Standby Mode Windows XP

fitzroy

Richard_Wells wrote: »

Thanks.

Were you aware you will considerably shorten the life of your router doing what you’re doing? The thermal stress you’re putting on the internal components, by allowing them to cool down overnight and then heat back up again the next day (when you power it back up again) will mean they’ll fail earlier than if you left the router on?

What I’m saying is you should really factor in the replacement cost of a router into your "savings".

I'll leave it on I think. What about fire risk if I go away for holiday which won't be that often? Shouldn't be too much wear and tear on the router once/twice a year do you think?

davester

it never cost £50 in the first place. and well I think it would be obsolete within 10 years anyway so will have £11.21 extra to spend on the new tech

John_Gray

I did some tests some time ago on about 25 assorted PCs at work using an energy monitor, and putting the system units into standby and/or hibernate. I found that in Hibernate mode the system unit uses either 0 W or 1 W (depending on the PC), and in Standby mode it might use 1 W or 2 W (never more than 3 W). Whether you regard these values as significant or trivial depends on your point of view.

Once you have set the Power Management values for the Network Interface Card in your PC, you can use any Wake-on-LAN program (I tend to use WOLcmd from Depicus) from another PC on the network to wake up that PC from Standby or Hibernate. You just need the MAC address of the NIC... Endless stuff about Wake on LAN available via a Google search.

Richard_Wells

davester wrote: »

it never cost £50 in the first place. and well I think it would be obsolete within 10 years anyway so will have £11.21 extra to spend on the new tech

As long as you're happy that you're doing the right thing then that's fine. I just thought I'd point out that you're not actually "saving" any money

Funnily enough I was just having a hunt around on google for info on the "life expectancy of a router" and most people seem to get about 5 years out of one.
So you're doing just fine. Perhaps thermal stress is a GOOD thing :rotfl:

davester

maybe a cool router is better than a uncool router. after all we are always trying to find ways new and exciting ways to cool out processors well thats what they say at Coolmaster head office lol (someone has to get excited about them)

Richard_Wells

davester wrote: »

maybe a cool router is better than a uncool router. after all we are always trying to find ways new and exciting ways to cool out processors well thats what they say at Coolmaster head office lol (someone has to get excited about them)

Some routers do run very hot indeed. Can't do them any good.

Anyway, I think I've taken this thread WAY off-topic already so will move along. Apologies to the OP

davester

yep, sorry too

RobTang

fitzroy wrote: »

I'll leave it on I think. What about fire risk if I go away for holiday which won't be that often? Shouldn't be too much wear and tear on the router once/twice a year do you think?

Things dont suddenly start catching fire just because your out of the house for a few weeks....
Yet surprisingly few people think their fridge/freezer is going to explode if they leave it on while on holiday...

Id still turn it off tho as its doing nothing.

Richard_Wells

RobTang wrote: »

Things dont suddenly start catching fire just because your out of the house for a few weeks....
Yet surprisingly few people think their fridge/freezer is going to explode if they leave it on while on holiday....

[Sits back and waits for all the people who's fridges have caught fire to chip in] :rotfl: