PS3 fact or fiction

[NeverSeen]

So lets say in a month you log 20 hours on your DVD player, 30 hours on the PS3, and 15 hours on your CD player.

Now you are going to use only the PS3. So instead of only using it 30 hours a month you are using it 65 hours a month.

Simple logic would tell you if you replace 3 units with 1 that the 1 would wear out faster.

I went through 3 PS2s before i stopped using it for everything and just using it for games... and i still have that same 4th one in perfect working condition.

 

[Pwner_2130]

So lets say in a month you log 20 hours on your DVD player, 30 hours on the PS3, and 15 hours on your CD player.

Now you are going to use only the PS3. So instead of only using it 30 hours a month you are using it 65 hours a month.

Simple logic would tell you if you replace 3 units with 1 that the 1 would wear out faster.

I went through 3 PS2s before i stopped using it for everything and just using it for games... and i still have that same 4th one in perfect working condition.

Ah there we go.. my point exactly, my first PS2 was used for everything, when it refused to read disks, I bought a second and have only used it for games, and it still works like a charm.

 

[gus6464]

I used a first gen ps2 to watch dvds for two years before I bought a standalone dvd player. It is now 6 years old and still works like the first day I got it.

 

[Pwner_2130]

Again, personal experiences prove to be different.

 

[Wafflesomd]

Why is anyone debating this.

I've had a gamestop employee tell me that placing a 360 on carpet voids the warranty.

Seriously, play your movies.

This thread is dumb.

 

[Pwner_2130]

Why is anyone debating this.

I've had a gamestop employee tell me that placing a 360 on carpet voids the warranty.

Seriously, play your movies.

This thread is dumb.

Respect the opinions of others even if you disagree with them.

 

[Wafflesomd]

Respect the opinions of others even if you disagree with them.

Are you 5?

 

[NeverSeen]

Awwwwl man, i thought i killed this thread. Why did someone have to bring it back?

Bottomline... The more you use any machine the more susceptible it is to failure.

 

[abboudc]

So lets say in a month you log 20 hours on your DVD player, 30 hours on the PS3, and 15 hours on your CD player.

Now you are going to use only the PS3. So instead of only using it 30 hours a month you are using it 65 hours a month.

Simple logic would tell you if you replace 3 units with 1 that the 1 would wear out faster.

I went through 3 PS2s before i stopped using it for everything and just using it for games... and i still have that same 4th one in perfect working condition.

"Simple logic" would work if it was a pencil eraser or a set of tires. It's not.

A PS3 is an electrical device like a computer. It's greatest enemy is heat, and it will cause the most damage. Turning it on and off also does it more damage than being left on for several hours. This is why most light bulbs "pop" when you turn on the switch, and don't just burn out while they're on. Or why an old HP printer will last forever, as long as you never turn it off. The laser itself is not a moving part, and isn't subject to mechanical wear. The only moving parts in the PS3 are the cooling fan, the laser-read assembly, the disc tray motor, and the hard drive. If you're going to worry about any of these, the cooling fan is most likely to fail, followed by the hard drive. All of these things exist in PC's and PC's can be left on for YEARS straight without being "used up". The bottom line is the usable life of these things is way beyond what anyone would actually use (like 25 years for a silicon chip). More than twice as long. Devices that fail sooner are lemons. It happens.

The PS2 (and PS1) are notoriously bad examples. Not quite as bad as an Xbox 360, but they weren't exactly reliable. I would recommend AGAINST not using it the way you want, because all that's going to do is cause it to fail outside the warranty period. It'd be much better if it failed sooner.

 

[NeverSeen]

"Simple logic" would work if it was a pencil eraser or a set of tires. It's not.

your kidding... right?

A PS3 is an electrical device like a computer. It's greatest enemy is heat, and it will cause the most damage. Turning it on and off also does it more damage than being left on for several hours. This is why most light bulbs "pop" when you turn on the switch, and don't just burn out while they're on. Or why an old HP printer will last forever, as long as you never turn it off. The laser itself is not a moving part, and isn't subject to mechanical wear. The only moving parts in the PS3 are the cooling fan, the laser-read assembly, the disc tray motor, and the hard drive.
All of these things exist in PC's and PC's can be left on for YEARS straight without being "used up". The bottom line is the usable life of these things is way beyond what anyone would actually use (like 25 years for a silicon chip). More than twice as long. Devices that fail sooner are lemons. It happens.

So various components in the PS3 are designed to last a long time... i'm sure that goes for every little cap and resistor and moving part as well in what i'm sure is really just another class 2 device. and thanks for the mini lesson. This might help me at my day job as a manager on the manufacturing floor of the military devision of one of the three largest electronic manufacturing service companies in the world.

I'd still much rather spread the use out over 3 devices than 1. No matter how you cut it, all things being equal, if you spread the use out over 3 devices the three will last longer than the one that is being used for everything. there is less stress (on/off, heat, movement, etc) on all the devices when you spread the love. You will still get the same amount of total hours of entertainment from the three as the one, but over a much longer period of time. This really is simple logic. Time doesn't kill the device, use does. the more you use it the faster it will degrade and eventually break unless it is properly maintained and cared for (think oil in a car, or cleaning the dust out of your computer).

 

[NeverSeen]

I would recommend AGAINST not using it the way you want, because all that's going to do is cause it to fail outside the warranty period. It'd be much better if it failed sooner.

missed that.

not really sure what your stance is on this issue now because its too late for me to re read your post heheh .





wooooooow i can't believe this thread hit 4 pages. lame.

 

[MDS]

I'd still much rather spread the use out over 3 devices than 1. No matter how you cut it, all things being equal, if you spread the use out over 3 devices the three will last longer than the one that is being used for everything. there is less stress (on/off, heat, movement, etc) on all the devices when you spread the love. You will still get the same amount of total hours of entertainment from the three as the one, but over a much longer period of time. This really is simple logic. Time doesn't kill the device, use does. the more you use it the faster it will degrade and eventually break unless it is properly maintained and cared for (think oil in a car, or cleaning the dust out of your computer).

I can't believe I missed this thread. I'm going to side with the people that say the premise behind this 'advice' from a GameStop employee is dumb.

This simple logic is actually rather convoluted. First it assumes that all 3 devices will have the same lifespan under every circumstance; so if we say the lifetime of each is 100 hours but you spread your usage over 3 devices, you'll get a lifetime of 300 hours. What if two of them die after 50 hours and the third one lasts 400 hours?

It's like arguing that 100,000 hours as a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of a hard-drive means that the drive will fail after 100,000 hours. It may fail way before that or it may not fail for 250,000 hours.

The debate about leaving things on all the time vs turning them off is similar and equally meaningless. The only thing you gain by leaving your machine on all the time is a higher electricity bill. If one were to use the car analogy so often given - that it is harder on the engine to start up from a cold state than to remain running - why doesn't everyone leave the car running all night? Because to do so would be dumb.

ANY use for any purpose will slowly degrade the mechanical parts of the device.

 

[abboudc]

So various components in the PS3 are designed to last a long time... i'm sure that goes for every little cap and resistor and moving part as well in what i'm sure is really just another class 2 device. and thanks for the mini lesson. This might help me at my day job as a manager on the manufacturing floor of the military devision of one of the three largest electronic manufacturing service companies in the world.

A manufacturing job doesn't really lend any weight to your argument. Unless of course you're an engineer too, but if you were, i'm guessing you would have mentioned that.

I'd still much rather spread the use out over 3 devices than 1. No matter how you cut it, all things being equal, if you spread the use out over 3 devices the three will last longer than the one that is being used for everything. there is less stress (on/off, heat, movement, etc) on all the devices when you spread the love. You will still get the same amount of total hours of entertainment from the three as the one, but over a much longer period of time. This really is simple logic. Time doesn't kill the device, use does. the more you use it the faster it will degrade and eventually break unless it is properly maintained and cared for (think oil in a car, or cleaning the dust out of your computer).

Let's just agree to disagree. The bottom line is a Gamestop employee's opinion isn't scientific. It's his opinion. Which he's entitled to and you seem to agree with. With regards to the original poster's question: opinions differ. There's no evidence it will reduce the life of your PS3, only conjecture.

 

[abboudc]

It's like arguing that 100,000 hours as a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of a hard-drive means that the drive will fail after 100,000 hours. It may fail way before that or it may not fail for 250,000 hours.

MTBF numbers are useless. It could be one hour. The way they're calculated is 1000 drives run for an hour. If one drive fails at the end of the hour, they say the MTBF is 1000 hours!

The debate about leaving things on all the time vs turning them off is similar and equally meaningless. The only thing you gain by leaving your machine on all the time is a higher electricity bill.

I don't think anyone was advocating leaving something on all the time would increase it's life, just that it didn't significantly reduce it, disproving the "it has so many hours in it" theory. Except for old HP Laserjet III printers. Don't ever turn them off. Seriously.

 

[jonnythan]

MTBF numbers are useless. It could be one hour. The way they're calculated is 1000 drives run for an hour. If one drive fails at the end of the hour, they say the MTBF is 1000 hours!

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is certainly not the case.

 

[abboudc]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is certainly not the case.

LOL. Yes it was sarcasm. Sadly, the real formula is no more useful or accurate.