"System specs:" Insulting; useless waste of time

johnmeyer wrote on 3/30/2014, 3:56 PM

I want to make one more plea and ask everyone to quit asking people for their "system specs." I have not seen one instance in ten years of posting where asking this question actually helped the OP, and I have instead seen many instances where it puts the person on the defensive and makes them feel intimidated. As practiced on this forum, it often assumes the form of hazing. I say that because in almost every instance where system specs are requested, the person doing it offers absolutely nothing of use that will actually help the person solve his or her problem, and often fails to ever come back to the thread and offer advice.

It would be so much more useful to instead ask specifically for whatever missing information is required.

Let me be very specific as to why we should all stop doing this. I will do this by first looking at the actual content of what is contained in these sacred "system specs" and show how trivial and useless they are, and then will list items that are much more important to most discussions, but which are not included in these specs.

First, here is Sony's laughable list of "system specs:"

Windows Version:
RAM:
Processor:
Video Card:
Sound Card:
Video Capture:
CD Burner:
DVD Burner:
Camera:

Really??

Windows Version:
There is nothing requested about service packs installed. Also, there is nothing about other programs installed which might interfere with whatever Windows version is installed. Examples include "codec packs," QuickTime, and the almost infinite number of programs which install obnoxious background processes, most notably anti-virus software.

RAM:
I have no quarrel with this spec.

Processor:As with all the other specs, it is up to the user to know all of the things that must be included on this line. Many just enter "Intel" or "AMD." Some include a clock speed. However, without knowing the full information about processor model, number of cores, and motherboard, this item provides little useful information.

Video Card:Once again, "NVidia" or "ATI" is all that some people include. Even when they include the model, we still don't know the most important thing which is, of course, the [I]driver[/I] version being used. About 98% of the issues relating to video cards, especially those involving GPU, require information about the driver version, and this is not required by the "system specs."

Sound Card:This is about 100% irrelevant, and for many video-only users, it is simply something on their motherboard, and they don't even know what it is.

Video Capture:This is even more irrelevant and hasn't mattered since most camcorders went to memory cards.

CD Burner:What is this thing?

DVD Burner:The model can be important, but the connection type (IDE, or SATA), and information on whether it is internal or external, is far more important.

Camera:This is important, but there is something that is infinitely more important, and is at the heart of almost every single post, but is not part of system specs ...

... which is a nice segue to a list of items that are far, far more important than anything on the silly system specs list

I almost never care about the specific camera a person is using. What [I]does[/I] matter -- and matters in almost every post -- is what shooting mode they are using: AVCHD or HDV? 1920x1080 or 1280x720? 24 fps progressive or 29.97 fps interlaced (etc.)? Memory card or tape? Manual or automatic settings? I could go on.

Is the video on external hard drives, network drives, or internal drives? If network drives are used, what connection speed?

Speaking of hard drive, do you realize that this useless set of "system specs" [I]does not ask about your hard drive ???[/I] Next to the processor, isn't this just about the most critical computer spec for a video editing system? And, to be useful, the spec must include not just size, connection type (e.g., SATA), but also rotation speed, on-board cache, and technology (e.g., SSD).

If external drives are used, are they USB2 or USB3? Note that there is nothing in "system specs" about USB.

Are they reading video directly from memory cards?

Here's an unbelievably important, absolutely vital piece of information and you won't find it ANYWHERE in the pathetic "system specs:" [I]What version of Vegas are you using???[/I] Is there anything more important to know than this?

Wow, what an omission.

What monitor are they using and how is it connected? Every time there is a post which involves interlaced footage not displaying properly, this becomes important.

What Internet connection speed do they have? We've had a huge number of posts about playback issues from Internet sites, and some of these are simply a function of connection speed.

I've run out of steam, and this post is too long, but my point in making this post was to provide a detailed defense of why I think that asking for system specs is a pointless exercise that delays giving the OP useful advice and providing a resolution to the problem at hand.

So, instead of asking for system specs, I propose that everyone instead ask a specific question about whatever information is needed to provide a more complete response. Some of the possible questions are in my lists above. Alternatively, just try to help the person by putting the response in the conditional form, such as, "if you have a multi-core computer you can ... " or "if your drives are connected via USB 2 instead of USB 3, you probably can't get full speed playback from those large files."

Oh yes, for those who won't post without seeing my system specs, here they are. Bow down and worship them:

Windows Version: 7 64-bit
RAM: 6 GB
Processor: 3.2 GHz Intel i7, Asus P6T Delux MB
Video Card: nVidia 9800GT
Sound Card: Creative Titanium xFx
Video Capture: OHCI IEEE1394
CD Burner:
DVD Burner: LiteOn iHAP 422
Camera: Sony FX-1 (HDV), Sony TRV-11 (DV)

Back to post

Comments

johnmeyer wrote on 3/31/2014, 9:57 AM

Quote from Hulk post: @johnmeyerI made no post in that thread. You are accusing me of something I did not do.

dxdy wrote on 3/31/2014, 11:48 AM

and of course QuickTime version if relevant.

riredale wrote on 3/31/2014, 12:30 PM

I've never filled out my own system spec because (a) I never thought it would be very useful in answering the kinds of questions I've raised here, (b) my system is a dinosaur even though it happily runs V9 all day long, and (c) I'm really lazy. On the other hand, it could be that some folks are very happy to fill out their specs because they just spent $4,000 on a new system and are proud of their selections. Perhaps the same folks who run the Rendertest veg first chance they get and post the results. Whatever; that's great, and I continue to be impressed at how hardware continues to get ever faster.

So I can see how a newbie poster might be a bit intimidated if the first response to a query was a blunt comment about filling out the system specs. On the other hand I think it would be very helpful if there was some sort of "troubleshooting" page that tried to condense the accumulated wisdom of this board into, say twenty questions. What processor? What OS? What video card and driver? What camera and file type? And so on. The same kinds of questions we would be asking if we were on a conference call with the guy.

Malcolm D wrote on 3/31/2014, 2:12 PM

How quickly so many of you turn on one of the most helpful and knowledgeable members of this forum when he has the audacity to state the obvious namely that the "System Specs" as they stand have little or no bearing on solving the problems members have. His crime appears to be making his point strongly.
These responses do not paint a very good picture of the caliber of some members.
This forum would be infinitely poorer without John's contributions. He has left before and I would strongly caution against encouraging him do it again.

I have seen countless demands for "System Specs" from members who when provided with same provide no further input.
I have even seen it when even greater detail was provided in the body of the query.
In some cases it is just a case that a member had not checked the box to make them visible which is on another page.
In this case I assume they are still visible to SCS.
The attitude appears to be if you don't provide "System Specs" I am not going to help you which is really a cover for I can't or won't help you anyway.
I note one of the worst "System Specs" police has stayed out of this thread so far.

It is notable that most of the most venomous critics are too spineless to publish their real name along side their treasured "System Specs".
From reading this thread I would suggest that one gives far more credit to those who do give their real name than those that don't.

Meanwhile I would like to thank John for his many thorough, detailed and insightful responses to members problems. Many times he has cut through the waffle of others to provide the answer the OP is wanting.

Malcolm

johnmeyer wrote on 3/31/2014, 2:19 PM

Malcom,

Your comments are extremely kind. Thank you. And you did a great job of summarizing exactly what I tried to say in my too-long initial post.

John Meyer (real name) ;)

Malcolm D wrote on 3/31/2014, 3:08 PM

VidMus

Your contributions to this thread will not be missed.
The level of offense you take to the original post is beyond all reason.
I can only assume it is because you are one of the "System Specs" police.

Apart from possibly the word 'Insulting' in the subject line there is nothing to take offense to.
It is a well reasoned analysis of the problem.

Malcolm

Geoff_Wood wrote on 3/31/2014, 4:47 PM

People ask for System Specs when a question has been posted without even this most basic information. Let alone the deeper stuff.

geoff

Laurence wrote on 3/31/2014, 5:17 PM

A few years ago, you really needed to be able to piece together a cutting edge system in order to work with programs like Sony Vegas. It was the era of Pentium 4 computers. RAM and hard disk space that was measured in megabytes and off the shelf computers simply were nowhere near powerful enough to get anything done.

I remember buying a 1 gigabyte hard disk for about $500! That was the biggest hard drive I had ever seen for sale anywhere. A friend at work explained to me how much this was overkill. How I could type every day for my whole life and never fill up a whole gigabyte. I brought it home and installed it and recorded a little three minute four track audio song. I was mainly doing music at the time. I decided I wanted to add more tracks so I attempted to bounce the four tracks into a stereo mix. After an hour or so of grinding away, I got an "out of disc space" error message. That was on my first day with my first project on the largest hard drive you could buy commercially!

Times have changed. You can wander into a local WalMart now and any of the top shelf laptops are more than powerful enough to do a typical video or music project with ease (assuming you are using some sort of video compression). Yes, you can still buy a netbook or a chromebook, or an underpowered system that is below the specs that Vegas requires, and occasionally someone will try this, but that is hardly the norm.

To me, the system specs listing is a relic of an era that has past. When someone gets into video editing or music production, all they should have to do is get a computer that is fast enough for moderate gaming. The trouble is, that many of us with computers that are more than adequate are still experiencing crashes. If you have an i7 with multiple gigabytes of RAM and several terrabytes of storage and your system is crashing, it is not because of substandard system specs. It is because of some driver or chipset that wasn't tested before the software was released. If your system only crashes with one particular program, it is possible that something about that program is at fault. Trying to turn this around and blame the user's system specs is just silly.

OldSmoke wrote on 3/31/2014, 5:57 PM

@Laurence
No, you cant just use any PC/Laptop from Walmart and expect it to work, maybe SD footage. I do have one of those Walmart PC at home and no, I would never even do a basic project on it; that really would be just silly.
Especially with GPU acceleration system specs are important. Most of the technical issues users have are hardware related rather then software otherwise everyone would have the same problem. A particular hardware like a graphic card comes with its own driver and many here will be able to tell from the driver which kind of issue you may have. Same applies for other hardware, don't forget that this forum includes many very very hardware knowledgeable users and they are lost without even the basic specs.

Laurence wrote on 3/31/2014, 6:16 PM

Perhaps that was an exaggeration. I know that There are a number of PCs available from discounters that are plenty powerful enough.

My PC is well above what I could have gotten locally by the way. I have no issues with preview performance or rendering times like you would expect if it was a specifications issue.

OldSmoke wrote on 3/31/2014, 6:26 PM

@Laurence
I wouldn't expect it from your system although I am not sure if you have a laptop or a desktop. A Gforce 555m is actually a mobile GPU and a i7-2600 is a desktop CPU.

I had a 2600k before and it did well with HDV footage but with the new AVCHD 1080 60p files it wouldn't do so well. Even my current system is at times not enough.

johnmeyer wrote on 3/31/2014, 6:52 PM

You can wander into a local WalMart now and any of the top shelf laptops are more than powerful enough to do a typical video or music project with ease ... If you have an i7 with multiple gigabytes of RAM and several terrabytes of storage and your system is crashing, it is not because of substandard system specs.Yup. Both points are 100% correct.

I have a single-core ten-year-old computer that still works fine for editing SD, HDV, and even the occasional AVCHD project. It uses Vegas 8, the first version that let you put AVCHD on the timeline. It is very sluggish when editing AVCHD, but quite adequate for HDV and SD. Of course it is pathetically slow when rendering, compared to what I can do on my more modern computer. Three years ago, when it took almost two days to render a two-camera HD shoot down to a simple SD MPEG-2 file for a DVD production, I upgraded to my current main computer and cut that time from 36 hours to less than two hours. The render test times people posted made it pretty clear what sort of benefits I could expect from this upgrade.

However, to your point, my comfortable old clunker is completely stable, and doesn't do unexpected things while editing or rendering.

While there have been (unfortunately) a huge number of posts in the past two years about stability with Vegas 12, none that I have read had anything to do with a person having inadequate hardware. Nothing bad happens except, as with my old clunker, things run slowly. Yes, over the years there have been a few home-built computers with inadequate power supplies or poor cooling that would shut down during rendering, but this is something that would never show up in a system spec listing, and it has been a pretty rare occurrence.

In my experience answering questions in this forum, most issues of performance are not solved by knowing a person's hardware specifications and then telling that person to get a faster processor, something BTW that the poster could probably have figured out without anyone's help. Instead, there is usually some underlying issue which requires asking specific questions, unrelated to hardware. As one example: sometimes the person uses an fX which requires a huge amount of CPU horsepower but doesn't realize how big a difference there is between different fX. To put numbers to this idea, I did tests many years ago that showed how radically different the CPU requirements of different Vegas fX have become:

Results of render times for ALL Vegas fX

Back then, the Min/Max fX was 231 times slower than the fastest fX. Imagine putting that onto your timeline and wondering why rendering times increased by a factor of 231 !! You could upgrade to the fastest computer available, and there would still be a 231x relative increase, and you would still be scratching your head if you didn't know about this massive differential.

Third-party plugins -- something that Sony thankfully finally started supporting -- often have the downside of contributing to stability problems and slowing down timeline playback speed and increasing rendering times. The very unhelpful "everything works fine on my computer" response that I see too often in all Internet support forums is most often traceable to one person having third-party plugins, codec packs, outdated Quicktime installations, and old video drivers (or new ones that are worse than the old ones ...), and the other person having a stock system with no add-ons.

I should also point out that some people never venture outside a very narrow range of video activities, using just one camera, rendering to just one or two formats, and only using a few stock effects. Others (and I am one) deal with a huge number of different video files from dozens or even hundreds of sources (my business is fixing problem media files that people send to me). I seldom do the same thing twice in Vegas and as a result have a great appreciation for how well it can work for one project, and how marginal it can become when doing something else.

Finally, I very much support the idea, mentioned by several people so far, of having some sort of system reporting utility. However, if Sony were to build something like that -- or if someone can find something already available that we all can use -- it really should concentrate more on the software installation than on the hardware configuration. I have an EE degree, worked at HP's test and measurement division, and then later ran three software companies. I therefore know both the hardware and software side of the equation.

From my experience, software and cockpit error are the culprit in about 98% of the problems in this forum, and hardware only 2%, if that.

Rob Franks wrote on 3/31/2014, 7:55 PM

"I have a single-core ten-year-old computer that still works fine for editing SD, HDV, and even the occasional AVCHD project. It uses Vegas 8, the first version that let you put AVCHD on the timeline. It is very sluggish when editing AVCHD,"

And had you signed on here and asked;
"why is my machine so sluggish when I edit avchd?"
Anyone would be able to tell you at the drop of a hat what the problem was after they looked at your system specs. But of course if you're too lazy to fill them out.....
=====================================================

"From my experience, software and cockpit error are the culprit in about 98% of the problems in this forum, and hardware only 2%, if that."

You have any data to back that up?
No?
Didn't think so,

Let's say for a single second that's true though, that's 2% that could have been worked out without a bunch of addition poking, prodding, and prying.

If you're going to ask 'what's wrong" questions on this forum (or any other) then it only makes sense to include as much information as possible to assists others in helping you. Now maybe the system specs will help, and maybe they won't given a particular circumstance, but they certainly wont hurt anything... hence the utter uselessness of this thread... and it is certainly not up to you John, to make that decision for us. In fact I'm a little offended at this entire thread. What right do you have in this request that people stop asking for system specs in the first place?

paul_w wrote on 3/31/2014, 8:13 PM

"Profile for: Rob Franks

Real Name: (hidden)

Website: (none)

Join Date: 12/20/2009 6:59:59 AM

Last Visit: 3/31/2014 8:10:44 PM
System Specs
(not available)

Total Posts by Rob Franks: 1011"

:) paul. sorry, couldn't resist it.

Rob Franks wrote on 3/31/2014, 8:22 PM

"Total Posts by Rob Franks: 1011"

And you have a look at those 1011 posts and see how many questions I have asked. Most if not ALL have been assisting in problems. I don't really ask questions, which is why my specs are not filled out.

As for real names... if you're dumb enough to list it....

Oh... and you should also check out the BLINK3TIMES posts as well... same person. In fact years back I developed a workaround for a memory flag issue. I did that in part through the use of system specs. It helped me put 2 and 2 together.
Alas... "blink3times" got banned in part by participating to too many ridiculous threads like this one.

[url=http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=647907]

Too funny... I was looking at that old thread:
"Subject: RE: Some interesting memory observations and avchd...

So Paul... what have you done for your fellow Vegas user lately ;)

OldSmoke wrote on 3/31/2014, 8:51 PM

@johnmeyer
It isn't so much a question of inadequate hardware but of the combination of hardware. Again, the basic spec that this forum allows for are a starting point for further investigation.
Comparing an 8 year old computer, of which I still have one myself, is like comparing a VW Beetle with a Ferrari... maybe not that far apart. The point is that 8 years ago there where limited options on RAM chips, power supply units and powerful GPUs, today you have multiple times the choices and equal amount to make the wrong one.
Your fx render test is also very outdated as the majority of Sony's own and some third party ones are GPU accelerated. Take that to the next level and you will find that some favor ATI/AMD and some Nvidia. If you run Vegas 10 and below it seriously doesn't matter what kind of GPU you have but for 11&12 it very much does and it can have a huge impact on system stability. An 8 year old motherboard can show it's "teeth" and you end up with a system that just isn't what it was anymore. How is someone supposed to help you if we don't know anything about the system you are working on.
The computer/system, the tool the editor works with, it comprises of hardware and software, one can't live without the other and we need information about both.

"If you have an i7 with multiple gigabytes of RAM and several terrabytes of storage and your system is crashing, it is not because of substandard system specs."

Correct. Not a question of substandard hardware but it can be a combination of hardware that just doesn't play well with each other.

I have the exact opposite experience form yours. I started building PCs in the days of x386 CPUs and Windows 3.1. There where not many choices of hardware those days and motherboards had very limited features; there was no on-board sound card for example. Systems in those days where by far less sensitive to power fluctuations which isn't true anymore for modern PCs with Haswell and Ivybridge-E computers, 32GB and more ram, a powerful GPU and maybe a bunch of HDDs in a RAID array. Most problems I solved even with OS systems where hardware related and software; keep in mind that when I say hardware that it includes the necessary driver for it.

The more complicated a system is the more sensitive it is and that includes software; the more complicated/feature rich it is the more sensitive it is.

Again, system specs are important and are a good basis for discussion as well as a source of information for others. Where they are not part of the problem a poster might have they can still be a source of information for others.

Rob Franks wrote on 3/31/2014, 10:11 PM

Sticky number 4 at the top of the forum directly from SCS:

============================================================================

"Subject: Please fill out your System Information in your profile
============================================================================

farss wrote on 4/1/2014, 1:45 AM

[I]"Correct. Not a question of substandard hardware but it can be a combination of hardware that just doesn't play well with each other."[/I]

If that's true and I'm not saying it isn't, then how to know?
Why doesn't it play well?

Bob.

GeeBax wrote on 4/1/2014, 3:17 AM

I have been involved building a new computer lately for use with Vegas and Resolve, and I was able to identify someone on this group who had a similar configuration. How? Because I was able to view their system specs. As I result I contacted that member and received some very helpful advice. Thank you, you know who you are.

Chalk up 1 for published specs.

VideoFreq wrote on 4/1/2014, 9:32 AM

John, I see and empathize with your frustration but you are incorrect about system specs. They do matter when trying to help someone. You ARE correct about the ignorance of some of those trying to help, but at least they are trying. You gain knowledge by trying. Experienced SVP users can't help someone if they don't know the persons common basics and those are the system specs.

I am one of those people whose specs were just not adequate enough. I personally believe that in addition to chipset, one of the most important pieces of hardware is your video card. This is one of the reasons that AVID is VERY specific on what they recommend for minimum adequate usage. Most people could not afford a dual quad core XEON with 32 gig ram and a NVidia Q-FX card plus the other hardware. AVID doesn't care about the mass market so they tell the naked truth. SONY and others publish what will work as a minimum for a larger mass market, but none will say anything about project size or video codecs used.

For me, changing to an i7-4770K Haswell from an i7-860 Lynnfield made a huge difference in what I was doing. I kept the same memory and all other peripherals, but also switched from a Gigabyte MOBO to an ASUS and went BACK to my 2009 NVidia Q-FX4600 from a GTX-660 and tweaked the driver till it was fast. Notice the driver in my system specs - OLD. No crashes now at all and smooth, 100% completed renders using 32 bit video level processing with multiple effects.

You cannot just load SVP 11 or 12 onto a Wal-Mart laptop and expect it to work well. It might be fine for 15 minute, single track AVCHD movies, but not 20 track, multi-codec, two hour projects. N O W A Y. Look up the specs on the Skywalker Ranch rendering farm. Size matters.

johnmeyer wrote on 4/1/2014, 12:51 PM

You cannot just load SVP 11 or 12 onto a Wal-Mart laptop and expect it to work well. It might be fine for 15 minutes ...Even if that is true, how can you know??? SCS doesn't publish any specifications and, speaking for myself, even with an EE degree and forty years in the computer industry, I have no clue as to exactly what features in a "i7-4770K Haswell" would cause Vegas to perform faster than what I'd get in a "i7-860 Lynnfield." I must know more about how Vegas works in order to make that decision.

Even if SCS still won't provide recommended hardware configurations, if they could at least provide some guidance as to what chipset and motherboard features matter, you and I both might be able to find a third chipset and motherboard that would blow out of the water both of the ones you mention.

And, back to the topic, when filling out the "system specs," virtually no one provides the same information in the "processor" section, and most of it is useless. I've listed below the processor part of the system specs for every single person who has posted in this thread. Only a few provide information on chipset and/or motherboard. I see nothing in any of these cryptic descriptions that would tell me even one single thing about a problem a person would have with Vegas, other than one computer will render faster or slower than another. Actually, some of these "system specs" don't even provide enough information to know that.

But here's the much bigger point: in looking at these specs, other than performance, is there any problem a user would have with Vegas because of their processor? Getting even more specific, is there an AMD-specific Vegas problem that people don't have with Intel processors? This sort of thing does exist (at least it did in the past) but I've not read one single thread in the dozen years of reading tens of thousands of posts in this forum that would lead me to believe there is a chip-specific Vegas bug.

Is there a problem with an i5 vs. an i7 Intel processor? Do people have crashes or rendering anamolies with a Lynnfield that they wouldn't have with a Haswell?

No.

So, once again, it all comes down to one thing: a faster computer performs, well, uh, ... faster.

However, when people ask about performance, other than when they are asking about what specs to get in their next computer, the issues are almost always far more complicated than the simple problem of their computer performing too slowly. I've already explained this in my initial post, so I won't repeat further.

Here are the system specs of everyone who has posted in this thread. I find the information completely un-useful and cannot think of one time in the 9,000+ posts I've made in this forum where I needed to know this before helping the person.

Oh yes, the "(not available)" listings are for those who didn't provide system specs. The delicious irony of making the case for why we should subject people to the system spec hazing ritual, while at the same time not posting one's own system specs, has already been pointed out ... brilliant observation, Paul.

Processor: 3.2 GHz Intel i7, Asus P6T Delux MB, 6GB mem
Processor: AMD Phenom II, 3.1Ghz
Processor: 2500
Processor: Intel i7-3930K, O.C. 4.4GHz
Processor: Intel 3930K 3.2GHz
(not available)
Processor: Intel Core I7 3770 @ 3.40Ghz ups to 3.9Ghz
Processor: Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz
(not available)
Processor: Intel i7-2600 3.4GHz
(not available)
Processor: Core i5 3570 3rd Gen Ivy Bridge; Asus mb LGA1155
Processor: i7 - 870, 2.93GHz
Processor: i7 4770
Processor: i7 Quad 2.95GHz
Processor: INTEL Q9650, NO OVERCLOCK
Processor: i7 920 2.66Ghz
Processor: i5-2500k o/c 4.2GHz
Processor: 3.06 (i7-950)
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 6600
Processor: i7 930

OldSmoke wrote on 4/1/2014, 1:23 PM

Well, if you only look at the processor then yes, that isn't helpful at all. And again you are missing the point. The system specs are a starting point for further inquiries.
The difference between an i7-4770 and an i7-860 are easily established by going to Intel's website and compare those two side by side. Since you have an EE degree, it should be quite easy for you to understand which one performs better.
I do agree with you that the specs are not playing any part if someone just once to know to which format to render for DVDA but sharing that information can be very useful for others and SCS. I would provide SCS with my full system spec anytime and will share mine with anyone who ask because I am one of the few users that never had an issue with VP11 or 12.

videoITguy wrote on 4/1/2014, 1:57 PM

Just to reiterate my point made earlier, if SCS is going to design software to spec - then every thing from CPU to GPU to video card driver version to version of firmware in the Blu-ray writer is going to be of ultimate concern.

Let's get SCS on board to design to spec, and for the forum members to be able to follow the lead and post their complete spec.
It's not anything but common sense.

JJKizak wrote on 4/1/2014, 2:46 PM

I noticed no one has mentioned the size and capacity of the power supply and there is no mention in the Sony specs either.
JJK