MP 1,1-5,1 10.15 won't support MP5,1 anymore, support starts with MP6,1

[redheeler]

Well had the most recent Intel CPU sh!tshow not happened I think Apple very well would have supported it. I think that's the only model they dropped between Mojave and Catalina, and recent tradition is that they only drop Macs from the compatibility list every other year.

But I really kind of do see where they are coming from here. Intel is not issuing microcode updates to mitigate these latest vulnerabilities on ANY CPU that could be installed in a MacPro5,1. And I don't think it has been definitively stated that disabling hyperthreading fully inures those CPUs from the threat. Therefore, my hunch is that Apple wanted to send the signal that it's not safe to use these machines (at least, not connected to the internet) going forward.

I'm sad and bummed about it too, but I also sorta see where Apple is coming from here. My ire is really with Intel here, as they are making the choice to obsolete a ton of perfectly good silicon that has otherwise has plenty of usable life in it.

From a practical standpoint, dropping support isn't going to make this hardware any more secure. If anything, it'll do the exact opposite. And many of the reasons the 5,1s cannot be upgraded to something newer remain valid even on an older OS, as long as the only comparable hardware from Apple is $6,000+.

 

[tsialex]

Moved here: MP5,1: Catalina works, more or less…

 

[bookemdano]

From a practical standpoint, dropping support isn't going to make this hardware any more secure. If anything, it'll do the exact opposite. And many of the reasons the 5,1s cannot be upgraded to something newer remain valid even on an older OS, as long as the only comparable hardware from Apple is $6,000+.

Apple officially supporting it on a new OS release is de facto saying "we encourage you to use this model this year". While no doubt they know that people will continue to use MacPro5,1 no matter what they do, Apple does not want to be seen as sanctioning it by providing official support to a model with a permanently compromised CPU.

As for older OSes, Apple has provided yet another bootrom update so that HT can be disabled on the CPUs, for those customers who wish to continue to use them on 10.12-10.14. But that is a big compromise for some workflows.

It will likely be a cinch to bypass the hardware checks Apple puts in place though, so in reality running Catalina on a MacPro5,1 will be possible for just about anyone who wants to do so.

 

[tsialex]

Moved here: MP5,1: Catalina works, more or less…

 

[LightBulbFun]

View attachment 840555
It's slower than Mojave, a lot, but works with just -no_compat_check added to the boot-args of your Mac Pro, see below, when you install Catalina with a supported Mac.

Seems Apple removed support recently, everything that should work, works except the Network preference pane. NVIDIA native drivers are shitttier than usual.

sudo nvram boot-args="-no_compat_check"

[doublepost=1559609102][/doublepost]No audio, btw:

View attachment 840564

I have done very limited testing, but its strange that your GT 640 has no acceleration

I had acceleration on my MBP with its GT 650M graphics card which uses the same GK107 chip.

 

[tsialex]

I have done very limited testing, but its strange that your GT 640 has no acceleration

I had acceleration on my MBP with its GT 650M graphics card which uses the same GK107 chip.

It has acceleration, that's not the problem.

It's the artefacts, even Safari has black bars on the tab bar while previous macOS releases only Finder had it. ScreenCapture don't show it btw.

 

[Charmandrigo]

View attachment 840555
It's slower than Mojave, a lot, but works with just -no_compat_check added to the boot-args of your Mac Pro, see below, when you install Catalina with a supported Mac.

Seems Apple removed support recently, everything that should work, works except the Network preference pane [just found that audio and Wi-Fi don't work too].

NVIDIA native drivers are shitttier than usual, with black bars on Safari tab bar.

sudo nvram boot-args="-no_compat_check"

[doublepost=1559609102][/doublepost]No audio, btw:

View attachment 840564

Wow you're really fast O.O

 

[redheeler]

Apple officially supporting it on a new OS release is de facto saying "we encourage you to use this model this year". While no doubt they know that people will continue to use MacPro5,1 no matter what they do, Apple does not want to be seen as sanctioning it by providing official support to a model with a permanently compromised CPU.

As for older OSes, Apple has provided yet another bootrom update so that HT can be disabled on the CPUs, for those customers who wish to continue to use them on 10.12-10.14. But that is a big compromise for some workflows.

It will likely be a cinch to bypass the hardware checks Apple puts in place though, so in reality running Catalina on a MacPro5,1 will be possible for just about anyone who wants to do so.

Not giving the 5,1s Catalina will eventually make them less secure, not more secure. This is the conclusion I always come to when I think about this from a practical standpoint, instead of trying to speculate on Apple's motives.

Anyone running Mojave (or High Sierra, for that matter) is still getting security updates. So they have no reason to believe their system is insecure even though it is on an older OS version. There is really nothing to gain from dropping support, unless cutting down on Apple's testing / support costs is counted (and this brings no benefit to the consumer).

 

[startergo]

I feel this is the way to go now:

 

[mangombia]

I just can't see Apple going all out to try and hobble the cMPs from the new OS for the simple reason as ask yourself, "What is the profit in it for them?" If you think they're driven by the notion if the cMP is retarded in this way then all, most, or even many of these users will abandon them and rush out and by a nMP, you're mistaken. I think everyone on here and Apple knows that is just not going to happen.

Look at Apple's price point for the nMP as well as the comments on this forum and the Facebook group. People using cMPs are gagging, likely from envy because, they like me, see the righteousness and beauty in the engineering, design and functionality, but, they, and again, like me, just can't afford it. Suddenly making their cMP stuck in time OS wise won't make them, or me, suddenly able to afford a nMP. The nMP is not aimed at the mass market or even the enthusiast crowd, it is for the highest use production environment - scientists, video & audio production and photography where IT MUST WORK, and IT CAN NEVER GO DOWN are daily mantras. Those environments won't tolerate a piece of capital equipment (which is a Mac Pro) being held together with duct tape, rubber bands and baling wire subject to usability and reliability caveats and instability.

To date everybody (both the enthusiast and production crowds) have had to do with the cMP because it was much more versatile and equally or more powerful than the trashcan. It was a plus that the enthusiast crowd could get onboard at an affordable price point. But Apple is leaving them behind with the nMP and playing whack-a-mole with us on here to keep from enjoying Catalina (and then only somewhat, considering functionality that just won't work on older hardware) is not worth its time or effort because they won't convert an appreciable number to the nMP (although maybe a tricked out mini + eGPU & external storage). If people want to hack the system to get it to work and suffer the limitations in functionality as well as instability, Apple, as a company, is more likely than not, unconcerned.

 

[thomasthegps]

Apple has a history of requiring certain cpu instructions even though they probably don't benefit mac os in the slightest bit. Sierra required SSE4.1 then High Sierra required SSE4.2. I think we can see the trend there... For some reason in MOJAVE they decided to skip AVX. (Maybe to extend Mac Pro 5.1 support until it gets replaced? ).

Clearly there are no advantages in requiring AVX in Mac OS. I mean the dock doesn't need 256bit or 512 bit wide registers found with AVX cpus to function, neither do mail, calendar, finder or other basic mac apps. Moreover apps that can benefit from AVX are already built to detect CPU features and use AVX if it's available, so it's not like users are going to notice any difference in speed if mac os requires AVX to function, apps that benefit from it already use it when available. I'm afraid a very similar argument could be made to explain why SSE4.1 or SSE4.2 wasn't required.

Apple's strategy here is simply programmed obsolesce. To be frank I'm amazed that the first beta doesn't require AVX, it might be a good sign that they're holding off until next year, but it's still too early to tell.

One thing I think is interesting is that they've put the mac mini 5,2 in the list of unsupported macs but it has an AVX compatible CPU so thats just odd.

 

[redheeler]

One thing I think is interesting is that they've put the mac mini 5,2 in the list of unsupported macs but it has an AVX compatible CPU so thats just odd.

Apple's official reason for the Mac mini 5,2 (and other Macs dropped in MacOS Mojave) is that the GPU doesn't support Metal. It was discovered that OpenGL code still exists in Mojave and Apple could've kept supporting these Macs regardless.

For the Mac Pro 5,1 they simply haven't provided an official reason, none at all.

 

[thomasthegps]

Apple's official reason for the Mac mini 5,2 (and other Macs dropped in MacOS Mojave) is that the GPU doesn't support Metal. It was discovered that OpenGL code still exists in Mojave and Apple could've kept supporting these Macs regardless.

For the Mac Pro 5,1 they simply haven't provided an official reason, none at all.

Oh, I thought the HD3000 supported metal...

 

[tsialex]

One thing I think is interesting is that they've put the mac mini 5,2 in the list of unsupported macs but it has an AVX compatible CPU so thats just odd.

Both GPUs of MM5,2, HD 3000 and HD 6630M, don't have METAL support. HD 6xxx GPUs don't work with dosdude's Mojave patcher, like every 2011 Mac with ATI GPUs

 

[thomasthegps]

Both GPUs of MM5,2, HD 3000 and HD 6630M, don't have METAL support. HD 6xxx GPUs don't work with dosdude's Mojave patcher, like every 2011 Mac with ATI GPUs

Theoretically if apple requires AVX, could a custom XNU kernel with AVX emulation work ?

 

[startergo]

Both GPUs of MM5,2, HD 3000 and HD 6630M, don't have METAL support. HD 6xxx GPUs don't work with dosdude's Mojave patcher, like every 2011 Mac with ATI GPUs

Wow my MM3.1 with Nvidia got lucky with the Mojave patcher... Even the wifi.

 

[AidenShaw]

Intel is not issuing microcode updates to mitigate these latest vulnerabilities on ANY CPU that could be installed in a MacPro5,1.

The MP5,1 is ancient. I sent all of my servers of the vintage to eWaste years ago.

I'm getting ready to send all of my E5-x6xx v2 servers to eWaste this summer (MP6,1 vintage).

They're dead, Jim.

 

[startergo]

The MP5,1 is ancient. I sent all of my servers of the vintage to eWaste years ago.

I'm getting ready to send all of my E5-x6xx v2 servers to eWaste this summer (MP6,1 vintage).

They're dead, Jim.

View attachment 842724​

You seem pretty attached to it cause you can't let go...

 

[tsialex]

Theoretically if apple requires AVX, could a custom XNU kernel with AVX emulation work ?

Back in the 10.4.8 days, when Apple started to use SSE3, a emulator was released by Semthex to support it. It's possible and similar efforts were successful before, it's just not practical or fast.

Apple can start AVX support this year, all supported Macs have it now. I don't see the kernel requiring it yet, not every virtualisation solution perfected AVX support yet.

Maybe they can use AVX with graphic drivers, for example, like they did with SSE4.2 with AMD GCN drivers since High Sierra - killing MP3,1 and AMD GPUs since 10.13.

 

[AidenShaw]

I don't see the kernel requiring it yet, not every virtualisation solution perfected AVX support yet.

Not sure of the connection between AVX and virtualization here. The "V" in "AVX" is for "vector", not virtualization.

Like SSE, AVX is a vector performance enhancement.

 

[jonwatso]

Here's hoping that nothing changes! Is disappointing to see support dropped for a relatively powerful machine.

 

[tsialex]

Not sure of the connection between AVX and virtualization here. The "V" in "AVX" is for "vector", not virtualization.

Like SSE, AVX is a vector performance enhancement.

QEMU and VMWare use the minimum denominator as a Penryn CPU, thats my point with virtualisation. Catalina DP1 runs with both when in a VMM.
[doublepost=1560473023][/doublepost]

var cpuFeatures = system.sysctl( 'machdep.cpu.features' );
    cpuFeatures=cpuFeatures.split(" ");
    for( var i = 0; i < cpuFeatures.length; i++ ){
        if( cpuFeatures[i] == "VMM" ){
            return true;
        }
    }

 

[startergo]

QEMU and VMWare use the minimum denominator as a Penryn CPU, thats my point with virtualisation. Catalina DP1 runs with both when in a VMM.
[doublepost=1560473023][/doublepost]

var cpuFeatures = system.sysctl( 'machdep.cpu.features' );
    cpuFeatures=cpuFeatures.split(" ");
    for( var i = 0; i < cpuFeatures.length; i++ ){
        if( cpuFeatures[i] == "VMM" ){
            return true;
        }
    }

This puzzles me:
"A CPU with AVX2 support is required for macOS Mojave"
https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM
Why is it required for the KVM when it car run directly on a hardware without AVX like the cMP. The mightiest chip x5690 only supports SSE4.2
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...0-12m-cache-3-46-ghz-6-40-gt-s-intel-qpi.html

 

[tsialex]

This puzzles me:
"A CPU with AVX2 support is required for macOS Mojave"
https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM
Why is it required for the KVM when it car run directly on a hardware without AVX like the cMP. The mightiest chip x5690 only supports SSE4.2
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...0-12m-cache-3-46-ghz-6-40-gt-s-intel-qpi.html

Maybe it's the hypervisor that needs it, it's not Mojave. If you remove the Telemetry plugin, Mojave runs with real Penryn CPUs.

 

[startergo]

Maybe it's the hypervisor that needs it, it's not Mojave. If you remove the Telemetry plugin, Mojave runs with real Penryn CPUs.

Actually, this site says that the kholia method is wrong:
https://passthroughpo.st/an-open-letter-to-linus-tech-tips-and-a-psa/
in the "New and Improved Mac OS Tutorial, Part 1 (The Basics)"
https://passthroughpo.st/new-and-improved-mac-os-tutorial-part-1-the-basics/
they say that the only requirement is SSE4.2:

"Prerequisites for a basic OSX VM

• A CPU supporting SSE 4.2 (most modern ones do)
• 64gb+ free space for VM image
• working basic knowledge of linux"