Expet Recommendation Sought

[chrisv]

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.

Hehe. I have to agree with you, Ron, that w_tom is totally whacked.
However, I also am a proponent of shutting down the PC when done for
the day. I've never had a problem with doing that, and in my job we
have test systems that get power-cycled dozens of times a day.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I have to agree with you, Ron,

Fool you.

that w_tom is totally whacked.

More fool you.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Hehe. I have to agree with you, Ron, that w_tom is totally whacked.

Yeah, one of the more bizarre examples of a complete fruit loop.

However, I also am a proponent of shutting down the PC when done
for the day. I've never had a problem with doing that, and in my job
we have test systems that get power-cycled dozens of times a day.

Sure, its certainly not a black and white issue.

I did run a number of system used both ways and generally
the stuff that was left on all the time was a bit more reliable.
Not a huge effect and you obviously use more power with the
systems turned on all the time. And if it does die when no one
is around, it may well end up worse than otherwise too.

 

[Andrew]

Nice posting.

Pig ignorant steaming turd, actually.

Apart from my comment about underpowerd
PSUs possibly suffering overload during start-up
(which I personally think started this myth:

Nope. And it isnt a myth either.

Its clear that you do get significant temperature fluctuations with
systems turned off that you dont get with systems left on all the time.

Computers running 24/7 with their PSUs getting weaker and weaker

That isnt how PSUs age.

and then failing after a power outage) I completely
agree that running the machine is significantly more
stressful than not running it and numbers do matter.

Pity he didnt have a single number.

The only exception I know is that electrolyte capacitors
will increase their leackage current when no voltage
is applied for a longer time. This problem goes away
after applying voltage for some time, i.e. it is non-permanent
damage and does not matter in computers anyways.

And that isnt an effect you get overnight.

Its more complicated than your list, most obviously with power
cycles with hard drives. While that isnt a problem with stuff
turned off overnight, you can exceed the rating in the datasheet
with 3.5" drives if you have the system turn them off when
inactive if you have that inactivity time set too low.

There's clearly a reason that the power cycle numbers are
quite a bit higher with drives intended for use in laptops.

And I have seen dry joints develop in monitors where
substantial components are soldered onto the pcb too.

 

[w_tom]

There is nothing controversial about it. Those who advocate damage
due to 'power on' provide no reasons based in science, no manufacturer
data, and most damning - no numbers. When facts cannot be challenged,
then they must attack the messenger. If you believe power cycling is
destructive to a computer, then you must leave on every TV, radio, and
all components of an entertainment system for same reasons.

Those who make 'power cycling' claims were challenged to post numbers
and facts. They did not even try to justiify their feelings. From a
science perspecitve, the idea that power cycling is destructive is
total myth. A myth promoted by classic junk science reasons using
'feelings', no numbers, and personal attacks. Nothing is controversial
when feelings, no numbers, and personal attacks are their only reasons
why.

You need not leave a computer on to do virus checks, spyware
searches, or defrags. Those can be executed manually by yourself even
when using the computer to perform other tasks.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Nice posting.

[Pig ignorant drivel snipped]

And I have seen dry joints

develop

Obviously has no idea what a dry joint is.

 

[Rod Speed]

There is nothing controversial about it. Those who advocate
damage due to 'power on' provide no reasons based in
science, no manufacturer data, and most damning - no numbers.

Yet another pig ignorant lie, most obviously
with power cycles with hard drives.

They are counted and specified in the datasheets for a reason, stupid.

When facts cannot be challenged, then they must attack the messenger.

You're no 'messenger', just a total fruit loop who has
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Cant manage the basics with power spikes either.

If you believe power cycling is destructive to a computer,

No one ever even mentioned 'destructive' except you, ****wit.

then you must leave on every TV, radio, and all components
of an entertainment system for same reasons.

Pity about the clocks, ****wit.

Those who make 'power cycling' claims
were challenged to post numbers and facts.

How odd that you never ever posted a single number or fact.

They did not even try to justiify their feelings.

Lying, as always.

From a science perspecitve, the idea that
power cycling is destructive is total myth.

No one ever even mentioned 'destructive' except you, ****wit.

A myth promoted by classic junk science reasons
using 'feelings', no numbers, and personal attacks.

Just like you, not a single number, nothing but personal attacks.

Nothing is controversial when feelings, no numbers,
and personal attacks are their only reasons why.

Pathetic, really.

You need not leave a computer on to do virus checks, spyware
searches, or defrags. Those can be executed manually by
yourself even when using the computer to perform other tasks.

And only a terminal ****wit is stupid enough to do it that way.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

There is nothing controversial about it. Those who advocate damage
due to 'power on' provide no reasons based in science, no manufacturer
data, and most damning - no numbers. When facts cannot be challenged,
then they must attack the messenger. If you believe power cycling is
destructive to a computer, then you must leave on every TV, radio, and
all components of an entertainment system for same reasons.

Those who make 'power cycling' claims were challenged to post numbers
and facts. They did not even try to justiify their feelings.

From a science perspecitve, the idea that power cycling is destructive is
total myth.

No, it's not.

A myth promoted by classic junk science reasons using
'feelings', no numbers, and personal attacks. Nothing is controversial
when feelings, no numbers, and personal attacks are their only reasons why.

And now you are doing the same thing.

You need not leave a computer on to do virus checks, spyware
searches, or defrags.

Those can be executed manually by yourself even
when using the computer to perform other tasks.

Nope. Some can but it is cumbersome, some can't, notably defrag.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some ****wit pseudokraut claiming to be
Folkert Rienstra <[email protected]>
wrote just the pathetic excuse for a troll
that any 2 year old could leave for dead.

 

[Andy]

There is nothing controversial about it. Those who advocate damage
due to 'power on' provide no reasons based in science, no manufacturer
data, and most damning - no numbers. When facts cannot be challenged,
then they must attack the messenger. If you believe power cycling is
destructive to a computer, then you must leave on every TV, radio, and
all components of an entertainment system for same reasons.

Those who make 'power cycling' claims were challenged to post numbers
and facts. They did not even try to justiify their feelings. From a
science perspecitve, the idea that power cycling is destructive is
total myth. A myth promoted by classic junk science reasons using
'feelings', no numbers, and personal attacks. Nothing is controversial
when feelings, no numbers, and personal attacks are their only reasons
why.

You need not leave a computer on to do virus checks, spyware
searches, or defrags. Those can be executed manually by yourself even
when using the computer to perform other tasks.

Hello, Tom,

As an ignoramus in matters technical, I don't feel right about joining
either of the warring sides in this overheated free-for-all. What I will say
is that I find ad hominem arguments neither convincing nor illuminating.
Your presentation of your case impressed me. Thanks for your contribution.

Andy

 

[w_tom]

Do what laymen must do everywhere. Where are their facts
and numbers? Where is even one number from a manufacturer's
data sheet? Propagandists and snake oil salesmen routinely
avoid underlying facts and the numbers so that their reasoning
cannot be challenged.

This is why we teach concepts in Junior High School
science. For example, how do you know a fact? You have a
fundamental theory that is consistent with other known facts
and theories. And you have experimental evidence that also
demonstrates the theory. Both are required. And most
important, you have quantitative analysis - the numbers. This
to differentiate facts from myth purveyors, junk scientists,
and snake oil salesmen.

I put up a challenge. Still no numbers demonstrate how
power cycling is so destructive. They make claims without
even meeting the criteria of Junior High School science. The
best reason provided is a subjective 'thermal changes are so
destructive'. Tens of degrees will damage what was not
damaged when manufactured using repeated 'hundreds of degrees'
cycling? Again, the perspective of numbers. Somehow they
just know - feel - these so gentle temperature changes are
destructive.

These myth purveyors, that I have challenged previously for
doing same elsewhere, then do what myth purveyors must do. I
posted expecting such personal attacks because of their
repeated history. This another damning fact for layman's
analysis. Since they cannot challenge the facts, then they
post insults. Kill the messenger. Another propaganda
technique that is effective if the reader forgets the symptoms
of junk science. Just another damning fact that demonstrates
junk science reasoning is alive and well.

If they really had facts, then those numbers would have been
posted.

 

[Joe King]

Everything has a 'power cycle' life expectancy. Let's take
the power switch. It is rated to be power cycled typically
100,000 times. And then we look at that number. That means
power cycling seven times every day for ... 39 years. So
yes, power cycling is destructive when we think subjectively.
And nobody cares once we apply numbers.

Where are these numbers that prove power cycling so
destructive? The reasoning posted here? "I always leave it
on. That proves it is better to never power cycle." Just
subjective reasoning.

That is the difference between the English major and the
science major. The latter learns to temper wild speculation
with reality - especially numbers.

Lets look closer at thermal stress from power cycling.
Well, those semiconductors are manufactured by thermal cycling
repeatedly at maybe 700 degrees F. That is thermal cycling
that also is not destructive. Therefore some tens of degrees
thermal cycling is destructive when 700 degrees is not?
Trivial temperature during power cycling is irrelevant
nonsense - once numbers are applied.

But we are not done confronting subjective speculation.
Those who advocate 'always leaving it powered' would forget
that power cycling occurs when system is running. When does
the semiconductor suffer stress? When switching? An event so
stressful that transistors will even emit IR light during the
switching process. Significant temperature changes occur at
these transistor junctions - where temperature change is
greatest - damage should be most destructive. Just another
little fact often forgotten when those who advocate 'leave it
on' make declarations about stress.

How do manufacturers specify life expectancy of parts? A
most common parameter is 'hours of operation'. Why? Hours of
operation are the most significant measurement of stress.
Digital electronics are constantly switching on and off which
would be a most stressful events - even if using subjective
reasoning. Manufacturers add numbers that also say 'hours of
operation' is the important parameter.

But don't take my word for it. Others are invited to back
up their speculations with numbers from manufacturer
datasheets. Where are the numbers that are always necessary
to temper speculation with reality? No numbers is how
propaganda experts spin their agendas. No numbers means junk
science reasoning. So where are those numbers that prove
power cycling as so destructive? I don't see any numbers
posted here.

Demonstrated is not just that destructive power cycling is
hyped by myths. Demonstrated is also how spin doctors will
openly deceive you. If you don't first demand underlying
reasons why - especially the numbers - 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.

Power off or hibernation the machine when done to preserve
machine life expectancy. After all, it power cycling was so
destructive as others have posted, then we must always leave
on every radio, TV, light bulb, and automobile. This
destructive power cycling so often hyped by myth - junk
science promoted by 'no numbers'.

Subjective reasoning, no numbers, junk science.

The phrase 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind.

 

[Rod Speed]

Do what laymen must do everywhere.
Where are their facts and numbers?

Where are yours ?

Where is even one number from a manufacturer's data sheet?

You've already been told about the power cycles in the
hard drive datasheets, you silly little pathological liar.

Propagandists and snake oil salesmen routinely avoid underlying
facts and the numbers so that their reasoning cannot be challenged.

True of terminal ****wits like you in spades.

This is why we teach concepts in Junior High School science.

Pity not one ever managed to make it thru your ear to ear bone.

For example, how do you know a fact? You have a
fundamental theory that is consistent with other known
facts and theories. And you have experimental evidence
that also demonstrates the theory. Both are required.

How odd that you never provided a shred of that yourself.

And most important, you have quantitative analysis - the numbers.

How odd that you never even provided a single one of those yourself.

In spades with your pig ignorant drivel you have spewed
for years now with regard to power line surges.

This to differentiate facts from myth purveyors,
junk scientists, and snake oil salesmen.

Yep, you qualify on all counts.

I put up a challenge.

And everyone with a clue noticed that you havent actually provided
a SHRED of evidence or a single number or a single fact yourself

Still no numbers demonstrate how power cycling is so destructive.

You're clearly a pathological liar. NO ONE SAID A WORD
ABOUT 'SO DESTRUCTIVE' EXCEPT YOU, ****WIT.

They make claims without even meeting
the criteria of Junior High School science.

True of you in spades.

The best reason provided is a subjective
'thermal changes are so destructive'.

Lying, again. No one even mentioned SO
DESTRUCTIVE except you, you pathological liar.

Tens of degrees will damage what was not damaged when
manufactured using repeated 'hundreds of degrees' cycling?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Again, the perspective of numbers.

Again, you flaunting your terminal pig ignorance.

Somehow they just know - feel - these so
gentle temperature changes are destructive.

More of your pathological lying. NO ONE SAID A WORD ABOUT
DESTRUCTIVE EXCEPT YOU, YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

These myth purveyors, that I have challenged previously for
doing same elsewhere, then do what myth purveyors must do.

True of pathological liars like you in spades.

I posted expecting such personal attacks because of
their repeated history. This another damning fact for
layman's analysis. Since they cannot challenge the facts,

Not a single fact from you, liar.

then they post insults.

Nope, just point out that are a pathological
liar and anyone with a clue can see that for
themselves with your lies about 'so destructive'

Kill the messenger.

You're no 'messsenger', just a pathological liar/pig ignorant ****wit.

Another propaganda technique that is effective if the reader
forgets the symptoms of junk science. Just another damning
fact that demonstrates junk science reasoning is alive and well.

Yep, thats what keeps spewing from your arse, time after time after time.

If they really had facts, then those numbers would have been posted.

True of you in spades, liar.

 

[J. Clarke]

Subjective reasoning, no numbers, junk science.

The phrase 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind.

The simple fact is that power cycling causes one kind of degradation,
continuous operation causes another, either will eventually kill some
component or other, and unlike a light bulb, radio, TV, or automobile the
computer will be long since obsolete before that occurs.

 

[John Turco]

Hello, John,

Touché! The wiser I get with age, the worse my spelling becomes. Dementia,
no doubt. . . . :-((

Andy

Hello, Andy:

Oh, c'mon, don't be so hard on yourself. You simply made a typographical
error, and neglected to correct it; I always proofread my posts and
e-mails.

(You >do< know how to spell "expert," I'm safe in assuming? <g>)


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[dannysdailys]

Rod Speedwrote:

Do what laymen must do everywhere.
Where are their facts and numbers?

Where are yours ?

Where is even one number from a manufacturer's data sheet?

You've already been told about the power cycles in the
hard drive datasheets, you silly little pathological liar.

Propagandists and snake oil salesmen routinely avoid underlying
facts and the numbers so that their reasoning cannot be challenged.

True of terminal *** like you in spades.

This is why we teach concepts in Junior High School science.

Pity not one ever managed to make it thru your ear to ear bone.

For example, how do you know a fact? You have a
fundamental theory that is consistent with other known
facts and theories. And you have experimental evidence
that also demonstrates the theory. Both are required.

How odd that you never provided a shred of that yourself.

And most important, you have quantitative analysis - the numbers.

How odd that you never even provided a single one of those yourself.

In spades with your pig ignorant drivel you have spewed
for years now with regard to power line surges.

This to differentiate facts from myth purveyors,
junk scientists, and snake oil salesmen.

Yep, you qualify on all counts.

I put up a challenge.

And everyone with a clue noticed that you havent actually provided
a SHRED of evidence or a single number or a single fact yourself

Still no numbers demonstrate how power cycling is so destructive.

You're clearly a pathological liar. NO ONE SAID A WORD
ABOUT 'SO DESTRUCTIVE' EXCEPT YOU, ***.

They make claims without even meeting
the criteria of Junior High School science.

True of you in spades.

The best reason provided is a subjective
'thermal changes are so destructive'.

Lying, again. No one even mentioned SO
DESTRUCTIVE except you, you pathological liar.

Tens of degrees will damage what was not damaged when
manufactured using repeated 'hundreds of degrees' cycling?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a *** clue about anything at all, ever.

Again, the perspective of numbers.

Again, you flaunting your terminal pig ignorance.

Somehow they just know - feel - these so
gentle temperature changes are destructive.

More of your pathological lying. NO ONE SAID A WORD ABOUT
DESTRUCTIVE EXCEPT YOU, YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

These myth purveyors, that I have challenged previously for
doing same elsewhere, then do what myth purveyors must do.

True of pathological liars like you in spades.

I posted expecting such personal attacks because of
their repeated history. This another damning fact for
layman's analysis. Since they cannot challenge the facts,

Not a single fact from you, liar.

then they post insults.

Nope, just point out that are a pathological
liar and anyone with a clue can see that for
themselves with your lies about 'so destructive'

Kill the messenger.

You're no 'messsenger', just a pathological liar/pig ignorant ***.

Another propaganda technique that is effective if the reader
forgets the symptoms of junk science. Just another damning
fact that demonstrates junk science reasoning is alive and well.

Yep, thats what keeps spewing from your arse, time after time after
time.

If they really had facts, then those numbers would have been posted.

True of you in spades, liar.

Andy wrote:
As an ignoramus in matters technical, I don't feel right about
joining either of the warring sides in this overheated free-for-all.
What I will say is that I find ad hominem arguments neither
convincing nor illuminating. Your presentation of your case
impressed me. Thanks for your contribution.

Andy[/quote:a374f2c659]

Yes and thanks, I stand by my original post and my web page on the
subject. http://www.dannysdailys.com/tips/dan28.html

You know, this is the first post I've been called names over. I have
almost 25 years in this game and I'm not amused by 16 year old
snerts. I hope this doesn't reoccur with any degree of regularity,
or I'll be gone. I won't have my name smeared by anyone. Especially
someone who doesn't know me and I've never met.

I don't have to share what my experiance has taught me with anyone. I
normally get 150 dollars an hour for that. People don't call me
names. Trust me, they don't... They're damned glad to have me.

Cheers

 

[Andy]

Hello, Andy:

Oh, c'mon, don't be so hard on yourself. You simply made a typographical
error, and neglected to correct it; I always proofread my posts and
e-mails.

(You >do< know how to spell "expert," I'm safe in assuming? <g>)


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

Hello, John,

Quite. As for being too hard on myself, not so. At 68 and suffering from
hypertension and diabetes (among other things), dementia is a painful
reality for me. I too spell check the text of my scribbling. Guess what
happened to the Subject. But I digress. Better get back on topic before
somebody takes a giant bite out of my butt too.

Andy

 

[Arno Wagner]

Joe King wrote:

@hotmail.com:
[...]

Subjective reasoning, no numbers, junk science.

The phrase 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind.

The simple fact is that power cycling causes one kind of degradation,
continuous operation causes another, either will eventually kill some
component or other, and unlike a light bulb, radio, TV, or automobile the
computer will be long since obsolete before that occurs.

Except for the PSU dying on power outages. With servers and
workstations running 24/7 it is a common event that some have dead
PSUs after a power outage. If they had been switched off daily,
the event would just have happened earlier and nobosy would
assume running them 24/7 was better....

As to it becoming obsolete, that depends on the usage. There
are severs that run for half a decade or longer. Of course
nobody would try that wit a MS box, but that is besides the point
and not all of us use a toy as operating system.

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Subjective reasoning, no numbers, junk science.

The phrase 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind.

Wasn't it you who was hung out to dry here on an earlier occassion?

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speedwrote:

Yes and thanks, I stand by my original post and my web page
on the subject. http://www.dannysdailys.com/tips/dan28.html

You can stand anywhere you like. On your head if that turns you on.

You'll have to pardon us if you dont consider that some ****wit
who can't even manage to quote in a newsgroup post properly
has anything useful to say about anything at all, ever.

I've cleanup up your steaming turd quoting.

You know, this is the first post I've been called names over.

So stupid that it can't even manage to work
out who was being referred to above.

I have almost 25 years in this game

Pathetic, really. Some of us have a hell of a lot more than that, thanks.

and I'm not amused by 16 year old snerts.

Some of us find it hilarious when fools like you jump to
conclusions like you just have and consider that that is
pretty convincing evidence that no one with a clue should
take any notice of your proclamations on anything at all, ever.

I hope this doesn't reoccur with any degree of regularity,

It does. You post a steaming turd, you can be completely confident
that some of us will point out the stupidity of what you have posted.

or I'll be gone.

Dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

I won't have my name smeared by anyone.

You get to like it or lump it, ****wit.

Especially someone who doesn't know me and I've never met.

Dont need to do either to point out that that pathetic
excuse for a web site is a steaming turd, ****wit.

I don't have to share what my experiance has taught me with anyone.

You dont indeed.

I normally get 150 dollars an hour for that.

Well whoopy ****ing do. That is nothing special, wanker.

People don't call me names. Trust me, they don't...

There's some pig ignorant enough to know nothing
about the shit you spew about ? No news.

They're damned glad to have me.

Their problem.