Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ayac071
From: ayac071@ut-ngp.UUCP (William T. Douglass)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Leaving AT on overnight (good/bad)
Message-ID: <5911@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Aug-87 10:01:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.5911
Posted: Fri Aug 14 10:01:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 18:29:59 EDT
References: <1246@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <768@custom.UUCP> <202@ttrdd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ayac071@ngp.UUCP (Bill Douglass)
Distribution: na
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 21
Keywords: 11,000 hours
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:6728 comp.misc:1016

In article <202@ttrdd.UUCP> mellman@ttrdd.UUCP (Thomas Mellman) writes:
>As far as that old argument that the electronics don't like power cycling,
>how many terminals (as a model for pc's that's been around alot longer)
>has anyone come up against whose electronics have failed?  Usually, they
>just get so obsolete that nobody wants to use them anymore, or the
>keyboard becomes unusable.  I think I can say that I've never seen a
>terminal that didn't work.

Well, let me enlighten you.  After 5 years working in a S/370 environment
with 3278/3178/3179 terminals, I have witnessed dozens of dying or dead
tubes (terminals.)  If fact, one of the local remote job entry sites decided
to power-off all terminals in its building over the week-end during summer
months, specifically because of concerns about heat-related damage.  This
was stopped after 3 weeks because the technicians determined that powering
up the terminals weekly was causing more failures than just letting them
run constantly.

I say, let 'er run.

Bill Douglass
ayac071@ngp.UUCP