Keep computer on or turn off after use?

[Ash]

Ron Martell wrote:




Care to explain that useless statement?

I think that he's referring to the fact that when the computer is first
turned on (cold boot), it goes through a lot of stresses. Sort of like
starting a car that's been sitting outside all night. Leaving it on
constantly would (in Ron's Oppinion) cause about the same amount of
stress as constantly turning it off, then back on. I think this is what
he meant, anyways.

 

[Vagabond Software]

Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
computer off?

My Windows Server 2003 machine stays on 24/7.

I used to keep my desktop machine on 24/7 as well (and still do every now
and then), but since I currently do all my work away from home (I used to
work from home) I find myself turning off my machine at night and not
turning it back on until I get home from work the next evening. My home
computer is now only on about 2 or 3 hours a day (during the week), but
despite this adjustment, I haven't noticed any difference in the electricity
bill.

Good Luck,

Carl

 

[Joe K]

Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work turn
computer off?

Thanks everyone for your reply.I will consider them all.

 

[Darrell S]

Is it ok in gereral to keep a computer on 24/7 or after a days work
turn computer off?

Your choice. Each has its benefits. But if you have continuous broad band
internet connection you might consider the increased possibility of virus or
other intrusion. I have a continuous cable connection. I plugged my cable
modem power cord into my surge protector and sometimes power it down if I'm
going to leave my computer on unattended for long periods of time. Lately
I've been using Norton Internet Security 2005 option of clicking on the
"block traffic" icon, blocking all internet traffic when not using the
internet. Then, when I want to use the internet again I simply click on the
"allow traffic" icon.

 

[w_tom]

Power cycling is destructive. One component that has a
very poor number of power cycles was an IBM disk drive - rated
for 40,000 cycles. That is seven power cycles every day for
..... 15 years. So yes. Power cycling is destructive when
talk is subjective. But with numbers, then the conclusion
takes a 180 degree turn.

Numbers are where you begin. Concepts not tempered by the
numbers and other real world facts are nothing more that junk
science reasoning. Once we apply the numbers, then power
cycling a computer is just as destructive as power cycling the
TV.

More numbers. Semiconductors thermal cycle some tens of
degrees in normal operation. Is this thermal stress? If so,
then semiconductors that are manufactured by thermal cycling
400 and 500 degrees never work. How do they get working
semiconductors out of the fab?

IOW thermal cycling by powering on and off is near zero
temperature - to semiconductors. Even thermal cycling at
hundreds of degrees is not destructive. Just another example
of what happens once we apply numbers to speculation. Too
many posts only speculate - don't provide numbers and other
facts from datasheets.

One citation even claimed thermal stress when power cycling
light bulbs. That stress is also mythical. Again, we first
consult the numbers from light bulb manufacturers. Power
cycling is not destructive. For if it was, then the orange
turn signal inside traffic lights - the light that flashes all
night - would be the first to fail. Orange is by far the last
to fail. Power cycling is not destructive to light bulbs.
Hours of operation and mechanical shock when hot are the
destructive factors. Manufacturers even provide equations for
those hours of operation. But again, junk science reasoning
will dispute what numbers and facts even from the
manufacturers report.

Numbers are where you start. Which posts only provided
speculation? Which ones provided numbers? Power cycling to
computers is significant when component - typically rated for
100,000 power cycles - is going to be used 40 years. Numbers
that myth purveyors forget to include when claiming power
cycling is destructive.

Why is this topic so controversial? Note the many who just
know without consulting or providing numbers. No numbers is
essential to promoting junk science reasoning. Power cycle it
just like you do a TV, radio, or incandescent lamp. Why? The
numbers.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Why is this topic so controversial? Note the many who just
know without consulting or providing numbers. No numbers is
essential to promoting junk science reasoning. Power cycle it
just like you do a TV, radio, or incandescent lamp. Why? The
numbers.

Tell people, "If they have a reason to keep their system on 24/7 and can
afford it and just 'want to' - go ahead. If they do not have a reason or
they cannot afford it and just 'don't want to' - don't leave it on."

It's all a moot point (numbers or not) if you maintain your system and back
it up as you should. I know of systems left on for 7+ years(sans long power
outages), no problems. I know systems turned on/off nearly every day -
likely multiple times on some days - for 7+ years - no problems. I also
know of systems that were turned on the very first time as a complete unit
and the power supply died.

 

[David R. Norton MVP]

This is neglible if even noticeable (the increased electric bill) if
your computer is less than 3 to 5 years old. New systems have drives
that spin and power down after so long with no use. The monitors
power down to standby, drawing hardly any juice (just enough in my
monitor at work and home to light the little tiny LED around the power
buttons). The computer itself goes pretty much into hibernation, just
waiting for a mouse movement or keyboard click to power itself back
up. The amount of electricity you need to trickle to memory and keep
it alive is so tiny you can't count it in your electric bill!

I can tell by your post the electric rates where you live are much cheaper
than they are here!

BTW, drives that power down, monitors that power down, etc. are set by the
users as to when and/or if.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I can tell by your post the electric rates where
you live are much cheaper than they are here!

Maybe not. Chances are that his house is all-electic and his computer
usage is minimal compared to cooking, heating/AC, lights, etc., etc.

In that case, a few up or down might not be that noticable.

 

[Ron Martell]

Care to explain that useless statement?

1. Computers chips are semiconductors, made up of layers of many
different materials. There are chemical interactions that occur where
these layers join. These processes are slow, but in the very long
term they do lead to the eventual failure of the semiconductor. The
speed of chemical processes is relative to temperature so if the
computer is on and the chips are warm the chemical processes occur at
a faster rate (but still very slow) than they do when the computer is
off and the computer is at room temperature. Therefore the more the
computer is left on the faster the internal "aging" of the
semiconductors will occur.

2. When computers are turned on, the components are warmed by the
electrical power they consume and they therefore expand somewhat.
Different materials expand at different rates, and this will create
stresses at the points where these different materials are joined.
When the computer is turned off the components cool and contract back
to their normal (cool state) size. Repeated stressing and
unstressing of the internal components can eventually result in "metal
fatigue" at the point of stress, and the component will fail.

Add to this the fact that hard drives contain electric motors, and
electric motors most often fail when they are under the greatest
stress, which is when they are initially powered on.


In my opinion the aging effect (1) of leaving a computer running for
24 hours is approximately equal to the stress effects of turning the
computer on and off once. Perhaps it might be clearer if I said that
turning a computer on and off 5,000 times would about the same over
all effect on the computer as leaving it running coninuously for 5,000
days.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

 

[RA]

I always leave my computer off.
It generates fewer error messages, and the parts don't wear out.
Treeman

It must be a bit difficult to use if it is always turned off, but I agree
that you get virtually no error messages and you definitely save wear and
tear on parts. Also there is no worry about viruses or crapware getting
installed.

 

[Leythos]

I disagree with that page where it says "A typical PC consumes
something like 300 watts". A typical PC might have a power supply
with a maximum rating of 300 watts, but a PC doesn't consume anywhere
near that much power when idling or running normally.

I agree with the statement "There is no single right answer". This
question can become something like a religious issue, with the "turn
it off" and the "leave it on" people having impassioned arguments,
with no possibility of anyone convincing anyone to change.

Quite true. I have been working with desktop computers since the 70's
and have always left them on, all the time, unless I go on vacation. I
have all my computers running off of quality UPS devices, set to have
the monitors enter sleep mode after 15 minutes, the PC's have the drives
sleep after 1 hour, but the machines run 24/7/365. During the last 10
years I've only lost a system due to the bad CAP problem or had a drive
die during the initial 30 days, all my systems have not been impacted by
storms, power blips, etc...

At the same time, with almost 30 stations/devices in the house, I tend
to spend about $200+/month for electricity, even in the winter (and I
have Gas heat).

 

[Peter Foldes]

Not quite as you say.

The Power supply outputs 5V to 12V. The Mobo is powered by 5V and the drives like the HD and CD drives at 12V.

The color of the output wires of the Power Supply is as follows

+ means positive - means negative

+5v for the red and the load current is 4.5A at DC

-5v for the white with a load of 0.1A at DC

+12v for the yellow with a load of 1.8A at DC

-12v for the blue with a load of 0.1A at DC

and ground being Black with the load current PG

The biggest factors of damage to the Mobo and the Drives is spikes when the current (AC) receives a surge and in turn pushes the output of the

Power Supply up by 3-8v DC (maximum). This can cause damage to all outputted DC like the Mobo and the Drives. If your case is well ventilated by fans and the case is not put in a place where it cannot breathe then there is no problems. Also the higher the Watt rating of the Power Supply the easier it is for it to disperse the surge when it gets one.

We have a P1 with a Spacewalker Mobo that was purchased in 95 and has never been shutoff with the exception of a power failure,maintenance and the occasional reboots.

All Electronic parts can get tired and Fail at any time from heat (user fault by bad ventilation at location or selection of Case) or fault of manufacture but leaving on a computer 24\7 will not cause any issues to electronic parts as you describe.

We have over 32 systems running at 24\7 and some for the last 3 yrs and nothing like what you described has ever happened aside from what I described on it on the above.

 

[Leythos]

We have over 32 systems running at 24\7 and some for the last 3 yrs and nothing like what you described has ever happened aside from what I described on it on the above.

I agree, and even have a small computer from 1976 and 10MB (not GB, MB)
hard drives that still work just fine. As long as the CAP's don't dry
out and you keep the fans clean (working also) you can use these things
for a LONG time.

 

[w_tom]

Well that's a lot of color and voltage that explains
nothing. Even this statement is technically erroneous:

The biggest factors of damage to the Mobo and the Drives is
spikes when the current (AC) receives a surge and in turn
pushes the output of the Power Supply up by 3-8v DC (maximum).

That damage is mythical for too many reasons if power supply
that meets defacto standards of 30 years ago and meets Intel
requirements. One who actually learns which component has
failed AND why would also know about the required overvoltage
protection. Instead, Peter Foldes wildly speculates that
output voltage rises 3-8v. Absolute nonsense based upon no
technical knowledge - due to no knowledge of OVP.

Peter Foldes has posted classic example junk science
reasoning. He should first learn the simple stuff such as
destructive AC line spikes typically bypass the power supply.
He used junk science reasoning to claim that leaving a
computer on is best - citing personal experience that tells us
nothing useful.

Power cycling is destructive. One component that has a
very poor number of power cycles was an IBM disk drive - rated
for 40,000 cycles. That is seven power cycles every day for
..... 15 years. So yes. Power cycling is destructive when
talk is subjective as Peter has posted. But with numbers,
then the conclusion takes a 180 degree turn. Informed people
get numbers from manufacturer datasheets. Informed people
don't invent a 3-8v rise in output voltage. Informed people
don't write so much fiction.

Peter Foldes provides useless numbers such as the voltages
for each colored wire. Completely ridiculous information
provided only to make him sound knowledgeable. When Peter
designs computers at the capacitor and resistor level (reads
datasheets), then he can start talking about what is and is
not destructive. When Peter fixes computers by finding the
defective IC and replacing only that IC, then he can talk
about what is destructive. Its called knowing 'the underlying
facts and principles'. When Peter quotes numbers from
component data sheets, only then does he provide relevant and
useful information. Peter does not even know of required
functions inside those power supplies. He repeated what was
heard in urban myth forums. He does not provide a single
useful number.

Those with numbers, experience, and who repair by actually
replacing ICs suggest power cycling the computer as one would
a TV, radio, or automobile. Those who post as Peter has just
done are using only personal speculation - not using relevant
numbers - to sound important.

Turn it off (or hibernate it) when done. Don't worry about
nonsense: that power cycling is most stressful. A myth
promoted by human 'feelings' and not based in manufacturer
numbers, rational science, or valid experience. Power cycling
is destructive. Then we apply the numbers to say, "Who cares!
The thing will long be in landfills before that failure
happens."

Power cycling is not the controversy. How some people such
as Peter post nonsense - no useful numbers to make sweeping
conclusions - is the controversy. Peter even claims AC line
spikes create a 3-8v increase power supply output. That is
bullshit that he invented. He has insufficient technical
knowledge. He promotes urban myths. Those who promote such
urban myths are the real controversy.

This is not an attack on Peter. This is an attack on the
junk science logic that so many often use to claim power
cycling is destructive. No numbers and personal speculation
is why they post junk science reasoning. Peter only
demonstrated why the controversy of power cycling exists.
Power cycling is not controversial. Power cycling is not
destructive once numbers put everything into perspective. The
controversy are the many who know power cycling is destructive
- without first learning any numbers.