thompson@m.cs.uiuc.edu (02/14/90)
I just read a note in c.s.m claiming that it was better (for the Mac) to leave your Mac on all the time than to turn it on/off *once a week*. Is this true? That seems incredible to me (and I doubt anyone who has a Mac uses it less than once a week). I could maybe buy "once a day", although even that seems to be stretching it to me. But "once a week?" Really? And how much extra power does it suck up? Per week/day or whatever? (i.e., will it be cost-effective? Or at least cheap enough to justify to myself?) - Mark Thompson TA from Elysium University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
mmaston@portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Maston) (02/14/90)
In article <77800007@m.cs.uiuc.edu> thompson@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >I just read a note in c.s.m claiming that it was better (for the Mac) > to leave your Mac on all the time than to turn it on/off *once a week*. > Is this true? That seems incredible to me (and I doubt anyone who has a Mac > uses it less than once a week). > >I could maybe buy "once a day", although even that seems to be stretching > it to me. But "once a week?" Really? > >And how much extra power does it suck up? Per week/day or whatever? > (i.e., will it be cost-effective? Or at least cheap enough to > justify to myself?) > >- Mark Thompson > TA from Elysium > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Hi Mark, It is good for any electronic device (including the Mac) to minimize the number of power cycles (turning it off/on) you put it thru. Just as you might have noticed that light bulbs almost always burn out when you turn them on, all such devices are put under a great deal of stress when voltage/current are applied to them suddenly. If you leave them on all the time, you (theoretically) should be extending their life expectancy. As for cost effectiveness, that is pretty much a function of the cost of electricity in your area. If it is cheap, who cares? If it isn't, well... Computers really don't gobble THAT much power. Mike Hardware/Software Engineer GTE Government Systems Corp. Mountain View, CA 94043
jamespa@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU (James Paul) (02/14/90)
In article <9160@portia.Stanford.EDU> mmaston@portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Maston) writes: >... > It is good for any electronic device (including the Mac) to minimize >the number of power cycles (turning it off/on) you put it thru. Just as >you might have noticed that light bulbs almost always burn out when you >turn them on, all such devices are put under a great deal of stress when >voltage/current are applied to them suddenly. If you leave them on all the >time, you (theoretically) should be extending their life expectancy. > >As for cost effectiveness, that is pretty much a function of the cost of >electricity in your area. If it is cheap, who cares? If it isn't, well... >Computers really don't gobble THAT much power. > >Mike >Hardware/Software Engineer >GTE Government Systems Corp. >Mountain View, CA 94043 Well and fine, but remember that hard disks have a MTBF rating (mean time between failure) and usually spin at about 3000 RPM. :-) If you don't mind eating your disk drive's time away, no problem. Also, be sure to use a screen saver. (Even though many CRTs have a limited life, it is fairly long if treated with care.) Seriously, with today's complex power supplies, (especially the one in the mac SE/30!) it's ridiculous to leave one on for days to avoid a power cycle! If you know you're not going to use the machine for the next couple hours, power it down! (As a side note, as system admin for NASA Ames/Dryden ATD, the first thing I did was to change a small policy that required a group of local macs to remain powered on all the time, except on weekends. _ALL_ their LaserView monitors had been fried several times, and several machines had occasional heatstroke during hot weather when the AC went off during non-working hours. I told everyone to turn the things off when they went home, and there were no further problems while I was there. :-) I'm no longer working at NASA, though, and I hope they kept the policy. I've said my piece. Best wishes, -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP:jamespa@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU Compuserve:72767,3436 GEnie:J.PAUL Packet:N6SIW@K6RAU AppleLink:D1231 America Online:JLPaul
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) (02/15/90)
In article <1990Feb14.052956.4203@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU> jamespa@csuf3b.UUCP (James Paul) writes: >Well and fine, but remember that hard disks have a MTBF rating (mean time >between failure) and usually spin at about 3000 RPM. :-) If you don't mind >eating your disk drive's time away, no problem. On the contrary. I'd heard that almost all the wear and tear on a hard disk was due to power up and power down, where the heads might come into contact with the disk, or some such. -Sho -- sho@physics.purdue.edu <<-- me, I turn mine off every night. but I have the noise mac II fan...
jamespa@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU (James Paul) (02/15/90)
In article <3118@pur-phy> sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto) writes: >In article <1990Feb14.052956.4203@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU> jamespa@csuf3b.UUCP (James Paul) writes: >>Well and fine, but remember that hard disks have a MTBF rating (mean time >>between failure) and usually spin at about 3000 RPM. :-) If you don't mind >>eating your disk drive's time away, no problem. > >On the contrary. I'd heard that almost all the wear and tear on a hard >disk was due to power up and power down, where the heads might come >into contact with the disk, or some such. > >-Sho >-- >sho@physics.purdue.edu <<-- me, I turn mine off every night. > but I have the noise mac II fan... There are different types of "wear and tear." Electrical fatigue (my term) is the wear caused to solid-state equipment due to the energization and state changes when power is supplied or removed to a device. Generally, if you power up a solid-state device "gently" there is little problem. Mechanical "wear and tear" is another thing altogether. A disk drive controller is solid state (I hope! ;-) The drive mechanism itself is a motor, drive system, bearings, etc. all operating at a respectable mechanical speed. Obviously, these mechanical parts will not run forever, and are subject to wear. The MTBF figure, as I understand it, is largely based on the expected average reliability period of the mechanical parts. (Note that the MTBF figures do not include a duty-cycle, which would provide more info.) The figures for most drive units fall between 1 and 3 years, if continously used. The danger of a head-crash or other failure during power cycling is not unfounded, but I think it's exagerated. In a truly fixed drive, (one that is not removable and is sealed,) A head crash rarely occurs simply because the platter spins up to speed. Other variables come into it, though, like dust, etc. In general, keeping a disk spinning about 3000 RPM when it's not being used most of that time is a poor trade-off in trying to baby it. If it is so fragil that it might fry when powering-up, I wouldn't _dream_ of leaving it on all the time. :-) Of course, if the application requires the disk to be available all the time, the point is moot. (We have some machines that have to be awake 24 hours, and the drives have to be fixed about every 2 years. Usually the motor-drive gives out.) -James -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP:jamespa@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU Compuserve:72767,3436 GEnie:J.PAUL Packet:N6SIW@K6RAU AppleLink:D1231 America Online:JLPaul
keith@ux.acs.umn.edu (Keith MaloneyHuss) (02/15/90)
There is one consideration that has not been mentioned in this thread so far. That is thermal cycling. It gets quite warm inside most "boxes", and I feel that it is better to keep it warm rather than cool,warm,cool,warm,cool, warm,cool,warm... The expansion and contraction must strain the joints in the little IC buggers. I thought I read on one of these notes a while back that the purpose of the ceramic vs plastic cases for ICs is at least partially to relieve the strain of thermal cycling on the tiny connecting wires between the IC pins and the silicon chip inside. Is there anything to this? No one thinks twice about leaving a MicroVax or a Sun workstation powered up, but somehow when it is a "personal" computer, it needs its rest. Are they really so much weaker? Or is it simply that the workstations take so much longer to boot... Anyway, I vote LEAVE IT ON. My macIIx at work stays on 365 days a year, while the SE at home is turned on only while I use it (only because it lives next to my bed and I can't stand the noise.) --keith
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (02/16/90)
From what I hear, the only thing wrong with leaving your computer on, is that the bearings in the HardDisk evnetually wear out. Otherwise, It is better to leave your computer on than cycling the power. It's the mechanical parts that fail, however, and your Hard Drive will eventually inevitably fail if you leave it on all of the time. Therefore, turn of your Mac if you have a HD. Otherwise get a screensaver & leave it on.
jhs@zug.csmil.umich.edu (Hee-Sen Jong) (02/17/90)
One question after reading all the discussion about whether to leave the computer on I have is: Does choosing RESTART from the Finder Special Menu considered a power down and up? Is the power to the internal harddrive cut off and on in the restart process. Is it harmful to restart many times to fool around with INITs? Thanks for the gurus out there who will be kind enough to answer. Sen Jong
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (02/17/90)
Someone sent me Email saying that the lifetime of the bearings in your HD is about 10 years and the mean time between failures (unless you have a ci with an apple HD80) is about 5. Leave it on.
daves@pravda.gatech.edu (Dave Smith) (02/19/90)
{using friend's account}
I'm almost convinced to leave my Mac on, but two questions are
still unanswered:
What about the Mac Plus, which has no fan. Five or six hours
and this thing feels hot!
Independent of electricity cost (I can do basic multiplication)
how much will it cost to leave my Mac on. For instance, how
many kWh will I be consuming?
Thanks.
----------
Dave Smith - Georgia Insitute of Technology, PO Box 33291, Atlanta GA, 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!pravda!daves
ARPA: daves@pravda.gatech.educlarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (02/20/90)
In article <6117@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt3006d@gatech.UUCP (Charlie Patterson) writes: >Independent of electricity cost (I can do basic multiplication) >how much will it cost to leave my Mac on. For instance, how >many kWh will I be consuming? > >Thanks. > >Dave Smith - Georgia Insitute of Technology, PO Box 33291, Atlanta GA, 30332 I recall reading in MacWorld?User?Tutor?Week that the Mac Plus consumes electricity in similar quantities to a 60-watt light bulb when on. <chaz> -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chaz Larson - clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu "Great Scott! This 9 foot alien woman is a swinger! ...and she has the hots for me!!!" - Flaming Carrot
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (02/21/90)
One problem with leaving your computer equipment on over long periods of time that no one's mentioned is: lightning strikes. Even a surge protector won't protect against lightning hitting power lines. I always unplug my stuff during and before lightning storms. The problem is this: when you leave in the morning, it's not always possible to predice whether a thunderstorm will occur that day. If it does, and if you've left your Mac/HD plugged in and running, you could be in trouble. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
howard@attila.crd.ge.com (Donald R. Howard) (02/21/90)
In article <7715@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >One problem with leaving your computer equipment on over long periods of time >that no one's mentioned is: lightning strikes. Even a surge protector won't >protect against lightning hitting power lines. I always unplug my stuff during >and before lightning storms. VERY good point! And don't forget brown-outs and normal electric service interruptions. Ever see your power restored as a series of WHAM! WHAM! WHAM! surges? --- Don Howard howard@crd.ge.com
george@swbatl.UUCP (6544) (02/21/90)
In article <7715@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >One problem with leaving your computer equipment on over long periods of time >that no one's mentioned is: lightning strikes. Even a surge protector won't >protect against lightning hitting power lines. I always unplug my stuff during >and before lightning storms. > Is it really worthwhile to unplug everything when a thunderstorm approaches? In my experience, when lightning strikes close by, my electronic stuff is the least of my worries. Once my house took a direct lightning hit. It blew up the chimney and started a fire in the kitchen. The kicker is that the current CAME OUT OF AN UNUSED ELECTRICAL OUTLET and set the bare formica counter top aflame. (Guess if I had something plugged in it might have held the charge back :-). I was also confronted by some ball lightning which discharged itself via my telephone's ringer coils. What a melted mess. My Apple ][ and 2 TVs kept working afterwards, however. My inlaws had their house hit recently. Everything electronic was brain dead in this case, but my inlaws were more worried about the smoke (luckily there was no flame) coming from the hit sight. In both cases, fire seemed to be the biggest worry. Insurance paid for all damages in both cases. So for other than important data (which you should have backed up and stored off-sight ;-) is it really worth the effort to unplug everything? It seems like a false sense of security to me. (Yep, that litnin' sure burned my house. Glad my 'puter was unpluged!) -- / George D. Nincehelser \ uunet!swbatl!george \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (02/21/90)
In article<6117@hydra.gatech.EDU>gt3006d@gatech.UUCP (Charlie Patterson) writes: >I'm almost convinced to leave my Mac on, but two questions are >still unanswered: >What about the Mac Plus, which has no fan. Five or six hours >and this thing feels hot! >Independent of electricity cost (I can do basic multiplication) >how much will it cost to leave my Mac on. For instance, how >many kWh will I be consuming? I have Mac Plus running a BBS, it is on 24 hours a day, I do have a fan installed, along with a Radius Accellerator. I have a Jasmine and Quantum drive attached, also running 24 hours a day, the Plus does not seem to care, in 3 years have had one analog board fail, which I don't think is unusual or bad for a Plus. It is my opinion, leave it on.. I also have an SE and IIcx that I always leave on, unless I am gone for more than a couple days, then these units get turned off. The SE has had no problems and has been on at least 2 years now, and the IIcx has been on for almost a year now and no problems at all, zero, none. So I say, leave it on, it does not hurt, its probably better all the way around for the equipment, hard disks included, and will probably increase the life of the unit. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (02/21/90)
In article <1189@swbatl.UUCP> george@swbatl.UUCP (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes: >Is it really worthwhile to unplug everything when a thunderstorm >approaches? In my experience, when lightning strikes close by, my >electronic stuff is the least of my worries. The National Electric Code specifies that the neutral wire coming from the utility is to be grounded at the service entrance. In most houses, the ground is not very heavy wire, and is often not really tied to a "ground" [in my previous house, neutral was grounded to the water main ... which was a 3/4" pipe coming out of the ground. Unfortunately, just below the surface, the pipe was connected to a long run of PVC pipe that went to the water meter]. I would guess that those with overhead service are more at risk than those with underground service. Lightning induced surges would tend to arc to the grounded neutral. All bets are off for a direct hit. >My inlaws had their house hit recently. Everything electronic was brain >dead in this case, but my inlaws were more worried about the smoke >(luckily there was no flame) coming from the hit sight. In my area a more common problem is the neutral wire becoming disconnected at the supply transformer. This puts 220 volts across all of the active house circuits, in an unbalance manner. One leg may have 50 volts, with the other phase at 170 volts. This also fries equipment (but shouldn't fry a newer Mac, with the universal power supply). >In both cases, fire seemed to be the biggest worry. Insurance paid for >all damages in both cases. So for other than important data (which you >should have backed up and stored off-sight ;-) is it really worth the >effort to unplug everything? It seems like a false sense of security >to me. (Yep, that litnin' sure burned my house. Glad my 'puter was >unpluged!) There are lots of things that can put your computer out of action, electrically. If you are really paranoid (or live in a high risk area: "it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you") put a UPS between the line and the computer. That way, the UPS will take the hit and not your expensive equipment. BTW: If you are using spare telephone pairs for your Appletalk circuits, have you considered what will happen when lightning strikes the phone wires outside? Maybe we should go back to steam powered computers. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) PS: My MacIIx, 8Megs, two hard disks, two video cards, one monitor, takes 183 watts (measured) from its UPS system. [the other monitor is not on the UPS] {from a previous thread}
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (02/21/90)
In article <7715@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >One problem with leaving your computer equipment on over long periods of time >that no one's mentioned is: lightning strikes. Even a surge protector won't >protect against lightning hitting power lines. I always unplug my stuff during >and before lightning storms. > >The problem is this: when you leave in the morning, it's not always possible to >predice whether a thunderstorm will occur that day. If it does, and if you've >left your Mac/HD plugged in and running, you could be in trouble. Good point. A similar issue for those of us in seismically active areas is earthquakes. Fortunately, they usually involve mostly side-to-side movement, but a rough up-and-down shake could cause a head crash. Both my hard disks were turned on, but not in use, at 5:04PM on the day of the World Series, and they made it through OK -- but with no power, I couldn't tell for a few days, and since then I've been pretty fastidious about shutting the equipment down while it's inactive. (Thank "Bob" for automatically parking heads!) Incidentally, this is also a reason to keep your hard disk horizontal. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Now hear a plain fact: Swedenborg has not written one new truth: Now hear another: he has written all the old falshoods. And now hear the reason. He conversed with Angels who are all religious, & conversed not with Devils who all hate religion..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
jwg1@gte.com (James W. Gish) (02/24/90)
In article <1357@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes:
...
unusual or bad for a Plus. It is my opinion, leave it on..
So I say, leave it on, it does not hurt, its probably better all the
way around for the equipment, hard disks included, and will probably
increase the life of the unit.
Yes, BUT what about the life of our planet!!!! I know that there are
far bigger consumers of electricity than our computers, but I still in
all good conscience cannot leave on my machines at work when I go home
at night. Consider that there are on the order of tens of millions of
personal computers alone in this country, if everyone left his or
her's on at night the energy consumption would be substantial.
It's hard for us as individuals to make large impacts on the
environment, but there are lots of little things we can do that when
practiced by a large number of people can have an impact. So, unless
you really need to to keep your machines on, please turn them off when
not in use.
--
Jim Gish
GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA
CSNET: jgish@gte.com UUCP: ..!harvard!bunny!jwg1harlan@pewter.ucs.indiana.edu (Pete Harlan) (02/28/90)
jwg1@gte.com (James W. Gish) writes: |In article <...> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: | ... | unusual or bad for a Plus. It is my opinion, leave it on.. | So I say, leave it on, it does not hurt, its probably better all the | way around for the equipment, hard disks included, and will probably | increase the life of the unit. | Yes, BUT what about the life of our planet!!!! I know that there are | far bigger consumers of electricity than our computers, but I still in | all good conscience cannot leave on my machines at work when I go home | at night. Consider that there are on the order of tens of millions of | personal computers alone in this country, if everyone left his or | her's on at night the energy consumption would be substantial. I like your argument, but why isn't throwing out and replacing electronic equipment just as wasteful as using up a little extra electricity? Isn't the whole reason "leaving it on" is cost-effective because a computer represents more resources per month (over its lifetime) than the electricity required to run it? Just trying to figure this out, Pete Harlan harlan@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
jwg1@gte.com (James W. Gish) (03/01/90)
In article <37285@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> harlan@pewter.ucs.indiana.edu (Pete Harlan) writes: > > I like your argument, but why isn't throwing out and replacing > electronic equipment just as wasteful as using up a little extra > electricity? Isn't the whole reason "leaving it on" is cost-effective > because a computer represents more resources per month (over its > lifetime) than the electricity required to run it? > Good point. However, it's not clear that it is a "little" extra electricity that we are talking about. Also, many failures are not total in the sense you have to throw a whole piece of equipment out. In fact, at the current pace of technology improvements much equipment is probably upgraded/replaced long before its useful life is up anyway. Also, I've seen some very enlightening treatises on this subject by various folks who are quite knowledgable about electronics design, physics, etc., and based on what I've read it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference to the life of the equipment whether you leave it on or not. (With the possible exception of course of electromechanical devices like disk drives, which seem to last longer if you DO turn them off.) At best the differences seem to be "marginal". I do know from personal experience of about twenty years - turning my equipment off every night - that I don't have any more equipment failures than anyone else. In fact, I've been blessed with less than a handful of failures in all that time. I realize that there is considerable debate on this topic, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to convince anyone one way or the other; I'm just trying to raise the conservation issue as a factor to consider. I think it is too often ignored. -- Jim Gish GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA CSNET: jgish@gte.com UUCP: ..!harvard!bunny!jwg1
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (03/03/90)
> increase the life of the unit. > >Yes, BUT what about the life of our planet!!!! I know that there are >far bigger consumers of electricity than our computers, but I still in >all good conscience cannot leave on my machines at work when I go home >at night. Consider that there are on the order of tens of millions of >personal computers alone in this country, if everyone left his or >her's on at night the energy consumption would be substantial. >Jim Gish Now were trying to turn the issue of leaving computers on into an environmental issue...yeesh. There are probably slews of things that you do on a daily basis that you never even think about that are more damaging to the environment than leaving your computer on. This should not even be considering IMHO.. ----- -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
jwg1@gte.com (James W. Gish) (03/06/90)
In article <1381@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes (regarding my article about considering energy consumption and environmental consequences of leaving equipment on): > > Now were trying to turn the issue of leaving computers on into an > environmental issue...yeesh. There are probably slews of things > that you do on a daily basis that you never even think about that > are more damaging to the environment than leaving your computer on. > This should not even be considering IMHO.. Many people think it's somebody else's problem, or the small things that you do on an everyday basis don't count, but they do add up and make a difference. The opinion that you state points to EXACTLY the issue that I'm trying to raise, that we normally don't think about the global consequences of what we do and the long term effects of our daily decisions. We have to take steps NOW to ensure the survival of our planet, and if I can help, even in a very small way like turning off my lights and my equipment when I go home, then I'm going to do it. We can pay now in minor inconveniences or we can pay later through a great loss in the quality of life over the entire planet. I'm sure some of you will argue that this discussion has no place in this newsgroup, but that too is part of our problem - we tend to compartmentalize our discussions instead of considering them in a more global context. -- Jim Gish GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA CSNET: jgish@gte.com UUCP: ..!harvard!bunny!jwg1
george@swbatl.UUCP (George D. Nincehelser) (03/06/90)
In article <JWG1.90Mar5130701@bunny.gte.com>, jwg1@gte.com (James W. Gish) writes: > In article <1381@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes (regarding my article about considering energy consumption and environmental consequences of leaving equipment on): > > > > Now were trying to turn the issue of leaving computers on into an > > environmental issue...yeesh. There are probably slews of things > > that you do on a daily basis that you never even think about that > > are more damaging to the environment than leaving your computer on. > > This should not even be considering IMHO.. > > Many people think it's somebody else's problem, or the small things that > you do on an everyday basis don't count, but they do add up and make a > difference. The opinion that you state points to EXACTLY the issue > that I'm trying to raise, that we normally don't think about the > global consequences of what we do and the long term effects of our > daily decisions. We have to take steps NOW to ensure the survival of > our planet, and if I can help, even in a very small way like turning > off my lights and my equipment when I go home, then I'm going to do > it. We can pay now in minor inconveniences or we can pay later through > a great loss in the quality of life over the entire planet. Without getting to deep into this thread-that-should-be-continued- elsewhere, I must agree that the environmental argument is a bit far-fetched. I also agree that we all need to do our part to save the world, but we should direct our conservation efforts more wisely than is suggested here. Unless someone can PROVE to me with a well thought-out study that turning my computer off will help save the environment, I'll leave my on, thank you. Anyone interested in more productive ways to save the world should read "50 Simple Things YOU Can Do To Save The Earth", The Earth Works Group, The Earth Works Press, Berkely, CA $4.95. -- / George D. Nincehelser \ uunet!swbatl!george \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \