Prev: Quick easy repair for scratched LCD screens
Next: Ink for Canon printer - Where to buy?
From: Nicholas Dreyer on 11 Apr 2010 22:14
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 01:42:36 +0000, Nicholas Dreyer wrote:
>
> Yes, I would never want to go through with all that Dave suggests - and
> doubt anyone else would, unless they have some extraordinarily valuable
> motherboard and hard drive setup - and didn't care about the racket,
> expense and environmental consequences of constantly running fans, but
> to get back to my unanswered question:
>
> Assuming CPU shutdown is to happen after more or less daily use of a few
> hours at most, does daily 5v "soft power" re-energizing of motherboard
> via power supply rocker switch prior to reboot add significant, or even
> measurable wear and tear on its circuitry?

OK, ~misfit~ just answered this while I was posting the question, so I
will leave the switch on permanently to avoid the strain of on/off
switching on the power supply itself . . . unless of course someone has a
more compelling argument favoring the alternative approach.

Thanks, Nick
From: kony on 13 Apr 2010 05:58
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:08:51 -0400, Strobe
<Strobe(a)nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:

>On 09 Apr 2010 03:26:08 GMT, Nicholas Dreyer <gurfler(a)q.com> wrote:
>
>>I keep my PC on for at most a few hours a day. After it has powered
>>down, is it safer to shut off all power to the motherboard using the
>>toggle switch on the power supply, or is it better to leave it on, or
>>does it not matter at all?
>>
>>Thanks for any advice, or pointers to some useful studies on the matter.
>
>For ultimate power economy, use the switch - modern PSUs continue to provide 5v
>when the PC is 'off'..

But the question remains, what is the criteria for an
oversimplified question of "best"?

It always annoys me when someone asks what is best when they
don't list their subjective needs, because there is no such
thing as best without that.


>
>To *really* economise, switch off with a cheap external power strip - it's
>cheaper to replace that than a PSU when the switch eventually wears out!


If you aren't buying really bad low end junk, the power
switch will not wear out in any number of years worth
mentioning.


>
>If you live in an area prone to lightning storms, it's safer to actually unplug
>the PC when not in use - a nearby lightning strike on the power line can easily
>jump over a power switch and *might* fry your PC.

Yes, but how many cords does one unplug? Power is not
enough, a surge can come in through periperals, or
especially ( what I see often when it occurs, with otherwise
disconnected equipment) through the lan cable.

>
>Of course, at most you'll save a few dollars a year...
>And many other devices (TVs, microwaves, cable boxes) also suck power when
>they're nominally 'off'.

Agreed, there is too much focus on sleep power these days,
if someone is really concerned they would simply turn their
PC off instead of asking. Personally I never disconnect any
box from AC, including when there is a power storm, but on
modern PCs that can hibernate, AND don't need to stay on
24/7, I have them (if windows OS based) hibernate after a
short period of inactivity. So far, I can't recall any
damage of a system while it was off as-in hibernating.

Certainly it is possible damage could still occur, but as
with all things there is no guarantee, only the risk versus
convenience and value of time and hassle to unplug or switch
things versus not having to.

From: edfair on 13 Apr 2010 03:41

Some have come to the conclusion that it is better to switch everything
off if the macine is going to be unused for more than 4 or 5 hours.
There is a tradeoff involved, thermal shock vs continual erosion of
traces, extra cost of machine repair from surge at power-up vs power
load at idle.

This question can generally be counted on to start a flame war. People
have strong opinions and there has been little investigation to prove
the results either way.


From: kony on 15 Apr 2010 17:13
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:41:26 -0500, edfair
<edfair.49cw9q(a)no.email.invalid> wrote:

>
>Some have come to the conclusion that it is better to switch everything
>off if the macine is going to be unused for more than 4 or 5 hours.
>There is a tradeoff involved, thermal shock vs continual erosion of
>traces, extra cost of machine repair from surge at power-up vs power
>load at idle.
>
>This question can generally be counted on to start a flame war. People
>have strong opinions and there has been little investigation to prove
>the results either way.
>


.... but there is supporting evidence. It depends on the
particular weakness of the entire *system* and by system I
also mean the power grid.

Basically the evidence comes from tracing fault modes,
looking at dead equipment rather than formal testing long
term which serves little use - by the time meaningful data
was a accumulated nobody wants to build a new system with
old parts and it would have to be based on the contemporary
tech of the time as merely deciding a "disk drive" is a
"disk drive" is not enough, the designs change too much over
the years to combat failure modes as much as the design
budget will allow.

Will it be subject to significant power spikes? IF so then
certainly turning it off at a power strip will reduce # of
events seen on average.

Leaving it running tends to be most problematic if it uses
poor capacitors or fans so their lifespan elapses before the
viable lifespan of the system is up. Turning it off tends
to wear out the battery faster. Thermal shock is not much
of a consideration though, if we concede it will not damage
equipment signficantl within its viable lifespan which seems
to be the case with all but the rare instances of
manufacturing solder pad defects or in-chip solder bump
defects as seen with certain chipsets in recent history.

From: Nicholas Dreyer on 15 Apr 2010 22:19
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:13:35 -0400, kony wrote:

>
> ... but there is supporting evidence. It depends on the particular
> weakness of the entire *system* and by system I also mean the power
> grid.
>
> Basically the evidence comes from tracing fault modes, looking at dead
> equipment rather than formal testing long term which serves little use -
> by the time meaningful data was a accumulated nobody wants to build a
> new system with old parts and it would have to be based on the
> contemporary tech of the time as merely deciding a "disk drive" is a
> "disk drive" is not enough, the designs change too much over the years
> to combat failure modes as much as the design budget will allow.
>
> Will it be subject to significant power spikes? IF so then certainly
> turning it off at a power strip will reduce # of events seen on average.
>
> Leaving it running tends to be most problematic if it uses poor
> capacitors or fans so their lifespan elapses before the viable lifespan
> of the system is up. Turning it off tends to wear out the battery
> faster. Thermal shock is not much of a consideration though, if we
> concede it will not damage equipment signficantl within its viable
> lifespan which seems to be the case with all but the rare instances of
> manufacturing solder pad defects or in-chip solder bump defects as seen
> with certain chipsets in recent history.

Thanks for the great insights. Now I'm leaning towards turning off power
supply completely again!
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Quick easy repair for scratched LCD screens
Next: Ink for Canon printer - Where to buy?