For many moons, it was said that it was better to leave computers running
24/7 rather than turning them off and on. This was supposed to extend the
life of the hard drive(s) and other hardware. Is this still the case. or
is it now safe to turn off the computer at night? Unlike the glory days
of FidoNet, when my board got calls for mail as well as voice callers
during the night, I now get very few calls, and mail arrives in the
morning. If it's safe, I'd like to turn off the computer at night (I
already turn off the monitor), and save some bucks on electricity.
Thanks,
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21
BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<nobody@junk.min.net> wrote in message
news:45dcdeac$2$nynaurff$mr2ice@newsgroups.comcast .net...
> For many moons, it was said that it was better to leave computers running
> 24/7 rather than turning them off and on. This was supposed to extend the
> life of the hard drive(s) and other hardware. Is this still the case. or
> is it now safe to turn off the computer at night? Unlike the glory days
> of FidoNet, when my board got calls for mail as well as voice callers
> during the night, I now get very few calls, and mail arrives in the
> morning. If it's safe, I'd like to turn off the computer at night (I
> already turn off the monitor), and save some bucks on electricity.
Turn the machine off when you are not going to be using it
> For many moons, it was said that it was better to leave
> computers running 24/7 rather than turning them off and
> on. This was supposed to extend the life of the hard
> drive(s) and other hardware. Is this still the case.
Yes.
> or is it now safe to turn off the computer at night?
Its always been safe to do that too.
> Unlike the glory days of FidoNet, when my board got calls
> for mail as well as voice callers during the night, I now get
> very few calls, and mail arrives in the morning. If it's safe,
> I'd like to turn off the computer at night (I already turn off
> the monitor), and save some bucks on electricity.
<nobody@junk.min.net> wrote in message
news:45dcdeac$2$nynaurff$mr2ice@newsgroups.comcast .net...
> For many moons, it was said that it was better to leave computers running
> 24/7 rather than turning them off and on. This was supposed to extend the
> life of the hard drive(s) and other hardware. Is this still the case. or
> is it now safe to turn off the computer at night? Unlike the glory days
> of FidoNet, when my board got calls for mail as well as voice callers
> during the night, I now get very few calls, and mail arrives in the
> morning. If it's safe, I'd like to turn off the computer at night (I
> already turn off the monitor), and save some bucks on electricity.
Turn it off, the HDDs should power down anyway so any advantage that did
once exist no longer does. Either way you should be backing up, as HDDs do
fail.
Michael C <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
> <nobody@junk.min.net> wrote
>> For many moons, it was said that it was better to leave computers
>> running 24/7 rather than turning them off and on. This was supposed
>> to extend the life of the hard drive(s) and other hardware. Is this
>> still the case. or is it now safe to turn off the computer at night?
>> Unlike the glory days of FidoNet, when my board got calls for mail
>> as well as voice callers during the night, I now get very few calls,
>> and mail arrives in the morning. If it's safe, I'd like to turn
>> off the computer at night (I already turn off the monitor), and save
>> some bucks on electricity.
> Turn it off, the HDDs should power down anyway
Not anymore. That is no longer the default with XP and Vista with desktop systems.
> so any advantage that did once exist no longer does.
Fraid so.
> Either way you should be backing up, as HDDs do fail.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:46:55 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Michael C <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>> <nobody@junk.min.net> wrote
>
>>> For many moons, it was said that it was better to leave computers
>>> running 24/7 rather than turning them off and on. This was supposed
>>> to extend the life of the hard drive(s) and other hardware. Is this
>>> still the case. or is it now safe to turn off the computer at night?
>>> Unlike the glory days of FidoNet, when my board got calls for mail
>>> as well as voice callers during the night, I now get very few calls,
>>> and mail arrives in the morning. If it's safe, I'd like to turn
>>> off the computer at night (I already turn off the monitor), and save
>>> some bucks on electricity.
>
>> Turn it off, the HDDs should power down anyway
>
>Not anymore. That is no longer the default with XP and Vista with desktop systems.
>
Do you use XP's default monitor resolution too? If not,
it's hardly relevant what the default is, given these last
few years when MS actually allows us to change anything on
our own PCs.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael C <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>>> <nobody@junk.min.net> wrote
>>>> For many moons, it was said that it was better to leave computers
>>>> running 24/7 rather than turning them off and on. This was
>>>> supposed to extend the life of the hard drive(s) and other
>>>> hardware. Is this still the case. or is it now safe to turn off
>>>> the computer at night? Unlike the glory days of FidoNet, when my
>>>> board got calls for mail as well as voice callers during the
>>>> night, I now get very few calls, and mail arrives in the morning.
>>>> If it's safe, I'd like to turn off the computer at night (I
>>>> already turn off the monitor), and save some bucks on electricity.
>>> Turn it off, the HDDs should power down anyway
>> Not anymore. That is no longer the default with XP and Vista with desktop systems.
> Do you use XP's default monitor resolution too?
Irrelevant. I in fact always changed the default spindown of
hard drives with previous versions of Win, with desktop systems.
> If not, it's hardly relevant what the default is, given these last few
> years when MS actually allows us to change anything on our own PCs.
What matters is whether the OP changed the default or not, not me.
In <5448tnF1uqvbiU1@mid.individual.net>, on 02/22/07
at 12:11 PM, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> said:
>> Unlike the glory days of FidoNet, when my board got calls
>> for mail as well as voice callers during the night, I now get
>> very few calls, and mail arrives in the morning. If it's safe,
>> I'd like to turn off the computer at night (I already turn off
>> the monitor), and save some bucks on electricity.
>Save when ready, Griddley.
Thank you, and everyone else who replied. Power off it shall be.
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21
BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nobody@junk.min.net wrote:
> In <54698iF1vb1f1U1@mid.individual.net>, on 02/23/07
> at 06:29 AM, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> said:
>
>>>>> Turn it off, the HDDs should power down anyway
>
>>>> Not anymore. That is no longer the default with XP and Vista with
>>>> desktop systems.
>
>>> Do you use XP's default monitor resolution too?
>
>> Irrelevant. I in fact always changed the default spindown of hard
>> drives with previous versions of Win, with desktop systems.
>
>>> If not, it's hardly relevant what the default is, given these last
>>> few years when MS actually allows us to change anything on our own
>>> PCs.
>
>> What matters is whether the OP changed the default or not, not me.
> I rarely use my Windows partition, so I haven't changed anything re the drives in XP.
Then it wont turn the drives off unless you shutdown.
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:50:03 +1100, "Michael C"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:ltkqt2purat36skhs0s3krohsudokc9f6u@4ax.com.. .
>> Do you use XP's default monitor resolution too?
>
>Yes, XP defaults to 1280x1024 when installing with my old fashioned Sony
>CRT.
>
>Michael
>
No it doesn't. XP NEVER defaults to 1280x, unless you had
supplied (or it had plug-n-played) the hardware, which is
the opposite of "default".
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 07:58:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Michael C <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>
>>>> Do you use XP's default monitor resolution too?
>
>>> Yes, XP defaults to 1280x1024 when installing with my old fashioned Sony CRT.
>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>Yes it does.
>
>> XP NEVER defaults to 1280x,
>
>Wrong, as always.
>
>> unless you had supplied (or it had plug-n-played) the hardware,
>
>Funny that.
>
>> which is the opposite of "default".
>
>Like hell it is. The default is what XP does with that particular setting UNLESS
>YOU CHANGE IT MANUALLY, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
Nope, the default is what is used across all systems until
the uniqueness of a particular system causes that value to
change.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Michael C <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>>>> Do you use XP's default monitor resolution too?
>>>> Yes, XP defaults to 1280x1024 when installing with my old fashioned Sony CRT.
>>> No it doesn't.
>> Yes it does.
>>> XP NEVER defaults to 1280x,
>> Wrong, as always.
>>> unless you had supplied (or it had plug-n-played) the hardware,
>> Funny that.
>>> which is the opposite of "default".
>> Like hell it is. The default is what XP does with that particular setting
>> UNLESS YOU CHANGE IT MANUALLY, you pathetic excuse for a
>> bullshit artist.
> Nope,
Yep.
> the default is what is used across all systems until the uniqueness
> of a particular system causes that value to change.
Wrong, as always. The default is what XP does with that particular setting
UNLESS YOU CHANGE IT MANUALLY, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ruceu2dktrvqnog2a8cbp60p7rtith0l03@4ax.com...
>>Yes, XP defaults to 1280x1024 when installing with my old fashioned Sony
>>CRT.
>>
>>Michael
>>
>
>
> No it doesn't. XP NEVER defaults to 1280x, unless you had
> supplied (or it had plug-n-played) the hardware, which is
> the opposite of "default".
You'll argue anything kony. My system *defaults* to that resolution end of
story. I've installed it many times. XP will have different defaults for
different hardware.
Michael C wrote:
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:ruceu2dktrvqnog2a8cbp60p7rtith0l03@4ax.com...
> > > Yes, XP defaults to 1280x1024 when installing with my old
> > > fashioned Sony CRT.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> >
> >
> > No it doesn't. XP NEVER defaults to 1280x, unless you had
> > supplied (or it had plug-n-played) the hardware, which is
> > the opposite of "default".
>
> You'll argue anything kony. My system *defaults* to that resolution
> end of story. I've installed it many times. XP will have different
> defaults for different hardware.
Exactly Michael, *your system* defaults to xxxx because XP finds the
hardware and sets it up accordingly. (Do you have to feed it a driver disk
when you're setting it up? If so, that's not a "default", that's a
user-supplied setting).
XP itself however defaults to 800 x 600 unless it "knows" the monitor (via
either a driver disk or PnP and drivers in it's cab files) and what the
resolution should be.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:15:42 +1100, "Michael C"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:ruceu2dktrvqnog2a8cbp60p7rtith0l03@4ax.com.. .
>>>Yes, XP defaults to 1280x1024 when installing with my old fashioned Sony
>>>CRT.
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. XP NEVER defaults to 1280x, unless you had
>> supplied (or it had plug-n-played) the hardware, which is
>> the opposite of "default".
>
>You'll argue anything kony. My system *defaults* to that resolution end of
>story. I've installed it many times. XP will have different defaults for
>different hardware.
>
No, I only argue when someone is wrong. "Default" is the
OPPOSITE of the non-default, the eventual setting XP uses by
plug-n-playing or having driver supplied.
The default would obviously have to be what is used _before_
the particulars of the system are taken into account, before
XP reconfigures itself to a unique state relevant only to
the hardware in a particular system which is decidedly a
NON-Default condition, which is obviously what is happening
to get 1280x1024. Hint- I didnt write that it wasn't the
default for "fun" or "good times", it was because it isn't
the default!
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:hcrku29d1cqhthmvhclkujt03o9p2f4c6s@4ax.com...
> No, I only argue when someone is wrong.
No, you'll argue anything, you've proved that before.
> "Default" is the
> OPPOSITE of the non-default, the eventual setting XP uses by
> plug-n-playing or having driver supplied.
>
> The default would obviously have to be what is used _before_
> the particulars of the system are taken into account, before
> XP reconfigures itself to a unique state relevant only to
> the hardware in a particular system which is decidedly a
> NON-Default condition, which is obviously what is happening
> to get 1280x1024. Hint- I didnt write that it wasn't the
> default for "fun" or "good times", it was because it isn't
> the default!
You're really picking at hairs here for something that is really trivial. XP
will have different defaults for different hardware. Naturally if it can't
recognise the card or doesn't have a driver installed then it will of course
default to 640x480. But if it can find the card like mine then it will
default to 1280x1024. The FACT is when my system in installed from scratch
the res is 1280x1024.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:49:55 +1100, "Michael C"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:hcrku29d1cqhthmvhclkujt03o9p2f4c6s@4ax.com.. .
>> No, I only argue when someone is wrong.
>
>No, you'll argue anything, you've proved that before.
>
>> "Default" is the
>> OPPOSITE of the non-default, the eventual setting XP uses by
>> plug-n-playing or having driver supplied.
>>
>> The default would obviously have to be what is used _before_
>> the particulars of the system are taken into account, before
>> XP reconfigures itself to a unique state relevant only to
>> the hardware in a particular system which is decidedly a
>> NON-Default condition, which is obviously what is happening
>> to get 1280x1024. Hint- I didnt write that it wasn't the
>> default for "fun" or "good times", it was because it isn't
>> the default!
>
>You're really picking at hairs here for something that is really trivial. XP
>will have different defaults for different hardware.
It's trivial to argue, but quite crucial in order to get XP
up and running at a lowest common denominator that is not
too high for some hardware to handle. If XP's default were
actually 1280x, some people would only get "out of range"
types of error messages. XP only moves FROM the default TO
the non-default, AFTER it has detected specific hardware.
Since there is no default computer hardware configuration
that mandates having a 1280x LCD monitor, XP does not have a
default 1280x resolution, it has to use it's default
resolution then change to 1280 from that default after
having detected your monitor.
XP does not have different "defaults", when it plugs and
plays different hardware, in every case that it changes away
from it's original resolution that is a case where it
changes to a non-default resolution. If you instead wanted
to say each piece of hardware has it's own default
resolution, some having 1280x, that would be true, but that
is not XP's default, rather than hardware's default that XP
is changing to from it's default.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:9m3lu29ft9st05rfapl3ovkuddolvv13v0@4ax.com...
> It's trivial to argue, but quite crucial in order to get XP
> up and running at a lowest common denominator that is not
> too high for some hardware to handle. If XP's default were
> actually 1280x, some people would only get "out of range"
> types of error messages. XP only moves FROM the default TO
> the non-default, AFTER it has detected specific hardware.
> Since there is no default computer hardware configuration
> that mandates having a 1280x LCD monitor, XP does not have a
> default 1280x resolution, it has to use it's default
> resolution then change to 1280 from that default after
> having detected your monitor.
>
> XP does not have different "defaults", when it plugs and
> plays different hardware, in every case that it changes away
> from it's original resolution that is a case where it
> changes to a non-default resolution. If you instead wanted
> to say each piece of hardware has it's own default
> resolution, some having 1280x, that would be true, but that
> is not XP's default, rather than hardware's default that XP
> is changing to from it's default.
XP has more than 1 default. For my hardware it *defaults* to 1280x1024, for
other hardware it defaults to other resolutions. Personally I think the
default is 1280x1024 and it drops down only if it the hardware cannot
support that res. Can you show me a web page that shows otherwise?
That's all beside the point anyway. In the context of what you originally
said "Do you use the default resolution" I am 100% correct. I use the
resolution that XP gives me. I do up the refresh rate from 60 to 85hz.
Anyway, what I originally said was a bit of a joke anyway. Obviously your
statement was meant to say, do you use 640x480, which the obvious answer is
no. I am constantly amazed at the things people on newsgroup will argue to
the death. The other thing that amazes me is that I seem to get draw in. Not
any more though :-)
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 22:00:52 +1100, "Michael C"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>XP has more than 1 default. For my hardware it *defaults* to 1280x1024,
Read very carefully- NO.
For your hardware, XP runs at one resolution then switches
to a different resolution after having detected your
hardware... but it WAS running on your hardware at a prior
resolution, not 1280x1024, unless you had installed a
pre-configured OEM image or a backup of a previously
installed state which can already reconfigured itself.
That is the opposite of a default. Your system, using your
monitor, was running at XP's default, not 1280x !!! THEN it
switched to 1280x1024, which was then NOT the XP default any
longer.
If you still can't get it, oh well. Did you ever consider
searching for this on the 'net?
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:15:42 +1100, "Michael C"
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ruceu2dktrvqnog2a8cbp60p7rtith0l03@4ax.com...
>>>> Yes, XP defaults to 1280x1024 when installing with my old
>>>> fashioned Sony CRT.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. XP NEVER defaults to 1280x, unless you had
>>> supplied (or it had plug-n-played) the hardware, which is
>>> the opposite of "default".
>>
>> You'll argue anything kony. My system *defaults* to that resolution
>> end of story. I've installed it many times. XP will have different
>> defaults for different hardware.
> No, I only argue when someone is wrong.
Obvious lie.
> "Default" is the OPPOSITE of the non-default,
Must be one of those rocket scientist pathological liars.
> the eventual setting XP uses by plug-n-playing or having driver supplied.
Pity about your original question that generated this pathetic excuse for a thread.
YOU said
>>>>>> Turn it off, the HDDs should power down anyway
>>>>> Not anymore. That is no longer the default with XP and Vista with desktop systems.
>>>> Do you use XP's default monitor resolution too?
Thats clearly asking about whether I MANUALLY CHANGED
what XP has chosen to use for the monitor resolution, NOT
what XP itself chooses to use for the monitor resolution once
its worked out what monitor and video card is being used.
> The default would obviously have to be what is used _before_
> the particulars of the system are taken into account, before XP
> reconfigures itself to a unique state relevant only to the hardware
> in a particular system which is decidedly a NON-Default condition,
> which is obviously what is happening to get 1280x1024.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
That original question of yours makes no sense at all in that context.
> Hint- I didnt write that it wasn't the default for "fun"
> or "good times", it was because it isn't the default!
leave 'puter on, or turn off? 
Linear Mode
