Photo Orientation is a Problem

Discussion in 'Forums Help & Notices' started by Bill Stuntz, Oct 19, 2014.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. For the new NAWCC home page
    Click this image at the upper left corner of this page.
  1. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    This seems to be the place to post this since Tom's made a lot of great changes based on this thread. Maybe I should have started a new thread, but I wasn't sure.

    Any progress with the orientation problem?
    https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?117864-Help-removing-Ithaca-4-Calendar-Clock-Movement
    In that thread, the thumbnails view sideways, but the expanded image is upright. JPEGsnoop shows that the photo was taken with an iPhone4.
    The thumbnail photo copied from the post itself does not show a camera name or anything in JPEGsnoop. The first click on the thumbnail displays sideways in a pop-up window, clicking on the photo in the pop-up window opens a new tab in firefox, which displays the photo upright.
     
  2. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Re: I still can't believe how many people can't post pictures!

    Both, Large and small are sideways to me?
     
  3. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Re: I still can't believe how many people can't post pictures!

    There are actually 3, not two. The visible thumbnail that's visible in the post, the pop-up window when you click on the thumbnail - both of those are sideways for me. If you click on the popped-up bigger picture, it opens it yet again, but in another tab under FF. The 3rd one is upright for me, and has a magnifying glass cursor that expands it to larger than my screen. After it's fully expanded, I can scroll around in that biggest picture to see maximum detail.
     
  4. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Re: I still can't believe how many people can't post pictures!

    Then all three are sideways for me. I was not counting the Thumbs
     
  5. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #5 Bill Stuntz, Oct 19, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2014
    Re: I still can't believe how many people can't post pictures!

    D**n Sam you're fast! You responded before I could even finish re-editing my post!

    Interesting. 3rd one is upright in FireFox & Chrome, sideways in Internet Explorer & Safari.
     
  6. John Hubby

    John Hubby Senior Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member NAWCC Star Fellow NAWCC Life Member

    Sep 7, 2000
    12,274
    215
    63
    The Woodlands, TX
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Bill, thanks for bringing this back to the top. I've moved the relevant posts to a new thread as it isn't the same as not being able to post or problems with photo size that have been discussed and is being resolved.

    Regarding the photos in question they all show sideways to me, I'm using an older version of Safari but it's the same on my iPad with the latest version. I've not had any problem with orientation but also haven't been posting directly using photos from my iPhone or iPad. I always check for orientation on my laptop before posting.
     
  7. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #7 Bill Stuntz, Oct 19, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2014
    John, I think you missed a couple posts that should be moved, too. I debated whether to start a new thread or not. Thanks for taking care of it.

    Have you tried FF or Chrome? I normally use FF, but have the others installed to play with. Once in a blue moon, I run across a web site that doesn't seem to render properly in FF. Actually, it's probably less frequent than blue moons.
     
  8. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    I wish I could vote to fix it on that vbulletin forum! It won't let me vote because I'm not logged in. And I don't feel like registering for ANOTHER forum just to vote.
     
  9. John Hubby

    John Hubby Senior Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member NAWCC Star Fellow NAWCC Life Member

    Sep 7, 2000
    12,274
    215
    63
    The Woodlands, TX
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Very informative . . they aren't worrying about it and not doing anything to correct the problem. I'll be voting in the poll to get off their duffs and get it fixed.
     
  10. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    At least THIS is more an annoyance than a real problem. I DO get a bit of a crick in my neck trying to view some of those pics, though. :whistle:
    The "can't upload" trouble was a much more significant problem. Tom's work on that should prevent a LOT of frustration, especially for new users.

    I wonder why different browsers handle it differently, though. FF & Chrome show the biggest enlargement upright, but in Safari & IE, it's still sideways.
     
  11. Dick C

    Dick C Registered User

    Oct 14, 2009
    1,626
    54
    48
    Male
    Country Flag:
    Microsoft's view on why they do not currently do the orientation:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2001954 I do understand their position in the "more information" portion of this web page.

    Chrome does change the landscape orientation to portrait when I click on the sideways image in an entry. IE 10 does not.
     
  12. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Interesting, Dick. I wonder if ImageMagick can rotate the image to the correct orientation & remove the confusing/unsupported tag from the resulting image. If so, that should make all 3 versions of the images display properly in all browsers.
     
  13. Tom McIntyre

    Tom McIntyre Technical Admin
    Staff Member NAWCC Star Fellow NAWCC Ruby Member Sponsor

    Aug 24, 2000
    82,538
    1,570
    176
    Male
    retired SW dev
    Boston
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #14 Tom McIntyre, Oct 19, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2014
    I think ImageMagick has the ability to read the information and can, of course, rotate and resize images. If it processes an image because it is too large, for example the EXIF information disappears.
    .
    vBulletin does not use any extended features of ImageMagick, so the community would need to implement to upgrade for now. vBulletin should fix it and they know that but are not very responsive on 4.+ problems.
     
  14. bangster

    bangster Moderator
    NAWCC Member

    Jan 1, 2005
    19,633
    389
    83
    utah
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    I'm old-fashioned. I always upload from my computer, and always orient and re-size before uploading. Takes me about 30 seconds. Nutjob
     
  15. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #16 Bill Stuntz, Oct 20, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2014
    For photo(14).jpg referred to above, JPEGsnoop says: Image Size = 1296 x 968 which appears to be 1/2 the native resolution. But since that's not the new 1600 width, I suspect that ImageMagick didn't do the resizing. It shows Raw Image Orientation = Landscape so the orientation tag doesn't appear to have been stripped.

    Actually I've been JPEGsnooping a lot of images, looking for things that don't seem to make sense.

    Before uploading, my original Moto X photos identify my camera as Motorola XT1053, 4320x2432, Orientation Landscape
    After uploading, the copy on the MB says: 1600x901, Landscape, does not identify camera.

    Before: same image, resized in my computer to 1000x563, Landscape, Identifies my camera
    After: MB copy shows correct image size, orientation, and still identifies my camera - apparently NOT processed/stripped by ImageMagick since camera ID is still there.

    photo(14).jpg: don't have "before" original image file to compare
    After: Shows 1296x968, orientation Landscape, and identifies iPhone4 - so apparently not processed/stripped by ImageMagick. (Because width is <1600?)

    Thumbnail of photo(14): Shows image size 200x149, orientation Landscape, does NOT identify iPhone. Obviously re-sized by ImageMagick to create thumbnail of photo.

    Anomalies:
    1) Orientation appears to be improperly reported by iPhone as Landscape when image orientation is actually Portrait.
    2) Near the beginning of the file, just after it id's the camera as iPhone 4, there is a line from the JPEGsnoop report that says: "Orientation = 6 = Row 0: right, Col 0: top" - this appears to be intended to over-ride the incorrect "Raw Image Orientation = Landscape" that is specified later in the file. Firefox & Chrome appear to obey the initial "Orientation = 6..." for the maximally expanded photo, but seem to obey the later "Orientation = Landscape" for the thumbnail & "pop-up" expanded photo. Safari & IE appear to obey the incorrect "Orientation = Landscape" for all 3 different views of the photo.

    ImageMagic appears to strip out all the initial Camera ID & the weird (non-standard?) orientation over-ride info from the beginning of the file for the thumbnail & "pop-up" views, and leaves the INCORRECT "Orientation = Landscape" info later in the file. I'm kinda surprised that Apple's Safari DOESN'T seem to obey Apple's own iPhone jpeg format.

    OR... I'm crazy and still not understanding exactly what's happening.
    OR... JPEGsnoop is mis-reporting something. I don't see "Orientation = 6 = Row 0: right, Col 0: top" in a raw hex dump of the .jpg file. I assume that JPEGsnoop is "translating" the data encoded in the .jpg file into human-readable English, based on the jpeg encoding/decoding specifications. No idea how accurate it is, but hey... it was free.

    I still need to mess with portrait orientation photos from my Moto X.

    OK, did a quick test:
    Still doesn't like my native Moto X Photo - resaved & uploaded this one. There must be something non-standard about my Moto X's jpeg format, too.
    This photo was taken with the "selfie" camera. All my other test photos were using the higher resolution forward facing camera.
    Original Image: 1080x1920, Orientation Portrait, 320K, identifies camera.
    After upload: same, still identifies camera
    Thumbnail: 113x200, portrait, does NOT identify camera.
    Original Landscape image: 1920x1080, Landscape, 294K, identifies camera.
    After Upload: 1600x900, Landscape, 171K, does not identify camera.
    Thumbnail: 200x113, Landscape, does not identify camera.
    All 3 views are correct.

    ME.jpg Me-L.jpg
     
  16. leeinv66

    leeinv66 Moderator
    NAWCC Member

    Mar 31, 2005
    9,849
    190
    63
    Male
    Industry Specialist
    Launceston Tasmania
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:

    That could be 30 seconds you are wasting if you haven't check if you still need to resize after the changes Tom made.
     
  17. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #18 Bill Stuntz, Oct 20, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2014
    Peter, I'm NOT the one who's actually having the problem. My photos come out just fine. And I've NEVER had any insurmountable problem uploading. Quick (for me) edit, upload, done. But apparently very frustrating for new users.

    But it seems that people who take photos using iPhones have their photos display wrong. Not sure whether any other camera's photos behave like this.

    OK, I'm a nut - but I'm trying to figure out WHY, so Tom (with a little luck) can FIX it for ALL of us. He certainly DID fix the size problem for us - AFTER I brought up the subject again. The "I still can't believe" thread was at least the second thread I started to try to get the upload problem fixed. And HE DID fix it! Quickly, the second time around. THREE CHEERS FOR TOM!
     
  18. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #19 Bill Stuntz, Oct 20, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2014
    Here's another one that just showed up with that strange exif orientation code at the top and displays wrong: https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?117875-Need-to-determine-pendulum-length
    This one doesn't show any camera info - I wonder if it's an iPhone, too.
    It shows 960x720, "Raw Image Orientation = Landscape" a ways down in the JPEGsnoop report, but near the top says "Orientation = 3 = Row 0: bottom Col 0: right"
    Thumbnail & pop-up expanded photo are upside down, fully expanded photo is right side up in firefox.
     
  19. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    I started a topic here in early Sept.
     
  20. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    I just looked closely at some newly posted photos in Tower Clocks that display the thumbnails sideways and the full size photos upright.

    Near the top of the JPEGsnoop report:
    EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000014
    Dir Length = 0x000A
    [Make ] = "Apple"
    [Model ] = "iPhone 5s"
    [Orientation ] = 6 = Row 0: right, Col 0: top
    [XResolution ] = 72/1
    [YResolution ] = 72/1
    [ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
    [Software ] = "8.0.2"
    [DateTime ] = "2014:11:02 10:28:16"
    [YCbCrPositioning ] = Centered
    [ExifOffset ] = @ 0x00C0

    Later in the report:
    OFFSET: 0x0000108E
    Frame header length = 17
    Precision = 8
    Number of Lines = 480
    Samples per Line = 640
    Image Size = 640 x 480
    Raw Image Orientation = Landscape

    The photos were obviously taken in Portrait orientation, but the exif tag specifies Landscape.
    So far at least, EVERY image I've examined that behaves like this has been taken with an iDevice of some sort.
    I wonder if Apple does this in some non-standard way to "encourage" people to use Apple software/tools/hardware to view/edit their photos.

    It appears that ImageMagick obeys the incorrect "Raw Image Orientation = Landscape" when creating thumbnails & reduced size images, but leaves the contradictory and apparently correct "[Orientation] = 6 = Row 0: right, Col 0: top" in place when it doesn't have to resize the image to put it into the attachment database. And only the "full size image" displays correctly on the MB.

    Maybe this will help someone who knows more than I do figure it out: http://www.media.mit.edu/pia/Research/deepview/exif.html
     
  21. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
  22. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    I think it's the iPhones themselves that are actually doing it. Every image I've examined that's doing that has been from an iDevice. But I've only examined a few. I'm sure I've seen iPhone 4's & 5's, haven't noticed iPads, etc. I haven't identified any other brands of camera doing it.

    I think some of the full-size images stored on the MB are original and some are edited. As far as I can tell, the original is stored, as long as it wasn't too big to start with. Here's what JPEGsnoop said about the last iPhone one I examined:
    ASSESSMENT: Class 4 - Uncertain if processed or original
    While the EXIF fields indicate original, no compression signatures
    in the current database were found matching this make/model

    When I download large images that I've uploaded and compare them to the originals, the MB's resized copies do not identify my Motorola XT1053 as the camera. The originals do. The MB's copy DOES identify my camera if the image was already small enough. And the images I've re-sized on my computer before uploading DO still identify my camera, even they're big enough to require a resize when uploading to the MB. So it appears that ImageMagick strips out the camera info when it resizes the image for the MB, but not when the size is already OK. The thumbnails are missing camera info, too.
     
  23. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    I have looked at Hundreds of Images on many different sites and this is the only site I have seen it on. Bing, Google Galleries do not have image problems like this.

    I am building a Coppermine Photo album so am not paying much attention to the problem here.

    It is an interesting programming glitch.
     
  24. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    The images of the upside down movement were cropped by an editor. That is a question of How? and what with?

    All cameras take 4x6 or 6x4 images at various DPI. I think an allowed upload of 5500x5500 would take care of 99.9% of the problem and resize to some Internet usable size.

    Or someone can have fun uploading upside down images.
     
  25. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #26 Bill Stuntz, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014
    Sam, we're talking about a different set of images. The ones you linked to are all upside down, in all views - thumbnail, bigger to fit window, and full size w/ magnifying glass. Nothing inconsistent there - they're ALL wrong, operator error. The ones I was talking about WERE sideways in thumbnail and pop-up window. Upright in full size. But I had neglected to link to them here, simply saying that they were in the Tower Clocks forum. And NOW I can't use them as an example because Steven has apparently edited the photos and re-posted them with all 3 views in correct upright position. Great for everyone else, but a little inconvenient for ME because I was trying to use as an example of the problem. I'm going to try to re-post the copy of the original un-corrected one that I had downloaded for examination here.
    IMG_0014 (2).jpg
    Yep, it worked. Thumbnail sideways. 1st click: gives sideways pop-up window. Click inside pop-up window: opens new tab, showing photo in correct orientation. I uploaded exactly 1 photo - the MB created the other views. NEW INFO: in IE & Safari, all 3 views are sideways. In Firefox & Chrome, the views are as I described - two sideways, 1 upright. OK, why do 4 different browsers display them in 2 different ways? :confused:
    PROBABLY looked fine to original poster - NOT operator error.
     
  26. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    All look sideways to me.

    IMG_0014%20(2).jpg
     
  27. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #28 kirxklox, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014
    You are showing a Glitch in programming. Has nothing to do with operator.
     
  28. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Weird - in the one YOU posted, they're ALL upright to me. Did you edit the photo before you re-posted it? I haven't downloaded your photo to examine it closely yet.
    You're obviously a power user and probably have more than one browser available. Do you see what I see in FF & Chrome? If you're using IE or Safari, I'd expect you to see them all sideways like I do.
    I'm getting a headache trying to make sense of it. :glasses:
     
  29. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #30 kirxklox, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014
    If Tom would allow a 5500x5500 upload to reduce to some usable Internet Image, where the original is thrown away. The net result would only cost Bandwidth and CPU usage, not storage capacity.
     
  30. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #31 kirxklox, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014
    I only use IE and have a very powerful Comp, Gamer. It took me seconds to edit.

    Sorry about all the Posts out of sequence.

    Here is the stats on my comp:

    Intel i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core CPU
    Asus ROG Maximus VI Hero motherboard
    8GB (2x4GB) Kingston HyperX Black 1600MHz DDR3 RAM
    Samsung EVO 250GB SSD
    MSI Radeon HD 7850 2GB video card
    Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO heatsink
     
  31. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    I've examined your image file. I guess you MUST have edited the image. In your image I see:
    EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000026
    Dir Length = 0x000B
    [Make ] = "Apple"
    [Model ] = "iPhone 5s"
    [Orientation ] = 1 = Row 0: top, Col 0: left
    [XResolution ] = 72/1
    [YResolution ] = 72/1
    [ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
    [Software ] = "Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385"
    [DateTime ] = "2014:11:02 20:30:01"
    [YCbCrPositioning ] = Centered
    And:
    OFFSET: 0x000048FA
    Frame header length = 17
    Precision = 8
    Number of Lines = 640
    Samples per Line = 480
    Image Size = 480 x 640
    Raw Image Orientation = Portrait

    In the original image that I uploaded, I see:
    EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000014
    Dir Length = 0x000A
    [Make ] = "Apple"
    [Model ] = "iPhone 5s"
    [Orientation ] = 6 = Row 0: right, Col 0: top
    [XResolution ] = 72/1
    [YResolution ] = 72/1
    [ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
    [Software ] = "8.0.2"
    [DateTime ] = "2014:11:02 10:28:16"
    [YCbCrPositioning ] = Centered
    And:
    OFFSET: 0x0000108E
    Frame header length = 17
    Precision = 8
    Number of Lines = 480
    Samples per Line = 640
    Image Size = 640 x 480
    Raw Image Orientation = Landscape
     
  32. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    The Image that is being displayed by you was Cropped. Since I downloaded it and rotated the Image and then reposted it as a Portrait since the Image is taller than its width.
     
  33. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Edits/examination only take ME a few seconds, too. But we're not ALL equipped like that. And doing it isn't second nature to others like it is to us.
    How about trying FF or Chrome as an experiment - Do you see the same inconsistent views in either of those browsers? They're all sideways for me in IE. But my preferred browser is FF.

    I know that it's recommended that web designers test their sites in all the major browsers to be sure they render correctly in all of them. And they might have to detect which browser is being used and change things slightly depending on which one they find. But I'm not at all sure what changes might need to be made on the fly to adjust for the idiosyncrasies of each browser.

    I DO know that there are a VERY few web sites that don't seem to work quite right in one browser or another.
     
  34. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #35 kirxklox, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014
    Try http://www.kirxklox.com/ sometime.

    I have tried other browsers and do take into consideration their programming, but I use the old KISS axiom.

    The one thing everyone should know is that if a Web Page is broken, it will break on IE and almost all of my web pages are xHTML compliant.
     
  35. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Your hardware is a lot hotter than mine - by about 3 years? But overall, I'm pretty satisfied with what I have.
    Intel Q9550, Core 2 Quad 2.83GHz - i3/i5/i7 were nearing release when I got this one.
    Intel DG43NB m/b - only 2 RAM slots, integrated dual monitor vga/dvi video, but replaced by...
    Nvidia GeForce GT-430, 2G
    2x2G DDR2 - only reason I'm considering upgrading for now. I'd REALLY like more RAM, but there's nowhere to go from here.
    2TB + 1TB SATA HD's, thinking about SSD
    64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate
     
  36. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Bill - You are beating yourself up needlessly. :cyclops:

    The SSD would solve most of your speed problems. If it is compatible.
     
  37. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #38 Bill Stuntz, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014
    Yes, SSD would help some. But mostly I don't have a speed problem - UNTIL I start trying to use 2G of my RAM for a virtual machine. Then it slows down to a crawl on both sides. Then again, maybe SSD would help more than I'd expect with virtual memory in SSD instead of on 7200RPM HD. And my HD's are only SATA2, not 3.
    SSD would certainly improve boot time, but I don't reboot all that often.

    RAM is the REAL bottleneck - and my m/b only supports up to 4G. It has only 2 DDR2 sockets, but has solder pads for 2 more that aren't there. I didn't think I'd ever need more than 4G - 2G was the sweet spot at that time, and 4G was pretty unusual. I've always tried to stay within my budget and still leave some headroom by spending about 1/2 the cash and buying about 1 step below top-of-the-line. And I just didn't leave enough headroom this time. I usually upgrade a few bits & pieces before I do a BIG upgrade a few years later. The only thing I've really upgraded on this one is the video - again, to about 1 step below the then current top-of-the-line.
     
  38. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    SSD will act like RAM. CACHE the SSD for your Virtual Machine. Piggyback the Sata Drives.

    The only reason I need 8GB is the Games I play. I could do it with 4GB, but LAG would kill me.
     
  39. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    How big an SSD do I actually NEED? Basically big enough for the OS + cache + virtual memory swap file, with everything else on SATA2 HD's? I know that there are SSD's available that can act as huge caches, and others that act as independent FAST HD's. Will I need a PCIe SATA3 controller for optimum performance?

    Maybe we should take this over to PM's instead of cluttering up the MB with this off-topic stuff. You obviously know more about the details than I do. Most of my customers are satisfied with just a browser, email, word processing, and maybe a few "ordinary" games - not much high-end stuff needed. They just want something that works... cheap. Did I mention CHEAP? So I haven't been pushed to really keep up with the technology.
     
  40. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    You can probably get a 250 GB SSD for less than 150$. SSDs have really dropped in price until you get to the high end stuff. SSDs do not need to be Defragged, no sectors. Just checked the cost of a 250GB Samsung, 129$


    Will I need a PCIe SATA3 controller for optimum performance? I am not using one.
     
  41. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    PMs ? I do not know if it is needed. A lot of people on here should appreciate this discussion.
     
  42. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Maybe so, but not very findable in this thread. And not REALLY a MB Problem/Comment.
    I did just send you a PM mentioning an ebay item for your recommendation - and that's NOT appropriate or allowed here.

    And I'm truly enjoying this discussion with you. I learn things here EVERY day! Even if some of the things aren't about clocks. :D
     
  43. kirxklox

    kirxklox Registered User
    Deceased

    Dec 17, 2002
    4,387
    56
    0
    Dardanell, AR
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Just consider this. An SSD with a Flat screen monitor and a Mini KeyPad makes for a powerful comp. Using Cloud tech allows most of your programming on the Net. The only programming needed on the iPad would be the OS.

    That is the FUTURE for now
     
  44. Bill Stuntz

    Bill Stuntz Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Apr 6, 2012
    4,776
    19
    38
    Male
    PC Tech
    Columbus. OH
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:

Share This Page