Physical Placement of CPU

[Guest Ruslync]

I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month. I

will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for the

CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

[Guest PD43]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

Ruslync <Ruslync@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month. I

>will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for the

>CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

 

FIRST... the "CPU" isn't the thing laying on its side. It's a chip

inside that thing.

 

SECOND... the position of the "thing" has no bearing on its operation.

[Guest Paul Pedersen]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

 

"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:tqems3p8058b8buvjqtk5ash2utlnf7gce@4ax.com...

> Ruslync <Ruslync@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>

>>I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month.

>>I

>>will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for

>>the

>>CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

>

> FIRST... the "CPU" isn't the thing laying on its side. It's a chip

> inside that thing.

>

> SECOND... the position of the "thing" has no bearing on its operation.

 

 

Speaking of bearings, it's conceivable that operation on the side could have

an adverse effect on the hard disk. I think that was the case several years

ago, but perhaps not any more. Look for info on the manufacturer's web site.

[Guest PD43]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote:

>> SECOND... the position of the "thing" has no bearing on its operation.

>

>>Speaking of bearings, it's conceivable that operation on the side could have

>an adverse effect on the hard disk.

 

I sincerely doubt that. IF it was ever true, it was probably YEARS

ago.

 

Case in point: the new Dell slimline desktop comes with pads on the

case so that you can set it up either vertically or horizontally.

[Guest Tony Meloche]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

Paul Pedersen wrote:

> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:tqems3p8058b8buvjqtk5ash2utlnf7gce@4ax.com...

>> Ruslync <Ruslync@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>

>>> I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month.

>>> I

>>> will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for

>>> the

>>> CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

>> FIRST... the "CPU" isn't the thing laying on its side. It's a chip

>> inside that thing.

>>

>> SECOND... the position of the "thing" has no bearing on its operation.

>

>

> Speaking of bearings, it's conceivable that operation on the side could have

> an adverse effect on the hard disk. I think that was the case several years

> ago, but perhaps not any more. Look for info on the manufacturer's web site.

 

 

On my wife's new Dell computer (Inspiron 530S) the case is designed to

be used either upright or on it's side, as you choose. She prefers it on

it's side, as the CD tray loads "flat" in that position - upright, it

would load "sideways".

 

Tony

 

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups

----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Guest V Green]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

 

"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message

news:O0IJLKMfIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:tqems3p8058b8buvjqtk5ash2utlnf7gce@4ax.com...

> > Ruslync <Ruslync@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> >

> >>I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month.

> >>I

> >>will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for

> >>the

> >>CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

> >

> > FIRST... the "CPU" isn't the thing laying on its side. It's a chip

> > inside that thing.

> >

> > SECOND... the position of the "thing" has no bearing on its operation.

>

>

> Speaking of bearings, it's conceivable that operation on the side could have

> an adverse effect on the hard disk. I think that was the case several years

> ago, but perhaps not any more. Look for info on the manufacturer's web site.

>

 

Very true. If you run a HD upside down, it will fail very

much faster. The bearings are not set up to "hold" the platters

up against gravity.

 

On its side, or with platters facing up, is the way it needs to be.

>

>

>

[Guest V Green]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

 

"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:ihgms39636c8nai9042em3smg5es159alf@4ax.com...

> "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote:

>

> >> SECOND... the position of the "thing" has no bearing on its operation.

> >

> >>Speaking of bearings, it's conceivable that operation on the side could have

> >an adverse effect on the hard disk.

>

> I sincerely doubt that. IF it was ever true, it was probably YEARS

> ago.

>

> Case in point: the new Dell slimline desktop comes with pads on the

> case so that you can set it up either vertically or horizontally.

 

But I will bet that in horizontal mode, there's only one side

of the case that has pads, not both. The reason for that is that

you never want to run a HD with its platters facing down. The

bearings are not designed to hold the platters "up" against the

force of gravity. It will fail, if not immediately, then very much

sooner than if you hadn't done this.

[Guest PD43]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

"V Green" <vanceg@nowhere.net> wrote:

>> Case in point: the new Dell slimline desktop comes with pads on the

>> case so that you can set it up either vertically or horizontally.

>

>But I will bet that in horizontal mode, there's only one side

>of the case that has pads, not both. The reason for that is that

>you never want to run a HD with its platters facing down.

 

OR... because it would be hard to load a CD/DVD.

 

DUH!

[Guest Bill James]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

It probably makes little difference if upright or on its side as far as components are concerned. The "desktop profile" systems were pretty common years back, and were often placed on the desk with the monitor on top of them, but typically came with a stand so the could be mounted on edge. Placing a tower type system on it's side is similar. Makes it a little awkward to load a CD, but not terribly so.

 

Watch out for overheating problems. Systems are designed to have a specific airflow and the airflow will be different with the system on it's side. Also, if you are going to be working in cramped quarters that might compound the problem, leave enough empty space around the box, especially at air intake and fan exhaust points. Stacking anything on top (the normal side) of the tower should be avoided also. If your system doesn't have built-in temperature monitoring, you can search on Google for the freeware application "motherboard monitor" and set it up to monitor and alert on high temps.

 

--

 

Bill James

 

 

"Ruslync" <Ruslync@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:2ED405CF-440D-4B3E-8B15-97151BBCBF2B@microsoft.com...

>I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month. I

> will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for the

> CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

[Guest V Green]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

 

"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:9uhms317ou0lcu65i7rmah091qd6dd8gao@4ax.com...

> "V Green" <vanceg@nowhere.net> wrote:

>

> >> Case in point: the new Dell slimline desktop comes with pads on the

> >> case so that you can set it up either vertically or horizontally.

> >

> >But I will bet that in horizontal mode, there's only one side

> >of the case that has pads, not both. The reason for that is that

> >you never want to run a HD with its platters facing down.

>

> OR... because it would be hard to load a CD/DVD.

>

> DUH!

 

That too.

 

BTW: for what it's worth, you are right on the orientation thing.

Both Maxtor/Seagate and WD now say in their install directions

that you can mount any of their current drives upside down. This

was NOT the case in the past. I still have IBM and Fujitsu drives

that yell at you in all caps in the install

directions that you will destroy the drive if you do this. The technology

of platter bearings must have improved.

 

So the safe thing would be to just make sure it's on end or facing

up, in order to accomodate a situation where you have an older drive

or one that you're not sure about.

[Guest GHalleck]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

 

V Green wrote:

>

>

> Very true. If you run a HD upside down, it will fail very

> much faster. The bearings are not set up to "hold" the platters

> up against gravity.

>

> On its side, or with platters facing up, is the way it needs to be.

>

>

 

Taken a hard drive apart lately? Checked out the type of bearings that

are being used? They are no longer the old-fashioned ball-race type but

roller bearings. They are not weight-bearing along the longitudinal

axis of the shaft. Gravity plays a very insignificant role.

[Guest V Green]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

 

"GHalleck" <ghalleck@arrakian.mining.com> wrote in message

news:u4Yg$nNfIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> V Green wrote:

> >

> >

> > Very true. If you run a HD upside down, it will fail very

> > much faster. The bearings are not set up to "hold" the platters

> > up against gravity.

> >

> > On its side, or with platters facing up, is the way it needs to be.

> >

> >

>

> Taken a hard drive apart lately? Checked out the type of bearings that

> are being used? They are no longer the old-fashioned ball-race type but

> roller bearings. They are not weight-bearing along the longitudinal

> axis of the shaft. Gravity plays a very insignificant role.

 

Yeah, found that out. See my other post. Taking apart

HD's to check up on bearing technology is not something

I do every day...

[Guest GMAN]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

In article <O0IJLKMfIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote:

>

>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message

>news:tqems3p8058b8buvjqtk5ash2utlnf7gce@4ax.com...

>> Ruslync <Ruslync@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>

>>>I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month.

>>>I

>>>will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for

>>>the

>>>CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

>>

>> FIRST... the "CPU" isn't the thing laying on its side. It's a chip

>> inside that thing.

>>

>> SECOND... the position of the "thing" has no bearing on its operation.

>

>

>Speaking of bearings, it's conceivable that operation on the side could have

>an adverse effect on the hard disk. I think that was the case several years

>ago, but perhaps not any more. Look for info on the manufacturer's web site.

>

>

>

They can be mounted any which way you like. An old case of mine had one place where you mounted one upside down.

[Guest Lord Turkey Cough]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

 

"Ruslync" <Ruslync@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:2ED405CF-440D-4B3E-8B15-97151BBCBF2B@microsoft.com...

>I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month.

>I

> will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for

> the

> CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

 

You seem to be confusing a CPU with the base unit of a computer.

Is this the case, or is it just in the USA that a CPU is believed to

be the base unit of a computer, in the same way the Austraila, for

example, is believe do be South Korea, which incidently is a country,

not a job in Florida.

[Guest Patrick Keenan]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

"Ruslync" <Ruslync@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:2ED405CF-440D-4B3E-8B15-97151BBCBF2B@microsoft.com...

>I have very little space in which to place my computer for the next month.

>I

> will be using it daily. I had heard a long time ago that it was bad for

> the

> CPU to lay it on it's side, permanently, so to speak. Is this still true?

 

The only ways this is really an issue are if this blocks the case vents so

that it overheats, or if it interferes with using the CD drive.

 

If the vents will be blocked by laying the case on its side, try lifting it

slightly - put the case on blocks so that air can flow.

 

HTH

-pk

[Guest Lem]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

> You seem to be confusing a CPU with the base unit of a computer.

> Is this the case, or is it just in the USA that a CPU is believed to

> be the base unit of a computer, in the same way the Austraila, for

> example, is believe do be South Korea, which incidently is a country,

> not a job in Florida.

>

>

 

If you're going to attempt sarcastic pedantry, you would do better to

check your spelling and grammar before clicking the "send" button.

 

--

Lem -- MS-MVP

 

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

[Guest Lord Turkey Cough]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

 

"Lem" <lemp40@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23%23OaFvXfIHA.4396@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

>

>> You seem to be confusing a CPU with the base unit of a computer.

>> Is this the case, or is it just in the USA that a CPU is believed to

>> be the base unit of a computer, in the same way the Austraila, for

>> example, is believe do be South Korea, which incidently is a country,

>> not a job in Florida.

>

> If you're going to attempt sarcastic pedantry, you would do better to

> check your spelling and grammar before clicking the "send" button.

 

I find human spell checkers do a better job than computerised ones,

and often just as fast.

>

> --

> Lem -- MS-MVP

>

> To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

> http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

[Guest Unknown]

Re: Physical Placement of CPU

 

You did no research!

"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:n%_yj.20680$ab5.1385@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

>

> "Lem" <lemp40@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:%23%23OaFvXfIHA.4396@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

>>

>>> You seem to be confusing a CPU with the base unit of a computer.

>>> Is this the case, or is it just in the USA that a CPU is believed to

>>> be the base unit of a computer, in the same way the Austraila, for

>>> example, is believe do be South Korea, which incidently is a country,

>>> not a job in Florida.

>>

>> If you're going to attempt sarcastic pedantry, you would do better to

>> check your spelling and grammar before clicking the "send" button.

>

> I find human spell checkers do a better job than computerised ones,

> and often just as fast.

>

>>

>> --

>> Lem -- MS-MVP

>>

>> To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

>> http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

>

>