Question, Should I Shut Down, Standby, or Hibernate?

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

rhoag

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
88
For years I shut down the computer every night, then turn it on in the morning, but some one told me I should just leave it on all the time and use the Hibernate feature under the Power options? I've never become familiar with this or the difference between Hibernate and Standby.
I have ZoneAlarm Pro as a firewall, along with Earthlink, which stops span and scans for virus email before I can dl it, so I feel sort of save there, but am not sure about this.
I also have an APC back up power supply to cover me against power failure, and it will save and shut all programs down and turn off the computer after waiting a few minutes.

Is it better to leave the computer on all the time and have the HDs turn off after an hour or so, the monitor turn off, and then have the computer go to Hibernate mode, instead of rebooting each day?

Thanks,
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
457
rhoag said:
I've never become familiar with this or the difference between Hibernate and Standby.
What's the Difference Between Standby and Hibernate?

In Standby mode, power is saved by shutting down the hard drives, fans and monitors. These are high power consumption devices. The computer still uses power to save the data in memory, so you can restart very quickly (however, if power goes off while in this state, the data in memory will be lost).

In Hibernate mode, XP saves the data in memory to the hard disk. Then the power is cut off completely, so this preserves more battery life. When you restart, it takes a little longer because the data saved on the disk must be restored to memory. Of course, this method uses disk space to store the memory data.

Source: compu-help.us

rhoag said:
Is it better to leave the computer on all the time and have the HDs turn off after an hour or so, the monitor turn off, and then have the computer go to Hibernate mode, instead of rebooting each day?
This is a matter of personal preference... Although my comp is capable of Hibernation, I rarely use it (if at all). I usually turn the comp off completely.
 

blues_harp28

Moderator
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
19,448
Hi...Stealing a quote from another member "would you leave your car engine running all night?"...I would not...;)
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
51,988
Standby can be quickly resumed, as mentioned, but power is still consumed and there can be data loss if the power fails. Hibernate saves the memory contents to disk and shuts down the machine. All is as it was (with all open programs) on resumption.

But, if you have a driver that causes problems or begins to malfunction, that can sometimes only be fixed by a real restart/shutdown.

I hibernate most of the time and do one full restart daily.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
22,468
A lot depends on how you use your computer. For example, it you just turn it on once in the morning, use it all day and then are done with it, I usually just turn it off and walk away. Unless you have a lot of programs you need to start all the time, it should boot in a minute or less. For me I can wait that long the next time I need to use it. Normally I like to reboot at least once a day. Since I turn it on every morning, it works fine like this. In the evening I just turn it off.

But it depends on what you want to accomplish.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
17,584
If your PC actually tolerates Standby or Hibernation, its OK to use but I would still reboot once per day.

Speaking with experience of a couple of dozen different PCs, various versions of Windows, I have never yet found one that did not experience some reliability issues after using Standby or Hibernation. It's somewhat better (but still often not perfect) in laptops but not really designed for all desktop hardware.

Not all software likes it either.

I never use it, in the interests of reliability.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
22,468
Same here. Unless you really need it for some reason, it's not that much time to just turn on your computer when you need it and turn it off when you are done.
 

rhoag

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
88
blues_harp28 said:
Hi...Stealing a quote from another member "would you leave your car engine running all night?"...I would not...;)
I leave my refrigeratior running all night. :rolleyes:
 

rhoag

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
88
Just wanted to thank everyone for the advice, this is a great group. (y)
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
51,988
rhoag said:
I leave my refrigeratior running all night. :rolleyes:
LOL. Actually, turning electronic equipment off and on shortens its life considerably. Expensive equipment is never turned off to avoid "thermal shock" to delicate semiconductors and electromechanical devices. There is something to be said for leaving it on all the time. Now if we can just get rid of the motors and fans, the solution will be more obvious.

And, of course, if you have the average complement of startups, the time may be too long for your purposes. Startup time is a stated criterion that consumers look for in a new machine, but seems of little interest to seasoned users. My startup time varies from 5-7 minutes---time I consider well-spent. By the time I return with the coffee, all my most used applications are running, servers initialized, network drives connected, mail received. It more than saves me time in the long run.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
22,468
I've always wanted to see some published tests on this. For example, identical computers. One left on all the time. One shutdown once a day. Then how long do they last. Of course for any meaningful results it would need to be done with a lot of computers. But if there is anything out there with specifics it would be great to see. Most times, I replace computers more due to their age (and slowness) after 5 or so years rather than failures.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
51,988
Since these features are inherent in electronic devices and have been known since Shockley, I'd suggest Google. A knowledge of electronics or rudimentary physics would preclude the necessity of comparing differing electronic devices. Fifty years of experience seems to have convinced most people.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
17,584
The thermal shock was quite valid in the '80s with PC equipment, but I have seen no economic evidence of it in modern equipment.

While it undoubtably exists, the normal lifetime is still well above the obsolescence factor I believe, so leaving it running so it will last 30 years vs turning in off and on and reducing the life to 20 years is quite immaterial (as an example only, no hard figures are known) when its obsolete in 6 years anyway.

I manages a fleet of 30 or 40 PCs at one stage, all but the servers were turned off at night. No failures were attributed to the practice, they all became obsolete well before they failed.

Also consider the (rapidly increasing) cost of electricity. The power saved in 5 years by powering down would pay for the replacement of most of the the system here.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
51,988
kiwiguy said:
The thermal shock was quite valid in the '80s with PC equipment, but I have seen no economic evidence of it in modern equipment.

While it undoubtably exists, the normal lifetime is still well above the obsolescence factor I believe, so leaving it running so it will last 30 years vs turning in off and on and reducing the life to 20 years is quite immaterial (as an example only, no hard figures are known) when its obsolete in 6 years anyway.

I manages a fleet of 30 or 40 PCs at one stage, all but the servers were turned off at night. No failures were attributed to the practice, they all became obsolete well before they failed.

Also consider the (rapidly increasing) cost of electricity. The power saved in 5 years by powering down would pay for the replacement of most of the the system here.
That's all certainly true. And adding the fact that motors are likely to fail before electronics makes the extended lifetime much less relevant.

But considering that all electronic devices have a mean time to failure that is often (half the time) less than the average, all of these factors are relevant when making decisions about leaving things on. I don't personally recommend 24 hour a day running of computers for the reasons mentioned, but primarily because motors and bearings will fail. IBM actually produced a hard drive with a recommendation that it not be run for longer than 8-hour intervals---poor judgement that they have yet to live down.
 

rhoag

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
88
And... d-u-s-t

approximately 16 hours of dust build up or 24?... 1/3 more for 24
extra maintenance, unless you live in a clean building. :)
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Members online

Top