XP standby: Better with or without fans running?

[cortez]

I can get my standby to run fan less as long as I don't allow the mouse to be used to reawaken the computer (reading the net also confirms that this is common and is used as an actual stategy to get a nice and quite standby).

The Question is, do the remaining components which have trickling power to then get hot enough to cause troubles?

I have been using this method on some of my OS partitions and so far no problems, but am beginning to wonder if it is do more to luck than to anything else?

EC edit: Change topic title, replaced capitals by lowercase.

[Hairy Coo]

Heat is the main destroyer of electronic computer hardware-cant see the point of having the fans off.

Even when not active,some components are still generating maybe 50c heat
and heat stress can accumulate.

Leave them on! The cooler the better.

[farmerlee]

I leave them running when i put my desktop into standby. Mainly because the temperature here is over 100F most days lol!

[ccsito]

That is an interesting question because I never hear the fan running when I go into standby mode. May need to monitor that.

[DasFox]

I take it we are talking about the CPU here?

In standby the CPU is idling, it runs cooler, so a fan doesn't need to spin as much.

Even when you are using your computer, if you leave it sit for a period of time, and don't run any applications to make a call to the CPU, a CPU will idle too this way, also allowing for cooler running and lower fan speeds.

There are CPU fans with sensors that will detect these changes and make fan speed adjustments if you are running such a fan on your CPU.

By the way how much standby are you talking about that you want to put your OS into?

When you place it in Standby are you also shutting down your drives?

I have read much debate over this, and when I first started out as a Windows user, I use to think turning off the drives and doing a standby if I was going to be away from the box for a few hours was the thing to do, then I realized, one very IMPORTANT thing, that good computer hardware is meant to be used, and putting the drives and hardware in standby and bringing them out of it, on and off, on and off, over and over again, month after month just puts more wear and tear on the system, that is FACT.

I have a AMD XP 3000+ I bought when these things came out like 5 years ago. It's been running on this box almost 24/7 for the past 5 years and I don't do any standbys or hard drive shut downs.

The KEY here is, IF you have good hardware, quit wasting your time thinking you are doing yourself any good with all of this, if anything you are causing more harm then good cycling it on and off.

REMEMBER a computer and it's hardware was meant to be ON and running!

Turn it on when you need it, and when you go to bed shut it off, that's all you need to do, and some people don't even turn their computers off, and have run them for years without problems too.

Standby is a waste, and so is shutting down drives, period!

[Hairy Coo]

We are talking about the whole system,the CPU,the GPU,Northbridge and Southbridge chips,the hard drives,the motherboard and even the PSU.

The CPU generally would have the most efficient cooling,so it runs coolest.

The others could run 20c hotter and to leave the cooling just to convection is asking for trouble.

[DasFox]

Originally Posted by Hairy Coo

We are talking about the whole system,the CPU,the GPU,Northbridge and Southbridge chips,the hard drives,the motherboard and even the PSU.

The CPU generally would have the most efficient cooling,so it runs coolest.

The others could run 20c hotter and to leave the cooling just to convection is asking for trouble.

Well even talking about all fans, it's pointless to put a system in standby, people think it's going to save them something, well it does on the Electrical bill, but also turning a system back on and off, on and off, etc., etc., kills the hardware in the long run.

So it's a toss up, save on your electric, kill your hardware's life, or extend the life of hardware and pay higher electric bills.

And in the end no one can really say how much hardware life is saved or destroyed, but the TRUTH is a computer was meant to run. Se leaving it run all day is the best, and just shut it down when you don't need it at night.

Constant, repeated standbys month after month will take a toll on the hardware.

[Cerxes]

Originally Posted by DasFox

...but the TRUTH is a computer was meant to run.

No, the TRUTH is that the computer was meant to WORK, not to run just for the sake of itself.

However, you are correct in the fact that power saving methods will shorten the life time of the hardware (there´s always exceptions), but there´s also a difference between server hardware that was meant to run 24/7, and hardware that was meant to run in your home environment. Server hard drives for example, don´t have any inbuilt power saving because it doesn´t need to. If you try to run hardware that was intended to a home environment 24/7, it won´t last as long because it wasn´t the purpose of the specific hardware to constantly work (once again there´s always exceptions).

/C.

[cortez]

FINE POSTS ALL:

I think if I go into standby (sometimes for privacy) I will use the fans , other wise I am now convinced it is mostly unwarranted.

[demoneye]

fans on ! and u get your hardware last longer

[DasFox]

Originally Posted by Cerxes

No, the TRUTH is that the computer was meant to WORK, not to run just for the sake of itself.

However, you are correct in the fact that power saving methods will shorten the life time of the hardware (there´s always exceptions), but there´s also a difference between server hardware that was meant to run 24/7, and hardware that was meant to run in your home environment. Server hard drives for example, don´t have any inbuilt power saving because it doesn´t need to. If you try to run hardware that was intended to a home environment 24/7, it won´t last as long because it wasn´t the purpose of the specific hardware to constantly work (once again there´s always exceptions).

/C.

Yes you are correct meant to WORK, not just run for the sake of sitting there idle.

I did not say 24/7 for a HOME user, I said it's better just to turn the box on in the morning, and turn it off at night when you go to bed.

[Cerxes]

Originally Posted by DasFox

...I did not say 24/7 for a HOME user, I said it's better just to turn the box on in the morning, and turn it off at night when you go to bed.

O.k, I missed that part, sorry

/C.

[DasFox]

Originally Posted by Cerxes

O.k, I missed that part, sorry

/C.

hehe...

Live Long And Prosper...

[KookyMan]

Personally, I leave my systems on full go 24/7. I do have my monitors set to go into standby, but that is because monitors have been traditionally the one article where powering down results in a longer lifetime. This goes back to CRTs and the "Burn in threat", and today with LCDs I've just kept it up. I have read reports that over time LCDs do grow dimmer with use, so that may be one reason to do it.

In the machine that I built in 2006, February I believe, its had a near 100% uptime, with the exceptions of me moving it around the house a couple times (couple hours max being off each time being 4 times so far), a power failure that had it off-line for about 12 hours, along with everything else, and when I upgraded the CPU/Memory the middle of last year.

The system still runs like a charm, 4 hard drives, 0 hardware failures, and I don't remember the last time I had a blue screen. (had a few of them after the processor upgrade last year (to an Opteron 185) but haven't had any since then.

I have older machines that were on a similar duty cycle, and haven't had any problems. As I tell all my friends, if your wallet can handle the power expense (idling computers don't consume that much energy) just leave them on. (Helps with bonus-heat in the winter too, heh.) Just remember, the more processing your PC is doing, the more power it is likely consuming, so consider that before running projects like Seti@Home that will use every drop of processing ability it can muster.

However, after power cycling another machine, its power supply failed as soon as it was shut down, so thats reinforced my desire to never shut my computers down.

[DasFox]

Well windows itself, unless you are running server editions doesn't like running forever, sooner or later it will crash. Windows for homes users will not run 24/7 without a system lockup or crash, or BSOD, sooner or later it will take a dump, or you're going to have to restart it often...

EC: Snipped quote.
Please only quote relevant parts of a post. Thank you.

[KookyMan]

Originally Posted by DasFox

Well windows itself, unless you are running server editions doesn't like running forever, sooner or later it will crash. Windows for homes users will not run 24/7 without a system lockup or crash, or BSOD, sooner or later it will take a dump, or you're going to have to restart it often...

I have to disagree. I thought I had said it but must have deleted it. I do reboot on occasion, but 30 day+ uptimes are not unheard of for me. And 95% of the time I reboot not because of a BSOD or hard crash but some software that I install that demands a reboot.

Just checked my laptop, and I'm at 31D 16H 42M and counting. There are two instances of standby due to power supply problems, but those were less than 6 hours each. so that would still be 31 days. Its not idle either, its running multiple IM software, as well as browsing the web and watching media files from my other system. Its running XPSP2.

I also had a system up in the excesses of 100 days, but I forgot which OS it was. It was a home version, I can't remember if it was XP or 98SE. (In fairness, it sat idle most of the time just acting as a file server).

[Eagle Creek]

Windows XP doesn't crash without a reason. Windows 98 did.
You can keep XP running for weeks without a problem (I've experienced it myself). My maximum uptime for my XP PC that has been used for a fileserver/FTP/gameserver etc.. (only server duties) ran for almost 200 days before I had to reboot it because an update required it.
In fact all NT versions are pretty stable.

[DasFox]

Sorry I forgot to add that XP isn't meant to run like a server or Unix OS, that's what I was implying...

I have heard of many people running XP for many days but there has also been a large crowd out there that their box didn't like staying on for extended periods, so maybe it was more about the stability of their hardware and not the OS.

Yes NT that XP is based off of is pretty stable...

[Eagle Creek]

Well, I must say that my maximum uptime with a Windows PC has been with a Windows 2003 server. I think that's a very stable Windows-version, especially for running 24/7.