turn on/off shortens life span of PC???

[deep_sky]

yes it does because the constant expansion/contraction from electricity/no electricity physically wears the hardware out. I have no idea how much it takes off of the life of your system, but I keep my turning off/on limited to once a day if I can....

[Axel]

Look at it this way - ya know how much we hate power surges going through our systems from electrical storms.....
Every time you turn your computer on - it's a power surge - a small one, but a surge none-the-less.
Also, I believe the monitor is the worst hit by the constant on & off. It does really bad things to the emitters within the screen. You can see & hear that when display modes set and the monitor re-synchs - that ugly little noise it makes.

If Microsoft software didn't require the occassional reboot to correct/reset, I'd probably only turn off my system when I was altering the hardware.

I've administered UNIX (Sun OS) systems that are up 180 days at a time without problems.

Problem with Microsoft is that the animal was written by different vendors in different parts of the country at different times and different skill levels and the engineers/coders at MS cobble these modules together. Just look at some of the credits of the IE5.5 beta version some time - there are 5 to 10 different organizations out there sub-contracted and licensed by MS.

Okay - I'll get off the soap-box now.

[Volker]

Man, I din't know it is that bad...specially about the Monitor stuff. When I reinstall windows or do any playing with the PC it takes up to 10 boot ups.
Maybe a good idea is to have a worn out, 14" screen ready for those times.

Thank you for the history behind the animal
Volker

[amauri]

Have you ever noticed how light bulbs always burn out when you flip the switch on, rarely do they burn out while left on.
I think the same is true with all electrical components, even the more sophisticated ones.
Leaving it on constantly maintains an even temperature, less expansion/contraction from heat-up/cool-down cycles.

[JoshVV]

I'm sorry, but when you get that paranoid about something so inconsequential to the life of your home PC, you must officially be called nerds.

You would as soon contract gangrenous leprosy than blow your PC up by turning it on.

Please get outside once in a while.

[jammer699]

i allways turn mine off.....lets windows reclaim leaked memory........system is 3 yrs old.....wish it would fry so i could buy a new one......no problems yet........except my floppy locked up.........think it was a surge..........lol

[Alzarius]

Well, I have to disagree with turning the computer on and of shortening its life. To start, I bought a Sony Trintron monitor back in 89 or 90. Last year I finally got a new Trinitron because I accidentally ruined the old one with some 6x9 car speaker magnets. And that thing was turned on and off for almost 10 years. No problems. Starting with my 486/66 which I bought in 93, that went on and off until early this year when I replaced it with a Penitum board. No problems. No chip creep, none of that stuff. Also, until early this year, I had an ancient 3rd harddrive in the 486, a 44 meg Seagate. Yep, got it back in 89 as well. Still works today in the 2nd computer I put together. My Maxtor 345 meg drive from 93 still works. My dual 5 1/4 - 3 1/2 disk drive from 93 still works. My USR External Courier from 95 still works. My old Packard Bell 286/12 worked till I put it in the closet. Same with my Tandy 1000EX and it's assorted equipment. I've NEVER had a piece of equipment fail because of turning it on and off. Matter of fact, most of my eqipment has never failed for any reason. The lightbulb comparison is fair, however, lightbulbs are MEANT to blow. That's how GE and company make their money. They CAN make bulbs that last till you're old and grey, but they don't. Computers don't come with a 2000 hour limit. They last until they die. If these computers were made with below sub standard parts, sure, they'd prolly fail and some prolly do. But if the parts are good quality and reliable, turning them on and off should not make much of ANY difference. Saying it does is like saying your BE6 or your Pentium III chip or your 1500 dollar flat screen Sony monitor you just bought is a worthless piece of junk and that turning it on and off will cause it to fail sooner or later. I feel that the failure rate between the 2 "sides" is insignificant. If your harddrive is going to die, it is going to die whether you turn it off or leave it on all the time. And if a part DOES fail within, say, 5 years, it's most likely defective or made with substandard parts. Quite frankly, you're better off turning them on and off so that if something is defective, they'll fail sooner and most likely, under warranty and you can replace them under warranty. The old "My <whatever> died 2 days out of warranty!" statement applies here.

[Volker]

Anybody know if turning the system on/off reduces the life span of the components?

Volker

[Mitch]

I have to agree with Alzarius..While your monitor should be the first to deteriorate due to being on all the time, the electrolytic capacitors in your box will dry out faster being left on all of the time due to heat..Most of the other semi-conductor devices shouldn't care one way or the other..Mitch

[AuraEdge]

Uhh..I leave my box on but shut off the monitor at night cuz I hear that the monitor uses the most electricity out of the whole comp..

Is that true?

[Susan]

Powering a system on and off can cause deterioration and damage to the systems components.

The biggest problem is the temperature. It is the expansion and contraction of the circuitry that is the most damaging.

When a system is turned on, it goes from room temperature to as high as 185 degrees in some areas within 30 minutes.

Over time this can cause component failures and actually cause some splitting or cracking allowing moisture to enter and further damage it. These cracks can happen on wires, contacts, circuit boards, etc.

I've seen people turn on a system only to turn it off one hour later and repeat that 4 times a day, something I wouldn't do. On/Off once a day seems okay to me.

[Volker]

I like to follow up on Josh's comment:

It is not only about freaking out about a PC deteriorating when on/offing too much that makes me post this , but also the curiosity behind the answer to that question. And as you can see there are conflicting arguments. Alzarius argument is based on his own equipment. However, the question then is: Had he not turned on and off his machines so often, would they work for another 10years? And since he did turn on/off so much, they will only last 8years and he thinks that on/off does not matter b/c they lasted so long but they would have really lasted even longer had he not turn on/off his equippment....

Well, we shall never know.

But I will definitely be more carefull and not turn the sytem off when no reason is given...

Thanks for the replies



Volker

[Alzarius]

Something I'd like to add... I do NOT recommend that anyone flick any piece of equipment off incessantly. I turn my hardware off once, maybe 2 times a day if I'm going to be out for any extended period of time. I do believe that on/off'in your equipment like it was a remote control is definately bad for it. It's bad for anything, including cars and anything else that you can turn on and off. But the previous bit is true, we'll never know how long some of my eq would have lasted, but I do think that 7-10 years of heavy daily usage is a good indicator for what I have/had.

[JoshVV]

According to your theories then, rebooting would cause similar kablooie of components - cutting the power then suddenly giving it back - and with windwohs users out there your lookin' at at least 3-4 reboots a day ( I wish I could say that I am kidding ).

[Susan]

JoshVV, no...with what I have read regarding the thermal shock theory...rebooting would not be the same as shutting down/turning on at a later time. Temperature would remain the same with a reboot.

Another note - hard drives are also affected by the expanding and contracting platters so the drives head need to make up the difference in positioning to compensate.

[troyjjr]

so does this go for power management also
(hard drive and monitor)?

[Axel]

I would say that the old saying "they don't make then like they used to" applies here when talking about old equipment. They had larger circuit paths which were more robust and more tolerant of expansions/contractions due to heat.

Today, however, chip manufacturers are packing circuits tighter together with little thought given to a long life because the hardware probably is obsolete once it hits the sales floor. On the more critical components, we are seeing larger heat sinks and larger, more powerful fans. We see things on this board regarding a water cooling system for CPU chips. (amazing stuff - telecom switch builders abandoned it about 10 years ago - fluids and circuits don't mix well and the tubes carrying the fluid expand, contract, and eventually break as well)

Another saying - "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long".

I see an agreement above that temperature change, not necessarily heat, is the initial cause of problems. Prolonged heat, however, will degrade the materials - especially the plastics within a computer. As the plastisizing compounds evaporate, the plastic on the chips and other conductors become brittle and crack allowing - as noted above - other atmospheric factors to degrade the components.

To summarize - Heat is bad. Large relative temperature changes are bad as well.

It seems, depending where you live, one or the other will get your system in the end. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif I, personnally, like a lot of fans in my systems to keep them cool as I keep them running all of the time. I live in the Dallas area where the Sea air really isn't a problem http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif but the hot summers are. If the Air Conditioner breaks, my systems get turned off. If I didn't have a toddler and 3 dogs running around, the case would simply stay off the computer all of the time.

[Zotzmein]

Though I'm not an EE, I would have to agree with the general consensus that an unnecessary amount of ON/OFF would in time affect the systems circuitry.

Speed is directly proportional to heat, to me a bigger crime than a user turning his or her computer on and off excessively, is the failure in the hardware/components industry to properly address cooling needs.

I’m a cooling freak; I’ve got a fan on my AGP video card and a slot mounted exhaust port in the first available PCI slot. I’ve got a fan over my hard drive, under my hard drive and a high-speed fan, exhaust port, which slides into the nearest 3-½ external drive bay. I’ve got a triple fan system on my Pentium 2 and two additional case fans. I’ve also got an exhaust fan, which mounts on the back of my monitor.

My next system I plan on building, I’m budgeting to purchase a KryoTech Renegade case.

Regards to All,

Zotz Mein
--------------------------------------------
http://www.kryotech.com/Products/Renegade/renegade.html http://www.3dcool.com/ http://www.plycon.com/

[Banti]

Zotzmein is right about being a cooling freak. I thought I was until I read your post... 8)

I work in the electronics field, and I can tell you that most products go through exstensive regression testing.

This testing emulates exactly the abuse that has been described here in this thread.