w_tom said:
Everything has a 'power cycle' life expectancy.
Wrong, as always.
Let's take the power switch.
That is a mechanical device, fool.
It is rated to be power cycled typically 100,000 times.
Which doesnt say anything useful about
how long it will actually last cycle wise.
And then we look at that number. That means power
cycling seven times every day for ... 39 years.
No it doesnt.
So yes, power cycling is destructive when we think subjectively.
Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
And nobody cares once we apply numbers.
Where are these numbers that prove power cycling so destructive?
No one ever said a thing about 'so destructive' cept you.
The reasoning posted here? "I always leave it on. That proves
it is better to never power cycle." Just subjective reasoning.
You steaming turds are just terminally pig ignorant bilge.
That is the difference between the English major
and the science major. The latter learns to temper
wild speculation with reality - especially numbers.
Clearly hasnt helped you one bit.
Lets look closer at thermal stress from power cycling.
Well, those semiconductors are manufactured by
thermal cycling repeatedly at maybe 700 degrees F.
Wrong. And it aint the thermal cycling of the
semis that can cause earlier failure anyway.
That is thermal cycling that also is not destructive.
Pathetic, really.
Therefore some tens of degrees thermal
cycling is destructive when 700 degrees is not?
Pathetic, really.
Trivial temperature during power cycling is
irrelevant nonsense - once numbers are applied.
You wouldnt now how to apply numbers if
your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
But we are not done confronting subjective speculation.
We arent done exposing your pig ignorant bullshit either.
Those who advocate 'always leaving it powered' would
forget that power cycling occurs when system is running.
Not a ****ing clue, as always.
When does the semiconductor suffer stress? When switching?
Nope.
An event so stressful that transistors will even
emit IR light during the switching process.
Pathetic, really.
Significant temperature changes occur at these
transistor junctions - where temperature change
is greatest - damage should be most destructive.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.
Just another little fact often forgotten when those who
advocate 'leave it on' make declarations about stress.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.
How do manufacturers specify life expectancy of parts?
A most common parameter is 'hours of operation'.
Pity that the life of many components isnt related
to the hours of operation at all. In spades with PCs.
Why? Hours of operation are the most significant measurement of stress.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.
Digital electronics are constantly switching on
and off which would be a most stressful events
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.
- even if using subjective reasoning. Manufacturers add numbers
that also say 'hours of operation' is the important parameter.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.
But don't take my word for it. Others are invited to back up
their speculations with numbers from manufacturer datasheets.
Not one of which says a damned thing
about the question actually being discussed.
In fact with hard drives they actually specify the NUMBER
OF POWER CYCLES, NOT THE POWER ON HOURS.
Where are the numbers that are always
necessary to temper speculation with reality?
Where are yours ?
No numbers is how propaganda experts spin their agendas.
You in spades.
No numbers means junk science reasoning.
Not a single number of yours in this post. Funny that.
So where are those numbers that
prove power cycling as so destructive?
No one said a word about 'so destructive' except you.
I don't see any numbers posted here.
In spades with this steaming turd of yours.
Demonstrated is not just that destructive power
cycling is hyped by myths. Demonstrated is
also how spin doctors will openly deceive you.
True of your steaming turds in spades.
If you don't first demand underlying
reasons why - especially the numbers
How odd that you havent actually posted a single
number yourself, just pig ignorantly raved on, as always.
- then I also have a good deal on an East River Bridge.
You could make a killing on this deal. Just look at the
numbers ... that I conveniently did not provide.
And you never ever do. Funny that.
Power off or hibernation the machine when
done to preserve machine life expectancy.
Or tell you you've never ever had a ****ing clue.
After all, it power cycling was so destructive as others have posted,
Lying, as always. No one has even mentioned 'so destructive' except you.
then we must always leave on every
radio, TV, light bulb, and automobile.
So stupid that it hasnt even managed to work out
the difference between a PC, a car and a light bulb.
Have fun explaining clocks, ****wit.
This destructive power cycling so often hyped by myth
No one has even mentioned 'destructive power cycling' cept you.
- junk science promoted by 'no numbers'.
Your steaming turds in spades.
