#UBUNTU VS MAC OS STAMENA SOFTWARE#
#UBUNTU VS MAC OS STAMENA PC#
#UBUNTU VS MAC OS STAMENA WINDOWS#

We also need to be careful not to draw the conclusion that this means it won't ever cause a problem with your machine it's very possible that powering off the computers without shutting down did break a few machines in the study, but this either did not measure statistically for the support costs (maybe it's more likely to happen near the end of a PC's replacement cycle, for example, which reduces perceived cost) or is offset over many PCs by something like wear incurred while shutting down properly. The result of the study was there was no measurable difference in support costs for the two departments between those that shut down the computers correctly, those that just powered them off without shutting down, or either department compared to the year prior.īut what does that really mean? I know there's at least one problem with the methodology - there should have been a third department tracked that was allowed to do as it pleased for a control, and perhaps another department where machines were kept running as much as possible. This went on for a year, and support costs for each department were tracked. Again, this was strictly enforced, and they would then kill the power to the machines each night. The other department was instructed to leave them running under the ruse that IT wanted to be able to connect remotely for maintenance.

#UBUNTU VS MAC OS STAMENA PC#

I can't find the reference now, but I remember reading an article back in 2003 about a large company where the IT department had done an internal study: they took two very similar departments and taught one of them to always carefully shut down the PC when the left of the day for security reasons. This is a little different take on your question: I'm looking more at the 'Should I shut down properly vs can I just cut the power?' question: Even though the operating system will run without a problem, the hardware will age when left on and when initially powered on.

Silicon chips age with heat and power on cycles.

#UBUNTU VS MAC OS STAMENA WINDOWS#

It's also been said that Linux and Mac OS tend to run for longer than Windows systems, although in my experience that mostly depends on what programs you use on them, and not so much on any differences between the kernels of the operating systems themselves.įrom a hardware perspective, hard drives, because they have moving parts, will age when they are kept powered on. Plus, server operating systems are optimized for long-term use. A server, on which you just start up a few programs and then let them work, will be fine for much longer than a desktop computer, where you're constantly opening and closing different programs and doing different things with them. Generally, a computer with a lot of RAM can go for much longer than a computer with only a little RAM. However, different computers and OS's are not all equally affected by this phenomenon. So shutting down your computer every once in a while - and I do mean actually shutting down, not just hibernating or putting it to sleep - can give it a 'fresh start' of sorts and make it seem nice and zippy again. All that stuff can slow down the computer, but it all goes away when you shut down or restart the system.

#UBUNTU VS MAC OS STAMENA SOFTWARE#

From a software perspective, an operating system and the programs you run on it tend to accumulate all sorts of cruft over extended periods of use - temporary files, disk caches, page files, open file descriptors, pipes, sockets, zombie processes, memory leaks, etc.

Ubuntu vs mac os stamena