Screen Saver or Sleep Mode?

RDamm wrote on :
Wondering what is better for a new iMac, having a screen saver run with the computer always on, or having the computer go into sleep mode every 30 minutes. I always have my computer on... please advise what is better for the computer. Thanks.
stan replied on :

RDamm rbdamm@redacted.invalid wrote:

Wondering what is better for a new iMac, having a screen saver run with the computer always on, or having the computer go into sleep mode every 30 minutes. I always have my computer on... please advise what is better for the computer. Thanks.

I figure sleep mode is better for the monitor because that way, it does not have to be active when its not in use. With a screen saver, the monitor is still in use when it is not being used. Frankly, I think most screen savers are obsolete. The only one I use is Seti@redacted.invalid now.

ZnU replied on :

In article B7D0D4B8.3DD2%rbdamm@redacted.invalid, RDamm rbdamm@redacted.invalid wrote:

Wondering what is better for a new iMac, having a screen saver run with the computer always on, or having the computer go into sleep mode every 30 minutes. I always have my computer on... please advise what is better for the computer. Thanks.

It doesn't really matter with modern hardware. Basically, the trade-off is one of faster wake up (screen saver) vs. saving a few bucks a month on the electric bill (sleeping).

Actually, with modern screens, you don't even need a screensaver. Burn-in takes months.

Chris Moore replied on :

In article 9oft4l$crt$1@redacted.invalid, stan@redacted.invalid wrote:

RDamm rbdamm@redacted.invalid wrote:

Wondering what is better for a new iMac, having a screen saver run with the computer always on, or having the computer go into sleep mode every 30 minutes. I always have my computer on... please advise what is better for the computer. Thanks.

I figure sleep mode is better for the monitor because that way, it does not have to be active when its not in use. With a screen saver, the monitor is still in use when it is not being used. Frankly, I think most screen savers are obsolete. The only one I use is Seti@redacted.invalid now.

I use seperate timings for the monitor and hard drive. Monitor shuts down after 15 minutes, hard drive never shuts down.

Chris

Charles Martin replied on :

In article B7D0D4B8.3DD2%rbdamm@redacted.invalid, RDamm rbdamm@redacted.invalid wrote:

Wondering what is better for a new iMac, having a screen saver run with the computer always on, or having the computer go into sleep mode every 30 minutes. I always have my computer on... please advise what is better for the computer. Thanks.

Sleep is both "better" for the computer (by allowing it to cool down a bit) and more energy-friendly.

ZnU replied on :

In article Uggr7.217602$8c3.35625679@redacted.invalid, Charles Martin rubbish@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article B7D0D4B8.3DD2%rbdamm@redacted.invalid, RDamm rbdamm@redacted.invalid wrote:

Wondering what is better for a new iMac, having a screen saver run with the computer always on, or having the computer go into sleep mode every 30 minutes. I always have my computer on... please advise what is better for the computer. Thanks.

Sleep is both "better" for the computer (by allowing it to cool down a bit)

But thermal stress occurs as the hardware warms and cools, so this might actually be worse. Of course, as I said in my response, it isn't going to matter with modern hardware. It'll last well beyond the point where it's hopelessly out-of-date, and it if doesn't, it won't be because you left it turned on too long. I have a Mac that has been running pretty much 24/7 for around 5 years....

and more energy-friendly.

This is true. The trade-off is longer wake-up time.