Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: Char Jackson on 24 Mar 2010 22:59 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:59:33 -0400, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: >From: "Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> > >| On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:48:20 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >| wrote: > >>>In article <qluiq59i975s6scc2slnl6gf6fcc02onvr(a)4ax.com>, >>>none(a)none.invalid says... > >>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:14:24 -0400, "David H. Lipman" >>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: > >>>> >From: "Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> >>>> > >>>> >| On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:57:13 -0400, ToolPackinMama >>>> >| <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>People I meet have many times asked me if they should shut their Windows >>>> >>>computers off at night, and I always say, "Yes, keep your PC off unless >>>> >>>you are using it." >>>> > >>>> >>>I figure if it's off, an infected computer can do less damage. >>>> > >>>> >| I agree with the advice, although I don't follow it myself. To me, the >>>> >| primary reason for turning a system off is to save electricity. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Actualy the quiescent temperature is better since you dont have hard drive warming >>>> >exapnsion and drive cooling contraction cycles adding tom the wear and tear factor >>>> and >>>> >aging of a hard disk. > >>>> Probably true, but I have no evidence, even anecdotal evidence, to >>>> indicate that it makes an appreciable difference in equipment life. :) > >>>If you've worked with Electronics for any length of time, > >| Just over 45 years. The end is in sight. :) > >>>and with >>>devices that have bearings, you would know, without guessing, that >>>turning off a device increases chances of a problem when you try and use >>>it again. There are also times when a device fails due to normal >>>wear/tear/age.... > >| I know what you're saying is a commonly held belief. I used to repeat >| it myself, but I have to admit that looking back over the last 20-30 >| years that it simply isn't true. I think it used to be true in the >| days of vacuum tubes, but not since then. > >| Here's someone who agrees with me, or vice versa: >| <http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers-questions.html#turnoff> >| <http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/how-much-juice-is-your-computer-using-at-night-145/> > >| The articles are mostly about saving energy, but they touch on the >| power cycle issue, as well. > > >If chips are soldered down they STILL suffer from chip-creep due to exapansion/contraction >cycles. I hear you, but I just don't buy that it's a significant issue. In fact, I don't think it's an issue at all.
From: SteveH on 24 Mar 2010 23:01 Leythos wrote: > In article <bpvqn.581266$5n1.336158(a)newsfe01.ams2>, > steve.houghREMOVE(a)THISblueyonder.co.uk says... >> >> Leythos wrote: >>> >>> You mean like windows updates between 3AM and 4AM? >>> >> Hell would freeze over before I allowed MS to install updates on my >> PC in my absence. As many here surely know, not /all/ MS updates are >> safe or even neecessary for all Windows PC's. It can doenload them >> in the night (if I leave my PC on), but it will install them when >> I've seen what it wants to install. > > That's fine for you, but, since we mostly do BUSINESS systems, those > updates have caused exactly 2 problems impacting about 30 out of > thousands of machines we monitor and support. > Well as you don't know what I do and don't do, that's a stupid statement. I may have mentioned /my/ PC, but you don't know what I do the rest of the time, so no need to get cocky with yer 'we mostly do business' - I couldn't give a toss what you do. As it happens, most of the fixes (apart from hardware) I do for people are either malware or crappy/incompatible windows updates. Thinking about it, some of you folks out of the AV group are belligerent little buggers aint'cha? -- SteveH
From: Char Jackson on 24 Mar 2010 23:04 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >In article <hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >philnblanc(a)comcast.net says... >> I also am going to continue to urge people to turn theirs off when not >> in use, and I urge you all to do the same - but NOT because it will >> extend the life of the components. >> > >If you consider the following: > >Your LCD monitor goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used >Your Hard-Drive goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used >Your CPU throttles down in XX minutes under no load >Your case fans throttle down when the heat decreases > >If you use your computer for 12-16 hours per day, how much money does it >save you over 1 year to turn it off for 8 hours per day? > >Do you actually know the power level difference when all of the power >saving features, except suspend/hibernation, are used vs. turning the >computer completely off? If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus off state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, causing the result to vary.
From: Dustin Cook on 24 Mar 2010 23:08 Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in news:1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > >>In article <hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>philnblanc(a)comcast.net says... >>> I also am going to continue to urge people to turn theirs off when not >>> in use, and I urge you all to do the same - but NOT because it will >>> extend the life of the components. >>> >> >>If you consider the following: >> >>Your LCD monitor goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used >>Your Hard-Drive goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used >>Your CPU throttles down in XX minutes under no load >>Your case fans throttle down when the heat decreases >> >>If you use your computer for 12-16 hours per day, how much money does it >>save you over 1 year to turn it off for 8 hours per day? >> >>Do you actually know the power level difference when all of the power >>saving features, except suspend/hibernation, are used vs. turning the >>computer completely off? > > If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus off > state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is > just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will > vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, > causing the result to vary. So.. thats a no then? Not very difficult to see how much wattage your system is actually using in a low power state... Bad to just take a guess and try to pass that off as knowing... ? -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: FromTheRafters on 24 Mar 2010 23:28
"ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 3/24/2010 5:31 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: > >> Electronics (and motors in particular) consume more energy when they >> are >> first energized. > > More... for the whole rest of their lives? Or more for the rest of > the day? Or more... what do you mean by "more"? Greater than less ( more > less ). With a motor, it takes more ( > less) power until the motor spins up to generate the opposing "back voltage" that a spinning motor generates. Running for some period of time is equal to this power consumption. De-energizing for less than that period of time will not save you any power. As for the bulbs, there is that factor plus the efficiency and the life expectancy of the bulb is reduced with multiple starts (though I don't know exactly why). [...] > I still am turning my computer off when I am not using it. If not > using it actually reduces the life-cycle of the components (by > whatever means), then I guess I can live with that. Me too. We unplug most of our "vampire electronics". [...] |