Leaving cojmputer on 24/7?

[Guest]

At the end of each day I used to shut down my computer. A friend told me not
to do this and just leave it on. Secondly, I'm signed up for automatiic
updates - does the computer need to be on to do these or will it wait until
connected and then perform the updates? Thanks for your assistance.

 

[Will Denny]

Hi

I leave my PCs on 24/7 and have no problem with them. It's sometimes better
not to keep on turning them on/off every day. Depends on what time the Auto
Updates are set for?

--


Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups

 

[Bill Ridgeway]

There are several schools of thought on this.

If the computer is a network server or a web server it is better to leave it
on continuously on the basis that it may be required at any time. There is
however, no need to keep a monitor on continuously. It was reckoned that a
CRT monitor drew more power than a computer. (I haven't seen figures to
substantiate that.) That is not now such a compulsive argument with flat
screens which draw much less power. However, it is still a good argument on
environmental if not economic grounds.

With a home or small office computer there may be no need to have a computer
running continuously. However, if it has a fax modem and it is expected
that faxes may be received at any time (for instance from other time zones)
there is a business case to the contrary. My comments above regarding
monitors still apply.

Another reason for not turning off the computer when not wanted is that
turning the computer on and off stresses the components. This may have been
true some years back but I'm not so sure this is a problem now. Again I
have not seen a case for this but it may be more of a theoretical rather
than a practical possibility.

Reasons given for turning the computer off when not wanted are economical
and environmental but I don't want to step into that arena!

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
Computer Solutions

 

[Ken Blake]

At the end of each day I used to shut down my computer. A friend
told me not to do this and just leave it on.

This question is asked periodically and usually garners all sorts of fervent
responses, on both sides of the question. Some people never turn off their
computers, claiming turning them off can cause the hardware to fail sooner.
Others turn them on and off multiple times each day, to save electricity.

My view is that it doesn't matter very much either way, and you should do
what works best for you. Personally I power on once a day, when I get up in
the morning, and power off once a day, when I go to bed at night.

 

[PA Bear]

A1. Shutting down at the end of the day is up to you. On most modern
machines, the wear-and-tear of doing so is negligible.

<Devil's Advocate> Have you considered the expense of the additional
electricity you'll be using by leaving the machine running 24/7, let alone
the environmental consequences of doing so?

A2. If the machine isn't running and connected to the internet when AU is
next scheduled to check for updates, AU will do so when you start the
machine and connect to the internet.

Description of the Automatic Updates feature in Windows:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294871

How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=306525

How to schedule automatic updates in WinXP, Win2K and Win2K03
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327838

 

[Guest]

Thanks for your assistance.

Hi

I leave my PCs on 24/7 and have no problem with them. It's sometimes better
not to keep on turning them on/off every day. Depends on what time the Auto
Updates are set for?

--


Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups

 

[Guest]

Thanks for your assistance.

There are several schools of thought on this.

If the computer is a network server or a web server it is better to leave it
on continuously on the basis that it may be required at any time. There is
however, no need to keep a monitor on continuously. It was reckoned that a
CRT monitor drew more power than a computer. (I haven't seen figures to
substantiate that.) That is not now such a compulsive argument with flat
screens which draw much less power. However, it is still a good argument on
environmental if not economic grounds.

With a home or small office computer there may be no need to have a computer
running continuously. However, if it has a fax modem and it is expected
that faxes may be received at any time (for instance from other time zones)
there is a business case to the contrary. My comments above regarding
monitors still apply.

Another reason for not turning off the computer when not wanted is that
turning the computer on and off stresses the components. This may have been
true some years back but I'm not so sure this is a problem now. Again I
have not seen a case for this but it may be more of a theoretical rather
than a practical possibility.

Reasons given for turning the computer off when not wanted are economical
and environmental but I don't want to step into that arena!

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
Computer Solutions

 

[Guest]

Thanks for your assistance.

A1. Shutting down at the end of the day is up to you. On most modern
machines, the wear-and-tear of doing so is negligible.

<Devil's Advocate> Have you considered the expense of the additional
electricity you'll be using by leaving the machine running 24/7, let alone
the environmental consequences of doing so?

A2. If the machine isn't running and connected to the internet when AU is
next scheduled to check for updates, AU will do so when you start the
machine and connect to the internet.

Description of the Automatic Updates feature in Windows:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294871

How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=306525

How to schedule automatic updates in WinXP, Win2K and Win2K03
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327838

 

[Guest]

Thanks for your assistance.

This question is asked periodically and usually garners all sorts of fervent
responses, on both sides of the question. Some people never turn off their
computers, claiming turning them off can cause the hardware to fail sooner.
Others turn them on and off multiple times each day, to save electricity.

My view is that it doesn't matter very much either way, and you should do
what works best for you. Personally I power on once a day, when I get up in
the morning, and power off once a day, when I go to bed at night.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for your assistance.

This question is asked periodically and usually garners all sorts of fervent
responses, on both sides of the question. Some people never turn off their
computers, claiming turning them off can cause the hardware to fail sooner.
Others turn them on and off multiple times each day, to save electricity.

My view is that it doesn't matter very much either way, and you should do
what works best for you. Personally I power on once a day, when I get up in
the morning, and power off once a day, when I go to bed at night.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for your assistance.

A1. Shutting down at the end of the day is up to you. On most modern
machines, the wear-and-tear of doing so is negligible.

<Devil's Advocate> Have you considered the expense of the additional
electricity you'll be using by leaving the machine running 24/7, let alone
the environmental consequences of doing so?

A2. If the machine isn't running and connected to the internet when AU is
next scheduled to check for updates, AU will do so when you start the
machine and connect to the internet.

Description of the Automatic Updates feature in Windows:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294871

How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=306525

How to schedule automatic updates in WinXP, Win2K and Win2K03
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327838

 

[Will Denny]

You're welcome.

--


Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups

 

[PA Bear]

YW, twice.

Thanks for your assistance.

 

[Patrick Keenan]

A1. Shutting down at the end of the day is up to you. On most modern
machines, the wear-and-tear of doing so is negligible.

<Devil's Advocate> Have you considered the expense of the additional
electricity you'll be using by leaving the machine running 24/7, let alone
the environmental consequences of doing so?

Two comments on this: first, be sure to set the power setting for the
monitor to turn the monitor off early, and second, use an LCD monitor as
they use significantly less power than CRT monitors. Of course, tossing
your CRT monitors contrbutes to a whole different set of environmental
issues..

A2. If the machine isn't running and connected to the internet when AU is
next scheduled to check for updates, AU will do so when you start the
machine and connect to the internet.

With this, you need to be aware that AU will often run "silently" after the
system's been started. This "silent" operation, however, can leave an
unsuspecting user wondering what on earth has caused the system to be so
slow for perhaps ten minutes after it's been started.

HTH
-pk

 

[Ken Blake]

Thanks for your assistance.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

 

[Jonny]

At the end of each day I used to shut down my computer. A friend told me
not
to do this and just leave it on. Secondly, I'm signed up for automatiic
updates - does the computer need to be on to do these or will it wait
until
connected and then perform the updates? Thanks for your assistance.

For the benefit of ease of use, leave it on. You can disable standby and
hibernate for further ease of immediate use. Myself, I like the "severe
torture" of turning the PC on and off.

A PC left on can access the internet on its own, and get updates if setup
properly to do so without user intervention. If you have ADSL or a cable
modem, this is less of a problem. Myself, I allow update availability
notification only. And only if I am accessing the internet manually.

 

[Bill Ridgeway]

Jonny suggests <<For the benefit of ease of use, leave it on.>> Other than
the environmental arguments against this there are other compelling (if not
paranoid) reasons for not doing so

The longer the computer is connected to the outside world the wider the
window of opportunity for threats to get into your computer. Don't get
carried away with the argument "I've got all the antispyware, antivirus and
firewall protection so I'm all right".

The people who pose threats are doing so continuously finding new tricks.
There is a time lag between these getting into "the wild", users picking
them up and reporting them to the likes of Symantec, the likes of Symantec
taking them apart to analyze them and make available a counter threat and
users downloading and installing these patches. It may be only a couple of
days but that is more than enough for a threat to propagate quite widely.

Another threat comes from lightning which, if it strikes either a power line
or a telephone line, can cause a surge which can melt down components within
the computer.

It matters not from where the threat comes. It can be very stressful at the
very least and very devastating at the worse.

That is the theory. In practice there is a happy medium which only the
individual user can determine having weighed up advantages and
disadvantages - and a hint of paranoia.

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
Computer Solutions

 

[Jonny]

The end of the first paragraph on my previous response.
"Myself, I like the "severe
torture" of turning the PC on and off."
The 2nd paragraph on my previous response.
"Myself, I allow update availability
notification only. And only if I am accessing the internet manually."

How I am suggesting what you just said I suggested is pure crap. Roll down
to the bottom if you doubt or deny.

You left out the carbon gases created by a billion PCs left on using power
from such electric plants that make these. But that's not self-serving by
your respect, so I see why you didn't.
--
Jonny

Jonny suggests <<For the benefit of ease of use, leave it on.>> Other
than the environmental arguments against this there are other compelling
(if not paranoid) reasons for not doing so

The longer the computer is connected to the outside world the wider the
window of opportunity for threats to get into your computer. Don't get
carried away with the argument "I've got all the antispyware, antivirus
and firewall protection so I'm all right".

The people who pose threats are doing so continuously finding new tricks.
There is a time lag between these getting into "the wild", users picking
them up and reporting them to the likes of Symantec, the likes of Symantec
taking them apart to analyze them and make available a counter threat and
users downloading and installing these patches. It may be only a couple
of days but that is more than enough for a threat to propagate quite
widely.

Another threat comes from lightning which, if it strikes either a power
line or a telephone line, can cause a surge which can melt down components
within the computer.

It matters not from where the threat comes. It can be very stressful at
the very least and very devastating at the worse.

That is the theory. In practice there is a happy medium which only the
individual user can determine having weighed up advantages and
disadvantages - and a hint of paranoia.

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
Computer Solutions