<strong>Well, I for one think it is great that Blue is concerned with energy conservation. Yes, there are tradeoffs in any form of conservation (such as the one pointed aout about electronic equipment lasting longer when powered on continuously), but it is worth explicitly considering those tradeoffs and trying to do the right thing.
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</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some intelligent comments there fishdoc. And thanks for being willling to at least think about the issues
<strong>CosmoNut is tired and going to bed after this post, but:
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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Point taken - The Blue Meanie admits this isn't an easy, black-and-white issue
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".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Murbot, there's a big difference between a night light left on to comfort a child and a computer left on overnight, even if the power consumption is the same. The night light is being used for something, the computer isn't. You have to multiply what seem like trivial usages by millions to get a true picture of the impact of your (and my) energy use on the globe.
The Blue Meanie admits he did have a rush of blood to his head when he first read your message - but I toned my response down when I realised you were probably just being ironic or trying to get a rise out me...(he said deftly but erratically switching from the first to the third person for no apparent reason)
Well, I was battling with my wife last night, which may have helped bring down the intelligence level of my posting...
But my opinion is still that sleeping a computer draws so little power that I am not going to worry about it. I mean I've got a TV and a VCR that probably draw more power when turned off than my Mac does.
I do enough other energy conserving things in my life that I'm not going to feel bad about this one tiny miniscule thing.
[quote]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<hr></blockquote>
I just don't see it as much of an issue, that's all. In fact, I wonder how much electricity we have all burned reading and responding to this thread...
I am entirely on solar power, so I let them sleep. (as long as they don't have a fan that runs while it's sleeping - that could drain the batteries overnight :eek: )
We leave the G4s in our lab sleeping at night. The main computer tech people (PC zealots) say that a sleeping Mac uses more power than a running PC, but we tell them to shut up.
Well, my powerbook must not use very much power when it's sleeping, considering I can take the battery out and the light just keeps going. I can't imagine the towers would be much different.
note that the section on leaving appliances off does not mention computers (which I imagine may or may not take more energy asleep than do vcrs, e.g.). Also note that they specifically claim that "modern electrical equipment" is not harmed by being turned off and on.
I think the bottom line is - every little bit helps, and if we CAN reduce energy consumption, we should. On the other hand, for small bits of energy wasting, we should try not to get too worked up over it - we ALL waste resources, and we could all waste less.
So, the difference between sleep and off is not huge, but definitely has advantages, and the machine still draws power when off. I wonder if it draws any power when the power strip is also off...
So, the difference between sleep and off is not huge, but definitely has advantages, and the machine still draws power when off. I wonder if it draws any power when the power strip is also off...
thank you. as shown above the difference from turning it off and sleeping is only 2-4 watts.
The advantage of shutting down is probably killed because from my understanding a lot more power is used in the startup process as it is a surge and everything powers up.
Not to mention, instead of sleeping, you could be doing some <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/"; target="_blank">good for humanity.</a>
In my experience, I've had my 8600 on (more or less) 24/7 ever since I got it (5 years, I think). I'm of the "spinning up and spinning down is bad for the hard drives" camp.
It's mostly a non-issue for me. I can think of worse things to do than keep my computer turned on.
BTW...lighten up on the Meanie! He wasn't hostile in his posts at all.
actually, if you look at the study from Lawrence Livermore, they state that the power surge thing (using up more energy than leaving on) is a myth.
Nice to see some real numbers. It looks like the bottom line is - if you want to turn off your computer when not in use for a while, you will be saving a bit of energy and helping the environment, so good for you.
On the other hand, if you need or want the benefits of leaving it on, you are causing only a fairly minimal impact, so it doesn't seem like something to get too worked up about.
In my case, turning off my machines when not in use (2 computers at home, 2 at work) would save 45,000 watts a year at work, and 41,600 watts a year at home. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but I choose to turn off the home machines every day, and the work machines on weekends.
Interesting discussion - can't say I fault the power-off folks OR the power-on folks, but it is worth thinking about.
Its just a question of thinking about what you are doing. I keep my Pismo on when I am at home with it because its a priority (Use it on-off constantly). But if I had a television and a VCR I would turn it off stand by because it would add nothing for me.
No one is telling anyone that you should do this or that but just make your habits conscious and make your wrong habits habits of choice. I have chosen to take long baths every day because I like it, to leave my computer on and travel many times a year because its priority to me. On the other hand I don´t eat much meat, ride on the bus or on my bike, eat mostly ecological and don´t have a TV. Its all about choosing what to do instead of letting unconscious habits rule.
Comments
<strong>RedEric Says
TOSSER
BlueMeanie Says
WHO?
<strong>Well, I for one think it is great that Blue is concerned with energy conservation. Yes, there are tradeoffs in any form of conservation (such as the one pointed aout about electronic equipment lasting longer when powered on continuously), but it is worth explicitly considering those tradeoffs and trying to do the right thing.
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</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some intelligent comments there fishdoc. And thanks for being willling to at least think about the issues
<strong>CosmoNut is tired and going to bed after this post, but:
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.
Point taken - The Blue Meanie admits this isn't an easy, black-and-white issue
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
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".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Murbot, there's a big difference between a night light left on to comfort a child and a computer left on overnight, even if the power consumption is the same. The night light is being used for something, the computer isn't. You have to multiply what seem like trivial usages by millions to get a true picture of the impact of your (and my) energy use on the globe.
The Blue Meanie admits he did have a rush of blood to his head when he first read your message - but I toned my response down when I realised you were probably just being ironic or trying to get a rise out me...(he said deftly but erratically switching from the first to the third person for no apparent reason)
But my opinion is still that sleeping a computer draws so little power that I am not going to worry about it. I mean I've got a TV and a VCR that probably draw more power when turned off than my Mac does.
I do enough other energy conserving things in my life that I'm not going to feel bad about this one tiny miniscule thing.
[quote]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<hr></blockquote>
I just don't see it as much of an issue, that's all. In fact, I wonder how much electricity we have all burned reading and responding to this thread...
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
<strong>murbot was seemed to be showing a cavalier attitude and a determination to switch his/ her brain off</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd say you're the one that's turned his/her brain off. Good luck getting that going again.
We leave the G4s in our lab sleeping at night. The main computer tech people (PC zealots) say that a sleeping Mac uses more power than a running PC, but we tell them to shut up.
<a href="http://www.nctimes.com/news/2001/20010531/104402.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nctimes.com/news/2001/20010531/104402.html</a>;
note that the section on leaving appliances off does not mention computers (which I imagine may or may not take more energy asleep than do vcrs, e.g.). Also note that they specifically claim that "modern electrical equipment" is not harmed by being turned off and on.
I think the bottom line is - every little bit helps, and if we CAN reduce energy consumption, we should. On the other hand, for small bits of energy wasting, we should try not to get too worked up over it - we ALL waste resources, and we could all waste less.
Fish
<a href="http://www.macworld.com/2001/08/buzz/energycrunch_sb1.html"; target="_blank">MacWorld article</a>
<a href="http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/PowerBook_G419Dec00/PBG4-13.html"; target="_blank">Apple Developer Note</a>
So, the difference between sleep and off is not huge, but definitely has advantages, and the machine still draws power when off. I wonder if it draws any power when the power strip is also off...
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: giant ]
[edit: shortened links to fit the board - Amorph]
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
The additional power consumption is negligible, and the savings in time and component life are significant.
<strong>Curious how much power is consumed in sleep?
<a href="http://www.macworld.com/2001/08/buzz/energycrunch_sb1.html"; target="_blank">MacWorld article</a>
<a href="http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/PowerBook_G419Dec00/PBG4-13.html"; target="_blank">Apple Developer Note</a>
So, the difference between sleep and off is not huge, but definitely has advantages, and the machine still draws power when off. I wonder if it draws any power when the power strip is also off...
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
thank you. as shown above the difference from turning it off and sleeping is only 2-4 watts.
The advantage of shutting down is probably killed because from my understanding a lot more power is used in the startup process as it is a surge and everything powers up.
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
In my experience, I've had my 8600 on (more or less) 24/7 ever since I got it (5 years, I think). I'm of the "spinning up and spinning down is bad for the hard drives" camp.
It's mostly a non-issue for me. I can think of worse things to do than keep my computer turned on.
BTW...lighten up on the Meanie! He wasn't hostile in his posts at all.
actually, if you look at the study from Lawrence Livermore, they state that the power surge thing (using up more energy than leaving on) is a myth.
Nice to see some real numbers. It looks like the bottom line is - if you want to turn off your computer when not in use for a while, you will be saving a bit of energy and helping the environment, so good for you.
On the other hand, if you need or want the benefits of leaving it on, you are causing only a fairly minimal impact, so it doesn't seem like something to get too worked up about.
In my case, turning off my machines when not in use (2 computers at home, 2 at work) would save 45,000 watts a year at work, and 41,600 watts a year at home. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but I choose to turn off the home machines every day, and the work machines on weekends.
Interesting discussion - can't say I fault the power-off folks OR the power-on folks, but it is worth thinking about.
Fish
ok..not shoot..but how about if I spit some 'bacca on your forehead?!
Personally I keep my computer fired up, lights on, TV on, and anything electrical turned on to counteract all of your all's energy saving
No one is telling anyone that you should do this or that but just make your habits conscious and make your wrong habits habits of choice. I have chosen to take long baths every day because I like it, to leave my computer on and travel many times a year because its priority to me. On the other hand I don´t eat much meat, ride on the bus or on my bike, eat mostly ecological and don´t have a TV. Its all about choosing what to do instead of letting unconscious habits rule.
well said.
Fish