"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 4/1/2014, 3:12 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. I had meant to mention it in my initial post, but not as something that should be included but instead as another example of why "system specs" -- whether the limited version currently used, or some expanded version that some have proposed in this thread -- are seldom a substitute for asking questions which are specific to the problem.

The usual issues where the power supply comes into question is where the person is having the computer crash during a render which pegs the CPU cores to max, and is also stressing the video card GPU. Adequate cooling can also be an issue (something that I wouldn't begin to know how to codify into a "system spec.") However, most commercially-built computers have a power supply adequate to power everything included in the computer. Most computer companies that have been in business for any length of time have long-since figured out this fairly basic requirement, and also usually know how to provide sufficient cooling. They don't stay in business long if they can't do this. So for anyone who has a commercially-built computer, the power supply spec isn't needed.

Of course there are people who build their own, and sometimes skimp on power supplies, but most people capable enough to build their own, also know how to size the power supply correctly.

The other problem with trying to make any sense out of a power supply spec is that you'd need to know all sorts of details about a system that would never make it into any specification in order to know if the supply is adequate. I've spent a lot of time at the "BadCaps" forum over the years, and boy do you get a lot of wild opinions as to what size, what type, and what connection scheme should be used.

OldSmoke wrote on 4/1/2014, 3:29 PM

Again I say you are wrong. There are good off the shelf computers and are there are really bad ones. If you buy one that is supposed to run an Office application every day and now you want to run Vegas on it, maybe render a 2 hour project, you will run into troubles with the power supply and/or over heating. Also don't forget that some uses may take their purchased systems and try to upgrade them after the warranty has expired. The plug in more HDDs because the motherboard has still some SATA ports available and plug in some add-on cards and voila, the PSU cant handle it anymore or even worse, has intermittent issues which difficult to troubleshoot.

And again, if we all would have our specs filled out and the spec sheet would allow for more information less users will have troubles to find good hardware for their own build.

And I would even include a field in the specs where you can rate your system and share your experience with it.

riredale wrote on 4/2/2014, 10:51 AM

One of the major strengths of Vegas over the years had been that it was pretty much platform-agnostic. I have no experience with the more-recent versions, however.

Nonetheless it's my opinion (repeat: opinion) that Vegas will run well on pretty much anything, though there is apparently a category of video card that it prefers.

As for some new systems being junk, I don't believe it. If faced with a new Brand X system and asked if it could edit video, I'd immediately do several things:

(1) Run Memtest for an hour or two. If it passes, the entire ram is probably okay.

(2) Run Prime95 overnight. If it passes, CPU and ram cooling are adequate, as is the power supply.

(3) Not as critical, but I'd check power consumption with a Kill-a-Watt meter while doing the Prime95 in order to see how much power is consumed. Then I'd compare that with the size of the power supply. As OldSmoke says, people over time load more and more stuff into the case. But let's not forget that it's easy to see just how much power is being consumed with an external meter. In my PC Prime95 pulls less than 300 watts from the mains; my power supply is 600 watts. Far more than enough, and my system has all sorts of bells and whistles.

If the system passed, it would be good to go for Vegas editing and rendering. Depending on how overbuilt the system is, it may or may not be good for rendering a year from now, but that's just because of dust accumulation. A good vacuuming of the case with particular focus on the CPU heat sink would return the system to like-new performance.

larry-peter wrote on 4/2/2014, 11:56 AM

@riredale, I would agree with older versions - 9 and prior - being system agnostic, but with the introduction of 64 bit versions and GPU acceleration I think things have changed drastically.

With lots of tweaking, and building my systems based on forum users and others' suggestions, I have total stability in VP 11 32 bit. 11/64 bit and VP12 are another matter. They work, but many times I've had to go back to 11/ 32bit to complete long complex renders. That's the main reason I haven't embraced VP12 yet. There's no 32 bit fall-back.

videoITguy wrote on 4/2/2014, 12:47 PM

VegasPro will grow into a less and less platform hardware agnostic type of software, just as every other worthy NLE has grown. Yes, it was some hurdle for the 64bit windows OS - but it has a lot more implication than that. Complexity and variety of the OS offerings, as well as more definitions in the motherboard, chipsets, and video card development.

Vegas 9.0e 32bit was the last version for good platform agnostic base. I would bet that if VegasPro13 64bit offers stability, if, then it will be under a very specific set of parameters.

johnmeyer wrote on 4/2/2014, 1:11 PM

That's the main reason I haven't embraced VP12 yet. There's no 32 bit fall-back.That is precisely where I am as well: Vegas 64-bit is flaky compared to the older 32-bit codebase, and has been since the first, mostly-failed, attempt with Vegas 8.1. Without a 32-bit bailout option ("pull the ripcord and get out of here ..."), I don't want to get fenced in.

Another option that would lure me to upgrade, even with all the issues with 64-bit Vegas versions, is if I could easily downgrade a project to earlier versions. I still use Word 2003, and Excel 2003 (and other Office products from that era). Later versions can save degraded versions of their documents back to my format. In addition, I can download for free from Microsoft, utilities which let me open degraded versions of ".docx" files created in more modern versions of their program. As a result, if Microsoft ever actually offered some useful new features, I would upgrade in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, much like Vegas, the size and importance of the new Office feature list seems to shrink with each new version. Don't get me wrong, this is true of any mature technology. As an example, automobiles in the 1950s when I grew up used to be completely re-designed every single year, and not just the body style. Now each model year is almost indistinguishable from the previous year, sometimes for five or six years at a time. We then, finally, get a "real" upgrade.

So, the pace of innovation does eventually slow down. It is not Sony's fault or Microsoft's fault; it is just the way technology works, until someone invents something completely new, and then we have a "discontinuity."

rmack350 wrote on 4/2/2014, 2:04 PM

However, most commercially-built computers have a power supply adequate to power everything included in the computer

Most consumer PCs are built to *just* support the components in the chassis. I talk to engineers from one of these companies quite frequently and for the most part they are focused on getting units through assembly, into cardboard boxes, and then eventually into containerized freight. They're designing finished products and aren't thinking much about upgradeability.

Another option that would lure me to upgrade, even with all the issues with 64-bit Vegas versions, is if I could easily downgrade a project to earlier versions

+1 to that. I exchange Flash projects with a freelancer. We use CS4 in our office. She has CS5.5 and can save her projects as version 4. However, she's about to start a job with a client using the cloud suite so she'll have to upgrade. If she authors for *us* with the cloud version of Flash I think she'll have to save as v5.5 and then use 5.5 to save yet again as a v4.0 project. The point is, if you freelance you may need to be able to save projects in multiple versions depending on the client. It might be a hassle but it's also a fact of life.

I'm in agreement that badgering people to fill out their specs is sometimes just a form of harassment. I try not to withhold information just because someone hasn't provided this info. That said, I wish that there was some function in Vegas to feed this sort of stuff into a user profile here at the website. It's a pain in the butt to enter serial numbers and machine IDs every time you want to make a bug report or suggestion so there ought to be a way to opt-in to providing this info straight from Vegas.

Rob

<edit>The word was "b u t t". Seems a little zealous to block that one.</edit>

Chienworks wrote on 4/2/2014, 2:23 PM

I guess my take on John's original topic is that many, MANY times i've seen regulars ask for system specs when the problem obviously on the face of it had nothing to do with the system, and the eventual answer just as obviously proved that. It's seemed to me that often it's a question asked just to get the original poster to put in some more effort in order to delay getting around to answering the original question.

While this balance has shifted a bit with the advent of GPU-assist, in the past the unnecessary requests for specs FAR outweighed the times where it was actually useful information. Now it seems to be closer to even. Still though, in most cases it's possible to offer *some* useful advice without knowing the system specs.

Probably a far more useful piece of information is the source material being used. Unfortunately, while a lot of newer editors may be aware of "system specs", most of them don't understand that there are about as many different flavors of AVI and MOV as there are camera models.

johnmeyer wrote on 4/2/2014, 3:15 PM

OK folks, here is a solution to the entire "system specs" issue.

This is guaranteed to satisfy everyone, and completely fix the problem

If the consensus in this forum, and from SCS, is that system specs are vital to the operation of this forum, then I propose that we make it a requirement so that none of us can post until we've filled them out. Make it a part of the registration process for new users. For existing users, block them from posting until the specs have been filled out. Do a check on the system spec form to make sure that every field has been filled out, preferably using Combo Boxes to ensure both complete and uniform results.

I see this as a really good solution to the problem: it will satisfy all of those people who think that system specs are really useful, and it would totally satisfy me because it would completely eliminate the ritualistic hazing and pointless delays in answering questions because everyone has filled them out, so it would be pointless to ask for them. If more information is needed to answer a specific user's question, then people will have to do what I've been pleading for all along, namely: ask the specific question.

So, SCS, can you spend a few hours re-designing the system spec form, and can you tie it to the registration process for new users, and force all of us existing users to fill out this form before we can continue to post?

I see no downside to this proposal, other than the time it will take SCS to do it. Sounds like a good job for a U of W intern.

OldSmoke wrote on 4/2/2014, 5:34 PM

@johnmeyer

"make it a requirement so that none of us can post until we've filled them out"

Also ok, but for me the word "please" in the sticky #4 did it already.

johnmeyer wrote on 4/2/2014, 5:58 PM

Also ok, but for me the word "please" in the sticky #4 did it already.I don't get the point of that statement. I guess I have to say, "good on ya!", and I'm glad that "please" is all it takes for you to follow any advice, but the whole point is that many people don't fill them out.

So, while "please" is a wonderful word, and very polite, it absolutely fails as a motivator. I found this out raising children: "will you please wash the dishes?" didn't always get the results I had hoped for.

OldSmoke wrote on 4/2/2014, 6:02 PM

"So, while "please" is a wonderful word, and very polite, it absolutely fails as a motivator."
_________________________________________________________________

That is a very very sad statement and I doubt there are many children in this forum.

Geoff_Wood wrote on 4/2/2014, 9:23 PM

How about this.

When Vegas starts first time after install or update, it gives you an option (like the fault dump reporter) to send System Specs to SCS. This should include everything relevant, such as related hardware devices, drivers, OS+Updates level, installed plugins, etc.

Just like a VST scan at start-up, Vegas could be (maybe Optionally) set to scan these, and offer to update SCS when a relevant change is detected.

And for the paranoid, the data tyo be up[loaded could be fully edotable by the user before 'Send'.

geoff

PeterWright wrote on 4/3/2014, 2:24 AM

> "make it a requirement so that none of us can post until we've filled them out."

johnmeyer, as usual your suggestion is effective and simple, with the proviso that the task of doing this also includes updating the design of System Specs along the lines you mentioned earlier in this thread.

deusx wrote on 4/3/2014, 4:57 AM

>>>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.<<<

Wrong, that is exactly why a lot of computers have problems. On board sound is $hit in most cases and causes all sorts of problems. I don't know what their situation is now, but a few years back you could not even instal AVID on a lot of laptops with certain on board sound chips

>>>"sometimes a quick glance will show the problem in the specs."

Example?<<<

See above. Using on board sound chips or on board video chips is usually a giveaway. A person using those is not serious about video editing or they don't know any better.

>>>make it a requirement so that none of us can post until we've filled them out.<<<

They should make decent sound interfaces a requirement before posting and have a page with ROTFL animation where everybody filling in "on board sound" shall be redirected.

farss wrote on 4/3/2014, 6:04 AM

[I]"See above. Using on board sound chips or on board video chips is usually a giveaway. A person using those is not serious about video editing or they don't know any better."[/I]

Wow, please let SCS, Adobe and Apple know this.
I've seen all of the above demoing their products using onboard sound and video cards.
Quite aside from which even IF someone is not "serious" by your standards that doesn't mean the code should not run properly. In fact the opposite is the case from my experience here. I've never read of anyone having issues with the mobo sound but heaps of issues with professional sound cards and external boxes, mainly because of driver issues.

Bob.

ushere wrote on 4/3/2014, 6:46 AM

+1 bob

i haven't been serious since i threw out my turtle beach card 10+ years ago, and the only problem i can see with on on board hd4600 is it wont run nb titler 2.

then again, it's amazing how much money you can make by not being in the least bit serious ;-)

Chienworks wrote on 4/3/2014, 7:00 AM

[I]"a few years back you could not even instal AVID on a lot of laptops with certain on board sound chips"[/i]

Surely that's Avid's problem and they shouldn't insult their userbase that way.

[I]"They should make decent sound interfaces a requirement before posting and have a page with ROTFL animation where everybody filling in "on board sound" shall be redirected."[/i]

A serious professional is known by how well he uses the tools at hand, not by which tools he uses.

deusx wrote on 4/3/2014, 8:54 AM

Using on board sound is like using a $50 microphone in your work or editing in windows movie maker. It can be done and it's fine if it gets you what you want.

Being serious about it, you all probably know that on board sound chips sound like $hit and if you cared about audio quality you would not use them.

>>>>then again, it's amazing how much money you can make by not being in the least bit serious ;-)<<<<

Yes, the how much money you make thing; I guess by that metric Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber are the best singers ever and that Kardashian chic is the best whatever the hell she is.

>>>Wow, please let SCS, Adobe and Apple know this.
I've seen all of the above demoing their products using onboard sound and video cards.<<<

The key word being "demoing" I can guarantee you that nobody using their products in a hi-end production has ever used any kind of on board audio or video. Although any hi-end video production will be using AVID and not anything from SCS, Adobe or Apple anyway ( 90% of cases )..

Of course, real men ( amateur or professional ) use 35mm reel to reel analog tape to record their audio. No chips and bits $hit there.

MikeyDH wrote on 4/3/2014, 10:03 AM

so, deusx, you are saying on board sound chips sound like a money hit?;^(

What it all comes down to IS a money hit. Hardly ever would there be a complaint if we all could afford the near top end hardware to get the performance we desire. I'd be willing to bet that most have no choice but to work with what they have. I am a little disturbed by what appears to be an elitist attitude by more than a few here in the replies to this thread. Most of you started somewhere, but it is apparent that fact is lost in it all.

Back to the topic. There were a couple of instances where my system specs were brought to my attention and fixes were put in place. Without that I'd still be rowing in circles.

deusx wrote on 4/3/2014, 11:42 AM

My first decent sound card was echo layla, about $200 back then. Sounded great and gave me no problems. Hardly what you'd call expensive. I picked that one over others because I gave priority to better sound and good drivers over features other similarly priced cards of the time offered.

You don't need to spend $2000+ on some RME interface,just don't use on board audio. It's cheap hardware + poorly written drivers. Not only does it sound bad, but will often cause problems with your NLE and/or DAW.

FuTz wrote on 4/11/2014, 6:55 AM

Holy, lot of information here and I didin't take all the time to read everything down to détails.
But after 3 years without editing and coming from vegas 7, that post would mean I can build my next computer with anything I find and it'll work for vegas 12 or 13 ?
(hey, I'm joking here).
It's just I was searching for infos about building something good to edit and I ran into that post... :D

I think it sould be left either to each one's discretion to give his specs or simply be dictated by the topics discussed. If someone thinks that he could help cause he thinks something in particular might be causing the issue, well go for it and ask ! Otherwise, if it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant. Years ago, you could use PCi cards to provide FireWire on your computer, but if you didn't have the TI chipset on that card, you were running for trouble. Without asking and/or gathering information about that, nobody could have known. Just an example...
Ok, back to that quest of finding a good mobo/chipset/memory/graphic card...