Where is System Pref to disable Quad Cores?

I cannot find the Processor System Preference that lets you enable or disable the processor cores on the Quad. Where can this be found?
I read an article that states they can disable the cores, but cannot find where?

the program you need is called CHUD tools, it's
installed with Xcode 2.2.
Latest version of that is a free download from the
developer section at apple.com
Small correction though, with it you can set the Quad
to run on 4, 2 or 1 processor/core.
On mine, the menu bar item is 4, 2, or 1, but in the preference pane I can set the active processors to 4, 3, 2, or 1. So it all depends on where you look (and it's a minor detail at that).

Similar Messages

I have just upgraded to OSX Maverick and now my Apple TV has taken over my iTunes videos. I have tried turning off homeshare and iHave gone into system prefs and disabled the remote, but the problem persists. Any ideas.

After upgrading to OSX Maverick my Apple TV has taken control of my iTunes videos insisting I have to watch it on my TV. I have tried disabling home sharing on iTunes and on the Apple TV menu, I have also checked the disable Infrared facility in Systems Prefs Security. Even if I put the Apple TV in standby as soon as I hit a key on my iMac, Apple TV comes back on and on my Itunes screen I get the Apple TV logo imprinted on the screen, meaning I can no longer watch it on my MAC, I have run out of ideas. Can anyone help.

I think you're headed the right direction. There is an AirPlay icon (on mine it is up near the play/pause controls) that I believe is used to set the default desitination for the video to play.
I'd never seen your issue before, but opened iTunes on a recently-upgraded-to-Mavericks MacBook and it did exactly as you described. While the video was loading, I switched the AirPlay option to the computer instead of ATV and it began playing locally (after a delay as you'd mentioned). I then read this page, which is actually quite old: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1091073, which lead me to the icon near the play/pause button. It now has Computer selected on it, and defaults to play locally instead of the ATV even after quitting and reopening iTunes. I hope that is helpful.

Micorsoft Server Compatibility with Laptop system having Intel Pentium Quad-Core CPU N3530 (2.16 GHz)

I would like to know if I can install Microsoft Server 2008 Enterprise or Standard Edition on a Laptop having Intel Pentium Quad-Core CPU N3530 (2.16 GHz). Currently it has Window 8. I do not need Windows 8 and would like to install Microsoft Server 2008
Enterprise or Standard Edition.
Will it work ?
Thnx.

Hi Zahid-I,
We support the Windows server system install on the certified hardware you can search ask your hardware vendor for exactly supported system or you can search the Windows Server
Catalog to found whether your hardware certified by server 2008, personal experience is most of the laptop not supported the server system.
Windows Server Catalog
http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/results.aspx?bCatId=1283&avc=10
Personal experience is if our PC hardware meet the minimum require of server system we can install it for test lab.
More information:
Windows Server 2008 System Requirements
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb414778.aspx
I’m glad to be of help to you!
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]

12 core Mac Pro does not improve render time over iMac quad core

I'm rendering the same composition independently on two computers and they are basically rendering at the same rate, which is slightly better than 1 frame per second.
The project settings and preferences are identical in each instance (with the exception of memory and multiprocessing, which I have experimented with ad nauseum). The composition includes no motion blur, no effects, just a couple of layers of chroma keyed .mov files (using keylight 2.0) and some still images. Neither machine is running any other applications, except occasionally Google Chrome, which seems to have no effect on performance.
Both systems are running the latest version of After Effects CC (2014) and using the Classic 3D renderer.
System 1 MAC PRO:
Mac Pro 12 core 2.7 GHz Intel Xeon E5
dual AMD FirePro 500D 3072 MB GPUs
32 GB RAM
OS X 10.9.4
System 2 iMAC:
iMac quad core 2.5 GHz Intel Core i5
AMD Radeon HD 6750M 512 MB GPU
8 GB RAM
OS X 10.9.3
As you can see, system 1 is vastly more powerful, and yet no combination of memory/multiprocessing settings can get the system to render faster than system 2.
It doesn't seem to matter how much or little RAM I reserve for other applications (I have settled on 4 GB), or the number of CPUs I reserve for After Effects. The one setting that has improved performance is turning OFF render multiple frames. And even then it only brings the performance of the Mac Pro up to par with the iMac. I have cleared my cache, rebooted the computer, and read everything I can find online regarding the optimization of render settings.
Here's a comparison of the respective CPU Loads:
iMac
Mac Pro
With such a low CPU load, After Effects is obviously not utilizing the resources available to it on the Mac Pro. What a waste.
Can anyone help?

There's plenty of debate about the new Mac Pro vs a kitted out iMac. Benchmarks show that some iMac After Effects processing can actually be faster than on a Mac Pro, depending on the content and some other factors. If you're using software that has been optimised for the Mac Pro's GPU-centric architecture, like Final Cut Pro X, you will see great benefits.
mac pro vs imac
In my own facility recently we opted out of purchasing Mac Pros this year, and bought top-end iMacs instead. The benefit to cost ratio simply didn't make sense for us right now. Mac Pros are awesome machines, but a significant component of their cost is the dual GPUs, which are simply no benefit to After Effects.
Reports say that the After Effects engineers are working on a major revamp of the After Effects processing system, so I'm betting you will realise far greater benefits from your Mac pro in coming AE versions. For now, you may continue to see performance that is not spectacularly better than a souped-up iMac, depending on the type of processing involved.
I've seen a few benchmarks that suggest the 8 core systems give better bang-for-buck than the 12 cores. Try reducing your processors to 8 in After Effects and see if it makes a difference. With 8 cores, allocate 3GB of RAM per core to leave some RAM for the OS.

WARNING: DSP 3 NOT supported under Quad-Core G5 Systems!

This is from my posting at the DSP forum and a warning to all...
Alright, are you ready for this one? I just contacted Apple Support about running DSP 3 on my newly purchased Quad-core G5.
Those of us with a Quad-core G5 system are SCREWED when it comes to using DSP 3. The Apple guy told me that DSP 3 is not supported under the Quad systems (because "the Quad systems didn't exist at the time that DSP 3 was around" but wait, didn't DSP 4 come out BEFORE the Quad-core systems, too?). You have to use DSP 4 if you have a Quad-core G5.
I explained my outrage to the guy (very unsympathetic) that Apple does not post this information on their website and does not inform their Apple Store employees about the issue (I had mentioned to several employees of my intentions to run DSP 3 on the system when I was buying it).
The guy said that no one's complaining about this issue because "everyone gets the latest and greatest software to run on the newest machines" and "that's just the nature of technology" Yeah, right. I hate to say it, but I have Windows 98 apps from a single proc that run fine on Windows XP on a dual proc system.
Anyway, spread the word and give Apple some more money by upgrading to DSP 4, so that they can keep nickel and diming us. The guy mentioned that if anyone wants to complain, that they can complain to the Final Cut Pro discussions site since apparently, that's the place where Apple actually reads posts.

Heya,
Unsupported it may be, but does it run ok? I could
see it having worse performance than on a single-proc
machine, but it shouldn;t have any actual problems.
The guy said that no one's complaining about this
issue because "everyone gets the latest and greatest
software to run on the newest machines" and "that's
Well, given that you have bought their first machine
which supports > 2 concurrent threads [e.g. one system
thread and one app thread], I'd say he's partly right.
Anyone forking out the money for a quad will be [partly]
wasting it if they do not run applications that are
written to be fully multithreaded, i.e. written with
the quad in mind.
This is probably especially true on the Apple platform
as the programmers will assume that the user is on
one of the handful of machines available at the time.
Being inherently lazy, no programmer is going to add the
complexity of supporting n threads if only single-proc
machines are being sold [yeah,ok, there were dual-procs,
but that really means a two-thread system, which is
normally the case anyways ... one for GUI and one for
processing].
to say it, but I have Windows 98 apps from a single
proc that run fine on Windows XP on a dual proc
system.
Given the nature of Windows 98[/95/ME] and the
applications written for it, I am very frightened
for your system integrity
--Mike

I have a WD 2 tb hard drive that I want to use to back up my Mac Pro quad core. How do I create a back up startup disk? Also, when I used Time macine, it only backed up users and not the system or library folders. Ideas?

I have a WD 2 tb hard drive that I want to use to back up my Mac Pro quad core. How do I create a back up startup disk? Also, when I used Time macine, it only backed up users and not the system or library folders. Ideas?

Welcome to Apple Support Communities
Time Machine should be enough to make a backup of your files. Also, it should back up all folders, so open System Preferences > Time Machine > Options, and make sure that there are no folders included in the excluded items list.
If you want to create a bootable clone of your hard drive, you need to use an app like Carbon Copy Cloner or the Disk Utility's Restore feature > http://pondini.org/OSX/DU7.html

Time machine only copies User Info and Users (Applications, Library, and System are missing) from my quad core Mac Pro. 45 Gb of 162 Gb are missing. Any one having success with time machine copying all folders using Mavericks? What do I need to do dif

Time machine only copies User Info and Users (Applications, Library, and System are missing) from my quad core Mac Pro. 45 Gb of 162 Gb are missing. Any one having success with time machine copying all folders using Mavericks?
What do I need to do differently?

The late, great Pondini was investigating that issue before he passed away.
See here: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5125969
I think there might be information there on how to reset Time Machine to do a full backup. I think you basically have to reset it and start over.

Where do I download Spanish and Italian voices for the Speech System Pref?

Where do I download the spanish and italian versions of the voices for the speech system pref? How do I install them?

I mean, if I buy an italian mac, does it come with the italian speech stuff?
No. OS X is the same no matter where it is sold, and it does not contain any non-English voices. You need to get them from the sources you have already been given.
If you want to ask Apple to add this feature in the future, go here:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

System overloads and quad core Pro with only 1 gig of RAM - Snow Leopard

That RAM total would suggest that I go out and buy some (expensive) RAM.
But I see from
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=10238432&#10238432
that people are getting memory spikes with LP8 and a lot more than 1 gig. One poster suggests that LP8 has a bug that should've been fixed but wasn't.
8 gigs are so expensive ($2k) that I could get an entire iMac for less - and rumor has it that there may be quad-core models on the way soon.
Which of the following would you do"
1. Amp up to 4GB on this box for $1200 or so?
2. Get just 1GB more to make it 2GB - cheaper?
3. Upgrade to LP9 just to get a bug fix?
A new pro ($3200+, 8 core, 6 gigs is not an option. I'm even gagging at the RAM prices.
I use LP primarily for electronic music, not rock mixes, so I use ES2, Sculpture, ESX. EFM and potentially a lot of track automation.

Hello neighbor (I live in Arlington, MA).
macpro-user wrote:
Which of the following would you do"
1. Amp up to 4GB on this box for $1200 or so?
2. Get just 1GB more to make it 2GB - cheaper?
3. Upgrade to LP9 just to get a bug fix?
Definitely not number 3--LP9 is working pretty well for me, but a lot of users find it to be rather buggy. I'm not saying don't get 9, I'm just saying don't do it with the idea in mind that it will fix all your problems. I buy my RAM from Other World Computing. I'm not sure exactly which model Mac Pro you're running, but you can see here that the most you'll pay for 8GB is about $275. But jumping up to 4GB would significantly improve your situation, so I would recommend starting there--you can always add more later if you need to.

Memory arrangements in iMac i5 quad core (mid 2010)

I used to run 8 GB of ram in 4 modules. The upper two slots were occupied with the 2 samsung 2GB modules that came with the computer. The lower two slots I filled with 2 more 2 GB ram modules from corsair. These 8 Gb of RAM worked fine until one of these corsair modules failed: after several crashes I identified the culprit module by elimination using memtest.
A good time to upgrade: I left the upper slots as is and filled the two lower slots 4 GB modules, also from corsair so that I now have 12 GB. When booting up the machine, the system profiler indicated that the machine only recognised 6 GB, one of each size module. When removing the two 4 GB modules, the imac recognised the remaining two 2 GB module. Turns out that one of the 4 GB modules is doa. It was identified again by elimination: Using only one of the 4Gb modules in the mac in the same upper left slot, the imac booted up with the good one, but not with the faulty one.
Question: why did the imac not recognise one working memory module in the upper slot when one in the lower slot was faulty, but recognised it again, once the faulty one was removed.
Apple says the i5 quad-core imac does not start up if only one of the lower slots is occupied - which is not true. Apple also says that the imac does not work properly when the memory access door is not re-installed, which is also not true.
Does it matter whether I install two 2 GB modules in the upper slots and two 4 GB modules in the lower, or would it be better the other way round. What if I installed the 4 GB modules above each other the the same with the 2 Gb modules?
Any experience would be appreciated.

Apple says the i5 quad-core imac does not start up if only one of the lower slots is occupied - which is not true.
If you look at the Apple instructions online (I believe the exact article you mentioned), I understood that Apple and I had a different idea of what top and bottom were supposed to be. Both you and I feel that the original RAM are in the top slots, but the instructions are such that it sounds as though they are in the bottom.
In any case, I've read of another case where someone moved the original RAM to the bottom and installed the added RAM in the top slots - supposedly it will result in slightly faster performance because those are the RAM that will be addressed first. However, the RAM needs to be in pairs horizontally: 2 x 4 GB in the top (or bottom) slots and 2 x 2 GB horizontally in the other banks. I do not have any idea as to why a top slot would not work if the bottom was not occupied.

Error message on my Mac Pro Quad Core Dual

Hello..I'm hoping someone out there can help or advise me.
I turned on my mac this morning to find it's normal loading screen of grey with the darker grey logo in centre..all normal at this stage. This was followed by a wipe from top to bottom making the background grey a little darker and in the centre the apple logo was replaced by what appeared to be a semi transparent power button symbol with the words. "You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the restart button"
I have tried this several times to no avail I have also zapped the P RAM again nothing. Can anyone out there help. I have a Mac Pro Quad Core Dual which is only a few months old and is up to date with its system software.
I could be so grateful of any assistance.
Warm regards
Sophia

Make an appointment. But in the meantime...
So from cold boot, you can't do the Command Option P R through 2-3 full reboot cycles (don't let up)?
Unplug everything and let it sit overnight without power cord or anything. That is the only way to rest the SMC system management controller on the 2008 model, the older model still had a reset button.
Also learned that the 2008 Macs can all boot AHT if the original OEM installer was used to install the system and the drive has not be completely reformatted and retail OS X used, just holding down "D" on startup. But you have to
Also, pull all your hard drives. Rule out that, which I have seen a hard drive cause panic on startup, which required disabling journaling and other repairs from Disk Utility and deleting caches, then repair, and finally do Safe Boot (shift key down on startup).
The only way to test RAM is with TechTool Deluxe or Pro; with Memtest or Rember; and to test some devices is to try using a differnent one, keyboard and mouse included if you have any.
Last hope: open case, look inside, take the two RAM Riser cards and pull out, check the DIMMs are fully seated.
If you have 3rd party memory, remove that (would need to before taking in probably).
Might want to put RAM back to way it shipped with 2 x 1GB and one DIMM on each Riser in slot one. Maybe that will wake this sleeping giant. Changing RAM config use to be one way to clear nvram in the distant past in the time of Arthur.
PS: it is "odd" to find a BTO 3.2GHz system, and only 2GB. For memory performance, Barefeats found a marked improvement with 8 DIMMs, and of course Mac Pro really needs memory to feed 8 cores and pro apps (2GB would be okay for web and email type use only).

Help, it feels slooow: Mac Mini 2012 2.3 Quad Core 1TB 4GB

Hi, I already posted this on another forum but I haven't got any feedback yet, I hope I'm luckier here :-)
I'm a long time Mac user. Last week I bought a new Mac Mini 2.3 i7 1Tb Quad Core.
Now, having left the OS X platform years ago when my good old G5 started feeling pretty old for more modern systems and programs, and having used a cheap basic Asus notebook in the meantime, I was really expecting the Mac Mini to fly. Well, to be honest I'm quite puzzled right now: it just feels it's lagging so often, that it doesn't feel that different to my 10 year old G5 running 10.5.
Things like opening System Preferences take an awful long time, often just going to the upper menu and clicking on things I get the dreadful spinning ball, switching between tabs in a browser, and in general the machine (especially considering it's basically new, I didn't even install anything serious on it yet, like Logic Pro, etc) feels definitely not responsive enough for a 2012 quad core.
I know, no SSD and still only the stock 4gb of Ram, but tell me this can't be true. I did some quick check with Disk First Aid and everything looks ok, I fixed permissions too.
I unchecked the "put hd to sleep when possible", but no improvement. I tried also a safe boot, but that didn't tell me much. Of course the machine feels a tad snappier, but it's hard to compare.
I was also surprised to see how slow and laggy Photoshop CS 6 felt even just working on pretty small images, (I'm just trying a 30 days demo), I mean, we're talking of a Quad Core. It's funny 'cause I was expecting it to be day and night to my G5 and that crappy notebook of a few years ago, and it doesn't feel like that. I know, apples and oranges, but still...
So these days I've just used things like Chrome (terribly RAM hungry, I know), Spotify, Open Office here and there, Text Wrangler, things like these...
Oh, the machine came with 10.8.3, now I'm on 10.9, but to be honest I didn't experience significant differences (actually I updated hoping it would have solved the problem).
So, before I return this Mac Mini, please tell me about your real life experiences with a similar configuration, and give me any advice you may have. I'd be really grateful, I don't want to end up buying another PC :-)

Wow, that has me worried as I've been waiting for the new mini. It seems nuts to me that any mac ships with 4Gb RAM these days!
I would recommend that you get at least 8Gb of RAM into your mini ASAP. If you go to the Activity Monitor app you can look for "Page outs" or "Swap Used" and that will show if your mac is having to transfer data from your RAM to your HDD - seriously slowing down the machine. With just 4Gb and Adobe CS your mac is probably doing a lot of it and really struggling. If you have the cash then an SSD will be awesome but to me, RAM is the priority - and you can do it yourself easily.
Just to highlight the differences, here's the effect of different upgrades for me, hopefully that will help with your decision
I have a mid 2010 13" MBP and it shipped with 4Gb / 250Gb 5400rpm HDD.
I updated the memory to 8Gb in 2011/2 and put in a WD Black 7200rpm HDD. That was a massive improvement that could easily be seen when using a different MBP in the original specs (my boss bought 2 so I could see them side by side). Startup was improved by a good margin but apps - especially multiple apps open - were much happier and zippy. I could have all my apps open whereas my boss had to close anything he wasn't using.
About 2 months ago I added a 120Gb SSD from OWC and the difference is massive again. The machine knocked 45 seconds off the boot time and opening/saving/closing apps and files are almost instant, even on the old sata bus. It doesn't affect how many apps I can have open, it just does anything disk related a whole lot quicker.

2011 MacBook Pro, 64 bit i7 quad core, upgraded to Lion OSx, Bootcamp installed with Windows 7, wanting to install Windows 8 (don't ask), tried downloading/installing bootcamp 5.0.5033, error message something similar to bootcamp doesn't support this Win

2011 MacBook Pro, 64 bit i7 quad core, upgraded to Lion OSx, Bootcamp installed with Windows 7, wanting to install Windows 8 (don't ask), tried downloading/installing bootcamp 5.0.5033 (both on the mac/windows partitions (actually using a parallel to run Windows)), error message something similar to bootcamp doesn't support this Windows
So the question is am I doing something wrong? Should I just try and install windows 8 through my windows 7 partition and see if I can use the bootcamp 5.05033. Or do I solely have to use the bootcamp to install Windows 8? I'm not too familiar with bootcamp and how it runs.

if you're using parallels and full bootcamp then you're making it 100% more troublesome for youself then it needs to be
bootcamp is running windows directly on the hardware this give full memory and cpu and 3d video game power
running windows in parallels is running a virtual machine where one can't run powerful games and the like but one can have it in a window and change fast between osx and windows
parallels as the only virutal machine (as far as I know) support not have the operating system as a file on the osx harddisk but can access a bootcamp parition as virtual machine but without the benefits bootcamps provides
it's a service parallels provide for those who want both to play games in normal bootcamp and sometimes use windows in a virutal machine
just install it like a normal virtual machine and you need not worry about bootcamp drivers and the likes
plus it would mean that the windows part would be a part of the timemachine bacup of osx
which it is not when it's in bootcamp

MacPro Quad Core 32g Ram running slow Logic using only 9g in Activity Monitor

Well its taken a while, but this is my first foray into the world of forums! I'm so hacked off with this regular problem and havent been able to find anything anywhere to solve it i thought i'd see if anyone has any similiar issues and maybe even a solve to it.
So.... im an orchestrator and producer and after my mid 2008 Macbook Pro with 8g ram started freezing up i invested in this 3 years ago -
Mac Pro 2x 2.4ghz Quad Core intel Xeon and stuck in 32gb of lovely Crucial RAM and 3 seperate internal 1TB drives with one for operating system (10.6.8), one for Audio recording/saving and one for all my sample libraries.
32gb ram - should be enough i thought!
So i regularly run at least 30 VI's - Ni The giant, Spitfire Orchestral librabies (say 12 string instruments up to 0.69g per load) LASS strings, plus perc STYLUS, ABBEY road drums, Trillian basses (acoustic/electric), ominisphere etc etc. So pretty hefty sample instruments. But theyre sooo nice!!
In addition, the 32 bit server will come alive (NOT! So unstable i find) with my Waves plugs etc.
Looking at ACTIVITY MONITOR however i might be not touching 9 gig (and sometimes even less) of usage for Logic, and only say 800MB for 32 bit server and have NOTHING else open - and what do i find .....
- Mouse lag and cant really do anything with the mouse whilst playing the track - cant adjust volume - too slow, zooming problems
- Takes a good 2-3 seconds for track to stop playing
Dont get System OVERLOADS so much, its just that the system goes REALLLLLY slow.
What ive tried- - -
- Running Mountain Lion off another drive (havent had time to install it and wanted to be sure everything worked etc)
- Tried all audio prefs - large/small buffers/threads etc and yes i am on 1024.
in a nutshell how come with 32g RAM everything is so slow when barely using 10g of that???????
I dread getting to the end of a project cos i know im gonna be freezing so much, but with so much editing all the time for the orchestral parts i need everything unfrozen and working.
Sorry if this is long winded but wanted to describe what im experiencing.
Any feedback most welcome! Thankyou in advance.
Mac Pro 2x 2.4ghz Quad Core intel Xeon 32g RAM, 3TB storage
10.6.8
Logic Pro 9.1.8

Hi
A few thoughts:
julian6400 wrote:
In addition, the 32 bit server will come alive (NOT! So unstable i find) with my Waves plugs etc.
The 32bit server is a pita: Waves v9 are 64bit compatible (they run fine). 32 bit VI's can be run outside Logic using Vienna Ensemble Pro (see later)
julian6400 wrote:
So i regularly run at least 30 VI's - Ni The giant, Spitfire Orchestral librabies (say 12 string instruments up to 0.69g per load) LASS strings, plus perc STYLUS, ABBEY road drums, Trillian basses (acoustic/electric), ominisphere etc etc. So pretty hefty sample instruments. But theyre sooo nice!!
Some of these VI's are extremely CPU hungry: Abbey Rd drums for example, really do hammer the CPU. What does Logic's Performance meter show in the way of CPU load. What does Activity Monitor show regarding CPU load?
With 32G of RAM, this should not be the issue, but you might have general CPU problems (see above), and you may also have Sample disk streaming limitations if all the Loibraries you mention are on the same drive. How does Activity Monitor look regarding disk access? You might find it helpful to add a second drive and split the sample libraries across 2 for faster disk access.
I presume that you have plenty of free space on the System drive?
Logic can get sluggish if the Undo info gets way too big, and also if there are loads of regions in the Arrange: check Options:Project Information.
Many are finding some benefits (me included) by running the VI's in Vienna Ensemble Pro:
Better CPU load distribution than directly in Logic
"Persistant Samples": they can remain loaded whilst you switch Logic Projects
Logic is effectively running much less itself, so generally flies.
32bit Plugs hosted separately in VEP so no 32bit Bridge issues in Logic
Something to consider,though perhaps not yet, would be setting up a Slave computer using VEP.
CCT

Running new 10.8.2 on my pro 2x3 Ghz Quad core with 32 GB DDR2. everything seem to slow and frezze up some time

I had fresh installed 10.8.2 on eight core with 32 GB of Ram. Everything seem to slow and frezze up sometime. but running OSX 10.6.8 is fine. Can anyone help
System Spec:
Mac OSX 10.8.2
Pro: 2x3 Ghz Quad-core Intel Xeon
Memory: 32 GB 667 MHz DDR2
Hard drive Raid 1-0: 500 GB

I am certainly confused. 10.8.2 is not supported on pre-2008's. There was an 8-core 2008 that has 800MHz DDR2 FBDIMMs (and can accept 667MHz as well).
A clean install is the safest and best way, you can migrate or let Setup Assistant import your settings.
Old PowerPC apps, drivers and plugins are a no-no, no Rosetta. Check Roaringapps.com
Put your system on an SSD.
Put your data on a non-array or if you must use a mirror only. Stripe is fine. Both should have 2-3 backups and extra redundancy instead of trying software based 1+0 with four drives.
Upgrade to new(er) drives. And format them with ML. Build or rebuild the arrays in ML.
Where is SL located compared to ML? same drive with different partition? or different disk drives?
10.8.5 is current and other than support for 3TB drives, you should not be using anything less than 10.8.3.

Where is System Pref to disable Quad Cores?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for