Why do people not shut down PC's?


Recommended Posts

-AV runs scheduled scans at night

-Windows updates run at night so they don't bother me

-If I need my computer remotely I can get to it

-Computers don't really use much electricity now

-Powering it off just to help Go Green is a crap reason

All of those could be accomplished with the computer being allowed to sleep... Just saying.

 

Scheduled tasks can wake the computer from sleep and complete (similar to how Windows Update will wake a sleeping computer to update).

 

When attempting to access the sleeping computer the packets should wake the machine out of sleep. It wouldn't be instant access (might delay you by a second or two), but you can still have remote access to a sleeping machine.

 

Computers don't use much electricity when you let them sleep so they draw little power :P

 

It takes less energy to run my rack server than it does to run my desktop. And my rack server is a lot more powerful computing wise (Dual Xeon E2690 and multiple HDDs)...

 

But it is your money spent on the Electric Bill. Spend it how you choose :)

I understand most points here about keeping the computer on. I fail to understand those folks who use boot time as an excuse. My computer boots in seconds. Are we now living in a world where people can't wait a few seconds for something? That is pretty disturbing when you think about it. There is no reason that the average/gamer user can't wait a few seconds.

How cute. If only IT cared about boot times when creating enterprise images.

Your PC doesn't run off batteries. If my tablet or smartphone was wired directly to the mains, I'd shut it down too.

My tablet is plugged in when on my desk, and runs all night long.

how long does it take for your system to boot? heck I start mine from cold every morning and it takes a whole 15 seconds to get from power on to desktop...

 

About 10 minutes from cold to all my startups are done loading.

If I shut my computer down, then the NSA won't be able to spy on me.

 

Aren't you ignoring their convert spy satellites which they use to track every person on the face of the earth 24/7?  :woot:

In an age where energy bills are going up, climate change is in the news every day, why aren't more people just shutting down their PC's when they aren't in use? These "stand by" or "hibernation" modes do exist, but why not just shut down if you don't plan to use your PC for a good few hours? I've yet to see any legitimate reason for home owners to not shut down their PC's and yet every day I see people make comments that they don't shut their PC down. Why?

Why would I? Power is cheap and my CPU will usually throttle itself anyway unless I left a game running.

My PC is generally left running all day but I shut it down at night.  I've never had a PC where sleep/hibernate worked properly, so I turn off all power management.

 

When I turn on in the morning, my SSD system drive boots to desktop in less than 10 seconds.  So the fact that I've powered off never bothers me.

 

Oh, on the climate change thing?  We're so far gone that the only way to solve it is for society to go back to the stone age.

I shut mine down, but that's because I prefer to,

I'm no ecowarrior, just don't see the point in my machine running if there's no need for it to be, plus with an SSD the boot time is usually between 50-90 seconds so it's not like I'm waiting forever..

I don't see the point in keeping the fans spinning when I'm not using it. I only leave it on to let a download run overnight every once in awhile. Also, I have a SSD so my boot time is very low.

- Uses little to no power compared to the same household without a computer or 2. I have 2 PCs running. One as a server.

- My bill only gone up $100 since I became a customer back in 2002.

- So I could teamview into my PC from work and set some TV shows to be recorded or start downloading some games on Steam so they are ready to play as soon as I get home.

- To steam movies and recorded TV shows to my ipad or 55" TV.

i usually shut down, if i dont forget, or i am not running a program that is doing something.

 

my system loads up in 30 sec, so its not a big deal.   previous system, with vista was taking well over 2 minutes before i could run a program, so i never shut it off.

 

sleep/ hibernation always worked like crap.

This is the first time I am hearing this.  What makes you think SSDs should not be put to sleep?

 

Google - seems to be no evidence either way but the fact is, SSD = seconds to boot, so why have it wasting power over the years?

 

Google - seems to be no evidence either way but the fact is, SSD = seconds to boot, so why have it wasting power over the years?

 

because I don't want to restart all my software and get everything back up the way I want it again. hence my laptop is on all the time and sleeps only when I bring it somewhere, my desktop is always on  and my two media centers are of course on all the time(one also doubles as part server), plus my GF's laptop and computer. power is cheap and over here clean as well. If our power companies are selling our hydro power to other countires and buying back brown coal power that's not really my problem. that power is only on paper anyway, the power I use comes from the nearest hydro plant. even if it didn't I wouldn't care, it's not computer or standby electronics that are the issue anyway, and the only way to clean up that is to build more nuclear plants, NOT to use less pwoer. the world is using more and more power that can't be changed, we need to focus on more clean nuclear plants not closing them due to irrational fear. 

you either have way too much software preloading on startup... or you have some slow hardware.....

 

Bit of both.

I don't need top end hardware to do what I do on my PC.  It runs my games and software.  And I have plenty of things open on Windows startup, because they're things I need to use.

My PC is on an average of 5 hours a day(evenings) and a wee bit more on weekends if I'm not too busy. So total ON time is about 15%-20% a week.

 

I see no point leaving it on continuously. Boot time take about 30-40 seconds anyway. Definitely won't kill me.

 

P.S I'm the one that pays my electric bills.

I shut my PC down each day.

I'm not made of money.

Plus, no one should waste electricity, even if they have the money to do it.

It costs you at least 50 times more in energy to shut down and reboot rather than sleep mode.

 

You by shutting down and re-booting your PC is the one wasting energy.

 

Then there are the components expanding, decreasing, expanding, decreasing in size, the wear and tear on these items are making their lives shorter and short with the continual

 

shut down, re-boot.

 

So hippy, you want to save the worlds resources, then what you need to do is sleep your PC unless a re-boot is required to update system files.

I shut my PC down each day.

I'm not made of money.

Plus, no one should waste electricity, even if they have the money to do it.

 

Those who don't actually use electricity is the one wasting power. The power stations will continue to genreate power regardless if you use it or not, and if un-used will jsut go to waste and to coup costs from that, they increase power bill like they already are doing us in CQ.

 

It is actually cheaper to moderate your power usage. Not too much not too little. Besides electronic equipment is designed to be left on. On, off, on, off, on, off, on, off, on, off, on, off, on. Especially bad for the hard drives.

Those who don't actually use electricity is the one wasting power. The power stations will continue to genreate power regardless if you use it or not, and if un-used will jsut go to waste and to coup costs from that, they increase power bill like they already are doing us in CQ.

 

It is actually cheaper to moderate your power usage. Not too much not too little. Besides electronic equipment is designed to be left on. On, off, on, off, on, off, on, off, on, off, on, off, on. Especially bad for the hard drives.

Power companies store the energy and then sell it on to other companies as excess or off-set it against future use.

 

Like if you put solar panels on your porperty, if that is the roofs, garage roof, panels in garden, where ever, the 'what-you-don't-use' gets stored in blocks and energy companies will offer to buy it from you.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      455
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!