Report: Leaving the PC On Loses Money

[mavroxur]

REPORT: Leaving the faucet on wastes water

 

[Spazzy]

Leaving your pc on is better for it??????? What non-sense!!!!! Most power supplies have a mean time before failure of 50,000 hours, so do the fans, and the hard drive also has a mean time before failure (varies between manufacturers and product lines). If you leave it on 24/7 you are cutting down the useful life span of said items. Sounds like the repair shops are simply looking for more business from an uneducated public! Besides, I had my second pc (a dell with a p4 processor for 6 years, and it was constantly powered on and off. Many times I would power it on and check e-mails and then shut it back down. I sold it to a friend a few years ago and it is still going strong. Now I build my own bleeding edge pc's, and yes, I still shut it off when I am done. Also, if you use vistas auto update feature, it updates when you tell it to shutdown. Shut them down people, not only will it save on the energy consumed by the pc, but it will also lower your A/C bill in the summer!

 

[Onus]

In the old days, it definitely was better to leave it on. In addition to greater effect of thermal cycling, we had another phenomenon called "stiction" that affected early hard drives (especially Seagate), and PSUs, though much smaller (80W-150W), were also prone to mechanical switch failure.

 

[lawsudz]

the argument that more energy will be expended from repairs rather than leaving the computer on is stupid at best and insincere at worst. most users are likely to replace or upgrade their computer long before the circuitry blows out. the biggest killer of electronics is vibration and jostling from being moved. think of your grandparents whose tv is still sitting in the same place it was 20 years ago when they bought it (i bet it still works).

 

[Guest]

Kevin Parrish, this is Tom's Hardware. Prove it.

 

[sinclaj1]

While I'd advocate turning off systems whenever possible (and for some it isn't realistic), I'd still like someone...ANYONE...to please explain to me how a computer belches CO2. The things don't breathe, and while CPUs and GPUs get hot they aren't campfires.

 

[mdillenbeck]

CO2 and Computers:

When people talk about CO2 and an object, they are typically doing a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). An LCA takes into account the acquisition of raw materials, processing of the materials, manufacture of the object, transportation of the object in various states, inputs while using the object, and disposal of the object.

A computer constantly uses energy, and most energy comes from coal or nuclear plants. The feedstock (fuel) for those require mining which releases CO2, and the burning of coal also releases CO2. Thus, even if using wind or solar, some level of CO2 is released when using power. However, it is not a direct release of CO2 but an indirect source.

LCA often comes up when people talk about oil subsidies in terms of military expediture. Another area is how disposal costs of objects are treated - a cost that is often absorbed by the government despite the small charge some consumers pay. Essentially, you can't just look at an object and think it is isolated from a greater supply chain.

 

[JohnMD1022]

If you believe in the myth of 'man-made global warming' it all makes sense.

But, if you actually get out a read a little....

 

[mdillenbeck]

From what I have read, each method has its own strengths and weaknesses due to the diversity of components within a computer. Some people talk about time-to-failure for mechanical parts like fans and solid-state components like capacitors. Other people talk about thermodynamics and expansion-contraction damage done by the mixture of different materials. Both seem valid to me.

I work for a university that maintains a large 24 hour computer lab. For security/patch reasons and formerly due to hardware limits, we leave the systems on 24/7. However, as already stated the sleep state helps us save on power. Additionally, we are implementing other options.

For example, server farms could save significant amounts of power by moving to virtualization, such as provided by VMWares ESX system. It puts the hardware in a pool with a virtual interface to the software and can allocate systems on demand.

The traditional model is to have 4 servers as 4 separate computers. Each needs to have hardware that meets peak loads. With something like ESX, the 4 systems are pooled. When demand is low, all 4 virtual servers can be running on 1 system while the others are off or in a sleep state. As demand creeps up, systems are powered on and virtual servers are shifted over. This means all 4 systems are rarely all on. Even better, if demand frequently peaks and chokes all 4 systems, upgrading is easy for administrators.

However, if we want to see real energy savings in systems, we should be looking at heat dissipation. Currently server farms are in climate controlled rooms. This means AC runs most of the time, but we dump the waste heat energy into the air we just cooled - requiring us to cool that air again. Significant energy savings could be done if we could work on a better way to dump waste heat energy from areas where several always-on computers are together.

Also, maintaining more current components may save energy as long as the savings in energy exceeds the energy cost to manufacture the components. Fortunately, most computer components have the added benefit of improving performance at the same time (which defrays some of the cost).

Essentially, it is true that turning off computers will save energy - but there are many other aspects we can target that will give equal benefits.

 

[redraider89]

While being energy conscious is a good thing, this idea that a naturally occurring gas, CO2, is damaging to the climate is not. Did you boil anything recently? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too. DO NOT boil anything else for the rest of your life or you will destroy "the planet". This company claiming "carbon footprint" gobbledy beloved patriot is damaging their credibility, to any reasonable and thinking person, as a legitimate research organization by claiming that is a reason to not leave your computers on overnight.

This kind of thinking is very dangerous. Already, laws are being crafted to tax cattle producers because cows burping and farting contributes to "global warming". This is VERY dangerous because if reducing CO2 is supposed to be required to reduce global warming, which is supposed to be required to "save the planet", then consider what the largest producer of CO2 is? It's you and me and the rest of humanity every time we exhale. Mass executions have been performed for lesser reasons than to "save the planet". "Global Warming" has already been listed as one of the top ways the earth will be destroyed/humanity will become extinct, along with nuclear war and asteroid collisions, on the so-called History channel. Just remember that when you here the phrases "carbon footprint" and "CO2 emissions". If the temperature fluctuates higher than expected for a reason other than CO2 emissions, from increased solar activity for instance, and Al Gore's global warming disciples, who refuse to acknowledge any other reason there is for earth warming, and after they have tried to kick us back to the stone age to eradicate virtually every form of CO2 and warming is still occurring, I can clearly see that they will do anything to literally "save the planet", ANYTHING to save Mother Earth, and hopefully have a few people left over to rebuild the human race. It's not too far of a stretch.

 

[sinclaj1]

[citation][nom]Redraider89[/nom]Mass executions have been performed for lesser reasons than to "save the planet".[/citation]

Quite true...but the irony is that the same people who scream that we're killing the earth by existing are usually the same people who oppose the death penalty for extreme criminals.

 

[Guest]

I don't understand these shops that have to leave their systems on overnight to get updates. If you're running a Windows environment, why don't you have a group policy wake the workstations up from standy, apply the patches, and go back to sleep again? With a little configuration you can have your cake and eat it too.

You're not a good tech if you're not looking for solutions to problems.

 

[Guest]

Leave the computer on: waste energy. build up heat and shorten life. take in more dust from the air. solder points break due to heat. fans stop working from constant turning.

turn computer off: save energy. save wear on fans. less dust and heat build up. expand motherboard when you power up. sudden shock on all components from starting up. putting pc through more work from starting up windows. hard drive struggles.

solution: update pc's late at night then turn them off. set a shutdown time and startup time that fits your needs. use watercooling to keep inside of pc dust free=longer life. I turn my laptops and desktops off when done. they all last 5 years or more. by then they are obsolete. let common sense guide you.

 

[Guest]

I agree that turning off the computers would save massive amounts of energy. I have a server running 24/7 for a radio station, but the monitor shuts off after 7 minutes of inactivity. The computer is energy star and low power usage, and all other computers and laptops are off. As for the corporate environments that talk about how computers muct be running 24/7 for patches and updates, they are full of crapola. Windows Server is perfectly capable of sending all updates to the workstations in the beginning of the workday, or during the company's lunch break. The workstations can even be set to shut down at a certain time in the evening to allow the server to update just after everyone goes home. I think that if more IT professionals really understood all that the machines are capable of, they would be far more efficient. I.E. One setup I performed for a small business. Windows Server 2008, running 24/7, one Cisco hub, running 24/7. Server updates and compiles new Ghost image overnight. 7:45 AM: all workstations boot automatically and load new ghost image. All employee personal files are still safely on the network's raid 5 partition allocated to him or her. 8:00 AM: Employees come in to find their computer running and the monitor in standby, they move the mouse and begin working. They leave at 5:00 PM and at 6:00 PM the workstations accidentally left on shut themselves down, ready to turn themselves on again at 7:45 AM and boot a new Ghost image.
Result: The system boots fresh each morning, no viruses are ever on the computer when the employee arrives, and for those custom theme fanatics, a single click on the employee's partition restores it. The only thing that does run is the server, and the monitor on the server enters standby after 2 minutes of inactivity. VERY EFFICIENT. Why do more companies not take the time to set up a system such as that?