I leave mine running constantly and have had no hardware problems at all. My system is about 4 years old now and has never failed. I lock the system and disable Internet access when I go to bed.
I talked with a friend about this. On the one hand, leaving the system running puts more wear on mechanical components such as disk drives and fans. OTOH, the temperature of the internal components remains constant so there are no problems from thermal expansion and contraction. In my own case, leaving it running has paid off.
I’m not sure you can attribute your good fortune to leaving it on all the time, though. I have a 6 year old Dell that I turn off every night, and it keeps on ticking. What conclusion can we draw from both examples?
Depending on how old it is, if you let it hibernate overnight - or whenever it is not being used for a while, it will shut everything off after saving your current session to the hard drive (virtual memory), Hard drives and processors/fans will all stop. The last computer I built takes 15" to recover from hibernation.
The usual power saving options will spin down the hard drives after a short period of not inactivity (~ 20’ is about the norm) and put the monitor into standby mode.
I generally leave all mine running all the time and haven’t had any problems other than the power supply died in the oldest machine about two years ago.
We leave ours on all the time (3 desktops, 1 laptop). Every company I’ve ever worked in generally have the workers leave their computers on all the time. With the exception of one laptop that died, I’ve always upgraded to a new machine because of performance reasons long before the old one died.
I just do a <ctrl><alt><del> to bring up the menu and then hit <enter>. Then you need a pw to use it. I also use a “blank screen” screen saver which turns off some of the video signal to the monitor and it shuts off part of its power automatically. I have a weird monitor so all of them may not do this.
Fear Itself
We can conclude that we need more anecdotal evidence.
In all truth, I tend to do it this way right now because XP Pro is such a miserably slow thing to log in on. I know, the boot is fast, but I have a suspicion that MS just moved a lot of things from the boot phase to the login phase. (Just a suspicion, not proof)
I wonder whether there are actual statistics on which is best? It probably makes little difference. As Athena mentions, they usually get obsolete before they die anyway.
I use “hibernate” mode. The current state of the computer is saved to a file and it shuts off. Reboot is very fast (assuming the save file doesn’t get fragmented).
I also turn off the power strip it is attached to. In addition to thunderstorms, the local electric supply is sometimes erratic, so that protects the hardware from the lesser electric problems while not in use.
Standby saves no significant time, wastes power and increases the exposure of the PC to electric problems. Why bother?
Absolutely right on. Now tell me why standby, not hibernate is the default. I have to hit shift-return to get hibernate. Well worth the effort. My laptop goes into hibernate when I close the lid and restarts when I open it. Ideal!
My Linux box is never turned off, but since its whole purpose is to serve files and record TV shows, it wouldn’t be suitable. I can’t brag about uptime, though, because I do clean installs for KnoppMyth upgrades, meaning that once in a while it restarts. I program the RAID’ed NAS drives to sleep, but the main drive never, ever idles. Probably going on two years so far, will all generic components.
The Macs I just put to sleep. There’s a way to enable hibernation, but the power consumption is so low that it’s nice having them wake instantly. They’re iMacs, so really, longevity (meaning more than, say, four years) isn’t a big factor, as they’re disposable. My last G4 PowerMac wasn’t disposable, but seeing that I don’t have it any more, it kind of was.
The work laptop (a Dell) takes just as long to wake from sleep as hibernation, so I just let it hibernate. Over the course of a weekend, the battery would die during hibernation.
I guess for me, other than the Linux box, longevity isn’t a factor. What the heck do I want a six year old computer taking up valuable space for?
I always run LINUX on my older Windows boxes. LINUX doesn’t need as much horsepower to run adequately and by the time it’s retired from Windows, I can usually find all the drivers I need.
I either do this or give them to kids to play with.
I got that (my headless machine is a GNU/Linux box). But, it’s a machine with an established purpose. When you replace your old Windows box with a new one, and install Linux on the old one, what’s their purpose other than to take up space?
Balthisar
Mostly just experimenting with LINUX and enjoying being in a MS-Free zone for a while.
Right now I’m trying to set up a home-security system with it. I’m sourcing the appropriate cameras and software. The other thing I want to do, (when I replace my current Windows machine) is make an audio/video server out of it. The older machine still has plenty of horsepower for these kinds of things when the OS isn’t sucking all the life out of it.