Win 8 Pro, USB ports and hubs

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:13:43 -0500, Paul
wrote:

On a recent OS, restore points (basically recording the Registry)
occur once a week. So they dropped the frequency quite a bit.

On WinXP, a restore point is set once per day.

So that's how often you get them, without intervention.

If the computer is powered off, at the scheduled time,
I don't know if the computer is clever enough to make
the restore point, first thing after it boots. Some other
system services work that way (only get carried out
if the computer is powered up at 3AM in the morning).

Maybe that's why Restore Points from the other
weeks are missing ?

I set up the new system about Jan 5, so there could be no
system-created restore point prior to then. The *first*
restore point was created Jan 11---when a 'critical update'
was installed. My system runs 24/7 (I just run off the
monitor at night) so the system can update itself overnight.
I know the hardest thing on electronics is turning them
on--so I try to eliminate that risk/danger as much as
possible. There are 5-6 restore points set at the moment, so
that means something is triggering them other than the
standard weekly schedule.

Gerald Abrahamson jerryab visi.com wrote:

Paul
wrote:

On a recent OS, restore points (basically recording the Registry)
occur once a week. So they dropped the frequency quite a bit.

On WinXP, a restore point is set once per day.

So that's how often you get them, without intervention.

If the computer is powered off, at the scheduled time,
I don't know if the computer is clever enough to make
the restore point, first thing after it boots. Some other
system services work that way (only get carried out
if the computer is powered up at 3AM in the morning).

Maybe that's why Restore Points from the other
weeks are missing ?

I set up the new system about Jan 5, so there could be no
system-created restore point prior to then. The *first*
restore point was created Jan 11---when a 'critical update'
was installed. My system runs 24/7 (I just run off the
monitor at night) so the system can update itself overnight.
I know the hardest thing on electronics is turning them
on--so I try to eliminate that risk/danger as much as
possible.

Capacitors constantly turn themselves off and on. Leaving your
system running for over 8 hours while doing nothing is probably
worse than shutting it off for that time, besides being a waste of
electricity.

Good luck and have fun.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:16:35 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote:

Gerald Abrahamson jerryab visi.com wrote:

Paul
wrote:

On a recent OS, restore points (basically recording the Registry)
occur once a week. So they dropped the frequency quite a bit.

On WinXP, a restore point is set once per day.

So that's how often you get them, without intervention.

If the computer is powered off, at the scheduled time,
I don't know if the computer is clever enough to make
the restore point, first thing after it boots. Some other
system services work that way (only get carried out
if the computer is powered up at 3AM in the morning).

Maybe that's why Restore Points from the other
weeks are missing ?

I set up the new system about Jan 5, so there could be no
system-created restore point prior to then. The *first*
restore point was created Jan 11---when a 'critical update'
was installed. My system runs 24/7 (I just run off the
monitor at night) so the system can update itself overnight.
I know the hardest thing on electronics is turning them
on--so I try to eliminate that risk/danger as much as
possible.

Capacitors constantly turn themselves off and on. Leaving your
system running for over 8 hours while doing nothing is probably
worse than shutting it off for that time, besides being a waste of
electricity.

Good luck and have fun.

Thanks. It is not doing nothing. It is doing a variety of
system maintenance tasks every night--checking for updates,
big downloads that take hours to get due to slow servers,
defragging drives, etc. This improves system performance. I
saw that on my Vista system. I had never done a defrag on
any external drive in 4+ years (had 4 drives running in an
external RAID box as JBOD), so when I *thought* there might
be a problem with one external drive--running slow--I had
the system check it. The drive was something like 0.3%
fragmented. The problem was obviously something else.

John Doe wrote:

Capacitors constantly turn themselves off and on.

In an AC circuit, capacitors charge and *perhaps* they'll discharge,
depending on other factors such as the value of the capacitor, the frequency
cycle of the supply, and requirements of the load. Battery chargers and the
output of computer power supplies are DC, and in a DC circuit capacitors
stay charged unless the load demands more power than the supply can deliver,
in which case the charger or computer won't work at all.

Leaving your
system running for over 8 hours while doing nothing is probably
worse than shutting it off for that time

There are two schools of thought on this, yours, and one says that leaving
it on is less damaging to the power supply because it doesn't have to deal
with the initial surge when turned on. I have some computers that are on
24/7 for years (servers), but I turn off most of the others to conserve
electricity, so on that point, we agree. But, in terms of damage, it's been
a long time since I've had to replace a power supply. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Capacitors constantly turn themselves off and on.

In an AC circuit, capacitors charge and *perhaps* they'll discharge,
depending on other factors such as the value of the capacitor, the frequency
cycle of the supply, and requirements of the load. Battery chargers and the
output of computer power supplies are DC, and in a DC circuit capacitors
stay charged unless the load demands more power than the supply can deliver,
in which case the charger or computer won't work at all.

Leaving your
system running for over 8 hours while doing nothing is probably
worse than shutting it off for that time

There are two schools of thought on this, yours, and one says that leaving
it on is less damaging to the power supply because it doesn't have to deal
with the initial surge when turned on. I have some computers that are on
24/7 for years (servers), but I turn off most of the others to conserve
electricity, so on that point, we agree. But, in terms of damage, it's been
a long time since I've had to replace a power supply. ;-)

It's a "wear" versus "stress" discussion.

And this discussion has occurred many times on USENET, with
no clear conclusion.

*******

It's not really that important though, when stuff like this happens.
Stuff like this, makes the other considerations pale in comparison.
If this hadn't happened, nobody in this newsgroup would
know what a capacitor was :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

Paul

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:13:56 -0500, Paul wrote:

If this hadn't happened, nobody in this newsgroup would
know what a capacitor was :-)

I'm glad you put a smiley on that remark...

The plague itself, and the rather scary pictures on the site you
referenced, don't get a smiley, though.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 2/1/2013 3:13 PM, Paul wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Capacitors constantly turn themselves off and on.

In an AC circuit, capacitors charge and *perhaps* they'll discharge,
depending on other factors such as the value of the capacitor, the
frequency
cycle of the supply, and requirements of the load. Battery chargers
and the
output of computer power supplies are DC, and in a DC circuit capacitors
stay charged unless the load demands more power than the supply can
deliver,
in which case the charger or computer won't work at all.

Leaving your
system running for over 8 hours while doing nothing is probably
worse than shutting it off for that time

There are two schools of thought on this, yours, and one says that
leaving
it on is less damaging to the power supply because it doesn't have to
deal
with the initial surge when turned on. I have some computers that are on
24/7 for years (servers), but I turn off most of the others to conserve
electricity, so on that point, we agree. But, in terms of damage, it's
been
a long time since I've had to replace a power supply. ;-)

It's a "wear" versus "stress" discussion.

And this discussion has occurred many times on USENET, with
no clear conclusion.

*******

It's not really that important though, when stuff like this happens.
Stuff like this, makes the other considerations pale in comparison.
If this hadn't happened, nobody in this newsgroup would
know what a capacitor was :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

Paul

Turning off a computer that's been running "for years" can lead to a
traumatic experience getting it back up and running. (Been there, etc.)

In ,
Paul typed:
It's not really that important though, when stuff like this happens.
Stuff like this, makes the other considerations pale in comparison.
If this hadn't happened, nobody in this newsgroup would
know what a capacitor was :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

Paul

Speaking about capacitors... there is something that has always bugged
me. If you make your own capacitor and charge it up, then separate the
plates and measure the electrical potential, nothing is there. Same
thing happens in a vacuum. So if the energy isn't actually stored in the
conductive plates, where is the energy stored?

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2

BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Paul typed:
It's not really that important though, when stuff like this happens.
Stuff like this, makes the other considerations pale in comparison.
If this hadn't happened, nobody in this newsgroup would
know what a capacitor was :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

Paul

Speaking about capacitors... there is something that has always bugged
me. If you make your own capacitor and charge it up, then separate the
plates and measure the electrical potential, nothing is there. Same
thing happens in a vacuum. So if the energy isn't actually stored in the
conductive plates, where is the energy stored?


This guy is a frequent poster on USENET. I bet he knows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

*******

If you wish to study this in your basement, you'll need one of these.
An electrometer has an extremely high input impedance, and the
plates won't discharge while you move them around. The voltage
you put on the plates in such a case, must be kept low, as the
electrometer may not be designed to work with high voltage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._electrometers

Example.

http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/o...2/SANY0083.jpg

http://www.keithley.com/data?asset=12643

"INPUT IMPEDANCE: Greater than 2 x 10^14 ohms shunted
by 20 picofarads."

*******

Post #15 covers what happens when the plates are moved.

http://www.electro-tech-online.com/g...uestion-2.html

As you move the plates apart, the voltage goes up.

And the poster in post #18, apparently participated
in such an experiment in physics lab.

About the only thing that remains constant, is the charge Q being used.

Paul

In ,
Paul typed:
BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Paul typed:
It's not really that important though, when stuff like this happens.
Stuff like this, makes the other considerations pale in comparison.
If this hadn't happened, nobody in this newsgroup would
know what a capacitor was :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

Paul

Speaking about capacitors... there is something that has always
bugged me. If you make your own capacitor and charge it up, then
separate the plates and measure the electrical potential, nothing is
there. Same thing happens in a vacuum. So if the energy isn't
actually stored in the conductive plates, where is the energy stored?


This guy is a frequent poster on USENET. I bet he knows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

Umm... Michael Faraday died in 1867 and never posted on USENET. Unless
you know they can post from the other side that I don't know about. ;-)

*******

If you wish to study this in your basement, you'll need one of these.
An electrometer has an extremely high input impedance, and the
plates won't discharge while you move them around. The voltage
you put on the plates in such a case, must be kept low, as the
electrometer may not be designed to work with high voltage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._electrometers

Example.

http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/o...2/SANY0083.jpg

http://www.keithley.com/data?asset=12643

"INPUT IMPEDANCE: Greater than 2 x 10^14 ohms shunted
by 20 picofarads."

Yes, I am familiar with them.

*******

Post #15 covers what happens when the plates are moved.

http://www.electro-tech-online.com/g...uestion-2.html

As you move the plates apart, the voltage goes up.

And the poster in post #18, apparently participated
in such an experiment in physics lab.

About the only thing that remains constant, is the charge Q being
used.
Paul

Using the formula E=(1/2)CV^2. Then if you move the plates far enough
away where C equals zero, then wouldn't E also equal zero? If so, where
did the energy go to?

Although if one claims you can have one plate here and the other plate
13.7 billion light years away, C can still never be zero. Which is
pretty hard to comprehend. But then again, the value of V would also be
a number so high, it too would be a number that would be hard to
comprehend. ;-)

Interesting here in the same thread:

http://www.electro-tech-online.com/g...tml#post250279

ljcox says: "There is no such thing a voltage flow." I don't know if one
could say this. As any circuit for example as applying AC that has
either capacitance and/or inductance will have a phase difference
relationship between voltage and current. Although one can make the same
case for DC and just a resistive circuit as well. Although the phrase
shift would be zero and the voltage would always remain constant until
you change something.

And reading through the rest of the post, why do you think the homemade
cap caused the diodes to blow?

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2

Paul nospam needed.com wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:
John Doe wrote:

Capacitors constantly turn themselves off and on. Leaving your
system running for over 8 hours while doing nothing is
probably worse than shutting it off for that time

I have some computers that are on 24/7 for years (servers), but
I turn off most of the others to conserve electricity, so on
that point, we agree. But, in terms of damage, it's been a long
time since I've had to replace a power supply. ;-)

While turning off my computer at night, I haven't had a power
supply failure, and I have been doing this (very enthusiastically)
since IBM PC XT days. In fact, the only reason I replaced my
many-years-used Antec TruePower 380 was to help troubleshoot a
problem that turned out to be something other than the power
supply. It's still my backup.

It's a "wear" versus "stress" discussion.

And this discussion has occurred many times on USENET, with no
clear conclusion.

Everybody has an opinion. And then there are trolls (like
flaunting their waste of electricity). It's their right, but...
Without any real evidence one way or the other with respect to
hard wear (pun intended), the obvious conclusion is, don't leave
it on wasting electricity for eight hours or more. Of course there
could be exceptions like if you might need immediate access
unexpectedly during the night.

Of course all this doesn't take into consideration power
management (if you can get it to work).

--









*******

It's not really that important though, when stuff like this happens.
Stuff like this, makes the other considerations pale in comparison.
If this hadn't happened, nobody in this newsgroup would
know what a capacitor was :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

Paul