Question

[Bonnie]

Hi,
I would just like to know, should you leave your computer
on at all times, or should you turn it off at nite? Just
want to make sure I am doing things right for my system.
Thank you
Bonnie

[Dale]

Hi Bonnie - this questions has been tossed around for years. It really
comes down to personal preference. My preference is to never shutdown. Why?
Because it's a waste of time and I'm lazy.

[Joel Estes]

If you wish to leave it on all the time, which is acceptable, you can use a
"Screen Saver" that will keep your screen from getting 'burn in" to perform
this. If you are running XP, then the Widnows XP Screen Saver is pretty
good. You can turn it on by going to Control Panel/Display/Screen Savers and
it is in the Pull Down.

Joel

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Bonnie - this questions has been tossed around for years. It really
> comes down to personal preference. My preference is to never shutdown.
Why?
> Because it's a waste of time and I'm lazy.
>
>

[Dale]

Screen Saver? Just replace the display when a burn-in occurs. Technology is
too cheap to not be able to have instant access; without waking a system
from a "Screen Saver".

[Amethyst]

Joel Estes wrote:
> If you wish to leave it on all the time, which is acceptable, you can use
a
> "Screen Saver" that will keep your screen from getting 'burn in" to
perform
> this. If you are running XP, then the Widnows XP Screen Saver is pretty
> good. You can turn it on by going to Control Panel/Display/Screen Savers
and
> it is in the Pull Down.
>
> Joel

BURN IN?! That's not been an issue for at least, what, a decade? These days
screensavers serve two purposes

1) They are a useful tool for developers to showcase new products -
graphics card manufacturers are beloved of them to show what their latest
baby can do.
2) They can be used a security measure (though with the advent of NTFS
that's really not been an issue either).

Not since I was a high school sophomore have they been used to prevent 'burn
in'.

Monitors no longer contain phosphorus, which was the reason they had a
problem in the old days.


--�
Cassandra
Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People Too!'

Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults, bequests
of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post all
correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.

[Joel Estes]

Are you too stupid to notice the quotes in the "burn in".

Joel

"Amethyst" > wrote in message
...
> Joel Estes wrote:
> > If you wish to leave it on all the time, which is acceptable, you can
use
> a
> > "Screen Saver" that will keep your screen from getting 'burn in" to
> perform
> > this. If you are running XP, then the Widnows XP Screen Saver is pretty
> > good. You can turn it on by going to Control Panel/Display/Screen Savers
> and
> > it is in the Pull Down.
> >
> > Joel
>
> BURN IN?! That's not been an issue for at least, what, a decade? These
days
> screensavers serve two purposes
>
> 1) They are a useful tool for developers to showcase new products -
> graphics card manufacturers are beloved of them to show what their latest
> baby can do.
> 2) They can be used a security measure (though with the advent of NTFS
> that's really not been an issue either).
>
> Not since I was a high school sophomore have they been used to prevent
'burn
> in'.
>
> Monitors no longer contain phosphorus, which was the reason they had a
> problem in the old days.
>
>
> --�
> Cassandra
> Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People Too!'
>
> Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults, bequests
> of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
> uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post all
> correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
>
>

[Dale]

Apparently you don't use an LCD nor have seen burn-in on an LCD. We've had
quite a few happen over the years, even the top brands. Now it's my mistake
for not being more specific. Bottom line is; use it, abuse it and then buy
another one. Quit being so damn cheap!

[Joel Estes]

Answer was not for you Dale.

Joel

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently you don't use an LCD nor have seen burn-in on an LCD. We've had
> quite a few happen over the years, even the top brands. Now it's my
mistake
> for not being more specific. Bottom line is; use it, abuse it and then buy
> another one. Quit being so damn cheap!
>
>

[Dale]

I realize that.

[Ken Blake]

In , Bonnie wrote:

> I would just like to know, should you leave your computer
> on at all times, or should you turn it off at nite? Just
> want to make sure I am doing things right for my system.
> Thank you


This is a commonly-asked question, and you will often find people
vehemently espousing one or the other point of view.

My personal view is that it doesn't matter very much, if you
don't turn it on and off frequently during the day. My own
practice is to turn it on in the morning and off at night.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

[Amethyst]

Joel Estes wrote:
> Are you too stupid to notice the quotes in the "burn in".
>
> Joel
>

And are you too stupid to realise that talk of that kind will needlessly
worry a newbie? Burn in isn't an issue for CRTs. Full stop.

--�
Cassandra
Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People Too!'

Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults, bequests
of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post all
correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.

[David]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:37:23 -0700, "Bonnie" >
wrote:

>Hi,
>I would just like to know, should you leave your computer
>on at all times, or should you turn it off at nite? Just
>want to make sure I am doing things right for my system.
>Thank you
>Bonnie

It's up to you really. Each wya has it's pros and cons.

Leave it on: Pro - No boot wait, Run Maintence programs such as
Anti-Virus updates and Defrag overnught.
Con - Uses electricity, increased chance of ovrheating

Turn it off: Pro - Saves electricity, Less noise
Con - On/Off cycles cause parts to expand/contract,
wearing them out, Have to wait for it to boot.

I'm sure othrs can give more reasons for each option.



Stupdity should hurt..

David

[Unknown]

You will ultimately find that turning it off at night will have many, many
advantages over leaving it on. If you doubt this, keep a log of how your
system operates each morning for six months with power left on. Then repeat
for six months with power shut off. You'll be amazed.
"David" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:37:23 -0700, "Bonnie" >
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >I would just like to know, should you leave your computer
> >on at all times, or should you turn it off at nite? Just
> >want to make sure I am doing things right for my system.
> >Thank you
> >Bonnie
>
> It's up to you really. Each wya has it's pros and cons.
>
> Leave it on: Pro - No boot wait, Run Maintence programs such as
> Anti-Virus updates and Defrag overnught.
> Con - Uses electricity, increased chance of ovrheating
>
> Turn it off: Pro - Saves electricity, Less noise
> Con - On/Off cycles cause parts to expand/contract,
> wearing them out, Have to wait for it to boot.
>
> I'm sure othrs can give more reasons for each option.
>
>
>
> Stupdity should hurt..
>
> David

[LVTravel]

I agree, since every workstation type computer should be rebooted at least
once a day to free resources that programs don't release when exited. Many
programmers don't care about system resources except for their program. I
leave this (the one I am typing on now) computer on to receive faxes, I
routinely experience program crashes about 1 per day if I don't restart it.
When I restart my machine prior to working for the day, I seldom have any
crashes unless using a lot of the "garbage" programs that I have to use.

I routinely use this machine to rip music, import analog movies to digital
(ATI video card), digital video editing, word-processing, spreadsheet, Web
browsing and email/NG.


"Unknown" > wrote in message
m...
> You will ultimately find that turning it off at night will have many, many
> advantages over leaving it on. If you doubt this, keep a log of how your
> system operates each morning for six months with power left on. Then
repeat
> for six months with power shut off. You'll be amazed.
> "David" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:37:23 -0700, "Bonnie" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >I would just like to know, should you leave your computer
> > >on at all times, or should you turn it off at nite? Just
> > >want to make sure I am doing things right for my system.
> > >Thank you
> > >Bonnie
> >
> > It's up to you really. Each wya has it's pros and cons.
> >
> > Leave it on: Pro - No boot wait, Run Maintence programs such as
> > Anti-Virus updates and Defrag overnught.
> > Con - Uses electricity, increased chance of ovrheating
> >
> > Turn it off: Pro - Saves electricity, Less noise
> > Con - On/Off cycles cause parts to expand/contract,
> > wearing them out, Have to wait for it to boot.
> >
> > I'm sure othrs can give more reasons for each option.
> >
> >
> >
> > Stupdity should hurt..
> >
> > David
>

[Amethyst]

LVTravel wrote:
> I agree, since every workstation type computer should be rebooted at least
> once a day to free resources that programs don't release when exited.
Many
> programmers don't care about system resources except for their program. I
> leave this (the one I am typing on now) computer on to receive faxes, I
> routinely experience program crashes about 1 per day if I don't restart
it.
> When I restart my machine prior to working for the day, I seldom have any
> crashes unless using a lot of the "garbage" programs that I have to use.
>
> I routinely use this machine to rip music, import analog movies to digital
> (ATI video card), digital video editing, word-processing, spreadsheet,
Web
> browsing and email/NG.


This is a load of rubbish. System resources don't exist under XP. I have one
XP system that's been rebooted twice since XP was installed 18 months ago.
The times it was rebooted (driver updates) there was no performance
increase. It may have been true under 9x but it is /NOT/ under XP. A program
that hogs memory is poorly written - and, if your system crashes that often,
then I venture to suggest there is something wrong with it. A system running
XP does not crash - if it does then either it's a BCAK error or hardware.




--�
Cassandra
Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People Too!'

Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults, bequests
of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post all
correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.

[Thomas Wendell]

You leave it on, you pay the electricity...(~1800kWh/year for my 1.2GHz
machine)

--
Most of my answers are learned on ms.public.xxx.xxx
Helsinki, Finland (remove spam_)




"Bonnie" > kirjoitti viestissä
...
> Hi,
> I would just like to know, should you leave your computer
> on at all times, or should you turn it off at nite? Just
> want to make sure I am doing things right for my system.
> Thank you
> Bonnie

[LVTravel]

Only can speak from experience. What I said still holds true for many NT
OSs.


"Amethyst" > wrote in message
...
> LVTravel wrote:
> > I agree, since every workstation type computer should be rebooted at
least
> > once a day to free resources that programs don't release when exited.
> Many
> > programmers don't care about system resources except for their program.
I
> > leave this (the one I am typing on now) computer on to receive faxes, I
> > routinely experience program crashes about 1 per day if I don't restart
> it.
> > When I restart my machine prior to working for the day, I seldom have
any
> > crashes unless using a lot of the "garbage" programs that I have to use.
> >
> > I routinely use this machine to rip music, import analog movies to
digital
> > (ATI video card), digital video editing, word-processing, spreadsheet,
> Web
> > browsing and email/NG.
>
>
> This is a load of rubbish. System resources don't exist under XP. I have
one
> XP system that's been rebooted twice since XP was installed 18 months ago.
> The times it was rebooted (driver updates) there was no performance
> increase. It may have been true under 9x but it is /NOT/ under XP. A
program
> that hogs memory is poorly written - and, if your system crashes that
often,
> then I venture to suggest there is something wrong with it. A system
running
> XP does not crash - if it does then either it's a BCAK error or hardware.
>
>
>
>
> --�
> Cassandra
> Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People Too!'
>
> Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults, bequests
> of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
> uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post all
> correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
>
>

[tsyhtema]

"Amethyst" > wrote in message
...
> SNIP>
>
> This is a load of rubbish.

Yes it is! You finaly gave an accurate description of your work prior to
writing it.


> System resources don't exist under XP.

> I have one XP system that's been rebooted twice since XP was installed 18
months ago.

If you claim to have installed the critical updates as you have in other
posts, then you have had to reboot more than that. most of the updates
require restarts.

> The times it was rebooted (driver updates) there was no performance
> increase. It may have been true under 9x but it is /NOT/ under XP. A
program
> that hogs memory is poorly written - and, if your system crashes that
often,
> then I venture to suggest there is something wrong with it.

>A system running XP does not crash - if it does then either it's a BCAK
error or hardware.

Well i guess if XP does not crash, then there is no need for help and
support, or news groups. MSFT would not release a perfect system and have a
pay per incident hotline. You can try to suck up all you want, but i doubt
you'll ever be a MVP, your too mentaly unstable.

>
>
>
> --�
> Cassandra
> Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People Too!'
>
> Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults, bequests
> of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
> uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post all
> correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
>
>

[Don Burnette]

Ken Blake wrote:
> In , Bonnie wrote:
>
>> I would just like to know, should you leave your computer
>> on at all times, or should you turn it off at nite? Just
>> want to make sure I am doing things right for my system.
>> Thank you
>
>
> This is a commonly-asked question, and you will often find people
> vehemently espousing one or the other point of view.
>
> My personal view is that it doesn't matter very much, if you
> don't turn it on and off frequently during the day. My own
> practice is to turn it on in the morning and off at night.

I pretty much leave mine on all the time, unless the weather is predicting
some stormy type weather coming my way. I just let the system enter in a low
power state. I like to run some of my maintenance type stuff in the night
whilst I am sleeping.
I agree, it really is a matter of personal preference.

--
Don Burnette

remove clothes when replying via email