Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mtune!westmark!dave
From: dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Leaving AT on overnight (good/bad)
Message-ID: <146@westmark.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 16:19:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: westmark.146
Posted: Fri Aug 28 16:19:53 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 02:21:34 EDT
References: <1246@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <768@custom.UUCP> <202@ttrdd.UUCP> <2237@sphinx.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA
Lines: 24
Summary: Just the System Unit

In article <2237@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, cjdb@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Charles Blair) writes:
> ...  occasionally monitors
> would catch fire.
> ... Now I'd love to leave my AT on forever, but can anyone
> guarantee me that I won't fry the monitor...

My suggestion, if at all possible, is to leave the "System Unit"
powered up, but turn off your monitor.  This will save the phosphor,
and some electricity.  The expensive parts (hard disks) are kept in
good condition and at a relatively constant temperature.  The
monitor is less likely to be hurt by turning it on and off (no
moving parts) and won't ignite anything when off.

I leave my AT&T PC6300PLUS on continuously (UNIX likes it that way).
I leave the monitor on for most of the work-day, and whenever I
expect to be logging in soon again.  I turn the monitor off (leaving
everything else on) when I'm off premises.

Is this a reasonable compromise?
-- 
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.		A node for news.
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | clyde | mtune | ihnp4}!westmark!dave