Should computers be turned off at night?

I usually turn off my computer at night and was asked by my house mate
to turn it off during the day too since I am at work for about 9 hours
if you count the commute time to and from work (17-30 minutes depending
on speed I drive, route I take and traffic concerns) Thanks in advance
for your comments and I usually at first just use a screen saver with
password and then just have to monitor turn off -- green light turns to
orange light --- grin If I leave it on for the day while I am not there
then does it waste too much electricity and does shutting it down more
than once a day cause unnecessary wear and tear.
--
Dan W.

Computer User

"Dan W." wrote in message
...
I usually turn off my computer at night and was asked by my house mate
to turn it off during the day too since I am at work for about 9 hours
if you count the commute time to and from work (17-30 minutes depending



Best to turn your entire system off when you are not using it
(unless you are going to be away for a relatively short period).

I do quite a bit of repair work...and have found more failures in machines
that are left on 24/7

"Dan W." wrote in message
...
I usually turn off my computer at night and was asked by my house mate to
turn it off during the day too since I am at work for about 9 hours if you
count the commute time to and from work (17-30 minutes depending on speed I
drive, route I take and traffic concerns) Thanks in advance for your
comments and I usually at first just use a screen saver with password and
then just have to monitor turn off -- green light turns to orange light ---
grin If I leave it on for the day while I am not there then does it waste
too much electricity and does shutting it down more than once a day cause
unnecessary wear and tear.
--
Dan W.

Computer User

If the PCs innards are designed/engineered correctly, there should be no
problem turning the PC on and off. Things that usually go bad due to on/off
usage on the motherboard are capacitors and foil runs, hard drive motor, and
power supply.

Bear in mind in this country alone there's well over 100 million PCs. All
use electricity, the majority of which comes from coal fired plants.
Turning off this many PCs can contribute to less carbon gases (global
warming). The things in my house that run continually are the refrigerator,
electric hot water heater, two electric clocks (oven and microwave) and one
standalone, and one ceiling fan in late spring to late fall. This is
discounting the standby feature on the TV, satellite receiver, DVD player,
VHS tape player, and stereo units. All of which are terribly inconvenient
to turn completely on/off on regular basis, or inappropriate to turn off.
It all adds up. The PC is not in this description, unless your mindset
decides that.
--
Jonny

How are all those devices somehow required to remain on (in Standby) and not
a computer (in Standby or with monitor and HDDs powered down?) What makes
turning off those devices more inconvenient than turning off the computer?

Myself, I use my computers 24/7 with only short breaks (including
sleeping... I don't sleep well and often get up and check email/newsgoups
and/or do some other work) so my view is admittedly skewed. Only time I turn
them off is if I'm leaving for an entire day or more. But I just don't
understand your statements in this regard.

--

Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Jonny" wrote in message
...
This is discounting the standby feature on the TV, satellite receiver, DVD
player, VHS tape player, and stereo units. All of which are terribly
inconvenient to turn completely on/off on regular basis, or inappropriate
to turn off. It all adds up. The PC is not in this description, unless
your mindset decides that.
--
Jonny

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
| How are all those devices somehow required to remain on (in Standby) and
not
| a computer (in Standby or with monitor and HDDs powered down?) What makes
| turning off those devices more inconvenient than turning off the computer?
|
| Myself, I use my computers 24/7 with only short breaks (including
| sleeping... I don't sleep well and often get up and check email/newsgoups
| and/or do some other work) so my view is admittedly skewed. Only time I
turn
| them off is if I'm leaving for an entire day or more. But I just don't
| understand your statements in this regard.
|
| --
|
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
|
| "Jonny" wrote in message
| ...
| This is discounting the standby feature on the TV, satellite receiver,
DVD
| player, VHS tape player, and stereo units. All of which are terribly
| inconvenient to turn completely on/off on regular basis, or inappropriate
| to turn off. It all adds up. The PC is not in this description, unless
| your mindset decides that.
| --
| Jonny
|
|
|

I agree Jonny with on the environmental damage, however I also agree with
Gary. It depends upon the usage and intent.
Such as, I schedule maintenance activities during "normal" sleep hours, so
the computer is still performing a function. Things like virus scans,
scandisk, defrag, defragging Office documents, and other activities.

I take some issue with the /computers can and should be shutoff without
damage\, as the initial "surge" of power-on does cause potential "long term"
damage. The ATX design, of course, negates some of this issue, as it is
never really off, however the monitor (in particular) and other peripherals
still receive that same "surge" and "hot to cold" cycle.
I have noted, over of the course of time, that many monitors fail largely
because of the soldering breaking loose somewhere due to repeated heating
and cooling cycles (on and off), whereas monitors which are "idled" appear
to be more stable (less repairs), provided of course they are "GREEN".

So it would appear to be somewhat of balancing the issue. Leave the printer
and other rarely used peripherals off until used, while determining the
actual monitor and computer based upon the usage.

After all, factories, refineries, airplanes, and particularly automobiles
are far more damaging to the environment. Not stating conservation of
electricity is not important of course. As for coal fired electric plants,
they should be held to the "letter of the Law" which requires they install
scrubbing devices, as they have been required to do so, for years.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

MEB wrote:
...
I take some issue with the /computers can and should be shutoff without
damage\, as the initial "surge" of power-on does cause potential "long term"
damage. The ATX design, of course, negates some of this issue, as it is
never really off, however the monitor (in particular) and other peripherals
still receive that same "surge" and "hot to cold" cycle.
I have noted, over of the course of time, that many monitors fail largely
because of the soldering breaking loose somewhere due to repeated heating
and cooling cycles (on and off), whereas monitors which are "idled" appear
to be more stable (less repairs), provided of course they are "GREEN".
...

MEB makes one mistake in an otherwise good post. He 'notices'
rather than learns by using basic science principles. "power-on does
cause potential "long term" damage" is a myth promoted by using only
observation. Junk science reasoning is promoted.

Take that monitor solder joint example. Having repaired monitors,
solder joints failed often due to mechanical vibration. I am currently
thinking of two solder joints that so often failed in CTS monitors.
Repeatedly, same solder joint suffering same mechanical stress. If a
solder joint is so poorly conductive as to fail, then the solder joint
was mechanically defective when manufactured. Electrically conductive
solder joints just don't get hot enough to fail. Those who only
observe would then blame power cycling.

Others made this claim about destructive power cycling. In other
newsgroups are conclusions after the autopsy or repair was performed;
based upon first learning what and why it failed rather than turning an
assumption into a conclusion. Did he first learn what failed by
replacing parts on printed circuit boards? Those who know only from
observation - also called assumptions - perform classic junk science.

Cited elsewhere are repeated examples of parts damaged by too many
hours of operation. Junk science defined and exposed in the newsgroup
24hoursupport.helpdesk entitled "Never turn off the computer???" at:
http://tinyurl.com/lr8x7

Yes, power cycling can cause failures. And then we apply numbers.
Numbers demonstrate that power cycling was irrelevant. Power cycling
would destroy a disk drive. Then we learn power cycling had to occur
seven times every day for 20 years. Observation, failing to first
learn what and why, and outright violation of junior high school
science principles is why destructive power cycling is promoted.

Turn the machine off or hibernate it. Hibernating means the machine
is ready to use in seconds. Ignore myths about destructive power
cycling.

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:05:25 -0600, "Dan W." put
finger to keyboard and composed:

I usually turn off my computer at night and was asked by my house mate
to turn it off during the day too since I am at work for about 9 hours
if you count the commute time to and from work (17-30 minutes depending
on speed I drive, route I take and traffic concerns) Thanks in advance
for your comments and I usually at first just use a screen saver with
password and then just have to monitor turn off -- green light turns to
orange light --- grin If I leave it on for the day while I am not there
then does it waste too much electricity and does shutting it down more
than once a day cause unnecessary wear and tear.

I don't know about PCs, but during my former life as a minicomputer
technician I found that we had more than the average number of
callouts on Monday mornings. FWIW, I've measured the power consumption
of my Athlon XP 2500+ box to be around 5W in standby mode. That
amounts to an electricity cost of about AU$6 over the full year if the
machine is run 24/7. How that impacts on the Greenosphere is for you
to judge ...

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"w_tom" wrote in message
ups.com...
| MEB wrote:
| ...
| I take some issue with the /computers can and should be shutoff without
| damage\, as the initial "surge" of power-on does cause potential "long
term"
| damage. The ATX design, of course, negates some of this issue, as it is
| never really off, however the monitor (in particular) and other
peripherals
| still receive that same "surge" and "hot to cold" cycle.
| I have noted, over of the course of time, that many monitors fail
largely
| because of the soldering breaking loose somewhere due to repeated
heating
| and cooling cycles (on and off), whereas monitors which are "idled"
appear
| to be more stable (less repairs), provided of course they are "GREEN".
| ...
|
| MEB makes one mistake in an otherwise good post. He 'notices'
| rather than learns by using basic science principles. "power-on does
| cause potential "long term" damage" is a myth promoted by using only
| observation. Junk science reasoning is promoted.
|
| Take that monitor solder joint example.
[junk removed]
|
| Yes, power cycling can cause failures. And then we apply numbers.
| Numbers demonstrate that power cycling was irrelevant. Power cycling
| would destroy a disk drive. Then we learn power cycling had to occur
| seven times every day for 20 years. Observation, failing to first
| learn what and why, and outright violation of junior high school
| science principles is why destructive power cycling is promoted.
|
| Turn the machine off or hibernate it. Hibernating means the machine
| is ready to use in seconds. Ignore myths about destructive power
| cycling.
|

Ah, I hate to say it but I take little from anyone else's material, I use
my own experience, research, and or testing.

You fail to apparently understand the full extent of heating and cooling
of devices and the stress it places upon the components.

Since you cited the monitor, this reply will follow that (only as technical
as to make the point):
(it's not a real good idea to rely on junior high school science; physics,
geometry, and many applied sciences are generally required)

Let's lightly touch upon variables of heat and cooling cycles:
Let's take an individual resistor. It functions by providing resistance over
a specific range by reducing that via it's "resistive qualities". During the
process of "resisting" it produces heat. Multiply that times 40 or more.
Let's move to transistors. Some transistors produce noticeable heat during
their use due to their own defined "work" to be performed, many require heat
sinking.
Let's move to the voltage regulation devices. Transformers produce heat
when transposing one electric voltage to another.
Moving to the high power transformer, it also produces a large amount of
heat, but it's "regulators" produce far more.

Now where are all of these items attached?
To the rigid printed circuit board via soldered joints.
As each component heats, it stress the joint until the surrounding area
heats to a like state. However the board is static, it does not bend or
expand (it does but not sufficiently for this discussion).
Moreover, the individual metallic contact/lead EXPANDS when it heats as do
many of the components themselves. Expansion creates additional stress upon
soldered joints not designed to accept them. Hence you see at times, a loop
or other extension from the component in attempt to absorb some of that
stress.
When the power is turned off, the solder joint is again stressed by
differing cooling rates. Repeat this cycle over the course of time and the
solder WILL fail. It is, after all, a soft semi-flexible metal (generally
tin and lead) not really designed for extensive flexing or stress. It just
happens to be cheap and relatively ease to use in mass manufacturing.

Gold or silver metallic mixtures would be far better (better heat transfer,
better tensile strength, better electrical conductivity, better resistance
to corrosion), however, the cost would be prohibitive.
Why were IC components so wide applauded?
Because they combined "on chip" so many functions and former individual
components, but also because they removed many of the soldered joints which
constantly failed.
Remember when first produced they were far more expensive than the
technology they were replacing (but perhaps that's before your time), and
failed at a faster rate. The push was for future lower cost in manufacturing
and lower "maintenance" costs.

Let's address hanging wires inside the monitor.
Over time, even though the wire is semi-flexible, the covering tends to
turn hard, particularly the newer "plastic" coverings.
The wire also expands and contracts (with power cycles) along its length,
however, as the wire stiffens the wire places stress upon it's connection as
well.

Any non-soldered connections are also placed under additional peril when
cycling from hot to cold. Moisture in the air tends to corrode the contact
points as it is drawn in with the air and allowed to remain on the cold or
cooling surface. Whereas, corrosion is less of an issue when heat is
maintained, and has less impact, as the non-soldered joint remains
essentially in the same place (minor fluctuations), e.g. it moves less
frequently due to expansion and contraction. Thereby given less chance for
any corrosion to break contact.

Breaking from the monitor, this is why servers are generally placed into
temperature and humidity controlled environments and are rarely cycled off.

Now shall we do a quick discussion on electrical surge properties, we would
have to get far more technical? Gees, let me pull out my books and technical
manuals.

So I presume the "monitor" joint YOU were attempting to address was the
"connector" perhaps? That obviously receives even more stress and abuse.
Perhaps the most often "broken" but not the only failure encountered.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

Mindset. Am using the PC, touching the controls while I use it, I don't
have to interface with the box to turn it off. All the other stuff normally
in a living area, remotes. I am not near its on/off control on the boxes
themselves. I don't think about it when turning off (standby) with a
remote. Mindset. Also see the last line in my previous response. A few
have built-in clocks, turn em off, and I have to reset the clock when
turning on again. They will flash at you until you reset the clock. Ones
that don't have a settable clock are the DVD player and satellite receiver.
The satellite receiver has to refind the satellite, and verify the receiver
box number through the satellite, if I kill power to it by unplugging it.
Usually takes a minute or more.

There was a time when TVs had no built-in clocks, no stereo had standby
mode. No DVD, no VHS. No remotes. You had to physically turn them on/off.
The remotes and standby nature needed for some remotes in some devices has
conditioned me and a billion other people to just click the remote to off.
Conditioned mindset. Not present in a PC as is today. In fact, easier to
turn it off. You don't have to touch the PC itself. You're already
touching the inteface to turn it off. Unless, of course, your mindset says
otherwise.
--
Jonny
"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
How are all those devices somehow required to remain on (in Standby) and
not a computer (in Standby or with monitor and HDDs powered down?) What
makes turning off those devices more inconvenient than turning off the
computer?

Myself, I use my computers 24/7 with only short breaks (including
sleeping... I don't sleep well and often get up and check email/newsgoups
and/or do some other work) so my view is admittedly skewed. Only time I
turn them off is if I'm leaving for an entire day or more. But I just
don't understand your statements in this regard.

--

Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Jonny" wrote in message
...
This is discounting the standby feature on the TV, satellite receiver, DVD
player, VHS tape player, and stereo units. All of which are terribly
inconvenient to turn completely on/off on regular basis, or inappropriate
to turn off. It all adds up. The PC is not in this description, unless
your mindset decides that.
--
Jonny

Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:05:25 -0600, "Dan W." put
finger to keyboard and composed:

I usually turn off my computer at night and was asked by my house mate
to turn it off during the day too since I am at work for about 9 hours
if you count the commute time to and from work (17-30 minutes depending
on speed I drive, route I take and traffic concerns) Thanks in advance
for your comments and I usually at first just use a screen saver with
password and then just have to monitor turn off -- green light turns to
orange light --- grin If I leave it on for the day while I am not there
then does it waste too much electricity and does shutting it down more
than once a day cause unnecessary wear and tear.

I don't know about PCs, but during my former life as a minicomputer
technician I found that we had more than the average number of
callouts on Monday mornings. FWIW, I've measured the power consumption
of my Athlon XP 2500+ box to be around 5W in standby mode. That
amounts to an electricity cost of about AU$6 over the full year if the
machine is run 24/7. How that impacts on the Greenosphere is for you
to judge ...

Let's see now, 5 watts/hr cost aprox one penny per 20 hrs since 100 watts
is about a penny/hr, and so for 8760 hrs divided by 20 equals about $4.38
per year to run.. ..yep you're right then on the cost.

Although components have an average life cycle TTF (time to failure) and so
all of that needs to be considered as well for optimum hardware longevity;
and so we know that too many/excessive on/off cycles create extra wear and
so less TTF, and so there is a rule of thumb where the time hardware is in
the off position exceeds the life cycle probability of that if it was
always left in the on position, etc.

Anyway back to the OP, my own rule of thumb is if I'm 'away' from my 'home'
computer for more than 10 hours a day then I shut it down (actually my
workday is 16 hrs and so my home computer is off for most of the time)
....and I'm better off for it at those numbers, imho&e.

Rick


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.