To switch off or not...?
The Blue Meanie has read various bits and pieces here and there to the effect that current Macs are designed to never be switched off, and Apple seems to be encouraging this by putting the power switch at the back of the new iMac, etc.
But the Blue Meanie is finding it hard to get his pulsating brain around the idea of never switching his Mac off - for two reasons:
i) Even in sleep mode, the machine will still be consuming some power - and surely it is environmentally irresponsible to burn power for no reason or use?
ii) What about the sheer electrical wear and tear of always been on? Won't that damage the machine's components sooner or later? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
But the Blue Meanie is finding it hard to get his pulsating brain around the idea of never switching his Mac off - for two reasons:
i) Even in sleep mode, the machine will still be consuming some power - and surely it is environmentally irresponsible to burn power for no reason or use?
ii) What about the sheer electrical wear and tear of always been on? Won't that damage the machine's components sooner or later? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Comments
<strong>The Blue Meanie has read various bits and pieces here and there to the effect that current Macs are designed to never be switched off, and Apple seems to be encouraging this by putting the power switch at the back of the new iMac, etc.
But the Blue Meanie is finding it hard to get his pulsing brain around the idea of never switching his Mac off - for two reasons:
i) Even in sleep mode, the machine will still be consuming some power - and surely it is environmentally irresponsible to burn power for no reason or use?
ii) What about the sheer electrical wear and tear of always been on? Won't that damage the machine's components sooner or later?
1,) All macs use only a few more watts (somewhere between 2-5 more) in sleep than being turned off. Macs are Energy Star compliant so don't worry about. Even if it is off the computer still draws power.
2.) Computers are made knowing that some will leave them on 24/7. Computers have been left on for years at a time. There will be no wear.
Allow me to quote from one of The Blue Meanie's favourite writers - anglophile Iowan travel writer Bill Bryson:
"According to US News & World Report, a weekly news magazine, the United States must maintain the equivalent of five nuclear power stations just to power equipment and appliances that are on but are not being used - veideo recorders left in permanent standby mode, computers left on when people go to lunch or home for the night, all those mute, wall-mounted TVs that flicker unwatched in the corners of bars...............
If global temperatures rise by 4 degrees centigrade over the next half-century, as some scientists confidently predict, then all the trees of Shenandoah National Park and the Smokies, and for hundreds of miles beyond, will die. In two generations one of the last great forests of the temperate world will turn into featureless grassland.
I think that's worth turning off a few computers for, don't you?"
("Notes From A Big Country" (UK edition of "I'm A Stranger Here Myself"), ps 237-8)
[sr3886:~] crs% uptime
11:39AM up 3 days, 22:06, 2 users, load averages: 0.55, 0.55, 0.56
don't worry about it... and what's with the first person? someone verify this isn't Macintosh...
If you feel the power you require to start your machine from scratch saves more power than waking it from sleep then do it. But please save us the third person speak, its very annoying.
<strong>What about the sheer electrical wear and tear of always been on? Won't that damage the machine's components sooner or later?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's better for the electrical components if you don't constantly subject them to the shock (no pun intended, I swear
[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>The Blue Meanie is still not entirely happy with the idea of leaving his Mac on all night. Even a few extra watts in sleep mode adds up to a few nuclear stations</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well then, turn it off and save the planet. Hmmm... wait... your Mac won't last as long (from the cycling, remember) and you'll end up filling the landfills faster.
You're either very bored to post something like this, or you're an extremist granola tree hugger.
BTW, murbot is tired of the third person mumbo jumbo too.
<strong>Blue Meanie needs to get over it. So turn it off and on 5 times a day, we gave you our suggestions and they mean nothing to you.
If you feel the power you require to start your machine from scratch saves more power than waking it from sleep then do it. But please save us the third person speak, its very annoying.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, easy tiger! The Blu...I ( <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ) said thanks for the input. I wasn't getting at anyone personally, I was just raising what I thought was an interesting subject - and no, I'm not claiming to be an angel when it comes to a power conservation myself. Perhaps The Blue Meanie isn't the only person who needs to get over it.
<strong>Is The Blue Meanie going to tell his kids they can't have night-lites because they are causing the country to keep nuclear stations going? Because that's how much power your Mac is going to use when in sleep mode.
You're either very bored to post something like this, or you're an extremist granola tree hugger.
BTW, murbot is tired of the third person mumbo jumbo too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
People like murbot who demonstrate only too clearly why the US produces more than 20 per cent of the world's carbon emissions with only five per cent of its population. (No disrespect to more responsible Americans...)
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>People like murbot who demonstrate only too clearly why the US produces more than 20 per cent of the world's carbon emissions with only five per cent of its population</strong><hr></blockquote>
How did murbot demonstrate that?!?
spotbug is confused. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
People like murbot who demonstrate only too clearly why the US produces more than 20 per cent of the world's carbon emissions with only five per cent of its population. (No disrespect to more responsible Americans...)
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
How does he demonstrate that? He's not even in the US, he's in Canada.
You are right. My daughter has a nite-lite, listens to quiet lullaby music all night, and I only put my PowerMac to sleep instead of shutting it off.
What an irresponsible asshole I am...
You seem awfully thin skinned for a "meanie".
A lightbulb will last the longest total illuminated hours if it is turned on and never turned off until it blows. The stress of heating up, cooling down, heating up, cooling down, etc. wears it down quicker.
As was previously mentioned, computers are the same way. I say -- pardon, CosmoNut sez, putting a computer in sleep mode is the best thing to do to balance the lowest-stress-on-the-computer vs. energy saver dilemma. It uses ever-so-little power, and is less stressful on the machine (generally) than starting up and shutting down all the time.
But CosmoNut is no expert.
TOSSER
on-off cycles are bad for electrical equipment.
The start up time is a pain in the *** - i've got always-on internet acces so I need an always-on iMac to go with it.
and
(I believe that) unix (i.e. OSX) is designed for machines that are constantly on and by default runs some clean-up scripts in the early hours of the morning. There is a utility called anacron I think that reschedules these tasks if your machine is often switched off - ideal for laptops
hope this helps
I should add that just because leaving something on prolongs its service life does NOT always mean that the best conservation strategy is to leave it on. Jet engines, for example, last far longer when run constantly, as opposed to the numerous on/off cycles through the day, but I doubt most would think it is a sound fiscal or conservation strategy to run all plane engines 24/7.
And, as for lengthening the life of your PC....I have owned macs and PCs since the early 80s, and have in that time not had a single computer "die" before I gave it away. And I have had only 1 hard drive crash. My oldest Mac is a (still working) Mac Plus. My point is, most computers are destined for recycling long before they will break down, even under heavy use, so the worries about saving energy but filling landfills are not very compelling.
Fish
How did murbot demonstrate that?
<strong>Blue Meanie -
How did murbot demonstrate that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, (and this goes to spotbug too) - I just meant that by throwing phrases like 'granola tree hugger' around, our mate murbot was seemed to be showing a cavalier attitude and a determination to switch his/ her brain off rather than consider the issues, and I'd guess guess that those kind of attitudes lie behind the USA's fantastically prolifigate approach to energy use. That statistic I quoted is nothing [EDIT - whoops, of course that that shoud read "isn't something" ] I just plucked out the air - I've read it in several news articles.
But EmAn is quite right, I didn't know that murbot is from Canada.
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>