Hello group
As I am using my desktop replacement regularly for an average of 8
hours a day. Its permanently plugged in the socket and the battery is
removed.
I was thinking how about if I just let it sleep instead of shutting
down.
What are the effect of such in my power consumption etc?
My PC is a 17 inch WinXPSp3 run and whose power brick is rated at
19.5V.
Would my PC depreciate faster if I keep it in sleep mode or its better
if I just have to boot it up daily?
What I noticed in other desktop replacement is to awake from sleep
mode takes about 2 seconds while the boot up time takes more than a
minutes and they are doing that for some time. However they can't give
me any benefits aside from convenience...
Any related experience that you can share....?
TIA
Roy

Roy wrote:
> Hello group
> As I am using my desktop replacement regularly for an average of 8
> hours a day. Its permanently plugged in the socket and the battery is
> removed.
> I was thinking how about if I just let it sleep instead of shutting
> down.
> What are the effect of such in my power consumption etc?
> My PC is a 17 inch WinXPSp3 run and whose power brick is rated at
> 19.5V.
> Would my PC depreciate faster if I keep it in sleep mode or its better
> if I just have to boot it up daily?
> What I noticed in other desktop replacement is to awake from sleep
> mode takes about 2 seconds while the boot up time takes more than a
> minutes and they are doing that for some time. However they can't give
> me any benefits aside from convenience...
> Any related experience that you can share....?
> TIA
> Roy
if the power glitches in sleep mode, you risk losing stuff...maybe...
depending on what was open when it went to sleep.

The most sensitive parts of the system are the hard drive and backlight.
Both have life shortened by turning on/off. But either sleep or off
affects them about the same.

I routinely sleep my desktop, but it's on a UPS.

spamme0 <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote in news:h8cm2g$9ij$1@news.eternal-
september.org:

> if the power glitches in sleep mode, you risk losing stuff...maybe...
> depending on what was open when it went to sleep.
>
> The most sensitive parts of the system are the hard drive and backlight.
> Both have life shortened by turning on/off. But either sleep or off
> affects them about the same.
>
> I routinely sleep my desktop, but it's on a UPS.
>

Hibernate is better. It saves the memory image to the hard drive so the
system can shut itself down and reloads the image back to where you left it
on startup, again, instead of the infinitely long Windows bootup from
scratch.

Mine hibernate just by closing the screen...no sleep mode draining the
battery and overheating the closed little box.

--
Larry

"Roy" <roybasan******.com> wrote in message
news:0733b92a-fd3d-44f8-950c-4b1e4b321a89@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Hello group
> As I am using my desktop replacement regularly for an average of 8
> hours a day. Its permanently plugged in the socket and the battery is
> removed.
> I was thinking how about if I just let it sleep instead of shutting
> down.
> What are the effect of such in my power consumption etc?
> My PC is a 17 inch WinXPSp3 run and whose power brick is rated at
> 19.5V.
> Would my PC depreciate faster if I keep it in sleep mode or its better
> if I just have to boot it up daily?
> What I noticed in other desktop replacement is to awake from sleep
> mode takes about 2 seconds while the boot up time takes more than a
> minutes and they are doing that for some time. However they can't give
> me any benefits aside from convenience...
> Any related experience that you can share....?
>

Sleep mode works by shutting everything down but preserving the RAM
contents, thus when you wake it up again, it just carries on from where it
let off. The power consumption is more ot less the same as when you shut
down and leave the power connected. The only problem is if the power is
interrupted, when the RAM contents are lost.

A better alternative is hibernate mode which is pretty well identical to
sleep except that the contents of the RAM are first written to a file on the
hard disk. Waking up from here causes the file to be copied back to the RAM
and then the system then proceeds as for waking from sleep. In this later
case, the power can be disconnected.

Neither should be entered without saving your work (though you can leave it
open on the desktop). Windows doesn't always recover cleanly from sleep and
hibernate can be even more flakey on some laptops.

But give it a try and see how your laptop responds. Even if it does work
OK, it is still a good idea to reboot occasionally (say once a week).

M.I.5¾ wrote:
snip

> Sleep mode works by shutting everything down but preserving the RAM
> contents, thus when you wake it up again, it just carries on from where it
> let off. The power consumption is more ot less the same as when you shut
> down and leave the power connected. The only problem is if the power is
> interrupted, when the RAM contents are lost.
>
> snip

I disagree. Since a laptop normally runs with a battery in it, power can
be disconnected for a very long time before there is a risk of loosing
the RAM's content. Without a battery, sleep mode is foolish.

The second thing is, getting back to work from Sleep is a matter of a
few seconds. After hibernating, resuming work is more a matter of
minutes than seconds since a lot of information must be read back from
the hard disk. Of course a lot of variables come into play.

Where I agree is, saving all open files is a wise precaution in both
cases. A crash while resuming work after Sleep or Hibernating is always
a possibility, even if remote on a normally working machine.
--
John Doue

Thanks for all the replies!
It boils down that there is not a benefit if I have to use the sleep
mode or even hibernate mode as the same amount of power is used plus
the risk of theloss of data if anything goes awry....?
Hmm so that tried and tested; boot and reboots still holds water than
either( sleep and hibernate mode)...in terms of running the desktop
replacement in regular basis


Roy

I'd shut down. If you were talking about an hour or two, I'd sleep, but
for overnight, I'd shut down. I don't think there is any difference in
terms of impact on life of any components.


Roy wrote:
> Hello group
> As I am using my desktop replacement regularly for an average of 8
> hours a day. Its permanently plugged in the socket and the battery is
> removed.
> I was thinking how about if I just let it sleep instead of shutting
> down.
> What are the effect of such in my power consumption etc?
> My PC is a 17 inch WinXPSp3 run and whose power brick is rated at
> 19.5V.
> Would my PC depreciate faster if I keep it in sleep mode or its better
> if I just have to boot it up daily?
> What I noticed in other desktop replacement is to awake from sleep
> mode takes about 2 seconds while the boot up time takes more than a
> minutes and they are doing that for some time. However they can't give
> me any benefits aside from convenience...
> Any related experience that you can share....?
> TIA
> Roy

Forgetting the original question entirely, you have removed the laptop
battery, which is appropriate, but in this situation you should invest
in a low-capacity UPS (300VA is plenty) so that power interruption isn't
an issue (even while you are actually using the machine). Cost of a low
capacity UPS like this is $20-$30 if bought right.


Roy wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies!
> It boils down that there is not a benefit if I have to use the sleep
> mode or even hibernate mode as the same amount of power is used plus
> the risk of theloss of data if anything goes awry....?
> Hmm so that tried and tested; boot and reboots still holds water than
> either( sleep and hibernate mode)...in terms of running the desktop
> replacement in regular basis
>
>
> Roy

Barry Watzman wrote:
> I'd shut down. If you were talking about an hour or two, I'd sleep, but
> for overnight, I'd shut down. I don't think there is any difference in
> terms of impact on life of any components.
>
>
> Roy wrote:
>> Hello group
>> As I am using my desktop replacement regularly for an average of 8
>> hours a day. Its permanently plugged in the socket and the battery is
>> removed.
>> I was thinking how about if I just let it sleep instead of shutting
>> down.
>> What are the effect of such in my power consumption etc?
>> My PC is a 17 inch WinXPSp3 run and whose power brick is rated at
>> 19.5V.
>> Would my PC depreciate faster if I keep it in sleep mode or its better
>> if I just have to boot it up daily?
>> What I noticed in other desktop replacement is to awake from sleep
>> mode takes about 2 seconds while the boot up time takes more than a
>> minutes and they are doing that for some time. However they can't give
>> me any benefits aside from convenience...
>> Any related experience that you can share....?
>> TIA
>> Roy
I fully agree. The benefit of shutting down every evening is having a
fresh machine, memory-wise, to start the next day. An additional
benefit, for me at least, is, I have at least two programs that I can
set via a batch file to remind me, once a day, of various events.

Same thing is much more difficult to achieve from within Windows.

--
John Doue

"John Doue" <notwobe******.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:rOoqm.59$IQ4.2@read4.inet.fi...
> The second thing is, getting back to work from Sleep is a matter of a few
> seconds. After hibernating, resuming work is more a matter of minutes than
> seconds since a lot of information must be read back from the hard disk.
> Of course a lot of variables come into play.

"Minutes" sounded rather long, so I tested this with my Vista laptop.
- Resuming from sleep: 4 s
- Resuming from hibernate: 41 s (14 s BIOS stuff before showing bootup menu
to select operating system + 27 s after the bootup menu)

The PC is a Vista laptop with 3 GB RAM, but I'd think the times would be
similar with XP.

P.V.

P.V. wrote:
> "John Doue" <notwobe******.com> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:rOoqm.59$IQ4.2@read4.inet.fi...
>> The second thing is, getting back to work from Sleep is a matter of a
>> few seconds. After hibernating, resuming work is more a matter of
>> minutes than seconds since a lot of information must be read back from
>> the hard disk. Of course a lot of variables come into play.
>
> "Minutes" sounded rather long, so I tested this with my Vista laptop.
> - Resuming from sleep: 4 s
> - Resuming from hibernate: 41 s (14 s BIOS stuff before showing bootup
> menu to select operating system + 27 s after the bootup menu)
>
> The PC is a Vista laptop with 3 GB RAM, but I'd think the times would be
> similar with XP.
>
> P.V.
>

Well, this sounds like what I expected. Should have said, a minute or
so. I stand corrected!

--
John Doue

"John Doue" <notwobe******.com> wrote in message
news:rOoqm.59$IQ4.2@read4.inet.fi...
> M.I.5¾ wrote:
> snip
>
>> Sleep mode works by shutting everything down but preserving the RAM
>> contents, thus when you wake it up again, it just carries on from where
>> it let off. The power consumption is more ot less the same as when you
>> shut down and leave the power connected. The only problem is if the
>> power is interrupted, when the RAM contents are lost.
>>
>> snip
>
> I disagree. Since a laptop normally runs with a battery in it, power can
> be disconnected for a very long time before there is a risk of loosing the
> RAM's content. Without a battery, sleep mode is foolish.
>

The difference in power consumption between sleep and shut down is enought
exhaust the battery in a matter of some hours (typically less than a day)
but machines vary. Hibernate does not suffer this problem.

> The second thing is, getting back to work from Sleep is a matter of a few
> seconds. After hibernating, resuming work is more a matter of minutes than
> seconds since a lot of information must be read back from the hard disk.
> Of course a lot of variables come into play.
>

"a lot of information"?? The only information that is read from the hard
disc is a file that, not coincidentally, is exactly the same size as the RAM
in the PC. Reading such a file takes a few seconds longer than a straight
wake from sleep mode.

"John Doue" <notwobe******.com> wrote in message
news:MNMqm.110$UG2.11@read4.inet.fi...
> P.V. wrote:
>> "John Doue" <notwobe******.com> kirjoitti viestissä
>> news:rOoqm.59$IQ4.2@read4.inet.fi...
>>> The second thing is, getting back to work from Sleep is a matter of a
>>> few seconds. After hibernating, resuming work is more a matter of
>>> minutes than seconds since a lot of information must be read back from
>>> the hard disk. Of course a lot of variables come into play.
>>
>> "Minutes" sounded rather long, so I tested this with my Vista laptop.
>> - Resuming from sleep: 4 s
>> - Resuming from hibernate: 41 s (14 s BIOS stuff before showing bootup
>> menu to select operating system + 27 s after the bootup menu)
>>
>> The PC is a Vista laptop with 3 GB RAM, but I'd think the times would be
>> similar with XP.
>>
>> P.V.
>>
>
> Well, this sounds like what I expected. Should have said, a minute or so.
> I stand corrected!
>

Well, that would still sound like you are exagerating.

"John Doue" <notwobe******.com> wrote in message
news:Bcuqm.140$IQ4.71@read4.inet.fi...
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> I'd shut down. If you were talking about an hour or two, I'd sleep, but
>> for overnight, I'd shut down. I don't think there is any difference in
>> terms of impact on life of any components.
>>
>>
>> Roy wrote:
>>> Hello group
>>> As I am using my desktop replacement regularly for an average of 8
>>> hours a day. Its permanently plugged in the socket and the battery is
>>> removed.
>>> I was thinking how about if I just let it sleep instead of shutting
>>> down.
>>> What are the effect of such in my power consumption etc?
>>> My PC is a 17 inch WinXPSp3 run and whose power brick is rated at
>>> 19.5V.
>>> Would my PC depreciate faster if I keep it in sleep mode or its better
>>> if I just have to boot it up daily?
>>> What I noticed in other desktop replacement is to awake from sleep
>>> mode takes about 2 seconds while the boot up time takes more than a
>>> minutes and they are doing that for some time. However they can't give
>>> me any benefits aside from convenience...
>>> Any related experience that you can share....?
>>> TIA
>>> Roy
> I fully agree. The benefit of shutting down every evening is having a
> fresh machine, memory-wise, to start the next day. An additional benefit,
> for me at least, is, I have at least two programs that I can set via a
> batch file to remind me, once a day, of various events.
>

It all depends on what utilities you have loaded. A naked fresh installed
Windows XP system will start from a cold reboot in well under a minute. But
as you load on packages that need to load parts of themselves at boot up,
the loading time extends. Virus scanners and (particularly) third party
firewalls are particularly notorious in this area but not alone. One of the
older versions of Zonealarm extended the boot up time of many PCs to well
over 5 minutes.

Personally, I hibernate my desktop between sessions and reboot it once a
week just prior to the weekly backup. I have to shut down my laptop if I
leave the battery in without AC connected, because one of the problems with
hibernate is that applications can wake it up. Unfortunately, my laptop has
something that wakes it up at least every 24 hours, and I have so far
completely failed to track it down. Without the battery, I hibernate the
laptop, but I do have to remember to disconnect the AC.

M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "John Doue" <notwobe******.com> wrote in message
> news:rOoqm.59$IQ4.2@read4.inet.fi...
>> M.I.5¾ wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>> Sleep mode works by shutting everything down but preserving the RAM
>>> contents, thus when you wake it up again, it just carries on from where
>>> it let off. The power consumption is more ot less the same as when you
>>> shut down and leave the power connected. The only problem is if the
>>> power is interrupted, when the RAM contents are lost.
>>>
>>> snip
>> I disagree. Since a laptop normally runs with a battery in it, power can
>> be disconnected for a very long time before there is a risk of loosing the
>> RAM's content. Without a battery, sleep mode is foolish.
>>
>
> The difference in power consumption between sleep and shut down is enought
> exhaust the battery in a matter of some hours (typically less than a day)
> but machines vary. Hibernate does not suffer this problem.
>
>> The second thing is, getting back to work from Sleep is a matter of a few
>> seconds. After hibernating, resuming work is more a matter of minutes than
>> seconds since a lot of information must be read back from the hard disk.
>> Of course a lot of variables come into play.
>>
>
> "a lot of information"?? The only information that is read from the hard
> disc is a file that, not coincidentally, is exactly the same size as the RAM
> in the PC. Reading such a file takes a few seconds longer than a straight
> wake from sleep mode.
>
>
>
You are splitting hairs...Ok, only one file is loaded, but as you
rightly say, it is the size of the RAM, and that RAM assembles a lot of
information ... Reading a 2 or 3 G file takes quite some time. As one
poster mentioned, sleep takes a few seconds to wake up whereas hibernate
took a little under a minute.

--
John Doue