If you have downloaded El Capitan in the past it will be available to download again in the Mac App Store. Look in your downloaded apps section and it should be there. You may need to search your Mac for any previously downloaded installers on all of your drives as if the App Store detects it (through Spotlight) it will not download again. Either delete previous installers or pull the drives.
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.
2006/2007 Mac Pro (1,1/2,1) and macOS Sierra
- Thread starter Mr. Zarniwoop
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The trick would be finding such a CPU, and also having the firmware in said Mac Pro properly recognize and work with the CPU.
The CPUs are available - Harpertown Xeons all the way, they're LGA 771 and SSE4, straight swap.
The firmware, however is the real issue and this is not going to be solved, it's a dead end.
The firmware, however is the real issue and this is not going to be solved, it's a dead end.
The crazy part is that Apple abandoned these machines a very long time ago (10.7.5 was the latest supported OS for these machines). Yet Windows 10 Pro 64-BIT runs just fine on them.
El Capitan might be the last Mac OS that gets hacked into running on these machines. But they still have a future with Windows either way.
The best part about Apple's switch to Intel, is that when Apple abandons their machines, we have still have the ability to run the most dominant and powerful operating system available. It just means switching to Windows.
I do like using OS X. But I don't like it enough to buy a new computer to replace one that still exceeds my needs.
Why would I dump money on another Mac that'll be abandoned soon, when I have one right here that still does everything I need it too (even if it is with Apple wishing my machine would die).
I just found this thread and I would like to know if macOS Sierra will run on a 2006 2.0GHz quad core Mac Pro?
I really wish Apple would get their head out of their sphincter. It must really stink up there. The only reason they have a market at all is because Bill Gates was willing to invest in Apple when they were struggling. If they would just open up their OS, I bet a lot of MS users would end up buying a copy. I know I would. Fine. They want to keep their OS free for Mac users? Great. Sell the OS to unsupported machines.
The only way opening up their entire OS would help in this situation would be if you were going to find and replace every single instance of SSE4.1 code in Sierra with something the MacPro1,1/2,1 can handle, and that's assuming the translation works perfectly.
On the other hand, El Capitan works well on these machines and will still receive security upgrades for another 2 years, meaning a supported OS install for up to 13 years depending on when you bought your machine.
The amount of effort required doesn't stack with the benefits of leaving El Capitan for Sierra. In my opinion anyway.
A little bit of history. The 'investment' Microsoft made happened under the agreement that Apple would drop their lawsuit against MS. The lawsuit was about Windows, being a copy of MacOS. So MS didn't save Apple. Apple saved Microsoft.
While I quite disagree with your assertions about MS and what their minor investment in Apple represented, I don't see the need to get into it. However, suggesting that Apple sell or license their OS is pants-on-head ridiculous. If you wind you history just a couple years farther back from when Bill Gates was "saving" the company, you would see that Apple tried what you suggest, and it was an unmitigated disaster. In fact, I would say the only reason Apple has a market at all is because Jobs immediately killed the Mac clone program upon his return.
Think about what you are complaining about: the fact that an eleven year old computer can "only" run the second-most-recent operating system all these years later. Would you have been angry that your '91 Powerbook 100 or Mac Classic II couldn't run OS X in 2001? Things move on. I prefer my Mac OS to be as lean and optimized for new technology as possible, not full of legacy cruft to support ancient processors.
Yeah there was a time when, back 25 years ago, when we got a new CPU(Chip) the first OS that ran on it was maybe a +0.1 or +0.0.1 incremental update, and when you used the Machine it was like "Whoa! It's so much snappier and faster." But then when a few +0.1 or even a +1.0 update hit we felt like gees this is slow.
This was especially true during the 10.0-10.5 days (and the 7.x to 9.x days).
Now the CPU doesn't even really get improved too much as far as speed. It's truly all optimizations and updates to the OS that give you the, "Man this update is fast"
Because after you get over the CPU+SSD factors the system's performance is pretty standard especially the last 3-4 years.
But the last 3 years (besides bugs) the OS has become a WELCOME upgrade, especially because there are extra features with improvements, that DON'T slow the system down where we would think about rolling back.
The OS updates are just worth it now and faster and smooth (but don't forget a little buggy)...
And yet, I have the latest MS OS on an ages old PC without issue. Core 2 Duo. 4 gigs of ram. On a fading Lenovo PC. Easily older than my Mac Pro.
The cool think about having both platforms is that you can see the benefits from both sides.
The cool think about having both platforms is that you can see the benefits from both sides.
From what I understand, the suit was regarding Microsoft holding a monopoly over the PC industry. Which they certainly would have if they allowed Apple to go bankrupt as they were about to.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/microsofts...-apple-was-craziest-thing-we-ever-did-1525752
Seeing as we're seemingly at the end of the line with El Capitan on the Mac Pro 1,1, I've gotten rid of Mac OSX and replaced it with Debian Jessie 8.7. Runs really nicely - stable, secure and responsive. Hopefully will keep this old war horse going for a few more years!
Attachments
Seems premature as Apple hasn't dropped support for El Cap yet.
Nah not really. Might set up a dual boot at some stage, or keep El Cap on a secondary drive if I need it. Might as well move to something that's going to be supported long-term. New Debian release on the way as well so no time like the present!
With my hacked Mac Pro 2,1 with El Cap, is it ok to do these security updates? I left it at 10.11.6 the version I hacked it in with .
I did get this Mac Pro for free.. Why Should I install Leopard when El Cap runs great?
Lets see..Free Mac Pro 1,1, 12 gigs ram included.
Nvidia GTX 620 2 gig $25 from Craigs list.
Seagate 1 Tb for El Cap..$50 Best Buy..
Total cost.. $75
Anyway..I hope this Thread goes on.. It would be fun to see if Sierra could actually be doable.. If not.. I'm happy with El Cap after being stuck in Lion 10.7.5..
Mine :
MAC 1,1 > 2,1 ( Maverick 10,9,5 ) = 0 euros
64 Gigas Ram = 180 Euros
Ati 4870 1 gig = 100 Euros
3 Seagate SSHD 1 To + 575gig SSD MX 300 = 200 euros
Total = 480 euros
Well guys I finally broke down and bought a 2.8GHz 3,1... I think it's official, maybe I'm wrong, but I finally agree with the rest of you that El Capitan is probably the last of the line for our 1,1/2,1s. It's been a great ride and it still makes one killer 64-bit Windows 10 computer.
I'm not giving it up anytime soon but it now has a younger brother to keep it company... in fact it has an older brother now too, I bought a Late 2005 2.0GHz Dual Core Power Mac G5 last month to play with... so I'm getting a very big and heavy aluminum cheese grater collection lol
I'm not giving it up anytime soon but it now has a younger brother to keep it company... in fact it has an older brother now too, I bought a Late 2005 2.0GHz Dual Core Power Mac G5 last month to play with... so I'm getting a very big and heavy aluminum cheese grater collection lol
