No hatred. I just had better experiences with ATi in Macs than nVidia (Power Mac G3 onward).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Juice up a MacPro with video card(s) for Photoshop CS6?
- Thread starter whwang
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No hatred. I just had better experiences with ATi in Macs than nVidia (Power Mac G3 onward).
Drivers already there
I would like to point out something that is often forgotten or overlooked.
Sitting in a cafe in Brazil right now, someone is using a 13" MacBook, and in their System folder are the drivers for a GTX470. Apple choose to include those drivers in 10.7.3. There is a nun in Bangladesh writing up a list of evening prayers, and in her iMac are the drivers for a GTX460. Apple choose to include those drivers in EVERY SINGLE COPY of OSX 10.7. Sitting within a mile of me here in Hollywood CA are a few thousand Macs running 10.7.3. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has a driver for a Tesla 2050.
Did all of these upstarts "hack" these drivers into their machines? No, they downloaded them from Apple. The drivers for a vast array of fabulous video cards are included in each and every copy of OSX. MILLIONS of Macs running around with drivers for a GTX480.
And this has been the case for YEARS. People come here grousing about lousy GPU choices, yet their machine ALREADY has the drivers for the very cards they are lamenting about.
The way I looked at this when I started writing EFI's to run these cards was that SOMEONE LEFT THE DOOR OPEN FOR ME TO DO THIS. That in fact, SOMEONE WANTED ME TO DO THIS.
Seriously, every Mac running 10.7 has the drivers for a Quadro 5000. All that is missing is an EFI to say "Howdy, I'm a Quadro 5000, here is how to send EFI boot screens to my output ports". Once the hooks are handed from EFI to the OS, the OS finds the driver and loads it up.
My guess is that AMD/Nvidia or maybe someone at Apple has seen the rather paltry (some would say "pathetic" ) choice of GPUs and said. "Hey, you with a brain, write an EFI for any of these cards and they will work, we already wrote the driver and INCLUDED IT IN MILLIONS OF COPIES OF THE OS."
So, for those who like to stand quivering in the shadows afraid of anything not purchased from the Apple Store, unclench. When I write an EFI for a card, I am merely allowing cards to work that SOMEONE tested and wrote drivers for. I'm sure Nvidia wishes one of their partners would create a full line of Mac cards to take advantage of the fine drivers they wrote, submitted to Apple, and got included in EVERY COPY OF OSX.
So if Apple saw fit to include these drivers when I ran software update, why should we look at them as an accident, or something to be frightened of?
So all of these upstarts running "hacked" cards are merely using the drivers that are in EVERY SINGLE MAC RUNNING 10.7.
Last year AMD drivers began working even when no EFI handed hooks off to the the OS. The driver inited itself and the cards started working. Never before had this happened. Then just recently Nvidia joined the club. When you install their drivers for 10.7.3 many of their cards do just what the AMD cards do, they check their vendor id and device id against a list, match it up, and start the card working when the OS is loaded. The Nvidia solution is even more elegant then the AMD one. I see this as a sign that both companies got tired of waiting for someone to write EFIs for these cards. Probably also makes them much easier to test.
So, if Lord God Apple did not want these cards running in their machines, then why are they taking up space on their install disks, bandwidth on their servers, and space on EVERY SINGLE MAC HARD DRIVE ON THE PLANET with a complete set of drivers for all these cards?
I offer cards that enable people running DaVinci Resolve to speed up their rendering by nearly double. Should all of those busy (and expensive) post production people remove those speedy cards and instead install the "supported" 2009 era GTX285? They would then spend more time staring at their screen whilst a render takes twice as long just so they don't offend Tim Cook? Does this really sound like a rational solution? "Wait until Apple tells you it is OK"?
Should the OP use a "supported" card even if it means Photoshop stutters and stumbles when he works on large files?
Once more I would like to point out that the drivers for a GTX480 are ON YOUR MACHINE RIGHT NOW if you are running 10.7 or later. I didn't put them there, Apple did.
I would like to point out something that is often forgotten or overlooked.
Sitting in a cafe in Brazil right now, someone is using a 13" MacBook, and in their System folder are the drivers for a GTX470. Apple choose to include those drivers in 10.7.3. There is a nun in Bangladesh writing up a list of evening prayers, and in her iMac are the drivers for a GTX460. Apple choose to include those drivers in EVERY SINGLE COPY of OSX 10.7. Sitting within a mile of me here in Hollywood CA are a few thousand Macs running 10.7.3. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has a driver for a Tesla 2050.
Did all of these upstarts "hack" these drivers into their machines? No, they downloaded them from Apple. The drivers for a vast array of fabulous video cards are included in each and every copy of OSX. MILLIONS of Macs running around with drivers for a GTX480.
And this has been the case for YEARS. People come here grousing about lousy GPU choices, yet their machine ALREADY has the drivers for the very cards they are lamenting about.
The way I looked at this when I started writing EFI's to run these cards was that SOMEONE LEFT THE DOOR OPEN FOR ME TO DO THIS. That in fact, SOMEONE WANTED ME TO DO THIS.
Seriously, every Mac running 10.7 has the drivers for a Quadro 5000. All that is missing is an EFI to say "Howdy, I'm a Quadro 5000, here is how to send EFI boot screens to my output ports". Once the hooks are handed from EFI to the OS, the OS finds the driver and loads it up.
My guess is that AMD/Nvidia or maybe someone at Apple has seen the rather paltry (some would say "pathetic" ) choice of GPUs and said. "Hey, you with a brain, write an EFI for any of these cards and they will work, we already wrote the driver and INCLUDED IT IN MILLIONS OF COPIES OF THE OS."
So, for those who like to stand quivering in the shadows afraid of anything not purchased from the Apple Store, unclench. When I write an EFI for a card, I am merely allowing cards to work that SOMEONE tested and wrote drivers for. I'm sure Nvidia wishes one of their partners would create a full line of Mac cards to take advantage of the fine drivers they wrote, submitted to Apple, and got included in EVERY COPY OF OSX.
So if Apple saw fit to include these drivers when I ran software update, why should we look at them as an accident, or something to be frightened of?
So all of these upstarts running "hacked" cards are merely using the drivers that are in EVERY SINGLE MAC RUNNING 10.7.
Last year AMD drivers began working even when no EFI handed hooks off to the the OS. The driver inited itself and the cards started working. Never before had this happened. Then just recently Nvidia joined the club. When you install their drivers for 10.7.3 many of their cards do just what the AMD cards do, they check their vendor id and device id against a list, match it up, and start the card working when the OS is loaded. The Nvidia solution is even more elegant then the AMD one. I see this as a sign that both companies got tired of waiting for someone to write EFIs for these cards. Probably also makes them much easier to test.
So, if Lord God Apple did not want these cards running in their machines, then why are they taking up space on their install disks, bandwidth on their servers, and space on EVERY SINGLE MAC HARD DRIVE ON THE PLANET with a complete set of drivers for all these cards?
I offer cards that enable people running DaVinci Resolve to speed up their rendering by nearly double. Should all of those busy (and expensive) post production people remove those speedy cards and instead install the "supported" 2009 era GTX285? They would then spend more time staring at their screen whilst a render takes twice as long just so they don't offend Tim Cook? Does this really sound like a rational solution? "Wait until Apple tells you it is OK"?
Should the OP use a "supported" card even if it means Photoshop stutters and stumbles when he works on large files?
Once more I would like to point out that the drivers for a GTX480 are ON YOUR MACHINE RIGHT NOW if you are running 10.7 or later. I didn't put them there, Apple did.
So, basically, this access code/efi you mention has only two options: a. works b. doesn't work, and none in between? (Like in: recognize you, don't recognize you - there is no "recognize you somehow")
There can't be a "works most of the time"? Which is what one poster above fears, and which he decides non-Apple anointed cards are not for him.
I'm deciding between a MBP and MacPro (once they both come out), and I'm more and more for the MacPro (which will raise the question for a good video card for still and video editing).
PS: I read the horrible reviews on the Quadra 4000. Is it really, as one reviewer said, that you only had to download the most current drivers BEFORE you installed the card, and then it would work great (meaning: most users are too left-handed and it's their, not their card's fault). NOT that I would even drop so much money on a card, but it's interesting.
I never once ran into any problems like that with the Quadro 4000 in my rig. But, I've only been using it in my rig since Lion was released, meaning there were already nVidia drivers included. The only thing required to take advantage of the CUDA cores was (and still is) the CUDA driver package from nVidia.
jas
Not to get all on-topic but when working with large Photoshop files, one of the biggest speedups comes from disabling the file compression and using .psb format instead.
Your file size will go up significantly but no longer will you be as limited by CPU performance when opening or saving files.
Your file size will go up significantly but no longer will you be as limited by CPU performance when opening or saving files.
How bad is this disparity? According to Adobe specs PS6 should operate just fine on AMD. I thought Premier was still CUDA only but not PS CS6. The info on supported configurations is misleading and scant which bolsters my "supported configuration" fears.
FWIW, I've been using the CS6 beta on my 2011 iMac 21.5 with the HD 6770M and the only problems I've been having the nvidia folks have also been having, so I think the disparity between the AMD and Nvidia cards, while real at the very, very top end, are being overstated here.
I'm still on 10.6.8, yet have the latest drivers for CUDA from NVIDIA.
I used the CS6 Photoshop beta quite a bit with my 5870, and it was brilliant.
For the past week, I switched to my GTX 285 card to re-assess how Premiere and After Effects work. I remembered why I went back to the 5870 when After Effects crashed (complete system lockup) during a relatively simple render. Also, my second monitor sometimes "disappears" with the NVIDIA card, which is solved by turning it off and back on... but this never happens with the 5870 after years of use. However, I will say that Premiere seems somewhat happier with the NVIDIA card... but not so much that it overcomes the handicap in After Effects. I want to love NVIDIA as well, but so far, their Mac version of the GTX 285 has not impressed me at all. As I understand it, the Quadro 4000 is obscenely overpriced and delivers worse performance than the old GTX 285. It's no wonder that people might be skeptical of NVIDIA, given how things have played out.
I'm hoping for a couple things.
1) CS6 handles both ATI and NVIDIA better than ever.
2) Switching to Mountain Lion and a GTX 570 in CS6 proves to be as stable as using Snow Leopard and a 5870 in CS5.
I've been thrilled to see that the Mountain Lion developer version fixes some of the mistakes in Lion (my opinion) with regards to Spaces, Exposé and Mission Control, so I'd like to skip Lion altogether... yet if Lion works brilliantly with a GTX 570 in CS6, I will probably go that route. I just hope I don't get the same unimpressive results as I have seen so far. Based on what I'm reading here, it appears things are much different and much improved with NVIDIA. That's encouraging for sure!
I used the CS6 Photoshop beta quite a bit with my 5870, and it was brilliant.
For the past week, I switched to my GTX 285 card to re-assess how Premiere and After Effects work. I remembered why I went back to the 5870 when After Effects crashed (complete system lockup) during a relatively simple render. Also, my second monitor sometimes "disappears" with the NVIDIA card, which is solved by turning it off and back on... but this never happens with the 5870 after years of use. However, I will say that Premiere seems somewhat happier with the NVIDIA card... but not so much that it overcomes the handicap in After Effects. I want to love NVIDIA as well, but so far, their Mac version of the GTX 285 has not impressed me at all. As I understand it, the Quadro 4000 is obscenely overpriced and delivers worse performance than the old GTX 285. It's no wonder that people might be skeptical of NVIDIA, given how things have played out.
I'm hoping for a couple things.
1) CS6 handles both ATI and NVIDIA better than ever.
2) Switching to Mountain Lion and a GTX 570 in CS6 proves to be as stable as using Snow Leopard and a 5870 in CS5.
I've been thrilled to see that the Mountain Lion developer version fixes some of the mistakes in Lion (my opinion) with regards to Spaces, Exposé and Mission Control, so I'd like to skip Lion altogether... yet if Lion works brilliantly with a GTX 570 in CS6, I will probably go that route. I just hope I don't get the same unimpressive results as I have seen so far. Based on what I'm reading here, it appears things are much different and much improved with NVIDIA. That's encouraging for sure!
Addressing the original question it's really hard for one user to compare their workflow and subject matter with another user but here is what I've found;
I'm just beginning to work in PS CS6 on a Lion MP 5,1 3.2GHz quad with 24GB RAM, an HD 5870 GPU and WD RE4 HDs. I've been fiddling with two to 12 frame panos taken by either an EOS 10D, 1DM2n or 5D.
While those cameras don't rate anymore in the MP race their panos can be pretty big. Cropping, rotating, Puppet Warp and Content Aware operations go sufficiently fast. When I slide a pano at 100% back and forth across the screen to do detail work the action is very smooth.
So far I'm really impressed with PS CS6. I've used CS5 since it was released as an upgrade to CS4 and CS6 really moves along well.
I'm just beginning to work in PS CS6 on a Lion MP 5,1 3.2GHz quad with 24GB RAM, an HD 5870 GPU and WD RE4 HDs. I've been fiddling with two to 12 frame panos taken by either an EOS 10D, 1DM2n or 5D.
While those cameras don't rate anymore in the MP race their panos can be pretty big. Cropping, rotating, Puppet Warp and Content Aware operations go sufficiently fast. When I slide a pano at 100% back and forth across the screen to do detail work the action is very smooth.
So far I'm really impressed with PS CS6. I've used CS5 since it was released as an upgrade to CS4 and CS6 really moves along well.
Given the low price of RAM, I am also thinking about increasing the RAM of my Mac Pro to 48GB. Even 96 GB is within my budget. So here is the question, additional to having more RAM than I actually need, is there any real penalty on having too much RAM? For example, will having too much RAM decrease the performance?
At this moment, I already have a few photoshop files whose size are in the 2-4 GB range. And I am thinking about creating even larger images. So there is strong motivation to have 48GB of RAM. And if having 96 GB will not decrease the system performance, I am happy to add this much even if my current work does not really require it.
At this moment, I already have a few photoshop files whose size are in the 2-4 GB range. And I am thinking about creating even larger images. So there is strong motivation to have 48GB of RAM. And if having 96 GB will not decrease the system performance, I am happy to add this much even if my current work does not really require it.
I don't think the concern is that it can be done. I think the concern is that Apple/NVidia could close the door, and then shrug their shoulders when users complain.
Impossible to lose EFI support. They would have to release new EFI Bootroms for all of the Mac Pros to exclude these cards.
The EFI is not going to change.
So, no matter what happens to OSX, the cards I write EFI for will continue to show boot screens and get their info handed to the OS.
The GTX4xx support has been there since November of 2010. It was available from Nvidia as an add in for 10.6, and has been part of 10.7 from the get go.
While it is possible that OS support could be killed, as it just was with 10.7.4 for the GTX5xx cards, there is little reason to do so. And in fact, EVERY SINGLE RELEASE of 10.8 has had full support for all of these cards.
In fact, GTX5xx support is built into every OS release since 10.7, it is just not turned on by default. Changing one byte in a driver kext turns it on, changing a few more bytes in GLDriver bundle turns on OpenCl.
Once again, we have Apple building in a feature, leaving it turned off, then turning it on in a future update and acting as if they have given us something special.
I will always remember my Powerbook 2400C. I bought it a few weeks before G3s were announced. It had a card slot, but USB and Firewire cards inserted in it did not work, or worked poorly. Turns out Apple had added a jumper wire to kill the ability to run these cards. They wanted G3 Powerbooks to be the ones with USB....not the 68xxx ones. Literally all you had to do was open the case and snip a wire. Think about it, the Ti controller for the PCMCIA card slot supported the Cardbus standard, Apple added a manufacturing step to turn it back OFF. Not very nice.
So the support for GTX5xx cards came out last summer, but Apple has been keeping it behind a curtain. It is implemented in all DPs of 10.8, so I feel pretty certain it isn't going anywhere. And with the way they are flying out the door, I can tell you that LOTS of people want/need a GTX570 with 2.5 GB. It is perfect for CS6 and BMD's Resolve. Using them has greatly altered what is possible with these Apps. I received a "Thank You" email from BMD for helping keep their app relevant in Mac Pros.
Wha? You just followed an example of them discontinuing support by saying they would never discontinue support.
What happened with the GTX5XX cards is EXACTLY what people worry about.
They need to find better things to worry about. i Had a fix out in a couple hours, Nvidia had a better one in 24.
I have had GTX470 and GTX480 available for a year now. Dozens of post production houses all over the world use them and support has never wavered or stopped in OSX. Nobody has had to go back to a GTX285 when an OS update caused problems. You are trying to frighten people with an imaginary "what if" bad guy.
Not sure why you want to create an alarmist hysteria. What's the point? At no time since Fall of 2011 has there not been a way to have GTX5xx cards work with a little tweak to OS.
If alarmist hysteria is your thing, plenty of "Mac Pro is Dead" threads to go whip up.
Every issue I've read about boiled down to exactly that -- people simply did not read the instructions and install the driver package before plugging the card in. SnowLeopard didn't have support for the Quadro 4000 and so in order to get acceleration you had to install the driver. Since the card has an EFI on it, you'd get a boot screen and the desktop would show up, but it was completely unaccelerated. I guess Mac folks just aren't as used to having to install drivers, since the vast majority of them just come with the OS itself.
Yes, with OS X you get more of the "just works, no servicing required" approach many may just think of a car when they hear "driver"
Ok, well I read the first few posts, then skipped to the end when all the 'bitching' started.
So any chance someone could point me in the direction of what card would be a good improvement for CS6 for my ageing system
2008 8 core Mac Pro 3.1
10.6.8. Tried 10.7 and mavericks.. But gone back to 10.6.8
18 gig RAM
Boot drive is Crucial SSD
SCRATCH is on Caviar Green 1TB along with Home folders
Originally 2x ATI HD 2600 XT's
Just replaced one with a free PC ATI 1Gb HD 4870, that I re flashed with Mac EFI
What / where would money best be spent?
PCIe to SATA SSD card for scratch disk?
More RAM?
Better graphics card.
OK nice to do all or upgrade machine, but that is not an option. Can only afford stepped upgrade. So from above list, what best? Or other suggestions?
So any chance someone could point me in the direction of what card would be a good improvement for CS6 for my ageing system
2008 8 core Mac Pro 3.1
10.6.8. Tried 10.7 and mavericks.. But gone back to 10.6.8
18 gig RAM
Boot drive is Crucial SSD
SCRATCH is on Caviar Green 1TB along with Home folders
Originally 2x ATI HD 2600 XT's
Just replaced one with a free PC ATI 1Gb HD 4870, that I re flashed with Mac EFI
What / where would money best be spent?
PCIe to SATA SSD card for scratch disk?
More RAM?
Better graphics card.
OK nice to do all or upgrade machine, but that is not an option. Can only afford stepped upgrade. So from above list, what best? Or other suggestions?
Ok, well I read the first few posts, then skipped to the end when all the 'bitching' started.
So any chance someone could point me in the direction of what card would be a good improvement for CS6 for my ageing system
2008 8 core Mac Pro 3.1
10.6.8. Tried 10.7 and mavericks.. But gone back to 10.6.8
18 gig RAM
Boot drive is Crucial SSD
SCRATCH is on Caviar Green 1TB along with Home folders
Originally 2x ATI HD 2600 XT's
Just replaced one with a free PC ATI 1Gb HD 4870, that I re flashed with Mac EFI
What / where would money best be spent?
PCIe to SATA SSD card for scratch disk?
More RAM?
Better graphics card.
OK nice to do all or upgrade machine, but that is not an option. Can only afford stepped upgrade. So from above list, what best? Or other suggestions?
probably nothing really you can upgrade to which is going to change your cs6 experience.. seems like you have a nice computer there already.
more likely workflow upgrades would be more beneficial (i.e. force ingrain 10 keystrokes this month).. assuming you're not ✨wizard status# already..
No definetlly not wizard status.
I probably should have stated my main use of PS.
I do most if my work in Lightroom, only occasionally, ( once in 10 or so images) going in to PS for a bit if masking, Topaz Adjust/ DeNoise/Ckarify etc. Not usually more than 5-6 layers deep, on full res Canon Raw 5760x3840 images.
Occasional 100's of layer deep images to use theAuto align layers, and export Layers as files script when creating short timelapse sequences, where unintentional camera movement has occured. But this, I can set in motion, walk off to make a coffee and come back to.
The main issue I would like to speed up is refreshing of screen pixels when zooming in/out in both LR & PS.
Also when in Lightroom and scrolling along lower 'film strip', the speed the image loads and 'clarifies / sharpens' on the full screen image.
This machine is 'for keeps ' for at least the next 3-4 years. No longer in financial situation to buy another Mac Pro, but little $4-500 upgrades once in a while I can manage.
I probably should have stated my main use of PS.
I do most if my work in Lightroom, only occasionally, ( once in 10 or so images) going in to PS for a bit if masking, Topaz Adjust/ DeNoise/Ckarify etc. Not usually more than 5-6 layers deep, on full res Canon Raw 5760x3840 images.
Occasional 100's of layer deep images to use theAuto align layers, and export Layers as files script when creating short timelapse sequences, where unintentional camera movement has occured. But this, I can set in motion, walk off to make a coffee and come back to.
The main issue I would like to speed up is refreshing of screen pixels when zooming in/out in both LR & PS.
Also when in Lightroom and scrolling along lower 'film strip', the speed the image loads and 'clarifies / sharpens' on the full screen image.
This machine is 'for keeps ' for at least the next 3-4 years. No longer in financial situation to buy another Mac Pro, but little $4-500 upgrades once in a while I can manage.
If there are LR and PS forums check there for "common" video cards. See if more AMD are used than Nvidia. Read if/how CUDA is used in LR & PS and how AMD will be used now that Apple is going that way.
Yes, I could have made my already rambling post even longer mentioning other places I had already searched, but as with any post it is always a balancing act between making post detailed enough to get an answer..and not so long that the point or question gets lost in the post.
There seemed to be a good discussion going here with people who seemed knowledgable about PS CS6 which is what I have and since there were implications here that some of the cards being used were not strictly Mac approved, and may require flashing, I though i may get a good response with thoughts similar to my own..regarding flashing, the use of 'non approved' cards etc.
I have an oldish machine, so even happy to put some older but still improved hardware over my 2600's...I'll take the cast offs as others upgrade to the latest and greatest. Already have a few saved searches in e-bay for used candidates, just trying to broaden my search really..greater chance of a hit
There seemed to be a good discussion going here with people who seemed knowledgable about PS CS6 which is what I have and since there were implications here that some of the cards being used were not strictly Mac approved, and may require flashing, I though i may get a good response with thoughts similar to my own..regarding flashing, the use of 'non approved' cards etc.
I have an oldish machine, so even happy to put some older but still improved hardware over my 2600's...I'll take the cast offs as others upgrade to the latest and greatest. Already have a few saved searches in e-bay for used candidates, just trying to broaden my search really..greater chance of a hit
Ok, well I read the first few posts, then skipped to the end when all the 'bitching' started.
So any chance someone could point me in the direction of what card would be a good improvement for CS6 for my ageing system
2008 8 core Mac Pro 3.1
10.6.8. Tried 10.7 and mavericks.. But gone back to 10.6.8
18 gig RAM
Boot drive is Crucial SSD
SCRATCH is on Caviar Green 1TB along with Home folders
Originally 2x ATI HD 2600 XT's
Just replaced one with a free PC ATI 1Gb HD 4870, that I re flashed with Mac EFI
What / where would money best be spent?
PCIe to SATA SSD card for scratch disk?
More RAM?
Better graphics card.
OK nice to do all or upgrade machine, but that is not an option. Can only afford stepped upgrade. So from above list, what best? Or other suggestions?
Probably best to upgrade the graphics card. I had a 12g ram and upgraded it to 24g ram, with Photoshop the speed difference was minimal . The advantage of more ram is you have more reserve ram for your other apps that are running. Normally I check the activity monitor.
Yes, that was my initial though..RAM..as I had totally overlooked the graphics card. I thought I ordered good cards when buying the machine but it appears not.
So I have checked the Activity monitor, most I have seen with multiple layers was about 12 gig used in Activity monitor..
So GPU ..was my next thought...then someone else mentioned speed bottle neck caused by read / write speeds to the HDD, scratch disk access etc and that then had people pointing in the direction of a PCIe to sata SSD HDD card adapter..so ..now totally confused
Hence my post here ...trying to gauge opinion from various sources / forums
Thanks for the input
So I have checked the Activity monitor, most I have seen with multiple layers was about 12 gig used in Activity monitor..
So GPU ..was my next thought...then someone else mentioned speed bottle neck caused by read / write speeds to the HDD, scratch disk access etc and that then had people pointing in the direction of a PCIe to sata SSD HDD card adapter..so ..now totally confused
Hence my post here ...trying to gauge opinion from various sources / forums
Thanks for the input