Tom Ascher - Associate Director - DRIA <U15310@uicvm.uic.edu> (05/21/91)
Does anyone have a definitive answer to the question of whether it's best to turn your computer off when not using, or leave it on ... in terms of equipment longevity? My intuitive instinct is to turn off, since when running the hard disk is in motion and mechanical things tend to wear out the more used. On the other hand, I've heard that transistors last longer when left on. Does anyone have a definitive answer?
jlt@cbnewsc.att.com (jeffrey.r.light) (05/24/91)
From article <91141.132518U15310@uicvm.uic.edu>, by U15310@uicvm.uic.edu (Tom Ascher - Associate Director - DRIA): > Does anyone have a definitive answer to the question of whether it's > best to turn your computer off when not using, or leave it on ... in > terms of equipment longevity? I would like to calm the continuing fear of turning computers (electronics) off when NOT IN USE for extended periods, including OVER NIGHT. It appears a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, the kind of stress that occurs to electronic devices during turn on/off cycles and warm up/cool down periods is insignificant for the typical user. We do stress testing on our products that goes way beyond normal to OVER-stress the design and look for the weaknesses and eliminate them. Have NO fear, if you are not using your computer for several hours, why not, turn it off. Certainly, turn it off for overnight periods, UNLESS it is part of an active system (NETWORK servers, etc.) and for those systems, you could turn off the Monitors (if desired) especially if you do not have a screen saver program (The phosphor on the CRT screen will darken directly proportional to the time the phosphor is emitting light). Do you keep your auto engine ON when you are not using it (it also heats UP and cools down). DO you leave lights ON (if you pay the bills). etc. Apply common sense. Hard drives have mechanical parts that DO wear out with use. In additional, a power line spike may damage your unprotected computer. Certainly more ON time will increase your risk and reduce the life of mechanical parts. Do not forget that many electrical parts also can wear-out (e.g. electrolytic capacitors). Therefore, I always advise turning off computers, TVs, VCRS, etc when not in use. Jeff att!ihlpy!jlt
quimby@madoka.its.rpi.edu (Quimby Pipple) (05/24/91)
>> Does anyone have a definitive answer to the question of whether it's >> best to turn your computer off when not using, or leave it on ... in >> terms of equipment longevity? >I would like to calm the continuing fear of turning computers (electronics) >off when NOT IN USE for extended periods, including OVER NIGHT. Oh not this d*mn thread again. It's not a fear, it's the realization that power up/down cycling of virtually every electronic or mechanical device ever made causes some form of wear. The only argument in question is of the amount of 'up' time equal to the amount of wear in one up/down cycle. My guess would be something like 15 minutes for a typical light bulb, about the same for an automobile engine, and about a month for the average computer. It's not an accident that cycle testing is often part of accelerated life expectancy testing. >Do you keep your auto engine ON when you are not using it (it also heats UP >and cools down). DO you leave lights ON (if you pay the bills). etc. Do you like the noises your engine makes while turning over slowly with close to zero oil pressure? There's nothing wrong with leaving computers running all the time. It's standard procedure at many installations. There's also nothing wrong with turning the things off at night, unless you happen to have a Seagate drive in it. Please turn the monitors off overnight, though. Sometimes they catch fire. Quimby -- quimby@mts.rpi.edu, quimby@rpitsmts.bitnet
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (05/24/91)
quimby@madoka.its.rpi.edu (Quimby Pipple) writes: >>> Does anyone have a definitive answer to the question of whether it's >>> best to turn your computer off when not using, or leave it on ... in >>> terms of equipment longevity? >>I would like to calm the continuing fear of turning computers (electronics) >>off when NOT IN USE for extended periods, including OVER NIGHT. >Oh not this d*mn thread again. Yep, ain't it wonderful? >It's not a fear, it's the realization that >power up/down cycling of virtually every electronic or mechanical device >ever made causes some form of wear. The only argument in question is of >the amount of 'up' time equal to the amount of wear in one up/down cycle. More important than mechanical wear for consumer-grade electronics is the inrush stress. While Mr. AT&T may test his company's computers extensivly, the same cannot be said for the average asian clone. Anyone who has ever taken apart and analyzed an asian PC power supply could not help but observe the degree of cost engineering. The very minimal possible components in every stage. At a more pragmatic perspective, how many things has anyone ever observed failing under normal operating conditions vs during powerup? >>Do you keep your auto engine ON when you are not using it (it also heats UP >>and cools down). DO you leave lights ON (if you pay the bills). etc. >Do you like the noises your engine makes while turning over slowly >with close to zero oil pressure? More to the point, large expensive engines (diesel truck, locomotive, ship) ARE left running most of the time precisely to avoid startup wear. When I used to run a locomotive for a living, the ONLY time it was shut down was for service. Now just to keep this argument going, I'll argue from the other side :-) On April 14th in the early morning while I was asleep, a monitor in my office below decided to practice self-emolation. The resultant fire destroyed my office and my house. Thanks to a smoke alarm, I barely got out in time. So... What to do. The answer is to do whatever feels good. If you feel better turning things off at nite, then do it. If you feel better leaving them on, then do it. It is impossible to quantify the loss factors from either avenue, especially if you take into account collateral damage such as fire. Me, I'm still leaving everything on. As I rebuild I'm putting in better fire protection but I personally feel that the reduced hassles of leaving the equipment on is worth the minor risk. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"
honeywel@chama.unm.edu (Honeywell Field Service) (05/24/91)
In article <rfgh47.@rpi.edu> quimby@madoka.its.rpi.edu (Quimby Pipple) writes: >>> Does anyone have a definitive answer to the question of whether it's Regarding the advisability of either leaving your system on all the time or turning it off when not in use: Currently we have approximately 8,000 pc's under service at Honeywell facilities in Phoenix and Albuquerque. Any user leaving his system continually powered on is placing their data and system at some risk. We regularly lose systems to lightning strikes in the area, facilities also regularly destroys systems with their constant screwing with the power. These systems would not have been damaged if they had been powered off when not in use. If you've got conditioned power and battery backup, then the vagaries of weather and power grids will not be a concern. My mainframe customers generally power their systems down, when possible, during thunderstorms. Data loss is a real threat to any mini or mainframe systems during a power loss event. A large disk drive performing the old "spiral write" during power loss is something any experienced computer technician has seen. The loss of system power supplies is not an uncommon occurence during these power-loss/power-surge sequences. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- HONEYWELL Third Party Computer Service -- 1(800) 525-7439 Mike Thomas, Senior Technician, Albuquerque, New Mexico honeywel@wayback.unm.edu (505) 888-5820
ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) (05/25/91)
In article <20114@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >quimby@madoka.its.rpi.edu (Quimby Pipple) writes: >On April 14th in the early morning while I was asleep, a monitor in my >office below decided to practice self-emolation. The resultant fire >destroyed my office and my house. Thanks to a smoke alarm, I barely >got out in time. > >So... What to do. The answer is to do whatever feels good. If you feel >better turning things off at nite, then do it. If you feel better leaving >them on, then do it. It is impossible to quantify the loss factors from >either avenue, especially if you take into account collateral damage >such as fire. > >Me, I'm still leaving everything on. As I rebuild I'm putting in better >fire protection but I personally feel that the reduced hassles of leaving >the equipment on is worth the minor risk. > A few people have made this comment about omnitors, maybe turning the monitor off may save your house next time, but the PC is less likely to self combust so leaving it on isn't as much a problem. Another point, Why not park you heads before leavbing the machine (or use a delay parker to park the disks on inactivity). This way power spikes or drops will do less damage. |/ |\evin
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (05/26/91)
In article <1991May25.151636.679@monu0.cc.monash.edu.au> ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) writes: >In article <20114@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >>quimby@madoka.its.rpi.edu (Quimby Pipple) writes: > >>On April 14th in the early morning while I was asleep, a monitor in my >>office below decided to practice self-emolation. The resultant fire >>destroyed my office and my house. Thanks to a smoke alarm, I barely >>got out in time. >> >A few people have made this comment about omnitors, maybe turning the monitor >off may save your house next time, but the PC is less likely to self combust >so leaving it on isn't as much a problem. > Dunno if you didn't get a manual with your monitor, or you just didn't read it, but when I bought my Amiga Monitor Model 1080 in 1985, it had a very large warning in the manual that reads: If it is necessary to leave the room for more than a short period of time, ALWAYS turn the monitor OFF. Always turn the monitor OFF when you leave the house. ANY malfunction in the monitor can result in a fire hazard. It also says: For added protection, unplug the monitor from the power source during an electrical storm or when the monitor is to be left unattended for a long time. This prevents shocks and fire hazards due to lightning or power-line surges. Ah, screen blanking programs should also have simular warnings in their documents ;-) You gotta be careful, and not ignore the warnings of others, because if you believe that it will never happen to you, guess what WILL happen. Another point, power supplies gather ALOT of dust and other "things" like lint in them. If you don't clean them out, I would imagine they too can become a fire hazard, depending on the enviroment that the computer is in. Humm, but a computer is generally in a steel case, but you never know...If you have a large cap in there filled with oil and it explodes, well, I dunno if computer power supplies have this problem, but air conditioner condensing units do...Replaced many that have had a capacitor blow and burned up all the wiring...We always have a few of those after thunderstorms...ALWAYS a total loss... -- Ronald Kushner P.O. Box 353 Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner
consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) (06/04/91)
At our school, we have SUN workstations that are left on 24 hours a day, but we turn off the monitors for the simple reason that they consume too much power, burn the login prompt into the screen, and create excessive heat. You should always turn the monitor off when you leave for any length of time. On the other hand, the computer doesn't have components that rely on a constant heat source to operate properly (monitors do, unfortunately) and thus shouldn't pose a threat. Interestingly, Apple doesn't let you turn the monitor off on any of their B/W models. Best, Kris +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Kriston J. Rehberg, Student Consultant, SUNY Binghamton Computer Services | |consp03@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU +---------------------------+ |consp03@BINGVAXU.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |Opinions expressed here are| |CONSP03@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |my own and do not represent| |CONSP03@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |those of this organization | +-----> Only Amiga makes it possible! <-----------+--------------------- ;-b -+
jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun3.194555.3525@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu> consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) writes: >At our school, we have SUN workstations that are left on 24 hours a day, >but we turn off the monitors for the simple reason that they consume too >much power, burn the login prompt into the screen, and create excessive >heat. You should always turn the monitor off when you leave for any >length of time. On the other hand, the computer doesn't have components >that rely on a constant heat source to operate properly (monitors do, >unfortunately) and thus shouldn't pose a threat. Interestingly, Apple >doesn't let you turn the monitor off on any of their B/W models. > >Best, > >Kris > I've heard that it is less expensive to run flourescent lighting 24 hrs/day. This is because more current is used to "juice" the ballast when its first powered, than is used during its operation. Many office buildings do not reguarly cycle their flourescent lighting for this purpose. I would imagine that a CRT is similiar. A CRT tube basically behaves as a large capacitor. This means that when power is first applied, an abnormal current surge is required to "charge" it up. I have a SUN display terminal here at work. It's left on all the time. It, however, has a screen saver type thing that blackens the screen and displays a varying pattern of blocks. This saves the phosper from being "burned" and also cuts down on the amount of heat it produces. Perhaps someone with more insight could elaborate on this further. -jeff
soh@andromeda.trl.OZ.AU (kam hung soh) (06/04/91)
consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) writes: >At our school, we have SUN workstations that are left on 24 hours a day, >but we turn off the monitors for the simple reason that they consume too >much power, burn the login prompt into the screen, and create excessive >heat. Didn't Sun provide your system with ``screenblank''? Perhaps your system operators can add that program to the SunOS startup file (maybe in /etc/rc.boot or /etc/rc.local). Until recently, I turned off my monitor on Fridays; I wish I didn't have to turn up on weekends to finish my projects! Regards, Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 3 541 6403 Telecom Research Laboratories, POB 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
holck@gorm.ruc.dk (Jesper Holck) (06/04/91)
jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) writes: > I've heard that it is less expensive to run flourescent lighting >24 hrs/day. This is because more current is used to "juice" the ballast >when its first powered, than is used during its operation. Many office >buildings do not reguarly cycle their flourescent lighting for this purpose. >I would imagine that a CRT is similiar. A CRT tube basically behaves as a >large capacitor. This means that when power is first applied, an abnormal >current surge is required to "charge" it up. I have a SUN display terminal >here at work. It's left on all the time. It, however, has a screen saver >type thing that blackens the screen and displays a varying pattern of blocks. >This saves the phosper from being "burned" and also cuts down on the amount >of heat it produces. Perhaps someone with more insight could elaborate on >this further. I think you have got some things wrong ... The reason that some companies leave their fluorescent lightning on is because turning the lightning on stresses the tubes a little, so they won't last so long, not because of the minimimal extra power consumption turning them on. Obviously they can't in a few seconds use electricity comparable to hours of use. However, even the companies rely on some misunderstandings. It is estimated that the cost of turning a fluorescent tube off and on again (due to the reduced life time of the tube) is comparable to 1/2 to 1 hours cost of leaving the tube on (due to the increased use of electricity). So the general "rule" for fluorescent tubes is: If you are certain that you will need the light from the tube again within an hour, leave it on, otherwise turn it off. I don't know if this also goes for computers though .... Jesper
consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun3.222753.4186@trl.oz.au>, soh@andromeda.trl.OZ.AU (kam hung soh) writes: |> |>Didn't Sun provide your system with ``screenblank''? Perhaps your |>system operators can add that program to the SunOS startup file (maybe |>in /etc/rc.boot or /etc/rc.local). |> |>Until recently, I turned off my monitor on Fridays; I wish I didn't |>have to turn up on weekends to finish my projects! |> Hmm... yes, they did. Not sure if it works on the console with no X-server running (we have to start X manually around here - no cutsie log-in screens) but there is a screen blanker built in to the system, at least in the X environment, that is always there. |>Regards, |> |> |>Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 3 541 6403 |>Telecom Research Laboratories, POB 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia Later, Kris +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Kriston J. Rehberg, Student Consultant, SUNY Binghamton Computer Services | |consp03@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU +---------------------------+ |consp03@BINGVAXU.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |Opinions expressed here are| |CONSP03@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |my own and do not represent| |CONSP03@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |those of this organization | +-----> Only Amiga makes it possible! <-----------+--------------------- ;-b -+
GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Ives Aerts) (06/05/91)
On the point of screen blankers. We have here a little network
of ps2/s running aix (ibm's version of unix) and they too have
a screen blanker installed under x-windows. But.... the screen
'blanker' displays a WHITE screen with a moving black X on it |||
What's the point ? Burning in the screen as hard as you can
while the user isn't there ????? Someone who can explain this ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ives Aerts | IBM definition SY-34378
GUTEST8@BLEKUL11.BITNET | A signature consists of sequences of
gutest8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be | non-blank characters separated by blanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------anthony@gucis.sct.gu.edu.au (Anthony Thyssen) (06/06/91)
GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Ives Aerts) writes: >On the point of screen blankers. We have here a little network >of ps2/s running aix (ibm's version of unix) and they too have >a screen blanker installed under x-windows. But.... the screen >'blanker' displays a WHITE screen with a moving black X on it ||| >What's the point ? Burning in the screen as hard as you can >while the user isn't there ????? Someone who can explain this ? >------------------------------------------------------------------------ Only static (unchanging) displays burn in the screen as the same pixels would always be on. A moving display uses different pixels and only a small number normally, thus the image is not `burned' into the screen.
tlee@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Timothy Lee) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun6.003043.28563@gucis.sct.gu.edu.au> anthony@gucis.sct.gu.edu.au (Anthony Thyssen) writes: >GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Ives Aerts) writes: >>On the point of screen blankers. We have here a little network >>of ps2/s running aix (ibm's version of unix) and they too have >>a screen blanker installed under x-windows. But.... the screen >>'blanker' displays a WHITE screen with a moving black X on it ||| >>What's the point ? Burning in the screen as hard as you can >>while the user isn't there ????? Someone who can explain this ? >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Only static (unchanging) displays burn in the screen as the same pixels >would always be on. A moving display uses different pixels and only a small >number normally, thus the image is not `burned' into the screen. But wouldn't it be MUCH MUCH BETTER to make a screen saver with BLACK BACK GROUND with a WHITE OBJECT MOVING?? When u display white u use more energy to do that rather than displaying a BLACK image (OR BACKGROUND).... But I guess THE IBM GUYS DON'T CARE ABOUT MONITOR's as much as they care about MONEY...and profits,,... -tim -- ================================================================================ || tlee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu | "All we are saying... | THIS SPACE || || tlee@donald.wslab.hawaii.edu | is give peace a chance..." | FOR RENT... || || tlee@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu | -John Lennon - Dec 8, 1980.| inquire within ||
donm@pnet07.cts.com (Don Maslin) (06/07/91)
anthony@gucis.sct.gu.edu.au (Anthony Thyssen) writes: >GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Ives Aerts) writes: >>On the point of screen blankers. We have here a little network >>of ps2/s running aix (ibm's version of unix) and they too have >>a screen blanker installed under x-windows. But.... the screen >>'blanker' displays a WHITE screen with a moving black X on it ||| >>What's the point ? Burning in the screen as hard as you can >>while the user isn't there ????? Someone who can explain this ? >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Only static (unchanging) displays burn in the screen as the same pixels >would always be on. A moving display uses different pixels and only a small >number normally, thus the image is not `burned' into the screen. But if the screen displays white, are not *all* of the pixels on except for those in the moving black 'X' ??? Keeper of the CP/M System Disk | UUCP: {nosc ucsd crash ncr-sd}!pnet07!donm Archives for the Dino(saur)SIG | ARPA: simasd!pnet07!donm@nosc.mil - San Diego Computer Society - | INET: donm@pnet07.cts.com
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun3.194555.3525@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>, consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) writes: [Stuff deleted] > unfortunately) and thus shouldn't pose a threat. Interestingly, Apple > doesn't let you turn the monitor off on any of their B/W models. > > Best, > > Kris > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Kriston J. Rehberg, Student Consultant, SUNY Binghamton Computer Services | > |consp03@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU +---------------------------+ > |consp03@BINGVAXU.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |Opinions expressed here are| > |CONSP03@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |my own and do not represent| > |CONSP03@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |those of this organization | > +-----> Only Amiga makes it possible! <-----------+--------------------- ;-b -+ I'm sorry?? Then what does that button on the back of my Apple 12" B&W monitor that I push every night really do? I always thought it turned the power off, or maybe its just hypnosis ;-> Also, use screen savers for the machines in the Sun Labs, we do here. It prevents screen burn in. Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu
johnhlee@CS.Cornell.EDU (John H. Lee) (06/07/91)
In article <91156.110456GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> Ives Aerts <GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> writes: >On the point of screen blankers. We have here a little network >of ps2/s running aix (ibm's version of unix) and they too have >a screen blanker installed under x-windows. But.... the screen >'blanker' displays a WHITE screen with a moving black X on it ||| >What's the point ? Burning in the screen as hard as you can >while the user isn't there ????? Someone who can explain this ? This sounds like the default screen blanker built into the server which should appear with a white X-logo and black background. You're right: this is nearly the best way to burn up the pixels of your monitor. Someone may have messed-up when building/coding the server and hardwired in the wrong pixel values for black and white. If this is the case, you might try several things: 1) Correct the bug in the server source, rebuild, and reinstall the server, 2) Change the default screen blanker behavior by trying the "nologo" (don't use logo for screen blanker) and/or "v" flags (turn-off-video screen blanker) when starting the X Window server, or 3) Run a screen-blanker client like xsaver which disables the built-in screen blanker. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DiskDoctor threatens the crew! Next time on AmigaDos: The Next Generation. John Lee Internet: johnhlee@cs.cornell.edu The above opinions are those of the user, and not of this machine.
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun4.210249.1190@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>, consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) writes: > > Hmm... yes, they did. Not sure if it works on the console with no > X-server running (we have to start X manually around here - no cutsie > log-in screens) but there is a screen blanker built in to the system, at > least in the X environment, that is always there. > > Later, > > Kris > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Kriston J. Rehberg, Student Consultant, SUNY Binghamton Computer Services | > |consp03@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU +---------------------------+ > |consp03@BINGVAXU.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |Opinions expressed here are| > |CONSP03@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |my own and do not represent| > |CONSP03@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |those of this organization | > +-----> Only Amiga makes it possible! <-----------+--------------------- ;-b -+ Unfortunatly we run our Sun lab in console mode so as to give people a choice of SunView or X. This summer when we upgrade to 4.1.1 we will run xdm on these machines. This is because people run these machines in console mode even when they are told not to. Running them in console mode slows the whole system down and is really rude to other users who may be using it. Not to mention it screws things up with kerberos. In anycase the screenblanker does work in console mode. Have a good day. Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu
skipm@dorsai (Dorsai SysOp) (06/07/91)
honeywel@chama.unm.edu (Honeywell Field Service) writes: > screwing with the power. These systems would not have been damaged if > they had been powered off when not in use. If you've got conditioned > power and battery backup, then the vagaries of weather and power grids > will not be a concern. > I guess you could argue either way on the basis of location - I myself as a tech lean to leaving the systems on all the time - electronic components experience the most stress when they experience the surge of power arcing through them, and when in an on-line state. The best state for a system to be in is either on or off, never powered up. I've actually found a small trend to less downtime in hardware if it's left continually on, as opposed to powered up when it's needed. Skip ************************************************************************** ** SkipM@DORSAI.com - The Dorsai Embassy / Dorsai Diplomatic Mission ** ** (Systems Manager) - Consulate : (212) 431-1944 ** ************************************************************************** ** "The difference between a good man, and a bad man, is the choice of ** ** cause." - Unknown ** **************************************************************************
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) (06/07/91)
Leaving the computer on will not harm it. In fact it is better
for it in the long run. Turning it off and own will speed up thermal
wear on the system and cause falure to componets due to heat. Leavin
the monitor own is a different story, Moitors draw more power than a
cpu and I know off at least one fire caused my a compter monitor never
being turned off. I have been running my Amiga for over two months now
with out turning it off with know problems and the unix box I run here
at work has not been turned off in over a year and a half with no
problems. Just watch out for lightning.
--
// Jeff Hyche
There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com
\X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Eduben@val.com (Ben Thornton) (06/07/91)
anthony@gucis.sct.gu.edu.au (Anthony Thyssen) writes: >GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Ives Aerts) writes: >>On the point of screen blankers. We have here a little network >>of ps2/s running aix (ibm's version of unix) and they too have >>a screen blanker installed under x-windows. But.... the screen >>'blanker' displays a WHITE screen with a moving black X on it ||| >>What's the point ? Burning in the screen as hard as you can >>while the user isn't there ????? Someone who can explain this ? >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Only static (unchanging) displays burn in the screen as the same pixels >would always be on. A moving display uses different pixels and only a small >number normally, thus the image is not `burned' into the screen. No, the 'burn' is cause by bombardment of phosphors by electrons. This is what makes them illuminate, but it is also what causes them to burn. Over time, any crt's phosphors will burn in this fashion, unless the filament (yes, it's a fire bottle) dies first. Although motion in the video reduces the average number of electrons that strike any given phosphor point, it is the absolute number of bombardments that matter. Motion of the picture content, therefore, does not prevent phosphor burns, it merely postpones it. -- Ben Thornton packet: wd5hls@wd5hls.ampr.org Video Associates Internet: ben@val.com Austin, TX uucp: ...!cs.utexas.edu!val!ben What's the moral of the story?
kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun4.082135.15082@gorm.ruc.dk> holck@gorm.ruc.dk (Jesper Holck) writes: >jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) writes: > >So the general "rule" for fluorescent tubes is: If you are certain that >you will need the light from the tube again within an hour, leave it on, >otherwise turn it off. > >I don't know if this also goes for computers though .... > Like many other things in life, the real TRUTH of the matter is hard to determine and so it becomes a matter of judgement and compromise. And also like a few other popular subjects, this question seems to repeat itself on the net in cycles of about 90 days. I sometimes wonder what percentage of the posters never READ a group for more than a day or two before they post....... Anyway, the general consensus of people that seem (to me) to have a good head on their shoulders is something in the 4 to 8 hour range. Like your light bulb rule then: If you are sure that you will need the computer again within the next 4-8 hours, leave it on, otherwise turn it off. In a business environment, this translates to On at 8, Off at 5. -- ======================================================== Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun7.163234.3445@val.com>, ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) writes: |> anthony@gucis.sct.gu.edu.au (Anthony Thyssen) writes: |> |> >GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Ives Aerts) writes: |> >>On the point of screen blankers. We have here a little network |> >>of ps2/s running aix (ibm's version of unix) and they too have |> >>a screen blanker installed under x-windows. But.... the screen |> >>'blanker' displays a WHITE screen with a moving black X on it ||| |> >>What's the point ? Burning in the screen as hard as you can |> >>while the user isn't there ????? Someone who can explain this ? |> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ |> >Only static (unchanging) displays burn in the screen as the same pixels |> >would always be on. A moving display uses different pixels and only a small |> >number normally, thus the image is not `burned' into the screen. |> |> No, the 'burn' is cause by bombardment of phosphors by electrons. This is |> what makes them illuminate, but it is also what causes them to burn. |> Over time, any crt's phosphors will burn in this fashion, unless the |> filament (yes, it's a fire bottle) dies first. |> |> Although motion in the video reduces the average number of electrons that |> strike any given phosphor point, it is the absolute number of bombardments |> that matter. Motion of the picture content, therefore, does not prevent |> phosphor burns, it merely postpones it. |> |> For people using X windows on their Intel 386 based machines (MCA, ISA, EISA) there is no reason why you have to suffer the white background. Just put in xsetroot -solid {NavyBlue, DarkGreen, Black ...... } in your .xsession or .xinitrc files you should be fine. There are other ways too as there are so many ways to customize the appearance of X windows. Try it. If it fails, it's IBM's fault and then it's time to man -k - :-(. BTW, at large multiple platform site like us, (Academic Information Resources) we always leave our workstations, with their expansive SONY Trinitron (R) monitors ON 365 days a years. No off. (You need to replace them every few years anyway, like four or so. Therefore leaving it on or off, burn in or not, does not really matter that much I guess. We do try to make screen blank when it's not used however, and we have screen blanckers for our SUN SPARCs, IBM RISC 6000s and DEC 3100s.) Regards, Chin Fang AIR, Stanford University fangchin@lelend.stanford.edu
mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun7.154552.14096@infonode.ingr.com> hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) writes: > Leaving the computer on will not harm it. In fact it is better >for it in the long run. Turning it off and own will speed up thermal >wear on the system and cause falure to componets due to heat. It is not that simple. The harddrive will not last long, if you run it all the time. It depends on the drive for how long pauses you should turn your computer off. Also external peaks in the power, like ightnings are a threat to the computer. >being turned off. I have been running my Amiga for over two months now >with out turning it off with know problems and the unix box I run here >at work has not been turned off in over a year and a half with no >problems. There is a difference with a Amiga and a unix box. You can simply turn your Amiga off and power it up next time you need it. But the unix machine you have to run down in order to sync disks and stop all prosesses. A unix that has simply been shut down might need some help when booting if the disks are messed up. I have and will in the future not run my computers 24h if there is nothing going on in the CPU. Markus Strand mstr@vipunen.hut.fi
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun7.202123.2051@athenanet.com> kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: >[...] >Anyway, the general consensus of people that seem (to me) to have a >good head on their shoulders is something in the 4 to 8 hour range. >Like your light bulb rule then: If you are sure that you will need the >computer again within the next 4-8 hours, leave it on, otherwise turn >it off. In a business environment, this translates to On at 8, Off at 5. Unless you're running a UNIX system which does your file transfers during the wee hours of the morn, or you're running 72-hours-long Amiga raytracing, or or or ... Seriously, I recall that Stanford University's LOTS (Low Overhead Timesharing System (for students)) Facility ran some tests about 10 years ago during which half the terminals were turned off each night and the other half were left on 24 hrs/day. The terminals that were on continously required fewer service calls. My own experiences bear this out. ALL my computers (Amigas, 3B1's, Suns, MightyFrames, etc (at home) and various systems at the office) are on 24 hrs/ day for years with no problems. By avoiding thermal shock and current surges (by leaving them on) they last and last and last. To be fair, all of them are also protected by surge/transient suppressorss and most by UPS systems, and all monitors have 10-30 minute blanking intervals. And I'm still using monitors purchased before 1980. Volt-Amp measurements (made by me and by PGE (the local utility)) show the average power consumption of my (home) systems to be around 30W which, given the rate structures vs. repair costs, is quite cost-effective. I figure it costs me $20-$25/month to keep my computers and modems on all the time (which is only 10% of my monthly PGE bill). And the computers keep the house nice and warm during the cold winter months and cool summer evenings in this area! :-) Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun8.081224.19511@nntp.hut.fi>, mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.154552.14096@infonode.ingr.com> hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) writes: >> Leaving the computer on will not harm it. In fact it is better >>for it in the long run. Turning it off and own will speed up thermal >>wear on the system and cause falure to componets due to heat. > >It is not that simple. The harddrive will not last long, if you run >it all the time. It depends on the drive for how long pauses you >should turn your computer off. Also external peaks in the power, >like ightnings are a threat to the computer. > This discussion is really going nowhere. Interestingly I saw the same thing discussed in rec.audio just last month. My feeling is that there are lots of things that can happen when you're away, and you're equipment is on. In Rec.Audio someone talked about a power amplifier they had left on. Some transistors shorted(or something) which sent a very large power spike to the speakers, which preceded to start on fire. Fortunately, he only lost the amp and the speakers. Someone I know was running a BBS, when the fan in his harddrive box died. It was over a weekend, and he hadn't checked up on his machine for about 3 days. The harddrive overheated, and he basically burned out a very nice 250 Meg Quantum. I suppose the important thing to remember, is not to leave stuff on unattended, or at least have some sort of protection device. Steve Sheldon /// | Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum! taak9@ccvax.iastate.edu /// | Senior, Computer Science \XX/ | Non erravi perniciose!
ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun8.081224.19511@nntp.hut.fi> mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) writes: >I have and will in the future not run my computers 24h if >there is nothing going on in the CPU. I agree with you except the whole reason I sparked off this discussion was that I have an ST251 and it won't start once it stops unless I remove it from the machine and jiggle it around a lot (30 minutes work!) So leaving it on is the answer to my problems. I don't enjoy doing it mainly for electricity reasons (its my dads cheque book thats getting thin) but I turn my monitor off when not in use. -- -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- |/ (ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au) | This space for rent. |\evin (ins845b@monu3.cc.monash.edu.au) | All reasonable offers accepted -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun8.081224.19511@nntp.hut.fi> mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) writes: >[...] >It is not that simple. The harddrive will not last long, if you run >it all the time. It depends on the drive for how long pauses you >should turn your computer off. Also external peaks in the power, >like ightnings are a threat to the computer. From many talks with Hard Drive Repair and Data Recovery Services around the country, the two WORST times for a hard drive are power-up and power-down due to non-optimal platter rotation and head movement to/from "park." Power glitches ARE a problem for both hard and floppy drives. As I've related many times here in the past, I used to get trashed floppies several times a week due to incidents like turning flourescent lamps on/off, refrigerator motor kicking in, operating drill motor(s) in my garage, and even turning modems on or off. Use of transient and surge suppressors TOTALLY eliminated ALL those problems (but you have to use properly-designed ones; mine are mfd by GTE). Operating the systems on UPS/SPS doesn't hurt, either! :-) >[...] >There is a difference with a Amiga and a unix box. You can simply turn >your Amiga off and power it up next time you need it. But the unix >machine you have to run down in order to sync disks and stop all >prosesses. A unix that has simply been shut down might need some >help when booting if the disks are messed up. Let's put an emphasis on that "might." Modern UNIX systems don't seem to have the power-going-down-NOW filesystem problem of days yore. >[...] >I have and will in the future not run my computers 24h if >there is nothing going on in the CPU. >[...] I'm surprised to read that. In my opinion, if your computer is not instantly available to serve you, then you are a slave to your computer. Because I consider my computers as "tools", I keep them running constantly so that *I* need NOT wait to take notes during a phone call, or check out a piece of code, or search some database, or enter financial transactions, or anything else for which *I* use computers. If I had to wait for bootup then I've been inconvenienced and the potential of the computer as an appliance has been diminished. As said by someone else: "A luxury, once sampled, becomes a neccessity". I consider the immediate availability of a computer as essential as a telephone, a FAX, indoor plumbing, the power grid, air, etc. all of which are available all the time (essentially). In just over two months from now, my first Amigas will have been operated CONTINUOUSLY for 6 years (with only minor power service interruptions and the occasional power-down to clean the insides). And this is in an area where the PGE power pole flanking my back yard has a habit of spontaneously bursting into flame every few months and sparks & etc. flicker up and down the pole; whoever said wood doesn't conduct electricity hasn't seen that power pole! :-) Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) (06/13/91)
In article <3030@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: >From many talks with Hard Drive Repair and Data Recovery Services around the >country, the two WORST times for a hard drive are power-up and power-down due >to non-optimal platter rotation and head movement to/from "park." Most lightbulbs break when you are powering up, but you still haven't your light on all the time. True that most people find out that their harddrive doesn't work when they are powering up. But the fault might have happened long before. I've used lots of motors spinnig lots of different devices. They all stopped working when they were started. But they didn't break because they were powered-down and -up. They were worn down by use. So does all diskdrives. There is a solution for the problem: U+D <= nW where U is powering-up, D is powering-down and W is constantly running computers risks and wear. You'll have to find the variable 'n' which is time... I'm sure n < 10h >>I have and will in the future not run my computers 24h if >>there is nothing going on in the CPU. > >I'm surprised to read that. In my opinion, if your computer is not instantly >available to serve you, then you are a slave to your computer. If you can't wait 10s when your computer is booting, you're a slave... >Because I consider my computers as "tools", I keep them running constantly >so that *I* need NOT wait to take notes during a phone call, or check out a >piece of code, or search some database, or enter financial transactions, or >anything else for which *I* use computers. If I had to wait for bootup then >I've been inconvenienced and the potential of the computer as an appliance has >been diminished. Do you have your drill spinning just in case you might need a hole? No. Why should you have your computer spinning when you don't need computing. If you can't say: "Wait a second while my computer is booting." and/or you really need it often (never idle over night), then you should leave it on 24h. But if you computer is in idle over night I would not have it running. Markus Strand mstr@vipunen.hut.fi
mjb@netcom.COM (Martin Brown) (06/13/91)
In article <3030@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: > >[...] > >I'm surprised to read that. In my opinion, if your computer is not instantly >available to serve you, then you are a slave to your computer. >Because I consider my computers as "tools", I keep them running constantly >so that *I* need NOT wait to take notes during a phone call, or check out a >piece of code, or search some database, or enter financial transactions, or >anything else for which *I* use computers. If I had to wait for bootup then >I've been inconvenienced and the potential of the computer as an appliance has >been diminished. Exactly!! - mjb - mjb@netcom.com >
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (06/14/91)
From article <1991Jun12.034754.12713@news.iastate.edu>, by taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon): > In article <1991Jun8.081224.19511@nntp.hut.fi>, mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) writes: >>In article <1991Jun7.154552.14096@infonode.ingr.com> hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) writes: >>> Leaving the computer on will not harm it. In fact it is better >>>for it in the long run. Turning it off and own will speed up thermal >>>wear on the system and cause falure to componets due to heat. >> >>It is not that simple. The harddrive will not last long, if you run >>it all the time. Excuse me, but even the cheapest hard drives have a 40,000 hour MTBF now. That means that basically you can run it 24 hours a day for four years without any problem. Also, the stress of startup is very strenuous for a hard drive. Too many on-off cycles can render it incapable of starting up, especially for brands prone to sticktion, such as SeaCrate. > My feeling is that there are lots of things that can happen when > you're away, and you're equipment is on. True... whenever I'm going away I turn my equipment off. Whenever there's a lightning storm in the area I turn the equipment off. No big deal. Otherwise, I just turn off the monitor. I'm paranoid about that cheap Seacrate hard drive of mine, the last one fried at startup, so I want to shut it down as few times as possible. -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
berk@techsys.UUCP (techsys consulting) (06/17/91)
mjb@netcom.COM (Martin Brown) writes:
Most failures are caused by turn on/turn off, so keeping it on seems a
good idea. If you leave it on for a dozen years, the copper on the board
traces might migrate far enough to trouble you.pest@konech.UUCP (Wolfgang Pest) (06/26/91)
In article <00676835233@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM>, elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: > > True... whenever I'm going away I turn my equipment off. Whenever there's > a lightning storm in the area I turn the equipment off. No big deal. > Otherwise, I just turn off the monitor. I'm paranoid about that cheap > Seacrate hard drive of mine, the last one fried at startup, so I want to > shut it down as few times as possible. > Have you ever heard of saving energy ? Try to bring up the energy which is necessary to supply your computer equipment by driving a home trainer! About 100 Watts is what you can afford for a short time. This gives you a better feeling what energy is worth than paying the power bill. Remember: consuming current means polluting the air or creating radioactive waste. Wolfgang Pest KONTRON Elektronik, Breslauer Str. 2, D-8057 Eching, Germany mcsun!unido!konech!pest