Post by: turtlehills on December 04, 2007, 02:09:05 PM
I recently edited a new environmental book at work, in which we recommend that people consider using Macs because they use less energy than virtually all PC's. And the book also talks about the tremendous amount of energy that could be saved if everyone would turn out their computers at night.
However I haven't been able to find this information for Macs - whether it's better in terms of energy efficiency and wear and tear on the computer to sleep it or turn it off and on again, even 3 or 4 times a day? I'm sure I could ask at my local two-story Mac Store (in LA at The Grove, check it out sometime!) but I thought someone at TS might know?
Thanks!
Turtle Hills
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 04, 2007, 02:50:18 PM
If longevity is more important, it has been argued that the cold/heat/cold/heat/... cycle is what damages silicon more than anything else. In that caes, an argument can be made to leave things ON but asleep.
If you do decide to let 'sleeping' computers lay about, you might think about putting those cpu cycles to some good use. There are dozens of 'shared computing' applications available, even for a Mac. I just got my version of Stanford University's Protein Folding app working on my new iMac. It now runs 24/7. I let the screen 'sleep' but not the cpu, so I'm using more energy than a completely sleeping computer. But I feel I'm contributing to the search for a breakthrough for a better medical understanding of the causes of many brain related diseases; something that seems to be affecting me as I age!
In other words, the answer to the question depends on your definition of what is more important; energy saving, mechanical problems with silicon ( most 'sleep' modes put the drive in 'park' ), or useful production from a device that is great at repeated, tedious, boring operations that can provide help to civilization.
But, I would never suggest arguing against ones parents/spouse in any 'discussion!'
BTW, <Team Mac OS X> is now ranked number 7 in the Folding@Home stats! Obviously irritating news to many of the super-high-speed-PCs-are-not-toy-computers crowd!
Post by: turtlehills on December 04, 2007, 03:21:51 PM
So now I get to decide if I want to:
- Save money
- Save energy and the planet (per Al Gore)
- Save my beloved Mac
- Save people with brain-related diseases
Oh my! At least now whatever I do, I am helping to save something.
I forgot to mention that I have an iMac which changes things a little.
I think you're right about the arguing - at least now I can say, "We were BOTH right!"
Thanks, as always,
The Tortoise
Post by: Mayo on December 04, 2007, 03:24:30 PM
It makes no sense to me to leave anything on when it isn't in use, and all the appliances that now sport so-called "standby modes" consume a LOT of energy when it is all added together. It is always an eye-opener for me when I travel to Europe and experience first-hand industrialized societies that have integrated energy-savings habits in many aspects of daily life. We in the U.S. could learn something from their example...
Power-saving aside, there is another practical reason for shutting-down a Mac on a regular basis. The longer a Mac runs without shutting-down the more RAM is tied-up, to the point where much of the RAM is "spoken-for" in some manner... And the Mac can noticeably slow down. This can happen over 1-3 days, more or less, depending on a number of variables. I use iStat Menus to monitor my memory usage and it is enlightening to watch the RAM usage increase over a 1-2 day period of time. Merely restarting a Mac will free-up significant amounts of RAM.
It amazes me that a lot of people see themselves as being sooo busy that they cannot be bothered to wait a minute or two while their Mac boots-up.
Post by: Highmac on December 04, 2007, 04:58:35 PM
Sometimes, however, I want to record a radio or TV show late at night; EyeTV will start the iMac up (remember to hit the mute key before you shut it down - don't want that Mac chord waking the whole house in the middle of the night!), then I generally set the shutdown schedule to switch it off about 30 mins after the show is due to end.
Post by: Paddy on December 05, 2007, 08:04:39 AM
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=34571
Comparison of iMac's energy usage with a desktop PC and a fascinating site about cutting energy expenditures:
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html
More comparisons here:
http://tingilinde.typepad.com/starstuff/20...energy_use.html
General info about Macs and energy use:
http://www.apple.com/environment/energyefficiency/
Bottom line, you will save energy by turning off the iMac - and it won't hurt it either. So you can eliminate one of those options ("save my Mac") and you're down to three.
I let my G5 sleep after 15 minutes, and no...I don't turn it off at night. I do automatic backups at 1:30 and 2:30 a.m. I am on it off and on all day long - turning it off during the day really isn't an option. The G5 uses about 11 W when asleep - 250 to 300 when awake and busy.
Post by: FLASH1296 on December 05, 2007, 08:28:36 AM
Secondly, wattage on a sleeping Mac is truly negligible -- but for those who are hyper "green" there is a better alternative - "hibernation" The only drawback is that you can expect your Mac to take 5 or 10 or 15 seconds or more to awaken.
I have several Macs, including a dedicated file-server on a G-5 iMac that has not been turned off in 2 years. (It is rebooted twice a month)
My laptops are only turned OFF if they will be unused for more than 48 hrs. YMMV
Post by: Gregg on December 05, 2007, 08:29:06 AM
QUOTE(Mayo @ Dec 4 2007, 03:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It amazes me that a lot of people see themselves as being sooo busy that they cannot be bothered to wait a minute or two while their Mac boots-up.
Well, I guess I can't make that "arguement"...
Post by: Mayo on December 05, 2007, 11:41:34 AM
Post by: Gregg on December 05, 2007, 01:05:26 PM
QUOTE(Mayo @ Dec 4 2007, 03:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I recall reading that an iMac uses _______. Don't Quote Me On That...
What you actually said is not That which I quoted.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 05, 2007, 02:49:09 PM
).And I also agree that it should be shut down, if it isn't doing anything useful while you're not using it (mainly sleeping). The question is, what do you consider "useful?"
Post by: chriskleeman on December 06, 2007, 05:52:02 AM
Post by: hingyfan on December 06, 2007, 12:16:32 PM
Post by: Gregg on December 06, 2007, 01:01:37 PM
QUOTE(hingyfan @ Dec 6 2007, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I read somewhere, maybe here, that shutting off a computer when not in use will save $200 a year. That seems like a lot but that's the way i remember it.
At the rates we pay, seems a pittance!
Post by: Mayo on December 06, 2007, 01:08:58 PM
QUOTE
Many of us use utilities like SuperDuper, Cocktail, Onyx, etc. during the wee hours of the morning...
Of course, said utilities could be scheduled to run during the time when the computer is being used by someone (or at the end of the day when using SuperDuper!), or even done manually, negating the need to leave the computer running 24/7.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 06, 2007, 02:37:12 PM
QUOTE
Of course, said utilities could be scheduled to run during the time when the computer is being used by someone (or at the end of the day when using SuperDuper!), or even done manually, negating the need to leave the computer running 24/7.
Yes, and if that was the only reason for having it on, then you should turn it off to save energy. There's never been any question, discussion/suggestion/differing opinion in that regard. Except the nebulous idea that one power cycle a day will cause harm to the silicon components. I seriously doubt that would really be a factor.As I have stated before (but apparently not clearly enough) if you can find something useful for your machine to do while you aren't using it, then weigh the value of that against the energy used. Even in the highest rate areas of the country, most of us can afford that extra cost.
It's just part of an overall judgment call as to what you do with the energy you use. If you're doing nothing more than playing games with the computer and actually can do something more productive, then I suggest you are wasting energy. Period. Whether that be 24/7 or 10 minutes a year.
The original question was concerned with the difference between using "sleep" or turning the machine off if non-use would be 20 minutes or more and how that might affect reliability. Coincidentally, the question of running 24/7 was also raised. I think a case for higher rates of breakdownscan be made for frequent heating/cooling cycles during a 12 hour time period. Much less critical or detrimental with single cycle events each day, IMHO. But the only reason for running 24/7 is when the machine is doing something useful. That can be almost anything, since "useful" is a subjective term. Just because you might be running a server doesn't mean I would consider that "useful" if that was for pornographic materials.
I'm sure every one of us would have a slightly different list of what uses would be "useful." If you can justify that use to yourself, proceed with the knowledge that others may not agree and there may come a time that some will even prosecute you.
Post by: Gregg on December 07, 2007, 07:38:48 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 07, 2007, 11:59:27 AM
Post by: Gregg on December 07, 2007, 12:16:25 PM
Post by: Mayo on December 07, 2007, 12:36:20 PM
QUOTE
Yes, and if that was the only reason for having it on, then you should turn it off to save energy.
One of your posts gave me the impression that the reason your Mac is running in the middle of the night is to run automatic operations such as SuperDuper!, Onyx, etc.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 07, 2007, 05:58:36 PM
Post by: jcarter on December 08, 2007, 11:32:03 AM
Thats exactly what I was going to suggest, plugging the Macs into your Kill-a-Watt, and reading what they took over a period of time.
Ive got my printer plugged into my Kill-a-Watt now, and finding it uses very very little power while on idle. Always forget to look at it when its actually printing.
Ive got one in the kitchen too, so toasting some English Muffins can use a lot more power than your computer is fine by me. I do sleep my Macs at night too. Try different appliances, its fun.
Jane
Post by: Mayo on December 08, 2007, 03:14:55 PM
They also serve who only stand and wait (Ars Technica article)
Estimates Of Global Standby Use It is estimated that 5% of the total U.S. power use is "standby," which translates to approximately $4 billion dollars per year. What surprised me is that some European countries use a higher percentage of standby power than the U.S.. These estimates are for residential power users only.
Post by: Gregg on December 08, 2007, 11:10:39 PM
QUOTE(Mayo @ Dec 8 2007, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The point isn't how much (or little) each individual appliance uses... it is the cumulative amount of energy consumed by all of us, mainly for the sake of personal convenience.
Excellent point. It's like all the people in arid climates (or not so arid) with their little patches of green grass. Oh, well
um, I paint my yard, yeah. :slink:
Post by: Mayo on December 10, 2007, 01:56:14 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 10, 2007, 02:27:11 PM
We all make decisions that sometimes have far reaching consequences but little, if any, immediate, personal effect on us or our neighbors. At least we like to think there is none...That delay makes it easier for us to justify our energy usage, of course. Currently, I choose to believe that my running that protein folding simulation 24/7/365 will provide more benefit than my use (waste?) of the energy consumed. That remains to be seen, of course. However, it wasn't difficult to decide to stop using the SETI software many years ago, even if it ran only while the computer was on, anyway!
Others may feel differently, especially, if they came from different planets!