Do programs like United Devices harm a PC?

  Jester2K 09:56 23 Jan 2004

Just to settle a minor argument - do programs like United Devices click here (Cancer Research) harm a PC at all? Heat, wear and tear?

I've noticed that a processor will run at 100% when running this program but only 2-3% when switched off. I'm told that this can prematurely age the PC?

Fact or fiction?

  Big Elf 10:10 23 Jan 2004

An article here click here

  Noels 10:16 23 Jan 2004

Jester2K I don't know the technical answer to your question but have been running the United Devices programme for at least two years without any problems. I switch my computer on about 6.30 a.m. and off when I go to bed. When not using the computer the programme runs as a screen saver. I can't see why this programme should be more of a problem than any other programme when in use.

Regards Noels

  Chegs ® 10:25 23 Jan 2004

Used to run United Devices 24/7,did do so for a few years,but when it changed from Cancer analysis to smallpox for the yanks,I removed it from my puter.I cannot see it doing anything to hardware that usual puter use wont.There have been several threads on pro's/con's of leaving a pc on 24/7.

  Noels 10:29 23 Jan 2004

Chegs ® Been back to cancer for a long time now. Noels

  Big Elf 10:32 23 Jan 2004

I've just read an article in a magazine that says the extra power required to run the CPU at 100% is increased by 12W on a medium powered system.

I haven't checked the maths but this will use an extra 105kWh per year. This in turn generates through the National Gird an extra 65kg of CO2.

  palinka 11:05 23 Jan 2004

I've been using it for 3 years or so, without any problems. My computer is switched on in the morning, then off again and on in the evening, and sometimes at random times in between. As Noels says it runs just like a screen saver. On the issue of what research it supports, I seem to remember being offered a choice of topics - don't know what I clicked, or whether I changed from whatever is the "default", so if you're concerned about this aspect go to their website and check out the options.

  blanco 17:09 23 Jan 2004

I've been running it 24/7 virtually since it started with absolutely no ill effects and with no noticeable difference in the electricity bill. Palinka is right, when they introduced the secondary subjects - anthrax and then smallpox - I opted out and have remained on just the cancer project. Very little effort for a very worthwhile cause.

  Gaz 25 17:11 23 Jan 2004

You are using the processor more, generating more heat, thus reducing the life span.

I would have thought.

  jordi2 17:19 23 Jan 2004

the tear and wear is minimum, I believe it is worth it as it is for a good cause.
I would not it give it a second thought

  georgemac 17:30 23 Jan 2004

I too have been running it since it started. The computer/cpu runs about 6-7 degC hotter, but it has never given me any problem with a cpu.

I have had 2 failed motherboards in that time, but I think I would have got that anyway.

I too otedfor cancer only when the anthrax panic was on in the states, but now participate in the smallpox research, as this helps to fund the continuing cancer research.

UD now have the biggest virtual supercomputer in the world in terms of clock cycles (I think), and I think it is still a worthwhile cause.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

AMD Radeon Adrenalin release date, new features, compatible graphics cards

Inside the iMac Pro - Apple's most powerful Mac yet

iMac Pro release date, UK price & specs

Football : comment regarder la Ligue 1 en direct ?