Printable View
Sorry i did not mechen Y i leve my pc on it is cos i use to be on 56k and i was a Buffy Fan so i wood logon to KaZaA and download Buffy eps at 450meg a pop and this was on 56k mind you so it wood take days to download but wen i got on Cable and ADSL i did not need to leve it on but i have the pc in my room and i got use to it's nize so wen i tern it off i cant Sleep so i just upload porn all night and sum times Games
The End
mines on at about 4 pm to 11.30pm on school days & on weekends bout 10am till midnight.
all GMT
Yes, but didn't they suffer massive embarrasment as a result? I still see where people joke about IBM drives and recall that f**kup.Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@11 July 2003 - 19:00
there was a big controversy about a year ago, when IBM declared that one of their hard drive series should only be used for 8 hours per day, because they were getting so many returned due to mechanical failure.
Me brother has left his on for months at a time, once he left it on for so long that he didnt realise how hot it had got, so hot infact that when he turned it off the motherboard went "BANG" and cracked down the middle from the heat change :|
nothing much he could have done, but it was a top spec pc as well......
Ok - so it was a NetWare 3 server sat on a very nice UPS (21KVa IIRC)- but it WAS up for 5 years and 1 day before the disk failed lolQuote:
Originally posted by balamm@11 July 2003 - 12:43
[b] I agree with [O][T] . Even linux and unix machines generaly don't stay up that long.
And especially not in a desktop environment. And, I find it hard to believe, in that 5 years, there's never been a power outage of more than 20 minutes which is what a UPS would give you( and they weren't that good 5 years ago)
well, of course. because claiming that you should only use it for 8 hours per day is extremely conservative, and it was actually just skirting the real issue of the HDs being defective. people pushing the HDs hard through 24/7 usage was just making the defect surface quicker, imho.Quote:
Originally posted by balamm@11 July 2003 - 11:21
Yes, but didn't they suffer massive embarrasment as a result? I still see where people joke about IBM drives and recall that f**kup.
I don't ever shut down my computer.
People say its better for the computer, but thats not the reason i do it.
I just don't have patience to wait for it to boot.
Takes too long to boot and shut down
Yes i know what you are thinking, press the button and come back after 30 seconds. NO NO
I can't wait. I HATE WAITING
So my computer is on 24/7 unless windows ask for restart after i install something or do a windows update
I usually leave mine on 24/7, unless there's some pressing emergency. It's a laptop, which changes things a bit, but its such a hunk of junk that nothing I do to it will make it any worst than it already is. I'm hoping for the day my motherboard splits down the middle :) It would be the second motherboard to go, ... (Long story)
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca_Snipes+12 July 2003 - 00:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Luca_Snipes @ 12 July 2003 - 00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-balamm@11 July 2003 - 12:43
I agree with [O][T] . Even linux and unix machines generaly don't stay up that long.
And especially not in a desktop environment. And, I find it hard to believe, in that 5 years, there's never been a power outage of more than 20 minutes which is what a UPS would give you( and they weren't that good 5 years ago)
Ok - so it was a NetWare 3 server sat on a very nice UPS (21KVa IIRC)- but it WAS up for 5 years and 1 day before the disk failed lol [/quote]
I was with you 100% until you said it was a Netware 3 server.
I've seen plenty of unix based servers that have been up for over three years and some that have been up over four, but I've never seen a netware server that has survived more than a few months without a reboot (unless of course it is so useless that it is doing nothing), but that's what you get with a hobbyist's network.