs/day, or should I turn it on/off each day? > >The system is a Gateway 2000 386 tower. > > >thanks for all help! >Mark Solsman MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET > MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDU > I've heard a lot of claims about how it's "harder" on the PC to power up than to leave it on. I have yet to hear of any real data on failure rates. I also suggest that, if it can't take being turned on and off, it's such a poor design that it probably doesn't matter which you do. My undertanding is that it is indeed harder on the system to have the shock of being turned on than to be left on, but that the difference is only significant if you turn your computer on several times a day (like more than 10 or so). It is not that a computer can't take being turned on and off, it is merely that anything electronic takes a certain amount of wear and tear damage from being subjected to the flow of electricity where there had recently been none. Obviously there are electronic devices which get turned on and off constantly, and yet they last for ages. -- -<>Dylan<>- morgan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) (03/29/90)
In article <28294@ubvax.UB.Com> gregk@ubvax.ub.com.UUCP (Greg Kendall) writes: >MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: >>Should I leave my computer on 24hrs/day, or should I turn it on/off each day? >> >>The system is a Gateway 2000 386 tower. >>Mark Solsman MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET Here is a guide line from another ignorant user: If it wont be used for 24 hrs then turn it off. At our shop, we leave them on during the week and turn them off on the weekends. There *is* some stress to the components in cycling power. In the high voltage system components can be physically moved (*very* slightly) by the HV fields building up and collapsing. Heat cycling (changing temp) can do the same. -ted- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ted@helios.ucsc.edu | "If I get any phone calls while I'm gone, (408)459-2110 | just don't answer them." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) (03/30/90)
>My undertanding is that it is indeed harder on the system to have the >shock of being turned on than to be left on, but that the difference >is only significant if you turn your computer on several times a day >(like more than 10 or so). It is not that a computer can't take being >turned on and off, it is merely that anything electronic takes a >certain amount of wear and tear damage from being subjected to the >flow of electricity where there had recently been none. 1) My DOS machines hangs up enough times during a typical session that I can't help but turn it off and on several times a day 1/2)! 2) While I don't have the "facts" handy, (the state of Calif. did some research last year and I posted the results last year) the limited studies I have seen indicated that you will probably save enough on lower electricity costs (even if it were not better for the environment) by turning off the machinery than by keeping it on and having it "last a little longer". Video monitors are REAL electricity hogs, but a 200W+ power supply can keep things pretty warm, too! -- Marc Ries ries@venice.sedd.trw.com (ARPA) somewhere!trwind!venice!ries (UUCP) #include <std.disclaimer>
gregk@ubvax.UB.Com (Greg Kendall) (03/30/90)
In article <MORGAN.90Mar28233102@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> morgan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dylan Kaufman) writes: ... stuff deleted ... >My undertanding is that it is indeed harder on the system to have the >shock of being turned on than to be left on, but that the difference This is exactly my point. A lot of people "understand" this point. I know of no evidence (such as MTBF numbers) on which to beleive it.
dan@tinton.UUCP (04/06/90)
In article <18908.26174f84@merrimack.edu> linderd@hubdub.UUCP writes: >In article <28311@ubvax.UB.Com>, gregk@ubvax.UB.Com (Greg Kendall) writes: >> In article <MORGAN.90Mar28233102@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> morgan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dylan Kaufman) writes: >> >> ... stuff deleted ... >>>My undertanding is that it is indeed harder on the system to have the >>>shock of being turned on than to be left on, but that the difference >> >> This is exactly my point. A lot of people "understand" this point. >> I know of no evidence (such as MTBF numbers) on which to beleive it. > > My big concern (and the reason I don't leave my PC on all the time) is the >*moving* parts, namely the power supply fan and the disk drive motor. Also, Also, power conditioning must play a part in the equation. If one's AC supply is relatively dirty and one has limited power conditioning equipment, then leaving one's system on constantly leaves it open to large power glitches wreaking havoc. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Masi (dan@tinton.tinton.ccur.com) 201-758-7699 Concurrent Computer Corp. 106 Apple Street Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
taubman@boulder.Colorado.EDU (TAUBMAN JASON ROBERT) (04/10/90)
In article <1990Apr5.191427.28003@tinton> dan@tinton.UUCP (Daniel Masi <masid>) writes: >In article <18908.26174f84@merrimack.edu> linderd@hubdub.UUCP writes: >>In article <28311@ubvax.UB.Com>, gregk@ubvax.UB.Com (Greg Kendall) writes: >>> In article <MORGAN.90Mar28233102@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> morgan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dylan Kaufman) writes: >>> >>> ... stuff deleted ... >>>>My undertanding is that it is indeed harder on the system to have the >>>>shock of being turned on than to be left on, but that the difference >>> >>> This is exactly my point. A lot of people "understand" this point. >>> I know of no evidence (such as MTBF numbers) on which to beleive it. >> >> My big concern (and the reason I don't leave my PC on all the time) is the >>*moving* parts, namely the power supply fan and the disk drive motor. Also, Just for the record, I operate a BBS with a '286 machine, with 2 40 meg drives, and one or two other goodies, and the machine has only been shut off once or twice in the last year for moving, and routine maintenace (cleaning it out). I have had no trouble whatsoever with leaving it on. The power seems to be fairly clean here though. Jason Taubman taubman@snoopy.colorado.edu ...!boulder!bohemia!taubman
kla@physc1.byu.edu (04/10/90)
We have left our three computers on 24 hrs. for a couple of years and they have suffered no ill effects other than the fact that occasionally the air conditioning breaks down and some of our third party cards have tended to act up when they heat up
weisen@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Neil Weisenfeld) (04/11/90)
In article <1990Apr5.191427.28003@tinton> dan@tinton.UUCP (Daniel Masi <masid>) writes: >In article <18908.26174f84@merrimack.edu> linderd@hubdub.UUCP writes: >>In article <28311@ubvax.UB.Com>, gregk@ubvax.UB.Com (Greg Kendall) writes: >>> In article <MORGAN.90Mar28233102@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> morgan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dylan Kaufman) writes: >>> >>> ... stuff deleted ... >>>>My undertanding is that it is indeed harder on the system to have the >>>>shock of being turned on than to be left on, but that the difference >>> >> This is exactly my point. A lot of people "understand" this point. >>> I know of no evidence (such as MTBF numbers) on which to beleive it. >> >> My big concern (and the reason I don't leave my PC on all the time) is the >>*moving* parts, namely the power supply fan and the disk drive motor. Also, I run a lab at school with 30 AT&T 6312s. Due to the stupidity of the design of the video system, repeatedly turning on the machine kills the monitor. The monitors are powered through the video card (Yes, this is true) and probably get hit with some pretty unclean power as the computer is turned on. In the past few months, I've left the PCs on continuously with a screen saver installed. We just blew our first hard disk yesterday. (They're ST251 pieces o' junk). We discussed this a few months ago and the consensus seemed to be that if you are leaving your computer on for more than 13 or so hours a day, leave it on. Otherwise, turn it off at night. For the lab which is open from 10am to 1am, I opted to leave them on. We will see how many hard disk casualties the next few months bring. Neil _____ _____ ------------------------------------ \ / \ / / Neil Weisenfeld \ / \ / / Computer Science and Engineering \ / /\ \ / / Unviersity of Pennsylvania \ / / \ \ / / -------------------------------------- \ / / \ \/ / InterNet: weisen@eniac.seas.upenn.edu \ / / \ / USPS: 3700 Spruce St. Box 572 \/____/ \_____/ Philadelphia, PA 19104 --------------------------------------