sleep

I chose to not let my pcs sleep - is this a problem? There are so many options and i knw it is subjective; we walk by the machines about 10 times a day to do work on the desktop and the laptop. Thank you

No, it is not a problem at all. Note it does mean the fans will be sucking in dust 24/7 too.

It depends whether you want to save money or not. I tend to keep my desktop running at all times (usually because it's doing something like Milkyway@home or downloading updates), and I let my netbook go to sleep after a while. Your other option is to Hibernate the computers. This stores all the data on the HDD and turns the power off. Sleep stores the data on the RAM and requires the PC/Laptop to be connected to a power source at all times.

If you put the machine to sleep, do you have to "boot up" to use it? I would rather ask the question than expiremnt with new 'stuff'.

No, it doesn't go through the same boot process as when you're starting it normally. If it's in hibernation it may come up with a screen saying "Resuming Windows". This may take between 4-10 seconds (that's a rough estimate). Resuming from Sleep normally takes less than two seconds. When resuming from Sleep or Hibernation it's as though the PC wasn't off. Everything is exactly as how you left it.

There is also Hybrid sleep.

What's the difference between sleep, hibernate, and hybrid sleep?

Sleep is a power-saving state that allows a computer to quickly resume full-power operation (typically within several seconds) when you want to start working again. Putting your computer into the sleep state is like pausing a DVD player—the computer immediately stops what it’s doing and is ready to start again when you want to resume working.

Hibernation is a power-saving state designed primarily for laptops. While sleep puts your work and settings in memory and draws a small amount of power, hibernation puts your open documents and programs on your hard disk, and then turns off your computer. Of all the power-saving states in Windows, hibernation uses the least amount of power. On a laptop, use hibernation when you know that you won't use your laptop for an extended period and won't have an opportunity to charge the battery during that time.

Hybrid sleep is designed primarily for desktop computers. Hybrid sleep is a combination of sleep and hibernate—it puts any open documents and programs in memory and on your hard disk, and then puts your computer into a low-power state so that you can quickly resume your work. That way, if a power failure occurs, Windows can restore your work from your hard disk. When hybrid sleep is turned on, putting your computer into sleep automatically puts your computer into hybrid sleep. Hybrid sleep is typically turned on by default on desktop computers.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows…asked-questions

Cheers,
Lee

Back in the day it was recommended to leave the PC's on, starting and stopping them took it's toll, but with modern tech it's no longer the case, or at least not the issue it was, I don't let mine sleep, but thats because I have no option, for whatever reason when allowing it to sleep, when I go to resume it crashes the system, and I'm forced to do a reboot, it's as though the surge is too much for it, yet I run through a surge protector, but leaving the system on just costs more in electricity than sleeping, and shortens the lives of the components as they are in constant use, but those are the only factors in leaving it on to my knowledge.

No, it doesn't go through the same boot process as when you're starting it normally.

If it's in hibernation it may come up with a screen saying "Resuming Windows". This may take between 4-10 seconds (that's a rough estimate). Resuming from Sleep normally takes less than two seconds.

When resuming from Sleep or Hibernation it's as though the PC wasn't off. Everything is exactly as how you left it.

>>Sleep it is and thank you.

I don't let mine sleep, but thats because I have no option, for whatever reason when allowing it to sleep, when I go to resume it crashes the system, and I'm forced to do a reboot, it's as though the surge is too much for it, yet I run through a surge protector, but leaving the system on just costs more in electricity than sleeping, and shortens the lives of the components as they are in constant use, but those are the only factors in leaving it on to my knowledge.

In the last 12 years I have never let any of my pc's go into sleep mode and never had any problems with the pc, in fact the one I have been using for the last 9 years I ended up putting it away because it was to slow for what I needed. No offense but I worked at a electrical plant for 30 years and this sleep mode or energy saving mode is for the birds, we have yet never saw a drop in load demand of electrical consumption and even at times during the summer when asking people to reduce their load they would not, so saving energy is a joke so why bother, turn it on let it run til you go to bed, this is how I did my systems day in and day out for all this time.

2nd many pc's I have seen that came into the shop when it went to sleep was a royal pain to wake it up, more with acers than anything else, and because of this was forced to reboot the system.

All I use is a screen saver and thats it.

my 2 cents

Jimbo1

but leaving the system on… …shortens the lives of the components as they are in constant use

There is no evidence of that at all, except, maybe, with motors and other things with moving parts. But there is decades-worth of evidence that shows keeping electronics running and maintaining a [near] constant temperature causes LESS wear and tear on the electronics than turning the device on and off several times a day. Why? Laws of Physics. When matter cools, it contracts. When it heats up, it expands. Different materials conduct heat, and expand and contract at different rates and to different extremes. Impurities in the raw materials and imperfections in the construction adversely affect contraction/expansion in that area of the device.

The problem appears when devices, big or small, consist of bonded materials - two or more different materials bonded together to form a single device. Aluminum and Iron, or Germanium and Silicon for a couple examples. Since materials expand at a different rate, it puts a strain on the bond and over time, causes "fatigue" and microfractures. This can occur around impurities in the raw materials too. Think of your car engine right after you turn if off. You hear all kinds pops and cracking sounds as it cools. These pops are tiny movements at the bond - like tectonic plates pressing against each other in an earthquake fault zone. At some point, the pressure becomes too great and something gives. In extreme cases, that give is catastrophic. Cold water in a hot glass will cause it shatter due to rapid, uneven contraction rates.

In electronics, there are many bonded devices - transistors, diodes and integrated circuits as well as just about everything else are bonded devices. This strain on the bond causes the physical dimensions of the device to distort, or become misshaped - albeit microscopically - but where every electron counts. Though a part of "normal" wear and tear, these expansion and contraction cycles age the device. So allowing electronics to heat up and cool down several times a day can cause electronic devices to age faster than those that go through fewer expansion/contraction cycles.

If you leave your computer on 24/7/365, as commonly done with file servers, the temperature inside the case and therefore the temperature of the components stays fairly constant (depending on load). The electronics is designed to do that and you can expect a long, normal life. This assumes proper maintenance throughout the life of the computer - specifically, cleaning out of heat trapping dust and maintaining proper cooling (heat sink fans and flow through the case), and of course, good, clean power.

Also, there is another phenomenon in electronics and physics. It takes a lot more power to start something than it does to keep it running. There is a surge in every electronics circuit when power is first applied, similar to the extra wear when accelerating from a stop in a car). Of course engineers are fully aware of it and design circuits to compensate. But there's those darn imperfections and impurities again (not to mention occasional surges and spikes constantly banging on them). And there are many thousands of individual devices inside a computer.

That said, today's electronics are much more reliable and tolerant than those made in the past. Components are made from much purer raw materials using better construction techniques. Fewer impurities and imperfections mean fewer weak spots - fewer defects and prematurely failed devices. I'm with Jim, the odds are in your favor your computer will become obsolete before it dies - whether you leave it on, or turn it off.

The wear and tear theory is still sound, but it always boils down to money. A computer running 24/7 can run backups, malware scans, defrags, and other tasks in the middle of the night, but it is consuming a chunk of electricity in the process, even when idle. So unless you need it running at night, it is "greener" on the environment and your wallet to turn it off when not in use.

If asked, I generally say it is better to leave it on then to not turn it on and off several times a day. So my general recommendations are (1) Hybrid sleep 24/7, or (2) Turn it on once in the morning, then off when done for the day. The other advantage to letting it go to sleep, or off, is you will not have to lug the computer outside as often to clean it of heat trapping dust.

Since moving to Win7, I use the hybrid sleep mode and it works perfectly - most of the time. I have never had a problem waking it up, but a couple times it would not go to sleep - fixed with a reboot. And I recently had a Windows Update break it, but uninstalling the update fix it. Reinstalling the update a week later did not cause a problem so that was probably a fluke. Prior to Win7, all my systems were XP and they were on 24/7, several since 2001. They have all been retired.

when asking people to reduce their load they would not

I know in my area, many companies and office buildings made serious attempts to reduce consumption. Took out half the lights, consolidated break areas for fewer coffee pots and refrigerators. But home consumers, the problem there is 10 years ago, there might have been one computer in the house. Today, there are typically two or more, several TVs and 6 clocks in every room. Plus, workers get grumpy and less productive when they are too hot or too cold, and people like to be comfortable in their own homes. The result is rolling brownouts or worse, rolling blackouts - something companies cannot afford. I changed most of my light bulbs, caulked my windows and ran the dishwasher before going to bed. That's about it.

We either need more nuclear power plants or someone needs to figure out how to power a typical home with a tiny wind generator that makes no noise that can fit on the roof and look like a chimney. If it received satellite, HDTV, HD Radio, and sucked the hot air out of the attic at the same time, and did not attract lightning, that would be good too.

Yeah I hear what you are both saying, and I don't doubt it, there are many variables that come into play, bit like a fluorescent light, to turn it on is not cheap (compared to normal lights), but to leave it on is a lot cheaper, but both my statements are very true, it does cost more in electricity, leaving a light on costs, turning it off it doesn't, also parts are often reported to lasting x number of hours, by leaving them on constantly means they are burning away hour's of it's life. BUT, that all said, how much the individual would notice in electric bills is another matter, equally if it is like a fluorescent light and costs more to turn on than left to run is another matter, again the starting up and stopping of moving parts, if this too compares to a fluorescent light then is another thing, and if this is the case then yes it is cheaper to leave running, but in the very basic simple terms of on\off costing, on costs more than off, but when taking into account other variables it would not surprise me to find it does cost more to turn it off\on than just left on.

Another thing that matters, at least when there are several computers in the office or room, is air conditioning. Computers can crank out some BTUs.

Mr. Electricity says:
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html

As long as your computer goes into sleep/standby when you're not using it, your computer doesn't use squat for electricity, compared to the rest of your household.

The above is especially true if your no longer using a CRT monitor.

Various computer models (one uses more power "off" than in "sleep" mode
[attachment removed]

Cheers,
Lee

Although there is obviously a difference between the computer being turned off or being turned on (both in terms of electrical use and the ageing of the product), you also have to think about the stresses and strains caused by peak loads. When a processor is at full load it heats up, so therefore expands. But once it goes back down to a normal level it shrinks. So yes, although the most extreme heat cycle happens between turning a computer on and off, you also have to consider the small fluctuations once it's turned on. Another note on energy saving, you can drastically reduce the heat and energy use by adopting power saving features (such as AMD's Cool 'n' Quiet). In a normal home PC the P-State transition times aren't that important. But I suppose on a workstation or server you don't want any lag between a peak load and a clock increase. Tweaking the transition times (faster switch times when moving up and slower when moving down), should reduce any noticeable latencies. This way you're avoiding the big heat cycles (turning off and on), but you're still reducing energy consumption.