[WEB4LIB] Re: Powering down PCs

[HTheyer]

At all of our libraries we no longer power down and shut off the computers
at night because our IT department can do remote upgrades and testing when
we don't need the terminals.  We exit from all running programs and "logoff"
from the system, but leave the PCs running.  Having them work remotely early
in the morning before anyone is at the branch sure beats them coming in
while the public is there and doing maintenance when the terminals are in
high demand.  They can also see how widespread a problem may be.  If branch
A arrives at 8:30 am and reports they are down, they can test branch B
before anyone is there to see if they are also down.

It is somewhat disconcerting at first to watch your terminal be possessed
from the outside, windows open and close, and the mouse pointer moves on its
own!  It has saved some drive time and down time however.

Hillary Theyer
----- Original Message -----
From: <Walt_Crawford at notes.rlg.org>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <web4lib at webjunction.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 12:50 PM
Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: Powering down PCs


>
> Much as I hate to disagree with Dan, I'm going to.
>
> <Soapbox>
> To the best of my knowledge (and I've been following this stuff for 15+
> years now), there is NO credible evidence that powering down PCs (when
> they'll be out of use for periods of more than an hour or two) will
shorten
> their life in any real-world sense.
>
> No PC manufacturer that I know of makes such claims. Nor does any hard
disk
> or display manufacturer, as far as I know.
>
> No body of statistical evidence supports such claims.
>
> PC power supplies are designed to minimize the so-called shock of powering
> up. Hard disks, power switches, video monitors, and other "susceptible"
> components are rated for, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of power
> cycles. Contemporary hard disks aren't threatened by power-down/power-up
> cycles. And so on...
>
> Powering down unused PCs saves power (absolutely). That may not be a
reason
> in areas of unlimited free power generation, but it's a reason everywhere
> else, in terms of both direct and indirect costs. Each idling PC may only
> use 20-40 watts, but that adds up real fast. (A display without
EnergySaver
> settings enabled is an entirely different and much more serious matter:
> you're talking about a *lot* of energy use for no benefit.)
>
> If you're planning to keep your PCs for 25 years or more, there might be
> some bizarre case that burning all that extra power makes them last
longer.
> Otherwise, they should be turned off for extended periods of disuse. (And
> if you are planning to use PCs for 25 years or more, you have bigger
> problems than PC life expectancy.)
>
> Given that (a) the national power grid is already near its limits, (b) in
> some regions [here, for example], we're already facing rolling brownouts
on
> certain days, (c) almost all power generation involves global warming and
> pollution issues, I think that any advocates of leaving PCs (or other
> devices) on permanently need to cite hard evidence. And I don't believe
> such evidence exists.
> </Soapbox>
>