nobody@junk.min.net wrote:
> I've never used Advanced Power Management, but with our electricity bills
> going up 50%, it's probaby a good time. How would I set it up in eCS? I
> already turn off my monitor at night.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Alan
>
How hard is it to completely shut down your computer for about 16 hours
out of every 24, and spend about 1 or 2 minutes booting it the next day?

eCS installation allows you to choose power management, but APM is old
style; ACPI is the way most recent machines are built to conserve power.
For eCS, though, ACPI is still under development.

You may be able to turn on APM by opening "Local System" and "Selective
Install", which is an old Warp dialog.

In <467481f2$0$4717$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, on 06/16/07
at 05:36 PM, Colin Campbell said:

>How hard is it to completely shut down your computer for about 16 hours
>out of every 24, and spend about 1 or 2 minutes booting it the next day?

Not difficult at all. I'd always heard that it was better for the
hardware (specifically hard drives) to not turn it off an on, which is why
I didn't.

>eCS installation allows you to choose power management, but APM is old
>style; ACPI is the way most recent machines are built to conserve power.
> For eCS, though, ACPI is still under development.

I've seen that.

>You may be able to turn on APM by opening "Local System" and "Selective
>Install", which is an old Warp dialog.

I'll look. Thanks,

Alan

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **

Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21

BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:00:01 UTC, nobody@junk.min.net wrote:

> I'd always heard that it was better for the
> hardware (specifically hard drives) to not turn it off an on

Unless you turn it on and off 100 times per day or you have a rather old
SCSI hard drive that is rubbish.
--
Greetings, | My From: address is valid as is the version without "spam"
Peter. | I try to find real messages among the spam once a week

On 22 Jun 2007 20:29:04 GMT, Peter Weilbacher wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:00:01 UTC, nobody@junk.min.net wrote:
>
>> I'd always heard that it was better for the
>> hardware (specifically hard drives) to not turn it off an on
>
> Unless you turn it on and off 100 times per day or you have a rather old
> SCSI hard drive that is rubbish.

You are entited to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, and it differs to yours.

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2007 20:29:04 GMT, Peter Weilbacher wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:00:01 UTC, nobody@junk.min.net wrote:
>>
>>> I'd always heard that it was better for the
>>> hardware (specifically hard drives) to not turn it off an on
>> Unless you turn it on and off 100 times per day or you have a rather old
>> SCSI hard drive that is rubbish.
>
> You are entited to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, and it differs to yours.
Paul,
Have you had actual failures that you can attribute to powering up and
down the hardware, at some reasonable rate, such as once per day?

I have not. I am currently using a computer built for me by Indelible
Blue several years ago, and a Dell Dimension 8400 that I configured and
bought 30 months ago. I have some monitor flicker on the old machine,
which I use sporadically. The Dell is turned on and off daily, and has
shown no problems. It has dual hard drives, a CD burner, a DVD burner,
a floppy drive, etc. The other machines I've had at home over the past
twenty plus years have never had a hardware failure.

I'd like to think that I'm safe treating the hardware this way, but I
have no "proof" that it's OK. If you have any studies to cite that say
I should treat this stuff differently, I'd appreciate learning about them.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:14:52 -0700, Colin Campbell wrote:

:>Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
:>> On 22 Jun 2007 20:29:04 GMT, Peter Weilbacher wrote:
:>>
:>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:00:01 UTC, nobody@junk.min.net wrote:
:>>>
:>>>> I'd always heard that it was better for the
:>>>> hardware (specifically hard drives) to not turn it off an on
:>>> Unless you turn it on and off 100 times per day or you have a rather old
:>>> SCSI hard drive that is rubbish.
:>>
:>> You are entited to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, and it differs to yours.
:>Paul,
:>Have you had actual failures that you can attribute to powering up and
:>down the hardware, at some reasonable rate, such as once per day?
:>
:>I have not. I am currently using a computer built for me by Indelible
:>Blue several years ago, and a Dell Dimension 8400 that I configured and
:>bought 30 months ago. I have some monitor flicker on the old machine,
:>which I use sporadically. The Dell is turned on and off daily, and has
:>shown no problems. It has dual hard drives, a CD burner, a DVD burner,
:>a floppy drive, etc. The other machines I've had at home over the past
:>twenty plus years have never had a hardware failure.
:>
:>I'd like to think that I'm safe treating the hardware this way, but I
:>have no "proof" that it's OK. If you have any studies to cite that say
:>I should treat this stuff differently, I'd appreciate learning about them.

I have no experience that cycling the power makes electronics last shorter.
The monitors I use I switch off whenever I leave for more than say 15
minutes, sometimes that's more than 10 times per day. My Fujitsu e176 CRT
monitor withstood 7 years of this and is in in excellent condition. A very
old 15 inch VGA monitor had to have the power switch replaced once, due to
the large in-rush current and the cheap switch.
Same for PCs. Some get switched on 4-5 times a day (in weekends). Never had a
failure yet.
And in our office building at work, the fluorescent lightning is switched off
when the IR sensor doesn't see something moving for 10 minutes - this happens
many times a day when you leave the office.
On the other hand, I do know that certain components like electrolytic
capacitors have a fairly short power-on lifespan measured in thousand of
hours (although it gets rapidly better if the temperature is kept low).

Mat Nieuwenhoven

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:14:52 -0700, Colin Campbell wrote:

>>>> I'd always heard that it was better for the
>>>> hardware (specifically hard drives) to not turn it off an on
>>> Unless you turn it on and off 100 times per day or you have a rather old
>>> SCSI hard drive that is rubbish.
>>
>> You are entited to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, and it differs to yours.
>
> Have you had actual failures that you can attribute to powering up and
> down the hardware, at some reasonable rate, such as once per day?

No, because I don't do it. I did however have a large number of failures of
hard disks on PCs that had been running for years and were then switched off
for a few weeks. When I tried to restart them, at least 50% of them wouldn't.
If they were switched off/on daily, I'm fairly sure the failure would have
occurred sooner, although obviously I have no evidence to back that up in
this specific case.