Best mac pro specification to handle large photoshop files

I'm about to buy a mac pro and want some advice on where I should be spending my money to get the best performance?
I use Photoshop to create large pieces of artwork (over 2m square) that contain approx 100 layers and require a 300dpi resolution for printing. File sizes are around 8bg before flattening.
I have tried using the standard demo mac pros available to handle files but with little success. I assume I need to boot up the ram (from Crucial) but how much should I consider, is it worth getting faster processor, separate hard drive for scratch disk, better graphics card etc?
Obviously all but with limited funds which are more important?
Thanks in anticipation!
Jacqui

Head over to http://www.macgurus.com and look down the left side toward bottom for the Guide to Photoshop Acceleration.
http://homepage.mac.com/boots911/.Public/PhotoshopAccelerationBasics2.4W.pdf
I would boot from a stripped array, a pair of 10K Raptor 300GB model.
http://barefeats.com/hard103.html
Then upgrade to 16GB or 32GB of memory.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper3.html
External RAID for scratch that could be 2, 4 or more drives, and another RAID for saving your work.
And with RAID, you want a couple backups for non-temp files of course.
http://www.barefeats.com/hard101.html - WD VelociRaptor
http://www.barefeats.com/harper13.html - 4 drive RAID: SAS vs SATA
http://www.barefeats.com/hard94.html - 1TB drives
http://www.barefeats.com/harper14.html - WD 640GB Caviar
http://www.barefeats.com/harper9.html - Boot drives

Similar Messages

  • Best Mac Pro Configuration for LR?

    For various reasons I'm planning on migrating from my home desktop pc ( 4 year old core2 2.4 ghz xp pro sp 3 32bit accessing 2.93 out of 4 gb ram) to a new or (lightly used recent) Mac Pro desktop.  The Mac Pro is available in a lot of different configurations and I would appreciate advice on how many cores and how much ram I actually need to comfortably run LR3x and its eventual upgrades (within reason) and PS3 for now and later probably whatever is current.  I'm a reasonably advanced amateur photographer; I shoot what interests me and now use LR for 90-95% of my post processing of my raw Leica and Canon image files. I do use some add-ons (SilverEfex Pro2 and such).
    I understand from reading some articles that too much muscle in the Mac Pro can actually slow down LR, so if this is true I'd like to stay svelte; also economic issues are somewhat a concern.
    I have already considered a laptop or an iMac and decided the Mac Pro is what I want.  The question is just 'what will work best for me'?
    Thanks in advance, and if you need more information just let me know.
    --Bob
    p.s.  Is the Search Function disabled in this Forum?  I couldn't get it to work.

    thewhitedog wrote:
    @ Bob: I think you may be have acquired some misinformation somewhere. There is no such thing as "too much muscle" in a Mac Pro in relationship to Lightroom - or any other program. OS X allocates resources to applications as they need them. Unused resources remain idle or are utilized by other applications.
    Adobe posts the minimum system requirements for their applications, but these should just be taken as a starting point. In my opinion you should buy the best Mac Pro your budget can handle - and maybe a little bit more. The computer is an investment, after all, not a luxury. That said, what you need to run Lightroom efficiently and what Jay needs to do video editing are not necessarily the same. For video rendering more cores are better. For Lightroom the question of the number of CPU cores is less critical. Whereas, CPU speed is more relevant. For both, the amount of RAM can make a big difference.
    I recommend as a starting point, at least a quad-core Mac Pro with 4GB of RAM. That would do if you were looking at an iMac as well.
    I can understand, though, how looking at the current line-up of Mac Pros can be confusing. The older Nehalem powered Mac Pros look faster for less money, but this is now old technology. The new Intel Westmere CPUs offer significant improvements in performance. Unfortunately, they are also much more expensive than any previous Mac CPU upgrade. But if you want to "future proof" your new Mac, one with a Westmere CPU is the better way to go. The 8 core model Jay went with seems to be the best value, with two quad-core 2.4GHz Westmere CPUs. However, for just $200 more you can get the 6 core 3.33GHz Westmere CPU. For the purposes of Lightroom, the faster CPUs in the 6 core model will make more of a difference than the two extra cores in the 8 core version. And the 6 core version will handle just about any multi-tasking job you throw at it; that it, using Lightroom in conjunction with Adobe Photoshop, for example.
    To confuse the issue a bit more, however, if using Lightroom is your primary concern, a Mac Pro may be overkill. The new iMacs, which came out since you started this thread, are excellent machines. You could get a lot more for your money with a 27" iMac, BTO with a quad-core 3.3GHz Intel Sandy Bridge CPU, 8GB of RAM and a 2TB hard drive for roughly $1,000 less than the Mac Pros you're looking at. Along with a capable computer you get a beautiful 27" screen on the iMac. I'm not sure why you think you need the Mac Pro. The iMac can now take up to 16GB of RAM. If you were to get one with 8GB factory installed by Apple - as a BTO option - there would still be two empty RAM slots available for a future upgrade. You could add an SSD to the iMac and still pay less than you would for the Mac Pro.
    And the new iMacs have a Thunderbolt port; in fact, the 27" models have two Thunderbolt ports. These offer much better throughput and greater flexibility than any previous I/O connection. With an appropriate adaptor you can use almost any external device, including eSATA, FireWire 400 and 800, USB 1, 2 and 3 and even Ethernet and an external monitor. Of course the iMac still has a Firewire 800 port and four USB 2 ports, and an SDXC memory card slot. For what it may be worth, I suggest you give the iMac another look. Your budget will thank you.
    TheWhiteDog,
    Kinda, Sorta, Maybe...  :-)  The cost differential between the 8 and 6 cores is $200 when comparing new to new.  I picked up the 8 Core Westmere 2.4 for under $3000 because it comes up on the Refurbished side... So now we're talking $700 difference.  the difference in price can be used for memory (I got 4GB for $50 at OtherWorldCmputing's "Garage Sale), a drive.. any number of things.  Since Apple treat refurbs as new for warranty purposes (including AppleCare), I didn't see any reason not to go with the refurbished model..
    I agree a higher clock speed is better, but as you said, I also do video so more cores helps (amazingly helps)..  Yes, for LR 6 3.33 cores may outperform  8 2.4s, but the 8 core machine flies with LR.
    As for iMacs vs. Mac Pro..  the biggest difference is that you find with any desk top vs. a "fixed" machine like the iMac.  The upgrade as far a internal (and external) drives on a Mac Pro is so much better as well as to upgrade video if I want to in the future as well.  As for Thunderbolt, clearly a lot of potential, but it is a daisy chain design and the slowest device in the chain can slow down everything if not done right.  There's also not a lot out there for Thunderbolt yet.. and I'm not 100% sure that there won't be an PCI card for Mac Pros for Thunderbolt (although it could be a system board feature only).
    At under $3000 with 6GB of memory and a 1TB 7200 drive, combined with growrh potential and the Mac Pro I think has a longer shelf life vs. the iMac.  Without those Thunderbolt adapters in the market place, you're stuck with FW800, which is a lot slower than even eSATA for external drives.  Since most all the LR recommendations are to split the catalog away from the cache and away from the images themselves, it's a trickier and more costly venture on the iMac..  The 27" screen in nice, but I'm not a big fan of glossy screens.  I don't think any of those allow you a matte finish option like on the Macbook Pro.
    Bottom line Bob is there are different choices for different budgets... Heck I went with a 17" Macbook Pro for a long time, using an inexpensive Expresscard 34 to hook up external eSATA drives and a second 24" Dell monitor..  Great combo and I always had the portability aspect of the 17" for client work, being tethered, etc..
    Jay

  • What is the best mac pro combination considering price

    what is the best mac pro combination specs considering price

    Huge downloads of e-mails is a function of your internet provider.  Most give you asynchronous communication, which means the sending of information back to them is slower than the receipt of information from them.  Thus simultaneous two-way communication will in fact slow you down even more.
    Presentations can be a function of the display technology used.    Old VGA display based projections can be slow and cumbersome.   Newer ones with HDMI, DVI and Mini-Displayport are far better and require less conversion. 
    What kind of workbooks?
    Different programs have different requirements.  Again, you have not distinguished if you are interested in buying a desktop, or a notebook computer.
    Desktop = Mac Pro or iMac or Mac Mini (Mac Mini can be functionally as portable as a notebook, except it does not have battery for being powered on when off the mains).
    Notebook = MacBook Air or MacBook Pro

  • When I power up my Mac-Pro I only get  a flashing file folder with a ? inside the folder. I suspect my hard drive is maxed to capacity can anyone help me as to what I should do?

    When I power up my Mac-Pro I only get  a flashing file folder with a ? inside the folder. I suspect my hard drive is maxed to capacity can anyone help me as to what I should do?

    Whatever the problem is you no longer have a bootable system. You need to try reinstalling OS X.
    Reinstall Snow Leopard without erasing the drive
    1. Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions
    Boot from your Snow Leopard Installer disc. After the installer loads select your language and click on the Continue button. When the menu bar appears select Disk Utility from the Utilities menu. After DU loads select your hard drive entry (mfgr.'s ID and drive size) from the the left side list.  In the DU status area you will see an entry for the S.M.A.R.T. status of the hard drive.  If it does not say "Verified" then the hard drive is failing or failed. (SMART status is not reported on external Firewire or USB drives.) If the drive is "Verified" then select your OS X volume from the list on the left (sub-entry below the drive entry,) click on the First Aid tab, then click on the Repair Disk button. If DU reports any errors that have been fixed, then re-run Repair Disk until no errors are reported. If no errors are reported click on the Repair Permissions button. Wait until the operation completes, then quit DU and return to the installer.
    If DU reports errors it cannot fix, then you will need Disk Warrior and/or Tech Tool Pro to repair the drive. If you don't have either of them or if neither of them can fix the drive, then you will need to reformat the drive and reinstall OS X.
    2. Reinstall Snow Leopard
    If the drive is OK then quit DU and return to the installer.  Proceed with reinstalling OS X.  Note that the Snow Leopard installer will not erase your drive or disturb your files.  After installing a fresh copy of OS X the installer will move your Home folder, third-party applications, support items, and network preferences into the newly installed system.
    Download and install Mac OS X 10.6.8 Update Combo v1.1.
    Reinstalling Lion/Mountain Lion Without Erasing the Drive
    Boot to the Recovery HD: Restart the computer and after the chime press and hold down the COMMAND and R keys until the menu screen appears. Alternatively, restart the computer and after the chime press and hold down the OPTION key until the boot manager screen appears. Select the Recovery HD and click on the downward pointing arrow button.
    Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions: Upon startup select Disk Utility from the main menu. Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions as follows.
    When the recovery menu appears select Disk Utility. After DU loads select your hard drive entry (mfgr.'s ID and drive size) from the the left side list.  In the DU status area you will see an entry for the S.M.A.R.T. status of the hard drive.  If it does not say "Verified" then the hard drive is failing or failed. (SMART status is not reported on external Firewire or USB drives.) If the drive is "Verified" then select your OS X volume from the list on the left (sub-entry below the drive entry,) click on the First Aid tab, then click on the Repair Disk button. If DU reports any errors that have been fixed, then re-run Repair Disk until no errors are reported. If no errors are reported click on the Repair Permissions button. Wait until the operation completes, then quit DU and return to the main menu.
    Reinstall Lion/Mountain Lion: Select Reinstall Lion/Mountain Lion and click on the Continue button.
    Note: You will need an active Internet connection. I suggest using Ethernet if possible because it is three times faster than wireless.

  • I  have a new Mac Pro computer and have migrated my files from my older computer to the new computer. In trying to open a Lightroom catalog on an external hard drive  I keep on getting the message "lightroom cannot use the catalog named " " because it is

    I  have a new Mac Pro computer and have migrated my files from my older computer to the new computer. In trying to open a Lightroom catalog on an external hard drive  I keep on getting the message "lightroom cannot use the catalog named " " because it is  not writable and cannot be opened. I have fixed all the "permissions" and yet it will still not open. How do I fix this?

    Hello Forum Members,
    I figured it out. You have to select  the actual logo of the Lightroom catalog and then click on  "get info" and allow what ever your new user name to "read and write". That worked!
    Henri Silberman

  • Speeding up a dualcore G5 to work with large Photoshop files

    Hi
    I have a 2.3Ghz dualcore G5 (the one that came out late 2005).
    I'm working on a bunch of large format film scans (500Mb +) in Photoshop CS2, and I'm trying to speed things up.
    This last week I've installed two upgrades that have helped get things moving - first I upgraded the RAM from 4.5Gb to 12 Gb, then I installed a second hard drive (Seagate 7200.11 500Gb, with jumper in place) to use as a dedicated scratch disk.
    Both upgrades have given a significant speed boost, but I'm now wondering what else I can do????
    I want to speed up the time that it takes to open and save these large scans.
    My first thought was to buy a second Seagate 500Gb drive as a replacement for the original 250Gb WD drive. I would then have two 500Gb internal drives that I could configure as a RAID 0 array with disk utility. I would then clone my original 250Gb onto the RAID 0 drives with Super Duper.
    Wouldn't such a set-up double the speed of opening and saving large Photoshop files?
    I realise that with RAID 0 there is an increased chance of data loss from disk failure (double the chance?), but if I back up daily to a 1Tb external that should be ok, no?
    Or should my next move to be to utilise the PCI-E slots (which I don't really understand)????
    Thanks for any advice you can offer.
    Richard

    In my G5 Quad, I find the fastest Photoshop performance overall- especially with large-file open and saves, occurs when the setup is as follows:
    Startup disk is a 2 x 150G Raptor RAID0 which contains the system, apps, and all user files- including the image file being worked on.
    PS scratch is then pointed either to a third fast drive or to an external RAID0 array. This setup is substantially faster than:
    ....the safer method of using one Raptor for system and apps, and the other for user and image files, with a third drive for PS scratch.
    With a really fast large scratch disk, you can sometimes put the image file on the same volume as the scratch file, open and save it from there, and you'll get a bit of an additional boost so long as the scratch disk is faster than the startup disk.
    For CS3 (I believe it works for CS2 as well), a performance plugin called DisableScratchCompress.plugin is available which can also speed things up with a fast scratch disk. I found that using this plugin speeded things up but only if the image file was opened/saved from the first config I mentioned; it was slower if placed on the scratch disk while using the DSC plugin.
    More here: Photoshop Acceleration Basics
    Of course if you stripe a disk with data, be sure to frequently back it up..:)

  • Best Mac Pro Setup for Photoshop CS5

    I've read around that it's not needed to have the fastest (and costliest)  Mac Pro to run Photoshop CS5 at it's best. 
    However, there doesn't seem to exist any discussions involving the latest models (Feb 2012).
    Which would be the optimal Mac Pro available today for running large files (1GB and up) in Photoshop CS5?

    LOTs of RAM, fast 6-core 3.33GHz for starters.
    Mac Pro Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3
    Optimize Photoshop CS5
    Optimize CS5 CS4 Mac OS X
    http://www.macperformanceguide.com

  • Best Mac Pro  Quad-Core Intel Xeon Machine for PhotoShop CS5/Lightroom

    I want to buy a new Mac Pro. I use it almost exclusively to process large quantities of digital images, with large files sizes. Am I better off going with the lower power Dual Quad Processor, or the Higher Power single Quad Processor? I want speed for light room and CS5. DO LIghtroom and CS5 support these Dual Quad machines? Or am I better just getting the highest speed single Quad Machine
    thanks
    Chuck
    [email protected]

    Hi Photoman1125,
    With regard to Photoshop CS5 the 8-Core has the advantage of 64GB maximum RAM compared to 32GB for the Quad Core, and CS5 can use all the RAM which is available.
    The 3.33GHz Quad Core would have the edge in performance over the 2.26GHz 8-Core for most applications.
    However, the 8-Core could prove more future-proof in the long term, particularly if advancement in software makes more use of the additional processor and extra RAM.
    You might find the following links useful:
    http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
    http://macperformanceguide.com/bto-macpro-configure.html
    http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Intro.html
    http://macperformanceguide.com/index.html
    Regards,
    Bill

  • What is best Mac Pro for photoshop for the money?

    I need to purchase a mac pro to use for digital retouching and photography. Which machine will i get the best performance for my money, I am on a budget.

    The best would be 6-core 3.33GHz 24GB RAM and would hold up best over time.
    http://discussions.apple.com/messageview.jspa?messageID=12296219&stqc=true
    MHz matter, and so too does RAM.
    This article, and then browse how to choose Mac Pro, benchmarks etc on site:
    http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2010/20100905_HallofFameShame--macpro.html
    http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-CoresExplained.html
    There are always good buys from Apple Specials, from $2100 and up, just be careful or totally avoid any of the 8-core / dual processor models.
    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro

  • What's the best Mac Pro config for Fireworks?

    What's the best Mac config for Fireworks?
    I can pretty much get whatever Mac I want at work... My boss is sick and tired of watching Fireworks crash all the time... I figure a hefty processor and lots of RAM and maybe a SSD will help…
    I should get a Mac Pro right? Which processor?
    • Two 2.40GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon processors (12 cores)
    • Two 2.66GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon processor (12 cores)
    • Two 3.06GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon (12 cores)
    Should I get 24GB RAM?? Or is that overkill?
    I'll get a 2TB serial hard drive…
    I should get a 512 GB solid state drive offered by Apple right?
    Or is it possible to get a larger better 3rd party SSD?
    And then maybe two 21" Displays… Two 27s seems a little much… or does it?
    Thanks in advance.

    Oh and what about video cards? Or is Apple's default ok? (I'm not doing hard core PhotoShop retouching or anything).

  • Best Mac Pro Virus Protections

    Okay, ran into a browser hijack on my Mac Pro and want to run a good virus protection scan. How do we get this off and perhaps set back the boot up like on a pc?

    "Avast" is the worst of the whole wretched lot of commercial "security" products for the Mac. Not only does it fail to protect you from any real danger, it may send personal data (such as web browsing history and the contents of email messages) back to the developer without your knowledge, give false warnings, destabilize and slow down the computer, and corrupt the network settings and the permissions of files in your home folder. Removing it may not repair all the damage.
    Some versions of the product also inject advertising into web pages. In short, apart from the fine print in the license agreement, Avast is indistinguishable from malware, and is arguably worse than any known malware now in circulation.
    Sophos is not as bad as Avast, but it's still much worse than useless.
    Mac users often ask whether they should install "anti-virus" software. The answer usually given on ASC is "no." The answer is right, but it may give the wrong impression that there is no threat from what are loosely called "viruses." There  is a threat, and you need to educate yourself about it.
    1. This is a comment on what you should—and should not—do to protect yourself from malicious software ("malware") that circulates on the Internet and gets onto a computer as an unintended consequence of the user's actions. It does not apply to software, such as keystroke loggers, that may be installed deliberately by an intruder who has hands-on access to the computer, or who has been able to take control of it remotely. That threat is in a different category, and there's no easy way to defend against it.
    The comment is long because the issue is complex. The key points are in sections 5, 6, and 10.
    OS X now implements three layers of built-in protection specifically against malware, not counting runtime protections such as execute disable, sandboxing, system library randomization, and address space layout randomization that may also guard against other kinds of exploits.
    2. All versions of OS X since 10.6.7 have been able to detect known Mac malware in downloaded files, and to block insecure web plugins. This feature is transparent to the user. Internally Apple calls it "XProtect."
    The malware recognition database used by XProtect is automatically updated; however, you shouldn't rely on it, because the attackers are always at least a day ahead of the defenders.
    The following caveats apply to XProtect:
    ☞ It can be bypassed by some third-party networking software, such as BitTorrent clients and Java applets.
    ☞ It only applies to software downloaded from the network. Software installed from a CD or other media is not checked.
    As new versions of OS X are released, it's not clear whether Apple will indefinitely continue to maintain the XProtect database of older versions such as 10.6. The security of obsolete system versions may eventually be degraded. Security updates to the code of obsolete systems will stop being released at some point, and that may leave them open to other kinds of attack besides malware.
    3. Starting with OS X 10.7.5, there has been a second layer of built-in malware protection, designated "Gatekeeper" by Apple. By default, applications and Installer packages downloaded from the network will only run if they're digitally signed by a developer with a certificate issued by Apple. Software certified in this way hasn't necessarily been tested by Apple, but you can be reasonably sure that it hasn't been modified by anyone other than the developer. His identity is known to Apple, so he could be held legally responsible if he distributed malware. That may not mean much if the developer lives in a country with a weak legal system (see below.)
    Gatekeeper doesn't depend on a database of known malware. It has, however, the same limitations as XProtect, and in addition the following:
    ☞ It can easily be disabled or overridden by the user.
    ☞ A malware attacker could get control of a code-signing certificate under false pretenses, or could simply ignore the consequences of distributing codesigned malware.
    ☞ An App Store developer could find a way to bypass Apple's oversight, or the oversight could fail due to human error.
    Apple has taken far too long to revoke the codesigning certificates of some known abusers, thereby diluting the value of Gatekeeper and the Developer ID program. Those lapses don't involve App Store products, however.
    For the reasons given, App Store products, and—to a lesser extent—other applications recognized by Gatekeeper as signed, are safer than others, but they can't be considered absolutely safe. "Sandboxed" applications may prompt for access to private data, such as your contacts, or for access to the network. Think before granting that access. Sandbox security is based on user input. Never click through any request for authorization without thinking.
    4. Starting with OS X 10.8.3, a third layer of protection has been added: a "Malware Removal Tool" (MRT). MRT runs automatically in the background when you update the OS. It checks for, and removes, malware that may have evaded the other protections via a Java exploit (see below.) MRT also runs when you install or update the Apple-supplied Java runtime (but not the Oracle runtime.) Like XProtect, MRT is effective against known threats, but not against unknown ones. It notifies you if it finds malware, but otherwise there's no user interface to MRT.
    5. The built-in security features of OS X reduce the risk of malware attack, but they are not, and never will be, complete protection. Malware is a problem of human behavior, not machine behavior, and no technological fix alone is going to solve it. Trusting software to protect you will only make you more vulnerable.
    The best defense is always going to be your own intelligence. With the possible exception of Java exploits, all known malware circulating on the Internet that affects a fully-updated installation of OS X 10.6 or later takes the form of so-called "Trojan horses," which can only have an effect if the victim is duped into running them. The threat therefore amounts to a battle of wits between you and Internet criminals. If you're better informed than they think you are, you'll win. That means, in practice, that you always stay within a safe harbor of computing practices. How do you know when you're leaving the safe harbor? Below are some warning signs of danger.
    Software from an untrustworthy source
    ☞ Software with a corporate brand, such as Adobe Flash Player, doesn't come directly from the developer’s website. Do not trust an alert from any website to update Flash, or your browser, or any other software. A genuine alert that Flash is outdated and blocked is shown on this support page. Follow the instructions on the support page in that case. Otherwise, assume that the alert is fake and someone is trying to scam you into installing malware. If you see such alerts on more than one website, ask for instructions.
    ☞ Software of any kind is distributed via BitTorrent, or Usenet, or on a website that also distributes pirated music or movies.
    ☞ Rogue websites such as Softonic, Soft32, and CNET Download distribute free applications that have been packaged in a superfluous "installer."
    ☞ The software is advertised by means of spam or intrusive web ads. Any ad, on any site, that includes a direct link to a download should be ignored.
    Software that is plainly illegal or does something illegal
    ☞ High-priced commercial software such as Photoshop is "cracked" or "free."
    ☞ An application helps you to infringe copyright, for instance by circumventing the copy protection on commercial software, or saving streamed media for reuse without permission. All "YouTube downloaders" are in this category, though not all are necessarily malicious.
    Conditional or unsolicited offers from strangers
    ☞ A telephone caller or a web page tells you that you have a “virus” and offers to help you remove it. (Some reputable websites did legitimately warn visitors who were infected with the "DNSChanger" malware. That exception to this rule no longer applies.)
    ☞ A web site offers free content such as video or music, but to use it you must install a “codec,” “plug-in,” "player," "downloader," "extractor," or “certificate” that comes from that same site, or an unknown one.
    ☞ You win a prize in a contest you never entered.
    ☞ Someone on a message board such as this one is eager to help you, but only if you download an application of his choosing.
    ☞ A "FREE WI-FI !!!" network advertises itself in a public place such as an airport, but is not provided by the management.
    ☞ Anything online that you would expect to pay for is "free."
    Unexpected events
    ☞ A file is downloaded automatically when you visit a web page, with no other action on your part. Delete any such file without opening it.
    ☞ You open what you think is a document and get an alert that it's "an application downloaded from the Internet." Click Cancel and delete the file. Even if you don't get the alert, you should still delete any file that isn't what you expected it to be.
    ☞ An application does something you don't expect, such as asking for permission to access your contacts, your location, or the Internet for no obvious reason.
    ☞ Software is attached to email that you didn't request, even if it comes (or seems to come) from someone you trust.
    I don't say that leaving the safe harbor just once will necessarily result in disaster, but making a habit of it will weaken your defenses against malware attack. Any of the above scenarios should, at the very least, make you uncomfortable.
    6. Java on the Web (not to be confused with JavaScript, to which it's not related, despite the similarity of the names) is a weak point in the security of any system. Java is, among other things, a platform for running complex applications in a web page, on the client. That was always a bad idea, and Java's developers have proven themselves incapable of implementing it without also creating a portal for malware to enter. Past Java exploits are the closest thing there has ever been to a Windows-style virus affecting OS X. Merely loading a page with malicious Java content could be harmful.
    Fortunately, client-side Java on the Web is obsolete and mostly extinct. Only a few outmoded sites still use it. Try to hasten the process of extinction by avoiding those sites, if you have a choice. Forget about playing games or other non-essential uses of Java.
    Java is not included in OS X 10.7 and later. Discrete Java installers are distributed by Apple and by Oracle (the developer of Java.) Don't use either one unless you need it. Most people don't. If Java is installed, disable it—not JavaScript—in your browsers.
    Regardless of version, experience has shown that Java on the Web can't be trusted. If you must use a Java applet for a task on a specific site, enable Java only for that site in Safari. Never enable Java for a public website that carries third-party advertising. Use it only on well-known, login-protected, secure websites without ads. In Safari 6 or later, you'll see a padlock icon in the address bar when visiting a secure site.
    Stay within the safe harbor, and you’ll be as safe from malware as you can practically be. The rest of this comment concerns what you should not do to protect yourself.
    7. Never install any commercial "anti-virus" (AV) or "Internet security" products for the Mac, as they are all worse than useless. If you need to be able to detect Windows malware in your files, use one of the free security apps in the Mac App Store—nothing else.
    Why shouldn't you use commercial AV products?
    ☞ To recognize malware, the software depends on a database of known threats, which is always at least a day out of date. This technique is a proven failure, as a major AV software vendor has admitted. Most attacks are "zero-day"—that is, previously unknown. Recognition-based AV does not defend against such attacks, and the enterprise IT industry is coming to the realization that traditional AV software is worthless.
    ☞ Its design is predicated on the nonexistent threat that malware may be injected at any time, anywhere in the file system. Malware is downloaded from the network; it doesn't materialize from nowhere. In order to meet that nonexistent threat, commercial AV software modifies or duplicates low-level functions of the operating system, which is a waste of resources and a common cause of instability, bugs, and poor performance.
    ☞ By modifying the operating system, the software may also create weaknesses that could be exploited by malware attackers.
    ☞ Most importantly, a false sense of security is dangerous.
    8. An AV product from the App Store, such as "ClamXav," has the same drawback as the commercial suites of being always out of date, but it does not inject low-level code into the operating system. That doesn't mean it's entirely harmless. It may report email messages that have "phishing" links in the body, or Windows malware in attachments, as infected files, and offer to delete or move them. Doing so will corrupt the Mail database. The messages should be deleted from within the Mail application.
    An AV app is not needed, and cannot be relied upon, for protection against OS X malware. It's useful, if at all, only for detecting Windows malware, and even for that use it's not really effective, because new Windows malware is emerging much faster than OS X malware.
    Windows malware can't harm you directly (unless, of course, you use Windows.) Just don't pass it on to anyone else. A malicious attachment in email is usually easy to recognize by the name alone. An actual example:
    London Terror Moovie.avi [124 spaces] Checked By Norton Antivirus.exe
    You don't need software to tell you that's a Windows trojan. Software may be able to tell you which trojan it is, but who cares? In practice, there's no reason to use recognition software unless an organizational policy requires it. Windows malware is so widespread that you should assume it's in every email attachment until proven otherwise. Nevertheless, ClamXav or a similar product from the App Store may serve a purpose if it satisfies an ill-informed network administrator who says you must run some kind of AV application. It's free and it won't handicap the system.
    The ClamXav developer won't try to "upsell" you to a paid version of the product. Other developers may do that. Don't be upsold. For one thing, you should not pay to protect Windows users from the consequences of their choice of computing platform. For another, a paid upgrade from a free app will probably have all the disadvantages mentioned in section 7.
    9. It seems to be a common belief that the built-in Application Firewall acts as a barrier to infection, or prevents malware from functioning. It does neither. It blocks inbound connections to certain network services you're running, such as file sharing. It's disabled by default and you should leave it that way if you're behind a router on a private home or office network. Activate it only when you're on an untrusted network, for instance a public Wi-Fi hotspot, where you don't want to provide services. Disable any services you don't use in the Sharing preference pane. All are disabled by default.
    10. As a Mac user, you don't have to live in fear that your computer may be infected every time you install software, read email, or visit a web page. But neither can you assume that you will always be safe from exploitation, no matter what you do. Navigating the Internet is like walking the streets of a big city. It can be as safe or as dangerous as you choose to make it. The greatest harm done by security software is precisely its selling point: it makes people feel safe. They may then feel safe enough to take risks from which the software doesn't protect them. Nothing can lessen the need for safe computing practices.

  • Best Mac Pro Configuration for Editing

    Hey guys. I'm looking to upgrade my editing capabilities from a iMac G5 to a Mac Pro computer system. I pretty much want to go all out on this thing, as I don't look to upgrade again anytime soon. I will be working with a fresh copy of Final Cut Studio 2.
    I was wondering, however, about what would be a good configuration for the hardware itself, more specifically the video cards that are available now.
    Which video card would be the best for HD video editing and manipulation? I was thinking about just getting the most expensive one, but I have heard some video cards are made for one thing more than another, and I want to make sure that I get the right configuration the first time.
    Again, money is not too much of an issue as this will be an expense for my business.
    Any help would be appreciated.
    Message was edited by: Troy Minassian

    Well I'll try not to be too vague here but I think it's going to be easier for me to give you a few hints but mostly talk about where to do more research.
    First: Formats -
    With good ol' DV, any off-the-shelf, completely stock, Mac Pro will handle it - absolutley NO sweat. Just add 1 (or more) iternal SATA drives for capturing media, and you're off to the races. HDV...this could go either way. In theory, again, a basic Mac Pro can handle this. The format's total throughput is no more than DV. However, my thought is that using straight HDV in it's "native" format can be a real pain in the butt. Cruise over the Final Cut forum and do a search for a phrase like "HDV" & "Yuck" and you'll end up with a big long list of issues. I'll not go too far into detail, but HDV is a highly compressed format with a GOP-structure. Dealing with GOP-structured media in an NLE is not pretty.
    The good news is if you're even considering something like an Io HD then the HDV issues can be conquered with it. You would use the Io HD to transcode the HDV to Apple's ProRes codec on the fly. That's what the IoHD does. It's an external capture card whose form factor makes it nice and portable. So you'd come out of your camera or deck - into the Io HD - and out via firewire to your computer. The one "trick" is: you're married to ProRes. That's the one & only codec this box does. (To the best of my knowledge, that is.) Anyway, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just good to know going into it. Here's a review of the Io HD over at the creativecow.net. And by the way, if you've never hung out over there, note that it's a great resource for help. Tons of in-the-know pros hang out there.
    As far as AVCHD, I'm personally not too familiar with it. I know that it too is not very intensive to deal with - per se. But the whole tapeless concept is still somewhat new and as such has it's share of "gotchas". For that I'd do a search over there on Apple's Final Cut forum. I know a search for AVCHD is going to turn up many many posts.
    Regarding the RED. Again, it's so new it's got it share of workflow bumps to be aware of. (Personally, I love the concept of what this camera is all about. I checked it out and NAB and was really impressed with where they're going with it.) But for better info on that, I'd steer over to the Final Cut forum here and the Final Cut form over at the COW. Further, the camera has it's own forum over at the COW. And another great source of info is reduser.net. This camera is sweeping the industry. But it's changing the workflow quite a bit too.
    Second: Processing -
    As far as overall CPU power goes....Sure! A higher clock speed is basically going to be a faster machine. Here's some stats. But what's the cost? The 3.2 is faster than the 2.8. Is this worth $1600 to you? Only you can answer that question. For me: I just spent a month vacillating over a new machine purchase. I had originally "decided" months ago to get a new Mac Pro Eight 2.8. Then I thought I might save some loot and buy a G5. Then I thought, No! That's a dumb idea.... I could spend only about $600 more and get a refurb'ed 2.66 Quad core. Then I figured I could spend $800 more than that and end up - right back where I started - with a new 2.8 8-Core. So for me, the $1400 more, to go from a used G5 to a new 2.8 Octo, just made sense. But the point is: it's a completely personal decision. For me, that overall margin of money/performance made a lot of sense! On the other hand, did it make sense for me to spend $1600 more and get the 3.2 instead of the 2.8? Not at all! So only you are going to be able to decide if $1600 buys you enough of a performance hike.
    Then, Extras -
    Too, you're going to want to add as much RAM as you can afford. The other big question is storage. You've mentioned a spectrum of formats. On the one hand you've got your DV. Again a single SATA drive will be more than enough to capture to and playback from. But with ProRes HQ you're getting more demanding on the drives. For this, you'd want to now add, let's say, 3 more internal drives and stripe them together into a capture RAID. But you could even go up a few steps and get something like the CalDigit HD Pro and get multiple streams of HD playback with the security of a hardware-controlled RAID 5 scenario. So there's a couple of different ways to go here....However, if you start with very very fast, reliable drives, you're setting yourself to handle higher-end formats. Drive speed can be a killer. But if you start at the top you can basically head off any format woes for the future. (For a while....Nothing's completely future-proof in this game.)
    Finally, Monitoring -
    You've got to figure out how to look at/hear the media outside-of-the-computer. Meaning - you're going to need external monitoring equipment: Video and Audio. Again this will open more questions for you. But these items are key to your knowing what you're REALLY working with. So you really need a NTSC monitor, an audio mixer/control surface of some sort and some powered speakers. The Final Cut forums will be good places to research what others are using in these arenas.
    Anyway, good luck with it all! You've already discovered a great resource: this forum. If I were you, I'd start to spend more time on the Final Cut forums. These types of queries will get solid answers over there. I'd recommend establishing the habit of performing a search when you've over there though. The chances of someone else, already asking the same thing that you're investigating, is quite high. Almost guaranteed. Enjoy!

  • Best Mac Pro (2013) configuration for photo editing/processing?

    Hi all,
    I couldn't find a reliable answer to this in my searching here or on google, hence I'm posting it here.
    I'm going to buy and upgrade to the new mac pro when it's announced this month (Dec 2013).  My primary use will be photo processing in photoshop.
    Configuring it with 64gb RAM is the no-brainer part. And probably a 512gb or 1TB flash drive too.
    The bit I'm unsure about is whether to opt for the 6 core processor option over the quad core?  For photo editing (adding layers, filters, brushing in, multiple files open at times, running batch edits etc), does anyone have an opinion on whether the performance increase (if there is in fact any increase for photo work?) of the 6 core 3.5ghz would justify paying the extra AU$1300 difference over the quad core 3.7ghz option?
    And from my earlier research paying the huge prices for 8 or 12 cores would simply be a waste for photo processing.
    Thanks for the advice...

    Mozzzaaa
    I have the exact same requirements, here are my findings based on some observations from Activity Monitor and research based on how the hardware works.
    Photoshop does not utilize multiple cores well for many standard editing ativities - therefore one core will be busy while the rest remain idle, however I have noticed over time that upgrades to Photoshop seem to take more advantage of multiple cores as Adobe updates the code. For example, appling filters utilize all of the cores while the filters are computing changes (smart sharpen for example).  Try running CPU monitoring in Activity Monitor (double click the CPU graph to display all cores).
    Lightroom utilizes all of the cores for Import, export and other activities that process multiple files.  Being more modern code, it beter utilizes muti cores.
    Keep in mind that each core handles two code threads, therefore a four core system is capable of processing 8 "streams" of code, the 6 core can manage 12 threads, etc.  
    Here is a screen shot of Mac Book Pro running PS CC Smart Sharpen:
    All the new Mac Pro run at 3.9Hz Turbo Boost - they are all the same in that respect.  This means that when the processers are not hot, at least one core will run at 3.9Hz - therefore on a relativly idle machine (just editing in PS for example) you would likley be running at 3.9Hz on all the Mac Pro 2013.
    There are also the GPUs to consider.  Apple as usual has not made enough information available to easly determine the cost benefits of the more powerful GPUs and I don't know if PS would utiliize the AMD GPUs well now,  or perhaps better utilize them for the future.  Perhaps someone could comment on that.  Here is an interesting article: http://architosh.com/2013/10/the-mac-pro-so-whats-a-d300-d500-and-d700-anyway-we -have-answers/
    Clearly the D500 that is standard with the 6 core seems a major bump over the 4 core D300 (therefore the costs of the 6 core reflect that).  I don't know how much the D700 would cost - it would be helpful if this were published so I could consider my order.
    There are two GPU in the new Mac Pros - but the purpose of the second one is not toally clear (thanks again to Apples's communication).  It likley will be utilized for all sorts of things that don't really exist now and FCP X is scheduled for a new release better utilize the GPU for video (as nwaphoto mentioned video processing will be a major use of this equipment).
    I was interested in your comment regarding 64 Meg ram.  Yes that would be a hudge boost to PS performance, but would it be better to purchase from Apple or wait for OWC who offer RAM at major discounts over Apple.  Once again, no info yet that I am aware of.
    I believe the flash drive is upgradable but rumor has it that it uses a proprietary connecter. Makes me want to go with the largest size but once again OWC might be the way to go for an upgrade in a year or two.
    In the past, the 6 core 2012 Mac Pro's were somewhat of a sweat spot in terms of horsepower vs cost.  I will be considering that in my decession to upgrade. So I am considering a 6 core,  will check out the Ram and Flash diIsk based on price - which is the infor I don't have.  If you have anything please post
    Thanks

  • Mac Pro, Leopard 10.5.2, Photoshop CS3, 8800GT and Dual Monitors - Crashing

    Hi, I received my Mac Pro (with Nvidia 8800GT) earlier this week and set it up with my dual monitors. I soon discovered that Photoshop CS3 crashes when scrolling a 'zoomed in' image with dual monitors. Photoshop is setup so that all palettes are on the smaller samsung monitor and the main image window I'm working on is on the 23" cinema display.
    I've updated both the OS and CS3 but cannot solve the problem unless I switch to a single view setup, ie, drag all the palettes over to the larger monitor so that photoshop is no longer dual monitor. Then it works fine. Although it's a workaround, it's not an ideal situation. Has anyone else found this to be an issue? Have you found a solution?
    I've also re-installed Photoshop, visited a genius bar and changed mice!
    Thanks, any help would be appreciated.
    -N

    My Mac Pro had been running 3 Dell monitors on two NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT cards for months, and with the (I think) Safari update all of a sudden the Mac freezes, 1 monitor displays garbledy gook, and the other is blank with a blinking power light. That is, until yesterday when the power light refused to come on. So I says to myself, "Self, how about testing them on my iBook?" The 1704FPT will not power on, plugged in to a computer or not. The 1707FP shakes like crazy when starting up on the iBook, then settles in and seems to work. Meanwhile, the SP2008WFP is working alone on the Mac Pro, but not totally trouble-free. What the heck is going on?

  • Looking to purchase Mac Pro (dual CPU) for Aperture/Photoshop

    My first question is: Will I be able to upgrade the CPU later on? If I were to get the dual 2.26Ghz setup which is currently the base processor (and, the most affordable option), would I be able to purchase the 2.93Ghz CPUs few years down the line and install them?
    I certainly know that memory can be upgraded, but I'd like this machine (which, is in itself a considerable expense) to last for at least six years with upgrades.
    I currently use 2.16Ghz Core Duo MBP with 2Gb RAM (maximum it can take) and my Aperture and Photoshop have trouble running simultaneously while editing 12 megapixel files from my camera.
    Thanks a million guys!

    I came from a MacBook, the very first MacBook ever, also maxed out at 2 GB (shared RAM), so I can completely relate to your frustration.
    I'm running PS CS3 and Aperture 2 on the Mac Pro with the dual quads and am quite happy. My XSi also generates 12 MP RAW files. 6 GB of RAM is more than enough to run Aperture and PS simultaneously. I can do things like HDR processing with multiple 16-bit TIFF outputs and process them using masking without quitting Aperture. It's just beautiful how much it can do.
    The GT 120 seems to be quite capable of making lots of adjustments in Aperture simultaneously without perceivable lag. For most of my non-studio work, I'm retouching, adjusting wb, colors, levels, enhance, and changing exposure settings all at the same time. The GT 120 seems to keep everything I've been able to throw at it, and I throw a lot. It's even speedy while zoomed in at 100%.
    At the Apple store, I played with the single quad-core version and was blown away by it's performance as well. Honestly, I didn't perceive any difference between the dual and the single quad versions as far as performance in Aperture and Photoshop. Of course, with half the RAM, you won't be able to have as many layers. When I used the one at the store, I was so blown away, I was afraid the dual quad version was a waste of money.
    I wouldn't count on being able to upgrade the processors later, but my biggest concern is that we won't ever be able to really take advantage of all the power the Mac Pro already offers. When you output from Aperture, it's really not that fast, the machine just spends all it's time waiting for the hard drive anyway. The Mac Pro is a server-grade machine through and through. As a still photographer, I can assure you, you'll be blown away by the power of Nehalem and bummed at your inability to use it anywhere near it's full potential. It'll take YEARS for Intel's consumer-grade processors (like the i7) to catch up with the Xeons, and even then, they probably won't support ECC RAM. And each core can handle two sets of instructions at the same time, so virtually, the dual-quad has 16 cores.
    With the amount of focus being placed upon harnessing the power of GPU, the power of the CPU is likely to have less and less impact on the speed of your machine as time passes. If you're worried about the RAM ceiling of the single quad Mac Pro, buy the dual-quad, but I wouldn't worry so much about the clockspeed. You should keep in mind, Aperture can't handle the multiple graphics cards, so I'd get a single GT 120 and consider buying something more substantial later, *after you get Snow Leopard*. Snow Leopard is going to use the GPU in ways we've never seen before and I predict it will be a game-changing release.
    I'd also check out the refurbs! Hope this helps!

Maybe you are looking for