Do you mean to tell me I can change the default layout? (O_O) LOL.
Im just playing Jeff :)
Im not saying you "need" a second monitor, just that before long I suspect most people would want one once they begin playing around with a few FX, layers, blend modes etc.
It just seems easier to me to be able to see my whole project all the time, with preview on a second monitor, rather than having to expand and reduce windows while previewing.

Another thing that is prob relevant, you are a professional, and no doubt your camera work is probably a lot better than mine and a lot of other beginners, I have a lot of white balance, levels, stabilization etc to fix up on my timeline, which I need to see, close up, if your footage is nearly perfect, straight out of the cam, I guess you may not need to preview as large or carefully.

This is a sample of the mess that i normally end up with, lol.

Still, to each their own. whatever works.
cheers Jeff

I've seen your videos, young man. They are extraordinary...I couldn't begin to touch them. On the other hand, as I said, he's doing basic stuff, that's all.

I rarely have to resize my windows, so it's not a lot of bother...but I do have to shift around a bit here and there. I use minimal effects and transitions...very little color correction.

I do weddings and corporate...if my settings are right I need to do very little fixing up. Not that I'm such a "pro", but I am getting to where I can do what I do in my sleep any more. Probably a bad thing...but it pays the bills.

I have another slight conflict I'm going to be dealing with once the components arrive to build the system. I regularly mix music in Cakewalk's Sonar mixing program, and I also make heavy use of Tascam's Gigastudio sampling program (horns, strings, percussion, etc.). Tascam has since stopped making the program and supporting it, so it will not run in Windows 7 (64bit). It does run in Win XP Pro, so I wanted to see if there would be any issues on the Video editing side of things if I were to have a dual boot system like this (Win7 64-bit for video, and win XP Pro 32-bit for mixing/mastering music).

I found the following link about how to make a dual boot system (apparently there is a free software called Gparted for creating the partition): Dual Boot Windows 7 with XP/Vista in three easy steps > Step 3: Install Windows 7 + Tips - TechSpot.

I guess once I build the new system I'll format the hard drive and install Win XP Pro 32-bit first, then use G-Parted to create the partition for Win 7 and then install Win 7 64-bit in that partition. I would assume that each OS would simply work fine within its limits, I'm just not sure if this would create any conflicts.

Thanks.

Well, my old AMD 6400+ is well worn and can't keep up with the 7D files very well. So I decided to join the buying party and bought a system yesterday:

Intel 950 on Asus Sabertooth MB,
GeForce GTX 470 (Fermi) Superclocked,
Corsair Dominator 6 x 2GB 1600,
Corsair 750W supply,
OCZ RevoDrive SSD 120GB for OS;
2 x 1TB WD Caviar Black 6Gb Sata's for source data and render drives, and
housed in a Coolmaster HAF X RC 942 full sized tower case.

I'm really interested to see how the SSD works for the main drive and also hope 6 sticks of 2GB 1600 will work, although one of the posts earlier said no. A poster on Newegg said otherwise, so we'll see what happens. I only build a new system about every 4 years, so I hope it works well through 2015!

The only pain you will have is if you install 7 first, then XP. XP wont see 7, so it destroys your bootloader and you need to rebuild it manually or use Easy BCD or Vista Boot pro.
If Xp go's on first, when you install 7, 7 will make a 100MB partition at the front of your drive for the bootloader and other stuff.
As for conflicts, there are none. I always used to put XP at the back end of the drive and 64 bit 7 at the front since I wanted 7 to be at the fastest spin point. Of course this is only relevant on a platter drive, if you go SSD it doesnt matter, but if you go SSD, XP doesent support TRIM so you have other issues to fix up there.

Gerald,

So, once I install XP Pro 32bit, I can just put the Win 7 64bit disk in and it will install it on the front end of the hard drive? I don't have to create a separate partition using a partitioning software?

Thanks.

No not quite, when you install XP, in advanced disk operations during install, you divide your drive into 2 partitions, then it says,
Where would you like to install XP?
you choose your new partition you just made, and you end up with XP installed where you want it, on the back end of the drive, and another blank partition ready for 7 at the front.
Its really easy.
XP and 7 have partitioning software in their set up process.

The new system posted up (and I flashed on the most up to date BIOS), but my OS hard drive from my previous system was a ATA Drive, and there are no ATA drive connections on this new ASUS motherboard. Here' the question: Is it necessary to have a screaming fast OS hard drive? There are 6GB/s Seagate drives out there, but I'm not sure if that will make any difference from the standard 3GB/s, 7200 RPM, 16MB Cache hard drives. I would think that as long as the hard drive can run the application software (Vegas NLE), then it should suffice versus a super quick drive. I would imagine the quick drives need to be the G-Tech G-Speed RAID10 drives I will install to hold all of the video content.


Thanks!

The OS runs everything. If I spend money on a new PC, why would I want anything but the fastest I could afford? Zero out the ATA drive and discard it. Leave the old junk in the old case, you don't need it anymore. Welcome to 2010.

Everything is up and running and doing fine. I do have one last item that I have a question on before I start another thread once I start getting into Sony Vegas (I actually have Vegas Pro 8, not 9 as I'd mentioned previously).

My question is with regards to overclocking the processor and/or RAM. The Asus P6X58D motherboard has an Ai Tweaker menu in the BIOS, but I have no idea what all of the ratios, frequencies, and voltages mean or how they relate to overclocking the processor without doing any damage. I would like to do a moderate overclocking (I have the Tuniq Tower 120 Extreme CPU Cooler with the fan speed switch hooked up), but I'm not sure what other tools I need in order to monitor stability, temperatures, etc.

Again, I'm running the i7-950 processor with 24GB of Corsair Dominator 1600 RAM.


THANKS!

To OC correctly is more about another whole website than a thread on this one, there is just way too much involved. This is a good place to start,
Overclockers Forums - The Performance Computing Community
For piece of mind though, you cant really do alot of damage with modern processors, they will shut down, or not even boot if they dont like what you're doing to them.
So get Prime95 for stress testing and have a play, but seriously, you are prob wasting your time until you find settings that some Geek has had working on your exact system for a while.
With all that in mind, my PC nerd friend told me that if your chip does fail within the warranty period, Intel knows its been OC'd and wont honor the warranty.
It doesnt really worry me, ( Ive been trying to kill my i7 920 for about 20 months now, but the little bugger just keeps on going, lol ) but if pennies are tight, the 'no warranty' could be a concern.
Good luck.
PS. any less than 4Ghz isnt really trying :)

Just so you know I have not been ignoring you but it turned out the problem was not the power supply but the motherboard. It took NewEgg a while to replace, but it has finally arrived today. I have just installed Windows 7, so the motherboard accepted the "unapproved" RAM without a hitch (just as I expected, as motherboard manufacturers often list approved memory because they have a deal with the memory manufacturing companies).

Now I have to change all the Windows settings to my liking (such as moving the default directory to install programs to my second hard drive as I want to keep the main drive strictly for system use) which I will probably do tomorrow since it is past 11 pm here.

Adam, I might be mistaken, but I don't believe that installing programs to anything but the C drive is necessary. As I said, I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

There is a lot of misinformation about doing that. If there is a gain, it would be so slight that it certainly wouldn't be worth the trouble. If your "program" drive is faster, than yes you would be better off. But in that case you should have put the OS (and everything else) on that drive, not the secondary drive.

There are lots of people on the net that simply look for "new" ways of trying things for the sake of trying it and trying to squeeze more speed out of their system. They tinker, and experiment for the sake of playing with it...I know, I did it for years.

Some people use a secondary drive for their paging file, but again, is it worth it? I think not unless you are using memory instensive applications, which Vegas is not.

If your primary hard disc is fast to begin with, I would consider letting it go and installing to the default location.

To do otherwise is an unecessary complication, in my opinion.

agree entirely with jeff....

years ago i thought along similar lines; keep my system drive clean and fast, programs on another....

DON'T DO IT!! you'll find that once you start telling programs to install to other than default plug-ins, etc., will start going astray and you'll end up with a real registry mess.....

let alone updates that don't even give options of where to update!

Yeah I agree as well.
I actually do this now, Win 7 on my SSD with Vegas (first install after windows) and CS4. All my other programs are on a partition on another 7200rpm drive.
I gotta say the performance gain is nothing that I can see or check with benchmarks, and the hassles that sometimes arise are a small pain ( nothing major, but still annoying ).
On my next Windows install its all going on the C drive, neat and easy.
In saying that though, Ive read that people are having two or more SSD drives in Raid 0 and that gives an incredible experience across the board, hmmmmm, tempting.....

wow, raid 0 with ssd drives...sounds insanely fast.

The problem is that when your computer dies and you install a new system, the system installer often wipes the drive clean. My email software (Eudora), for example keeps all the email data on the same drive as itself.

Additionally, many programs install things on drive C: without asking. So, no matter how large the drive is, it tends to fill up. By installing everything on a different drive, I am reasonably sure my drive C: will not fill up for as long as this computer build lives.

Anyway, drives are cheap these days, so I like to keep my system drive for the system.

I got three drives for this new build. Two 1 TB drives (C: and D:) and one 2 TB drive which I put in an external eSATA enclosure (so it gets its own power supply), which is mostly for data I want to be able to access by my laptop or simply have the ability to swap it for a different drive just for different video projects.

Most importantly, however, separate drives have separate connectors to the motherboard, so the system can read the applications without interfering with all the system software (so the system and the other software can be loaded simultaneously). That keeps everything lean and mean.

This exchange of ideas is a good thing, and I'm glad you are posting and letting us know what is happening.

Adam, you mention "So, no matter how large the drive is, it tends to fill up." That is not quite true.

Not even close my friend. I have a 150GB drive for my OS and I have many large programs, never exceed 60GB in space used. If you maintain your hard drive properly it will not fill up. When you make dvds in DVDA use another drive for processing, not C. Aside from that the idea it will eventually fill up is not true.

Why would you not just use the extra drive and run RAID 0 if you want speed? That's how the big boys do it.

You're thinking that the different connectors keep things separate is not accurate or relevant. If the drives are running off of the same controller it makes no difference which connectors they use.

You want your video files running off a separate controller and hard drive, but with programs it makes no difference to speak of.

It would appear you are finding your information from an assortment of places where amateurs gather. I've seen lots of tech wannabes put this theory out in various place. For our types of setups it doesn't apply.

Leslie has said he used to do it and now understands it is a mistake. I have been building systems for years, and I've never thought it was a good idea.

I have over a dozen drives in my system, I don't waste even one for the paging file...let alone programs. Drives are cheap, but $300 dollars is still $300. I don't have that kind of money to waste.

At any rate, the worst thing that will happen is you'll waste a hard drive you could be using to run RAID 0, which would be much faster than what you are planning.

Bottom line, I could still be mistaken, but I don't think I am. I think you're just wasting a hard drive and creating unnecessary confusion for yourself. At any rate, best of luck. Enjoy your new PC. Glad it is coming together for you!

Keep us posted!

One more thing Adam. Experienced PC users never keep email, etc on the OS drive without backing it up to another drive.

I could lose everything on my C drive at any time, and I would lose absolutely nothing.

The fact that you use Eudora may be a whole other issue, but I find it hard to beleive you cannot back it up to another drive every couple of days, or at least weekly. To not have it backed up on the web, I couldn't even imagine.

I have one internal backup for everything, and an exact copy of that drive on an external. That's how you do it Adam.

I store NO images, video, nothing on my C drive. Not even documents. When I install Windows the first thing I do is remove all references to My Photos, My Documents, etc. Don't need or want windows to manage anything for me.

Now, that's just funny. I have been computing since 1965 (yes, 1965, that is not a typo), since before Windows, Mac, MS DOS, personal computers, even before Unix.

It does not matter that the drives are connected to the same controller. Hardware works quite differently from software. It can be just one controller but it uses separate paths for the electrons that run through the wires. Plus the hard disk has to physically move to access the data, so if it is spread over two disks it happens twice as fast.

And yes, hard drives fill up. It took me a year to fill up a 10 megabyte drive in the eighties (that was a big drive back then). I replaced it with a 100 megabyte drive which I filled in half the time. Then we went to hundreds of gigabytes and they still filled up. Now we are in terrabytes, and they will still fill up because the amount of data, as well as the size of the software grows exponentially.

The system drive is for the system. Data drives are for data. Program drives are for programs.

Now, I have never suggested that anyone else needs to use a separate drive for the system. But to imply I am some kind of amateur because I do is rather laughable. When it comes to computers I am an old pro, a very old one. I do not do what I do because of someone else's advice, I do it because I have 45 years of experience doing it.

Well, like I said, I could be wrong. And it woudn't be the first time!

I'm somewhere in the middle. I have a system/application drive, everything gets installed there. But I hack/move my home directory (or Users, or whatever windows calls it) to the secondary drive, or even drive letter if it's one physical HD. For the simple reason that with windows, when you reinstall, you lose all the program config anyway, so they all need to get reinstalled. BUT, I'm very careful (well... normally =) to only keep data on the data drive. I also create swapfiles on both, although that's far less critical now-a-days.

Then, a clean install is simply formatting C:, and reinstalling. But all my data is safe.

And, email can be so critical, I don't even bother keeping it local. I use IMAP exclusively. Not only is it all stored on the server, but it's perfectly in sync if I login via the webmail client and read/delete/move emails around. IMAP is seriously the only way to go if you want to have a local client.

OK... back to diff'ing the latest de-interlacing source files... =/

And, for the record, I think the programs on a separate drive is more old school than newb. In the "old" days, moving the apps off from the system drive, especially onto a different hard drive, could make a huge difference. Not only because the app code wasn't on the main swapfile drive, but there was so little memory, and drives were so slow that it really did matter. When a super-fast drive was the 28ms version instead of the 40ms version, and the transfer rates were measured in KBs instead of GBs per second, and when SCSI was the by far preferred choice could it could enqueue multiple requests and service them even out of order whereas IDE (pffft, consumer stuff) couldn't even talk to two drives on the same channel at the same time. =)
We did everything we could to eke out every bit of performance.

I still remember when I gave up the ISDN internet line to go with a cable modem, and being amazed that I could download something from my home country of South Africa (I'm now in Canada) to my HD faster than I could off my first CD-ROM to my HD! It was a single speed, 150K/second.

Things sure have, and continue to, change at a remarkable rate.

Craig, you're right, it is an old school thing...newbies pick up on it not realizing it doesn't apply anymore. Extra drives are now used for RAID configurations or storage. Heck it seems everyone has a RAID system. It's like the huge number of pickup truck in the city where I live. Very few need a pickup truck, but it seems people want them anyway, and the bigger the better.

RAID used to be expensive, but now it's virtually free. My old SCSI controller card cost $1500, and my cheetah drives were very expensive also. Yet today I get a SATA controller that is RAID ready at no extra charge built into my motherboard.

And keeping email local...I can't even imagine a reason, unless you have a very unreliable connection. Even still, it should be backed up on the provider's server.