Should I switch pc off at night?

[leosayer]

My colleague at work reckons wear and tear is reduced if you leave your pc on all the time, rather than switching it off when you're not using it for long periods (eg overnight).

I think this is rubbish.

I know I'm right (I think), plus it must use a lot of electricity leaving it on as well, although I don't know how much this would cost.

Any one have any facts about this?

[mr_tony]

I've certainly heard it said that constant switching on/off can ruin the power supply......

No evidence though....

[mcflurry]

IMHO the electricity cost over a year would be greater.

IIRC a modern pc and monits costs something like £90-£180 a year to leave on 24/7

Having said that, all my scheduling / virus checks etc are all set to run overnight if the pc is left on...

[pdV6]

The theory is sound - switching on & off heat-cycles a lot of components that would rather stay in one state or the other.

I tend to leave my PC on at work but mainly so I can VPN in and access it from home if need be. At home I tend to switch it off as it spends much more time off than on...

[zumbruk]

I've been engaged in a heated argument about this with the lentilistas, and a reasonably neutral summary seems to be;

- Switching a PC on and off definitely stresses the components and can lead to premature failure.

- Switching it off saves some energy. (In the winter, the heat given off by the PC comes off your heating bill, so it's not entirely wasted.)

- Modern PCs are replaced long before they're worn out, and they're nearly always obsolete before they fail, so even though it *might* make them fail prematurely, it's worth switching them off.

[gopher]

zumbruk said:

- Switching a PC on and off definitely stresses the components and can lead to premature failure.

I've no particular thoughts on the issue - I leave mine on overnight for defrag, update and virus type things, and switch off in the mornings.

I do wonder thoough if parts degrade and fail due to the on/off process how much energy is required to produce a replacement? - well it varies by component but this may (dependant on failure rates) need to be taken into consideration.

Cheers

Paul

[dugless]

I switch of my computer when I'm on holiday or upgrading,apart from that its been a good,uummm,6 years its been on,reboot it only if I need to,which is very rarely ( every 3 months ? ).

I would suggest leave it on.

I just had a thought,I've had this computer for 6 years,but its always getting upgraded,so its not even the same pc..its all been replaced at one point .Come to think of it,when is a pc not your old pc .. hehe.I would guess the h/d ?

[leosayer]

dugless said:

I just had a thought,I've had this computer for 6 years,but its always getting upgraded,so its not even the same pc..its all been replaced at one point .Come to think of it,when is a pc not your old pc .. hehe.I would guess the h/d ?

Reminds me of Trigger's broom!

[pdV6]

Trigger's broom syndrome!

In one sense, I've had my work PC ever since I started the job, as I've never had a complete boxed replacement. On the other hand, its on its 5th case, at least its 5th motherboard and easily its 6th or 7th HDDs, so where do you draw the line?

{edited to add:} Great minds, Leo!

>> Edited by pdV6 on Thursday 13th October 09:26

[Podie]

I let mine go into hibernation or suspend...

[mcflurry]

Whichever you choose, turning off the monitor will save you something like £40 a year in electric

[LongQ]

mcflurry said:

Whichever you choose, turning off the monitor will save you something like £40 a year in electric

IIRC it was mainly the monitors which gave problems cycling on and off in the early days. Allowing them to drop to standby mode seems a good compromise since power consumption will be minimal and it will be more readily available when you come to use it. If your usage pattern is a solid 2 or 3 hours once or twice a week then turning off may be no bad thing, but you will need to schedule times for maintenance activities kicked off manually rather than rely on automated overnight processes.

The power consumption of TFT screens and notebook computers is relatively small (and probably reducing as new models are introduced) compared to older CRT and desktop units. For notebooks the demand for more processing power and devices attached as well as improved battery life has resulted in units which are relatively less power hungry. Running sensible power management settings to enable standby should result in very little power consumption when not active but almost instant availability when required. That seems to be a sensible approach for always on broadband users and means that you can set things up to be sure you always have the latest anti-virus updates and, perhaps, Windows patches. Of course I am assuming that you feel happy to let MS deliver these as they wish ...


Edit to add: Just checked the Tech Specs of a couple of the Sony LCD 17" monitors on the web site - both say they use 45W operating and 1W when in standby mode.

I leave all my kit on all the time partly because I run a peer to peer wireless network with the printer attached to my oldest PC. The peer to peer system for 2 desktops and 2 to 4 notebooks works more consistently if machines are left connected I find. (Probably due to a mix of wireless kit and operating systems!)

Now that the kids are away at Uni most of the time I may change that since demand for printer access is reduced! And my advice re-backing up to the old machine is no longer applicabel of course ... not that they seemed to take much note of it anyway.

>> Edited by LongQ on Thursday 13th October 12:37

[zumbruk]

BTW, I leave all my kit on all the time, although I switch the monitors off. How else can I can my Seti@Home ratings up?

[lockstock2sb]

These days i think is nonsense to keep them on 24/7 at home to try and save wear and tear (unless you want to that is)..

My pc is daily powered up and down in the evenings, and so was my last PC which lasted me 5 years - and that was binned due to age - not failure.