Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

It is most likely a problem with your leaving your computer running for days on end. Even if Windows was meant to be running constantly (it isn't), PC hardware isn't. You should shut it down at night when you're not doing anything with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

It is most likely a problem with your leaving your computer running for days on end. Even if Windows was meant to be running constantly (it isn't), PC hardware isn't. You should shut it down at night when you're not doing anything with it.

The father of a friend of mine in college had been a big mucky muck manager at IBM in the early days of the PC. (They forced him into early retirement when he recommended that the PS/2 was a mistake. The corporate world doesn't like Cassandras.) She said that they had done extensive testing on the wear and tear of the components and found that booting the computer puts about 8 hours equivalent wear and tear on the components. The reliability has generally improved since then, so I don't know which way the curves would have gone.

Laptops are often marginal in cooling and I wouldn't run one constantly. Desktops are a different matter. When I ran Windows 98 on my desktop PC, I shut down every night because the OS was so unstable. Now that I'm running 2000 (I hate XP with a passion), I usually leave it running for several days at a time.

Like most machines, heat is usually the biggest killer, though duty cycles (warming up and cooling down) can cause stress too. If the computer has adequate cooling, then leaving it run is probably easier on the components.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: waynec

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

It is most likely a problem with your leaving your computer running for days on end. Even if Windows was meant to be running constantly (it isn't), PC hardware isn't. You should shut it down at night when you're not doing anything with it.

The father of a friend of mine in college had been a big mucky muck manager at IBM in the early days of the PC. (They forced him into early retirement when he recommended that the PS/2 was a mistake. The corporate world doesn't like Cassandras.) She said that they had done extensive testing on the wear and tear of the components and found that booting the computer puts about 8 hours equivalent wear and tear on the components. The reliability has generally improved since then, so I don't know which way the curves would have gone.

Laptops are often marginal in cooling and I wouldn't run one constantly. Desktops are a different matter. When I ran Windows 98 on my desktop PC, I shut down every night because the OS was so unstable. Now that I'm running 2000 (I hate XP with a passion), I usually leave it running for several days at a time.

Like most machines, heat is usually the biggest killer, though duty cycles (warming up and cooling down) can cause stress too. If the computer has adequate cooling, then leaving it run is probably easier on the components.

Bill

thanks for all the tips. i have good air circulation for laptop and desktop. i too have heard both sides of the leave on vs. shut down debate.
perhaps i wasn't clear with my situation. this only started happening after i upgraded to sp2. prior to that i never had this problem. of course i could freeze it up from time to time because i tend to have multiple things running, especially when doing serious digital art.
to update everyone i ran a check disk and anti virus last night and am defragging today. just thought to check shortcut properties and had the -w after the autorun.exe. that was something new i had just recently done. took that off and will reboot after defrag. will also try this with WPO over the weekend and keep everyone informed.