When you're not using your computer...

[Evan Kubota]

I'm not sure how much more simple this can be.

Not that simple, considering that you should account for other factors such as lost productivity, etc. Even though a Prius clearly gets better gas mileage than a Peterbilt, using a fleet of Priuses to haul merchandise to various Wal-Marts may be less efficient overall. Turning the computer off whenever you aren't using it (which is what you seem to advocate) is untenable for many people. I guess it depends on the extent and type of your computer use.

As I said earlier, I generally leave it on and running normally from about 9 AM - 1 AM, and I put it to sleep when I am sleeping unless there are processes running.

[Rollef]

the question is, does it matter? are there disadvantages with shutting down your computer that makes it rational to keep it running even if its lifespan drops from 20 years to 18 and you use up an extra tank of gas worth of power every few years?

You also need to calculate:
What is the cost of buying two years earlier?
What does that mean for production of the item?

[mattias]

You also need to calculate:
What is the cost of buying two years earlier?

haha, i thought i was the only one who actually used 18 year old computers. dynablaster on the atari st is still my favorite and my se/30 runs netbsd 24/7. you have to remember that the rest of the world will have already replaced their computers at least three times after 18 years, whether they broke down or not.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

I'm not sure how much more simple this can be.

Not that simple, considering that you should account for other factors such as lost productivity, etc. Even though a Prius clearly gets better gas mileage than a Peterbilt, using a fleet of Priuses to haul merchandise to various Wal-Marts may be less efficient overall. Turning the computer off whenever you aren't using it (which is what you seem to advocate) is untenable for many people. I guess it depends on the extent and type of your computer use.

But this is kind of like debating whether to get into a swimming pool or not and all the reasons why being wet or drowning is potentialy bad compared to being hot and sweaty and miserable and not having any fun. If you want to go swimming, then you have to get into the water. If you don't want to go swimming, then you don't have to get into the water. But there is no amount of rationalizing that will allow you to swim without getting wet.

Likewise, if you are using the computer 24/7, then obviously you need to leave it on regardless of any wear considerations, though spreading your computing needs across multiple machines will afford redundancy that will affect efficiency more positively than squeezing everything through one machine that is more likely to fail due to over-usage. And if you aren't using your computer, then turning it off to prevent wear is just common sense, if you are concerned about wear. But there is no way to rationalize that using your computer more often than not will lead to increased life expectancy of the hardware.

Roger

[Rollef]

This is a forum dedicatet to 20 - 40years old technology. C64 rules.

Now, turn off your pc linux unix mac or what-nots. Go outside and breath.

[reflex]

This is a forum dedicatet to 20 - 40years old technology. C64 rules.

As did the Amiga. A friend of mine recently visited the HQ of NewTek (famous back in the early 1990s for their Video Toaster). He reported that they still have an amazing number of Amigas kicking around to provide support on their old gear. Talk about dedication!

[johnnhud]

In my home I have an iMac that is on all the time, 2 Pc's that are mostly in sleep mode unless I am downloading something (one I use exclusivly for my workprinter) a media PC in the living room that is always on. I also have a PC laptop and a macbook that are always in stanby mode waiting for someone to pick them up and use them. Hmm that's 6 computers in 1800 square feet of living quarters. Or 1 computer for every 300 square feet.

I wonder how this effects my electricity bill?

[flatwood]

.... HQ of NewTek (famous back in the early 1990s for their Video Toaster)....

Hmmm. Ive got a pretty good stack of Video Toaster Magazines at the studio in Tennessee. Im headed up there in a few days to start cleaning the place out for the new owners and relocate some of the bigger gear to another studio that I'm involved in (cant help myself, Ive been part of Nashville for a long time).

If anyone needs these let me know and Ill bring them back down south and send them to you if you will to pay the shipping on them. The toasters are long gone but I do have the mags as far as I know.

[Evan Kubota]

And if you aren't using your computer, then turning it off to prevent wear is just common sense, if you are concerned about wear. But there is no way to rationalize that using your computer more often than not will lead to increased life expectancy of the hardware.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... but I never argued that using the computer 'more' would make the hardware last longer. Debates about energy consumption are largely moot since when I need to use the computer, I have to use it immediately, and turning it off whenever I'm not using it is not practical or possible. Your argument neglects the fact that it takes time to start up, and likely inflicts further wear than leaving it asleep or awake, but still on. Does anyone still turn off their computer during the day...? To me that seems hopelessly antiquated, like having to launch the PPP control panel each time you wanted to go online... my computer use is far too dispersed to even conceive of turning it off except occasionally.

[MovieStuff]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say...

What a sense of humor you have. :lol:

Your argument neglects the fact that it takes time to start up, and likely inflicts further wear than leaving it asleep or awake, but still on.

If you aren't sure what I am trying to say, then how can you assert what my argument neglects?

Look, obviously I am not saying that you turn the computer off each time you step away from the desk during the day, just for long stretches when you know you won't be needing it. That will make the hardware last longer. I mean, you don't leave your car running all the time just so you can jump in any time you feel the need for speed, do you? Also, my PC takes about a minute or so to boot up in the morning. If your productivity is going to be strained by that short a boot time, once a day, then computer efficiency isn't the weak link in your production chain. ;)

Roger

[super8man]

How long does the hardware need to last anyway? Last time I checked, I upgraded computers long before the useful life of the components even entered the picture.

So, as I mentioned earlier, physical life of the product is NOT the problem...the problem is the personal and societal costs of using ENERGY...that's where the math counts. Not whether your PC or MAC will die upon the next reboot.

Sort of like super 8 cameras...they have LONG outlasted their useful life to the original owner...the original owner upgraded...as will you.

[lastcoyote]

About 6 years ago an advertising agency was on fire and all the artworks became ashes because one of the staff forgot to turn off the monitor.

My question would have to be, what flammables were sitting on top of the monitor. I would guess the monitor was covered with paperwork and overheated. :roll:

Well.... that is also possible... since it is not in our company but the compatitors. We only know the fire started from the studio.

[ccortez]

Peak oil is for chumps. Read books from 50 years ago. They were saying that we had hit peak oil back then. Peak oil is simply a way for the companies to inflate prices.

Well, the US hit peak oil in 1970. Not 50 years ago, but way back nonetheless.

People have been studying the issue for 50 years. Those like M. King Hubbert who knew the subject and did the math were vindicated by the fact (not opinion) that US production did indeed peak exactly according to their predictions.

World peak is likely between 2005 and 2010 and is as likely right this second as any other time really. I predict a general malaise and much freakiness just over the smooth top of the peak. I am not alone.

Given how far down this bad road we are already, beginning mild conservation measures at this point is like shutting the barn door after the cows have died decades ago.

Monday I bought a Subaru WRX. It's more fuel efficient than my last car, but not as fuel efficient as some. But it's fun to drive. And if we're going back to the 15th century within my lifetime, I intend to have a little bit more fun in the meanwhile (and maybe send my kids to one of those camps where they teach you which roots and berries you can eat).

[ccortez]

I'm not sure how much more simple this can be.

Turning the computer off whenever you aren't using it (which is what you seem to advocate) is untenable for many people....

Evan... untenable? That means "incapable of being defended, as an argument, thesis, etc.; indefensible." (dictionaray.com) That's pretty tautological argument for a film student... but then again you are in Florida... ;)

Let's be real. You're talking about downloading files while others are suggesting conserving energy. There's nothing "untenable" about the concept: "no oil for porn". :roll:

[super8man]

Why not the Mazdaspeed3 instead of the WRX? Seemed to offer better handling and better value being about $3000 less with more options.

20/26mpg is "OK" but nothing to brag about. My Honda gets 20/28 and its an Odyssey MINIVAN.

Oh, when did peak diamond production hit and have we run out of those yet?