asda freeview

On 2006-09-02, Zimmy wrote:

I bet you switch your PC off inbetween usage too, even though it'll
actually
last longer if you leave it on 24/7, switching the monitor off inbetween
which
is fine, since if the components inside the PC are going
cold/hot/cold/hot/cold/etc.

This is complete ********. I've been working with PCs for over 18 years and
its the ones that switched off every night that last the longest.
The components/chips can easily withstand the hot/cold power cycles but if
left on 24/7 all the fans and hard disk will wear out a lot sooner.

Really? Oddly, every hard drive failure I've ever had was when turning
it on...

--
David Taylor

In article ,
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
Better to use less power than more of course.

Perhaps you have a different dictionary defintion of the word
'negligible' than the rest of the country, but it's as near as dammit
as makes no difference. In fact, it's practically no difference at
all.

So on one side of the "talking ********" scale, we have the Yorkshire Post,
telling us that all the power stations in Yorkshire are required just to
supply the nation's overnight standby power. And then on the other side we
have you, telling us that in fact no power at all ("as near as dammit") is
required.

You misinterpreted what I said. The difference between leaving a digibox on or
leaving it in standby is negligible. I never said it uses a negligible amount
in either state.

I despair, I really do.

I despair at your comprehension.

I bet you switch your PC off inbetween usage too, even though it'll
actually last longer if you leave it on 24/7

Done the cost-benefit analysis, have you? Worked out the reduction in MTBF
(and consequent cost) caused by increasing the number of power cycles versus
the ongoing energy cost of running the machine 24/7?

The benefit suits me as I'm using it even when I'm not present so to switch it
off would have no value at all.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1110 DVDs, 335 games, 262 CDs, 108 cinema films, 34 concerts, videos & news
/* miami vice (psp), m.j.hibbett, talkman (psp), premonition,hitman 4,camille

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml

In article , David Taylor
writes
On 2006-09-02, Zimmy wrote:

I bet you switch your PC off inbetween usage too, even though it'll
actually
last longer if you leave it on 24/7, switching the monitor off inbetween
which
is fine, since if the components inside the PC are going
cold/hot/cold/hot/cold/etc.

This is complete ********. I've been working with PCs for over 18 years and
its the ones that switched off every night that last the longest.
The components/chips can easily withstand the hot/cold power cycles but if
left on 24/7 all the fans and hard disk will wear out a lot sooner.

Really? Oddly, every hard drive failure I've ever had was when turning
it on...


Well thats sometimes due to the PC having read off the drive what it
needs to work and then the drive failing and come the next read cycle on
switch on its not there. I've noticed sometimes this is rather
temperature dependent as well.

However as PC's are now running as fast as most anyone needs, the next
thing ought be to make them less power hungry!.....
--
Tony Sayer

Dom Robinson wrote:
You misinterpreted what I said. The difference between leaving a
digibox on or leaving it in standby is negligible. I never said it
uses a negligible amount in either state.

Oh, really? Let's look at your post again, shall we?

"Why would you want to put in into standby? Digiboxes use a negligible
amount of power either way"

Your meaning is quite clear. Digiboxes uses a negligible amount of power in
either state. So little, in fact, that it is not worth distinguishing
between the 'on' and 'standby' states.

I despair, I really do.

I despair at your comprehension.

Do please explain how I could possibly have interpreted the words you
used in any other way.

I bet you switch your PC off inbetween usage too, even though it'll
actually last longer if you leave it on 24/7

Done the cost-benefit analysis, have you? Worked out the reduction
in MTBF (and consequent cost) caused by increasing the number of
power cycles versus the ongoing energy cost of running the machine
24/7?

The benefit suits me as I'm using it even when I'm not present so to
switch it off would have no value at all.

If you say so. That hardly qualifies you to pass judgement on someone else's
use of their PC, does it?

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:54:01 GMT, "Zimmy" wrote:

I bet you switch your PC off inbetween usage too, even though it'll
actually
last longer if you leave it on 24/7, switching the monitor off inbetween
which
is fine, since if the components inside the PC are going
cold/hot/cold/hot/cold/etc.

This is complete ********. I've been working with PCs for over 18 years and
its the ones that switched off every night that last the longest.
The components/chips can easily withstand the hot/cold power cycles but if
left on 24/7 all the fans and hard disk will wear out a lot sooner.

Same here. I switch all mine off at night or if I'm out for the day,
and have never had any problems that seemed attributable to this. Well
designed electronics can usually last for decades, but computers are
typically obsolete on about 5 years, so MTBF is hardly worth worrying
about. The cost of running a 100W appliance all night every night when
it isn't doing anything seems a complete waste though.

Rod.

tony sayer wrote:

However as PC's are now running as fast as most anyone needs,

I've heard people say that every year since about 1981.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver wrote:
tony sayer wrote:

However as PC's are now running as fast as most anyone needs,

I've heard people say that every year since about 1981.

Moore giveth, and Gates taketh away.

In article , Mark Carver
writes
tony sayer wrote:

However as PC's are now running as fast as most anyone needs,

I've heard people say that every year since about 1981.



OK then, but why do you "need" a faster PC these days?. Unless your
doing some very intensive processing?.. I'm using a 1.7 Ghz AMD
processor albeit with 1 G or RAM and for all I use some 120 odd
programmes its fine. Expect perhaps for some plot processing for radio
coverage..

They don't seem to have been getting that much faster anyway, 3 Ghz now
seems to be around the norm. What'd I'd really like to see is them
developing in the direction of using less power!.....
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
OK then, but why do you "need" a faster PC these days?. Unless your
doing some very intensive processing?.. I'm using a 1.7 Ghz AMD
processor albeit with 1 G or RAM and for all I use some 120 odd
programmes its fine. Expect perhaps for some plot processing for radio
coverage..

For the average user, Vista will suck up more CPU cycles, and places
especially onerous demands on the graphics subsystem.

For the 'power user', nothing will ever be fast enough. Games will always
mop up the surplus in pursuit of greater realism. Even for non games
players, things like editing high definition video will require massive
processing power.

They don't seem to have been getting that much faster anyway, 3 Ghz
now seems to be around the norm.

That's because processor development is at a crossroads. Power consumption
was getting out of hand as they competed for ever greater clock speeds.
Making chip feature sizes much smaller was also becoming a problem. Multi
core processors are now seen as the way forward.

What'd I'd really like to see is them
developing in the direction of using less power!.....

That's started to happen with Intel's Core Duo. But then they'll add even
more cores, and power consumption will rise again...

The real power guzzlers are the latest generation of graphics cards. They
really are getting out-of-control. Before sanity is restored with smarter
designs, expect to see PCs with 1kW PSUs, or else cards which require
plugging into an external PSU.

Anyway, just to wrap this up in case anyone is searching the archives,
the said freeview box is now functioning normally after switching
repeatedly in and out of standby for a couple of minutes. It now comes
out of standby next day without a problem. I did sing a lullaby to it
last night as well.