Is leaving your computer on all the time (24/7) better for hard drive?

Layback Bear · 26 Oct 2012

To save all that typing I will just cut and past post #22 which I believe to be correct.
----------------------
I'm layed back and simple. Years ago when hard drives clanged and banged doing their/there job to a degree their/there was a concern with all the charts and grafts and how you used your hard drive. I don't believe that todays hard drives have that concern. Use your system as you see fit. If the hard drive fail it will not be because of the way your use it. Hard drive life span is controlled by the quality and standards it was made by.

westom · 26 Oct 2012

Layback Bear said:

Hard drive life span is controlled by the quality and standards it was made by.

Drive life expectancy is mostly defined by manufacturing defects. Power cycling myths are disputed by even by specification numbers. Two posters who cannot defend their claims with facts, instead, post cheap shots and emotional tirades. As if attacking the messenger proves anything.

Layman can quickly identify mythical claims: no facts and no numbers. Claims made only from observation and speculation are junk science reasoning (as also demonstrated by DeaconFrost's light bulb example in post 49 and exposed by bobafetthotmail in post 50).

Manufacturer specs say power cycling is destructive ... 39 or more years later. IOW power cycling is irrelevant. Manufacturing defects (ie quality and production standards) explain most drive failures. Neither power cycling nor cheap shots explain drive failures.

Wrend · 26 Oct 2012

Never mind. I'd rather not get involved.

Britton30 · 26 Oct 2012

westom said:

Layback Bear said:

Hard drive life span is controlled by the quality and standards it was made by.

Drive life expectancy is mostly defined by manufacturing defects. Power cycling myths are disputed by even by specification numbers. Two posters who cannot defend their claims with facts, instead, post cheap shots and emotional tirades. As if attacking the messenger proves anything.

Layman can quickly identify mythical claims: no facts and no numbers. Claims made only from observation and speculation are junk science reasoning (as also demonstrated by DeaconFrost's light bulb example in post 49 and exposed by bobafetthotmail in post 50).

Manufacturer specs say power cycling is destructive ... 39 or more years later. IOW power cycling is irrelevant. Manufacturing defects (ie quality and production standards) explain most drive failures. Neither power cycling nor cheap shots explain drive failures.

Well, quit the cheap shots then, LOL! I've seen no supporting evidence for any of your junk science claims while you try to impress us with your vast knowledge of everything that uses electricity. I think your knowledge is half vast at best.

Layback Bear · 27 Oct 2012

Well I didn't intend a cheep shot.

westom · 27 Oct 2012

Layback Bear said:

Well I didn't intend a cheep shot.

You neither posted nor received one. Two cheap shot artists make accusations and claims without facts. They insist power cycling does that damage.

Manufacturing defects, that you defined, are the reason for most failures - as so many others also posted.

Answer to the OP's question was also provided by Layback Bear. Power cycling does not do that damage despite conclusions based only in wild speculation. Manufacturing defects (averted by quality and standards) define most failures. An answer to the OP's original question was that simple.

DeaconFrost · 30 Oct 2012

westom said:

Power cycling does not do that damage despite conclusions based only in wild speculation.

Why not end the debate with some proof? Seems like you enjoy belittling others who don't completely agree with you, yet you've done nothing to support your claims, which can be easily considered "wild" by your own criteria. Many forums are filled with people who try to boast and belittle others to boost their own reputation, so why not prove you aren't like that?

Goji73 · 28 Dec 2012

Sorry to bump this thread but I thought I'd ask since it goes back to source of where this thread started... Does power-cycling (persumably, turning a computer on and off) have any effect on a computer's motherboard? Does it wear it down? Or am I just repeating the same question in this thread already?

According to my source, he claims that it does but I thought I'd ask since I assume a dying hard drive and a computer's motherboard are separate issue.

For anyone happening to read this, here are the photos again of where these question stemmed from:

This screen would appear right after the "ACER" logo disappeared, this happens whenever I would turn on my computer:

When the problem first came, this was the error message that appeared.

Layback Bear · 28 Dec 2012

Goji73 here is how simple it is. Todays PC's are designed to do either shut down when not in use or let run 24/7 if one has the desire to do so. You will always be able to find somebody on some website to tell you different.
Of course you will need a quality PC with quality hardware and proper cooling. To buy or build a computer and then sit around worrying about using it doesn't make a hill of beans to me. If by chance a piece of hardware got missed in the quality control during manufacturing it will of course fail no matter how you use your computer. The only positive thing that I can think of is if the computer is off it doesn't use electricity and doesn't create heat. Many members run computers 24/7 without any problems and I shut mine off when not in use without problems. Choose a method and don't worry about it.

westom · 29 Dec 2012

Goji73 said:

According to my source, he claims that it does but I thought I'd ask since I assume a dying hard drive and a computer's motherboard are separate issue.

Did your source provide numbers with that answer? Or just recite a popular old wive's tale? One who had to learn this stuff, read datasheets, designed hardware, and traced failures because each failure had to be explained, posted:

westom said:

So the question, "Is power cycling destructive?" One who said so only using speculation and subjective reasoning said yes. Instead, let's read numbers. ...

Most defects are manufacturing defects. Completely unrelated to power cycling.

What do digital electronics do when powered? Power cycle. Off and on repeatedly. If power cycling is destructive, then leaving it on is also destructive. When is strain greatest? Each time a transistor switches, strain on the PN junction is so large as to even emit a small IR pulse. Did other 'sources' discuss that? And provide numbers? Or repeat what someone told them?