Rob said:
Greetings to everyone,
I feel really dumb asking this but if I don't find out I'll feel dumber.
When discussing the issue of a new computer or building a new computer the
term "burn in" is mentioned quite often. Could someone please tell me what
"burn in" means and how do you do it?
Many thanks in advance, Rob.
Well, there's the 'real thing' and then what you probably 'heard'.
Here's a link to an industry book which deals with the 'real thing' and one
of the reviews summarizes it fairly well: "burn-in, that is the application
of elevated temperature to cause latent defects to fail at the
manufacturing plant rather than to have the unit fail during use by the
Customer."
And I'll bet that when you heard the term used nothing like this, again
from a review of the book, was mentioned: "First time users of burnin
technology will want to familiarize themselves with the statistics of
failure analysis before advancing onto a burn-in plan."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471102156/102-0955970-9794506?v=glance
What you probably heard is a colloquial, but incorrect, usage by amateur
computer enthusiasts who have the belief that processors, or other
components, 'run better' after being run at some unspecified, but 'hot',
temperature for some unspecified period of time. And while anecdotal
stories abound of how their particular processor 'overclocked better', or
some other kind of 'improvement', no one has been able to provide any
substantive, verifiable, theory as to why running things 'hot' would make
them any 'better'.
The industry term is a specific process based on failure mechanisms and
statistical analysis whereas the colloquial term is a matter of hope, as in
"run it for a while and maybe it will get better. Mine did."
And then there are some who incorrectly use the term in the context of
stability testing the system over a range of operating conditions. And,
when one isn't familiar with why manufacturers do "burn in," nor what it
is, running "CPUburn", or other stress programs, on the machine for a while
sort of sounds 'similar' even though the purpose is entirely different.