Leaving Dell Dimension 8300 running 24/7 ...?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)

I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.

I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
sweep.

Questions:

1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
because of software incompatibilities.

3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
specifically to the 8300?

Thanks!

--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
> I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
> way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
> Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
> my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.

it lands on your system through your browser... you visited a website
that had it and i the process of loading the page the file was saved to
disk in your jvm's cache...

being on your system doesn't necessarily make your system compromised,
however... you need a vulnerable jvm for that to happen...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...
>
> (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
> I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that
makes its
> way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa
2003
> Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can
land on
> my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.

I well understand that it is not a virus. It is, as stated, a "trojan".
It is an exploit trojan (if your Java is up to date - no worries) that
gets downloaded as a result of normal browsing (to evidently
untrustworthy sites).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...

> 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on?

If the machine is operating properly, free of cooling obstructions
(dust/lint), and operated in a room that is within environmental
requirements, it should be fine.

> I'll of
> course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
> perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
> this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

There are alot of net discussions regarding the pros/cons of leaving on
vs turning off. A google web and/or groups search (keywords: leave
computer on turn off) would be worth performing.

> 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
> staying on?

Assuming your computer remains connected to the/a net and is responding
to network traffic and executing software, probably. For you're being
exposed to [potentially] hostile traffic for longer periods of time, you won't
be in a position to observe unusual behavior, etc. However, if your box
is properly secured and you promptly respond to new threats, the increased
risk would seem to be minimal.

> I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently because of
> software incompatibilities.

Well, promptly applying security updates to your OS and applications is
rule #1 in my book. If you haven't already, investigate those issues and
see whether you can make said software work with SP2 (without turning
off SP2 security features). In some cases, a firewall exception will do the
trick, in others, adding a "mark of the web" to local javascript and/or
Active-X utilizing html files will do the trick, etc.

> 3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
> specifically to the 8300?

Whether you keep your system on 24hrs/day or 2hrs/day, the same
safe computing practices apply. If you aren't well schooled in such
matters, do some googling/reading and brush up.

BTW, Microsoft's Baseline Security Analyzer can be a usefull tool:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mbsahome.mspx

Its MS newsgroup is: microsoft.public.security.baseline_analyzer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

> 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
> staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
> because of software incompatibilities.

Quite possibly - how are you connected to the net ?

If you`re on broadband, i`d *strongly* recommend a router, as it will
stop port scans or other attacks from getting through to your machine by
dropping the packets if your machine hadn`t actively requested them.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

I can count on one hand the number of times over the last 2.5 years that I
have turned my computer off. I have cable broadband. I take all the proper
precautions, which is why I have never been infected by a virus or spyware.
I don't have a hardware router - yet - but I agree that it's a good thing to
have. Not absolutely necessary, but it's another layer of protection, and
there's nothing wrong about that.

Ted Zieglar

"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7869af7a15552d98ae8b@news.individual.net...
>> 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
>> staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
>> because of software incompatibilities.
>
> Quite possibly - how are you connected to the net ?
>
> If you`re on broadband, i`d *strongly* recommend a router, as it will
> stop port scans or other attacks from getting through to your machine by
> dropping the packets if your machine hadn`t actively requested them.
>
> --
> Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
> --- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

1. You might try the free download of Zone Alarm. 1000% better than Windows
XP's flimsy ten-cent excuse for a firewall, even the SP2 firewall.

2. I agree with the notion that a router provides added protection.

3. A software firewall plus a router improves protection, but it is still not
perfect. Worth doing, though.

4. A computer powered down or physically detached from the internet is
impervious to any intrusion from the outside yet designed.

5. As a matter of course, we power down all computers before going to bed, or
when we do not expect to use them for a number of hours.

6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down when not
in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer up
24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the zero-to-60
effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those who
prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive AND
its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive,
memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I
am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:49 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
>I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
>way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
>Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
>my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.
>
>I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
>sweep.
>
>Questions:
>
>1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
>course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
>perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
>this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.
>
>2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
>staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
>because of software incompatibilities.
>
>3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
>specifically to the 8300?
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
>
>

 

[Molly]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I would also suggest free Ad-aware SE, and SpyBot.
<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:420e8a32.35709247@nntp.charter.net...
> 1. You might try the free download of Zone Alarm. 1000% better than
> Windows
> XP's flimsy ten-cent excuse for a firewall, even the SP2 firewall.
>
> 2. I agree with the notion that a router provides added protection.
>
> 3. A software firewall plus a router improves protection, but it is still
> not
> perfect. Worth doing, though.
>
> 4. A computer powered down or physically detached from the internet is
> impervious to any intrusion from the outside yet designed.
>
> 5. As a matter of course, we power down all computers before going to bed,
> or
> when we do not expect to use them for a number of hours.
>
> 6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down
> when not
> in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer
> up
> 24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the
> zero-to-60
> effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those
> who
> prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings
> on
> rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive
> AND
> its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
> backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM
> drive,
> memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data.
> So I
> am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers
>
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:49 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>>
>>I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes
>>its
>>way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa
>>2003
>>Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land
>>on
>>my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.
>>
>>I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
>>sweep.
>>
>>Questions:
>>
>>1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
>>course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
>>perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
>>this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for
>>hibernation.
>>
>>2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
>>staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
>>because of software incompatibilities.
>>
>>3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
>>specifically to the 8300?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>--
>>"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
>>
>>
>

 

[steve]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:09:22 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
(Ben Myers) wrote:


>6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down when not
>in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer up
>24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the zero-to-60
>effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those who
>prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
>rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive AND
>its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
>backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive,
>memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I
>am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers
>

For many, many years I worked for a company with thousands of
computers ranging from PCs up to high performance multi-processor
systems. The admin systems were switched off every night. The
development systems were left on all the time. The systems that were
never switched off had a much lower failure rate than the ones that
were switched off and on daily. The failure rate of hard drives was
also greatest in the systems that were switched off every day.

So I'm in the leave it switched on camp.


--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software

EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

In article <d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07>, Thomas G. Marshall says...
>
> (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>
> I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
> way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
> Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
> my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.
>
> I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
> sweep.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
> course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
> perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
> this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.
>
> 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
> staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
> because of software incompatibilities.
>
> 3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
> specifically to the 8300?
>
1) Yes.
2) No. But you'd benefit from using Sygate Personal Firewall or
ZoneAlarm.


--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:420e8a32.35709247@nntp.charter.net...

> 6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down
when not
> in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a
computer up
> 24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the
zero-to-60
> effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power.
Those who
> prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the
bearings on
> rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives.

IIRC the maximum wear on the harddrive is during spinup and warmup.
Less, not more, wear occurs if left running.

....but that's for another group.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

<steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsn5t0116j6qebehafo4mthp8vkifosm0u0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:09:22 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
> (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>
> >6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered
down when not
> >in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a
computer up
> >24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the
zero-to-60
> >effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power.
Those who
> >prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the
bearings on
> >rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard
drive AND
> >its contents are the most important part of my system, even with
regular
> >backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard,
CD-ROM drive,
> >memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the
data. So I
> >am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers
> >
>
> For many, many years I worked for a company with thousands of
> computers ranging from PCs up to high performance multi-processor
> systems. The admin systems were switched off every night. The
> development systems were left on all the time. The systems that were
> never switched off had a much lower failure rate than the ones that
> were switched off and on daily. The failure rate of hard drives was
> also greatest in the systems that were switched off every day.
>
> So I'm in the leave it switched on camp.

Yes, the "zero to sixty" applies to motors and bearings as well as many
electronic parts. Your anectdotal evidence backs this up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Roger Wilco coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...
>>
>> (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)
>>
>> I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that
>> makes its way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a
>> couple of circa 2003 Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck
>> such a simple file can land on my system, particularly since it's
>> such a well understood virus.
>
> I well understand that it is not a virus. It is, as stated, a
> "trojan". It is an exploit trojan (if your Java is up to date - no
> worries) that gets downloaded as a result of normal browsing (to
> evidently untrustworthy sites).


Ok. As an aside though, I no longer go through the effort to
conversationally differentiate between the various bad thangs, so long as I
identify any particular one by it's proper NAV or McAV or KAV name.

"Virus", right or wrong, has conversationally become an umbrella term.

*Thanks* though. Your (and Kurt Wismer's) point underscores the point that
this trojan is not as harmful as I might otherwise have thought.


--
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

User N coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...
>
>> 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on?
>
> If the machine is operating properly, free of cooling obstructions
> (dust/lint), and operated in a room that is within environmental
> requirements, it should be fine.

Fair enough. Is this advice specific to the 8300 though? Some machines are
not configured for internal air travel properly. Some of the earlier
dimensions (my IT guy pointed out once) were known for not bringing enough
air by the default HD bay, and memory. Apparently in the memory case, it
was because the CPU heat sink was upstream. {shrug}.


>
>> I'll of
>> course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown
>> down perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more
>> about this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except
>> for hibernation.
>
> There are alot of net discussions regarding the pros/cons of leaving
> on
> vs turning off. A google web and/or groups search (keywords: leave
> computer on turn off) would be worth performing.


Always do---good advice. Doesn't replace a usenet discussion (nor should
it). Virtual *talking* with you all is by far the most informative.

....[rip]...


> BTW, Microsoft's Baseline Security Analyzer can be a usefull tool:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mbsahome.mspx

Perfect! Thanks for that!


>
> Its MS newsgroup is: microsoft.public.security.baseline_analyzer



--
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Whether the heatsink was first or last in-line makes little
difference - means only single digit degrees. Case air flow
is mostly hyped by those who first did not learn the numbers.
Numbers that must come from the theory AND be confirmed by
experimentation. These are requirements as taught in junior
high school science.

Serious complication in airflow that causes heat problems is
dead space. Most every component is cooled sufficiently by an
air flow so little that your hand cannot detect it. The
difference between that airflow and dead space is a massive
increase in component temperature. Too often without first
learning these basics, then some will demand "More Fans". One
80 mm fan of Std CFM is more than sufficient airflow through a
chassis.

But what makes it sufficient? That one fan is sufficient
when room temperature is 100 degrees F. If you computer is
crashing due to heat, the solution is not more fans or where a
heatsink is located. Solution to hardware failure is heating
that component with a hairdryer on high to find and remove the
100% defective hardware. Heat is not a problem in a chassic
with one 80 mm fan. And heat is a diagnostic tool to locate
defective components.

Again, with only one 80 mm fan, that system should operate
just fine in a 100 degree F room. Why more fans for a system
in a 70 degree room? Junk science reasoning.

The IT guy's conclusion was correct ... as long as we don't
apply numbers. Apply numbers. Those few degrees of
temperature increase makes no difference. IOW without
numbers, then junk science conclusions are easily assumed.
Defined is the benchmark between myth purveyors verses those
from the world of reality. One who cannot provide the numbers
is most often from the junk science world. A few degrees
temperature difference means virtually nothing to heatsink
cooling - where tens of degrees are being discussed, and where
critically necessary air flow is so gentle as to not be
detectable by a human hand.

"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
> Fair enough. Is this advice specific to the 8300 though? Some
> machines are not configured for internal air travel properly. Some
> of the earlier dimensions (my IT guy pointed out once) were known
> for not bringing enough air by the default HD bay, and memory.
> Apparently in the memory case, it was because the CPU heat sink
> was upstream. {shrug}.
> ...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:09:22 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
> (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>
>> 6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered
>> down when not in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer
>> to leave a computer up 24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system
>> electronics due to the zero-to-60 effect of a sudden surge of
>> current after a total absence of power. Those who prefer to power
>> down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
>> rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard
>> drive AND its contents are the most important part of my system,
>> even with regular backups. I can always replace a blown power
>> supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive, memory, or ANY other part of a
>> computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I am in the
>> power-it-down camp... Ben Myers
>>
>
> For many, many years I worked for a company with thousands of
> computers ranging from PCs up to high performance multi-processor
> systems. The admin systems were switched off every night. The
> development systems were left on all the time. The systems that were
> never switched off had a much lower failure rate than the ones that
> were switched off and on daily. The failure rate of hard drives was
> also greatest in the systems that were switched off every day.

Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate, or
would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?

BTW, your empirical evidence like this is incredibly useful--- *thanks* !


>
> So I'm in the leave it switched on camp.



--
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

We would demonstrate this 24/7 solution as a myth and
demonstrate why they jumped to erroneous conclusions. Let's
take fans as example. Why does a fan fail? Power on surge?
Myth. Unless the person has performed a forensic analysis,
then he is only wildly speculating that power on caused the
failure. One we learned underlying facts, then the '24/7 to
perverse life expectancy' myth was exposed.

Again, that fan. What causes it to fail. Hours of
operation caused bearing wear, dust buildup, and so called
'power cycling' damage. What is that 'power cycling'? Number
of times circuits turn off and on. IOW the fan that runs
constant is exposed to far more power cycles because it power
cycles so often only when on.

They ran the machines 24/7. Then when the machines were
powered off, those machines did not start. That proves that
turning machines off causes failure? Wrong. Failure from
excessive wear most often appears on startup. And when do
fans with too many hours most often fail? When powered on.
Therefore technicians *assumed* startup was destructive rather
than first learn *why* the failure occurred. Failures due to
power up were repeatedly traced to 'hours of operation'.
Excessive wear due to leaving a machine always on was being
misrepresented by technicians who did not first learn the
facts. They did not first discover why failure happens; then
jumped to wild conclusions.

Why did that fan not start? Bearing was so worn from 24/7
operation as to not start after one power off.

We know routinely that power cycling has minimal adverse
affect on electronics and their mechanical devices (ie fans).
Manufacturers also say same in their detailed spec sheets.
That's two sources - real world experience AND manufacturer
data. Some devices do have power cycling limits. That means
they fail 15 and 39 years later if power cycled 7 times every
day. Who cares after 15 years.

Best one does for computer life expectancy is to turn system
off (or put it to sleep or hibernate it) when done. The 'turn
it off' myth comes from those who only see when a failure
happens and failed to learn why it happens. Without
underlying facts, those who advocate 'leave it on' demonstrate
why statistics without sufficient underlying facts causes
lies.

The most wear and tear on computers is clearly during
excessive hours of operation. That even includes 'wear and
tear' inside the CPU. CPU is constantly power cycling only
when running.

Power cycling can create failure. And then we apply
numbers. Power cycling seven times every day should cause
component failure in a soon as 15 years. They are correct
about the destructive nature of power cycling until the
numbers are applied. After 15 years, who cares?
Furthermore, start up problems are often created by damage
from too many hours of operation. This made obvious once we
dug into technicians claims - and exposed facts they never
first learned.

"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
> Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate, or
> would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?
>
> BTW, your empirical evidence like this is incredibly useful--- *thanks*

 

[steve]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:55:50 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk coughed up:

>> For many, many years I worked for a company with thousands of
>> computers ranging from PCs up to high performance multi-processor
>> systems. The admin systems were switched off every night. The
>> development systems were left on all the time. The systems that were
>> never switched off had a much lower failure rate than the ones that
>> were switched off and on daily. The failure rate of hard drives was
>> also greatest in the systems that were switched off every day.
>
>Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate, or
>would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?
>

Yes, it was "much lower". Computers that were left on 24 * 7 hardly
ever failed.


--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software

EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6QJPd.54465$g16.8172@trndny08...
> User N coughed up:
>> "Thomas G. Marshall"
>> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...
>>
>>> 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on?
>>
>> If the machine is operating properly, free of cooling obstructions
>> (dust/lint), and operated in a room that is within environmental
>> requirements, it should be fine.
>
> Fair enough. Is this advice specific to the 8300 though? Some machines
> are not configured for internal air travel properly. Some of the earlier
> dimensions (my IT guy pointed out once) were known for not bringing enough
> air by the default HD bay, and memory. Apparently in the memory case, it
> was because the CPU heat sink was upstream. {shrug}.

I was mostly generalizing. I have met some (technically cluefull) people
who own an 8300 and leave it up and running full time. But I can't recall
the specifics of their config/environment, and I don't know how that
would compare to yours.

I'm not aware of any fundamental cooling problems in the Dimension
8300 line, but that doesn't mean much. A google search of the web and
newsgroups, and a search of the Dell forums, should turn up numerous
complaints/discussions if there is some inherent design problem. I'm
not sure what capabilities your box has in terms of reporting temp for
key components, but if you are that concerned you could gather some
readings one way or another. If your box is capable of coping with
heavy use during the warmest periods in your home/business, it should
be able to cope during less demanding times. I'd be surprised if active
cooling is inappropriately curtailed in any power savings mode. But
there again, if you are that concerned you could do measurements/tests.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Ok, but Steve was pointing out what he saw as a bottom line, which was that
for whatever reason the systems left on seemed to have far fewer crashes.
/Regardless/ of the underlying reasons, Steve makes a cogent argument when
armed with a sampling of several computers, no?

IOW, are you saying that there /must/ be some other explanation for Steve's
observations? If so, what might it be?


w_tom coughed up:
> We would demonstrate this 24/7 solution as a myth and
> demonstrate why they jumped to erroneous conclusions. Let's
> take fans as example. Why does a fan fail? Power on surge?
> Myth. Unless the person has performed a forensic analysis,
> then he is only wildly speculating that power on caused the
> failure. One we learned underlying facts, then the '24/7 to
> perverse life expectancy' myth was exposed.
>
> Again, that fan. What causes it to fail. Hours of
> operation caused bearing wear, dust buildup, and so called
> 'power cycling' damage. What is that 'power cycling'? Number
> of times circuits turn off and on. IOW the fan that runs
> constant is exposed to far more power cycles because it power
> cycles so often only when on.
>
> They ran the machines 24/7. Then when the machines were
> powered off, those machines did not start. That proves that
> turning machines off causes failure? Wrong. Failure from
> excessive wear most often appears on startup. And when do
> fans with too many hours most often fail? When powered on.
> Therefore technicians *assumed* startup was destructive rather
> than first learn *why* the failure occurred. Failures due to
> power up were repeatedly traced to 'hours of operation'.
> Excessive wear due to leaving a machine always on was being
> misrepresented by technicians who did not first learn the
> facts. They did not first discover why failure happens; then
> jumped to wild conclusions.
>
> Why did that fan not start? Bearing was so worn from 24/7
> operation as to not start after one power off.
>
> We know routinely that power cycling has minimal adverse
> affect on electronics and their mechanical devices (ie fans).
> Manufacturers also say same in their detailed spec sheets.
> That's two sources - real world experience AND manufacturer
> data. Some devices do have power cycling limits. That means
> they fail 15 and 39 years later if power cycled 7 times every
> day. Who cares after 15 years.
>
> Best one does for computer life expectancy is to turn system
> off (or put it to sleep or hibernate it) when done. The 'turn
> it off' myth comes from those who only see when a failure
> happens and failed to learn why it happens. Without
> underlying facts, those who advocate 'leave it on' demonstrate
> why statistics without sufficient underlying facts causes
> lies.
>
> The most wear and tear on computers is clearly during
> excessive hours of operation. That even includes 'wear and
> tear' inside the CPU. CPU is constantly power cycling only
> when running.
>
> Power cycling can create failure. And then we apply
> numbers. Power cycling seven times every day should cause
> component failure in a soon as 15 years. They are correct
> about the destructive nature of power cycling until the
> numbers are applied. After 15 years, who cares?
> Furthermore, start up problems are often created by damage
> from too many hours of operation. This made obvious once we
> dug into technicians claims - and exposed facts they never
> first learned.
>
> "Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
>> Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate,
>> or would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?
>>
>> BTW, your empirical evidence like this is incredibly useful---
>> *thanks*



--
Framsticks. 3D Artificial Life evolution. You can see the creatures
that evolve and how they interact, hunt, swim, etc. (Unaffiliated with
me). http://www.frams.alife.pl/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:49 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Questions:
>
>1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
>course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
>perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
>this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

My wife leaves her 8300 on all the time. No problems so far. I can
see the back of it from here and the network activity light flashes
occasionally!

Seriously, they go into standby mode and use very little power so
cooling should not be a problem.
--
Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/

 

[julian]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
> sweep.

Why leave a computer on 24/7 if it isn't a server? We all have to start
to look for ways to curb excessive energy use and prevent global
warming, and one of the most painless ways to do this, it seems to me,
is to turn equipment off when you aren't using it.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net

 

[julian]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:

> 6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down when not
> in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer up
> 24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the zero-to-60
> effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those who
> prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
> rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive AND
> its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
> backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive,
> memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I
> am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers

Same here, also for environmental reasons. I have a 7 year old Dell
Dimension XP 400 which was in daily use by me until a few months ago,
when it became my wife's computer. It has been used on average 10 hours
a day 5 days a week for all that time, always switched off at night, and
has never suffered a single hardware failure.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Tom,
I have two (2) desktop PC's, a '98 Packard Bell MM955 (333Mhz AMD) & '03
Dell Dim 4600 (2.4Ghz P4). Except for reboots for software installation,
hardware installation, when vacuming is done in the room, and the rare power
outages in my area. The Packard Bell has been running 24/7 since OCT'98. And
Dell for the same reasons mention before since JUL'03.

What I would consider doing, is to turn off the CRT monitor attached, when
not in use. Gone through two (2) generic made Proview ones for my PBell over
the same time period. Have no clue about flat screen monitors, but the
current ones should be better made.

Just make sure that the room is kept at a reasonable temperature, and PC is
kept dusted for proper ventilation.

--

Rich/rerat

(RRR News) <message rule>
<<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>



"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...

(XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...)

I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its
way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003
Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on
my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus.

I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
sweep.

Questions:

1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by
staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently
because of software incompatibilities.

3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or
specifically to the 8300?

Thanks!

--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus (More info?)

Thomas,
If your knowledgeable about hibernation then you're ahead of Microsoft.
Paul


Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
snipped

---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

snipped