If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
1. The system is perfectly suited for staying on 24/7. Whether it's better
to keep it on vs. powering it off is an ongoing (decades, now) debate with no clear winner... Do what is best for your situation. 2) Short answer is "Yes". However, reality these days is that it can take as little as 15-20 minutes (or less) for an unprotected system, on the internet to become infected with some kind of malware.... Having the firewall from SP1 is, I guess, better than nothing. But not by much. To protect your system you should, at a minimum: - Install a software firewall (a real one). - Install Spyware detection programs. Several of them. I'd also recommend you get a hardware router for the additional protection. -- Regards, Hank Arnold "Thomas G. Marshall" . com wrote in message news:d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07... (XP SP1 / Dim 8300 / 3.0 GHz / 800 MHz FSB / 512 meg / bla bla...) I seem to be getting a virus here and there found by NAV2003 that makes its way in through the auto-protect. In this case I got a couple of circa 2003 Trojan.ByteVerifies. Don't know how the heck such a simple file can land on my system, particularly since it's such a well understood virus. I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral sweep. Questions: 1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation. 2. Am I leaving myself open statistically to more infection simply by staying on? I'm running SP1's firewall. SP2 is not an option currently because of software incompatibilities. 3. Any thoughts on what I might have to worry about, in general and/or specifically to the 8300? Thanks! -- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Wilco coughed up:
"Thomas G. Marshall" . com wrote in message news:d%rPd.31607$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'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaseletterto startclassnames.... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
User N coughed up:
"Thomas G. Marshall" . 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/sec.../mbsahome.mspx Perfect! Thanks for that! Its MS newsgroup is: microsoft.public.security.baseline_analyzer -- Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaseletterto startclassnames.... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote in message ... 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message news 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Hank Arnold" wrote in message ... 1. The system is perfectly suited for staying on 24/7. Whether it's better to keep it on vs. powering it off is an ongoing (decades, now) debate with no clear winner... Do what is best for your situation. 2) Short answer is "Yes". However, reality these days is that it can take as little as 15-20 minutes (or less) for an unprotected system, on the internet to become infected with some kind of malware.... Having the firewall from SP1 is, I guess, better than nothing. But not by much. To protect your system you should, at a minimum: - Install a software firewall (a real one). Almost a contradiction of terms - unless you are talking about something like this http://www.smoothwall.org/ A "real" firewall is a separate device and not an application running on the "protected" machine. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:55:50 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote: 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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}. ... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Goodbye Dell, Hello IBM or Toshiba? | Giganews | Dell Computers | 56 | October 4th 05 12:29 PM |
FPS Really LOW - Whats Wrong? | John W. | Ati Videocards | 5 | January 20th 04 08:09 AM |
Dell Dimension L700cx maximum processor support ? | S.Lewis | Dell Computers | 2 | December 26th 03 03:37 PM |
Flickering/twitch (Dimension 8300 w/ MX 420 TV OUT) | Adam S. Julius | Dell Computers | 0 | November 16th 03 03:44 AM |
Dell customer support | Steve | Dell Computers | 30 | July 13th 03 02:39 AM |