(NEWS) Mountain Lion Mac Pro 1,1

[emmab2006]

Hiya all , i sent an email to apple last week ( to tim cook specifically ) , this is the mail i sent ,

Dear Tim

After being a long time user of Apple Products and spending lots of money recently on a Mac Pro 2006 , which is the original Mac Pro with 32bit EFI , i am Shocked to learn that Mountain Lion is not supported , Yet Some 32bit Mac laptops are Supported.

I realise the Mountain Lion Support is down to Graphics Kexts not being 32BIT But having upgraded the graphics to an Nvidia 8800GT 512MB , Which is more than capable of running Mountain Lion's Graphical Engine ,

I Would appreciate a reply about this as i have been a loyal supporter of Apple for years , would it be possible for a brief explanation as to why you excluded this Clearly Capable machine from Running Mountain Lion ?

Thank you Tim

Thanks for your time

Regards

Emma Kate Bentley


, well i got a reply from apple a day or 2 later , and they Rang me today to discuss the issue of mountain Lion on the 1,1 mac Pro , they have spoke to there engineer's and said there is '' NO REASON '' why the mac pro 1,1 is not supported , and that this information and email will be forwarded onto head office , and that hopefully the 1,1 will be added to the support list because of a number of complaints over it being totally compatible , They said they want this to be resolved and will contact me with all correspondence about this ,

Anyway ,

Wanted you to know this ! and will keep you all updated !

Emma x

 

[MacinJosh]

Thanks for posting this Emma. I too had written Tim months earlier but have received no response. It is rather silly that my late 2008 MB is supported even though it's inferior in every way to my MP 1,1 despite being newer.

Hopefully Apple will fix it but I'm very doubtful. I knew from day one that Apple's reasons for dropping MP 1.1 support in ML are completely arbitrary which is in line with what the engineer you mentioned had said. Seeing that the GM version of ML is out, it is highly unlikely that Apple would revise it and add MP 1,1 support. They would've done it already if they planned to as this has been cried over for months already. But do keep us posted! Thanks.

Josh.

 

[ReallyRedCobra]

Thats promising news. But wouldnt they need to re-package the GM build now? I guess they have 2 weeks and thats the great thing about having it on the app store. Lets hope this happens.

 

[Cindori]

It sounds like you got to speak to someone that dont know what they are talking about. Some Genius person or whatever, without insight. It's not like the Mac Pro 1.1 / 2.1 exclusion is some kind of mistake / oversight, it's a very clear, precise and deliberate action by Apple.

They have also recieved most of the bad PR for it already. They dont really have anything to lose by just going through with it now.

 

[goMac]

It sounds like you got to speak to someone that dont know what they are talking about. Some Genius person or whatever, without insight. It's not like the Mac Pro 1.1 / 2.1 exclusion is some kind of mistake / oversight, it's a very clear, precise and deliberate action by Apple.

They have also recieved most of the bad PR for it already. They dont really have anything to lose by just going through with it now.

they have spoke to there engineer's and said there is '' NO REASON '' why the mac pro 1,1 is not supported , and that this information and email will be forwarded onto head office

Engineering and marketing are very different departments. I'd assume one is responsible for the 1,1 being dropped and the other isn't.

That said, I still don't see much changing, assuming above letter is legit.

 

[emmab2006]

Assuming above letter is legit ? it amazes me the fact people are so self centred they dont believe anything on here ,

Here are screenshots from my Machine

Emma x

 

[dermeister]

Thanks for your efforts, Emma. I hope Apple decides to put a bit of effort into reversing the mp1,1 kill in ML.

 

[rgomez]

Assuming above letter is legit ? it amazes me the fact people are so self centred they dont believe anything on here ,

Here are screenshots from my Machine

Emma x

Hello Emma,

I don't think the issue is that people doesn't believe you got that answer, but that the person who was in charge of it didn't really know what was going on.

As some other said, the reason for not supporting the MP 1,1 is more marketing (programmed obsolescence) that technologically-related. If I understand correctly, none of the officially supported MP 1,1 graphics cards have 64 bit KEXTs (even if they are capable, for instance, the 8800). The question is what happens for instance with "newer" video cards that work with the MP1,1 like the Radeon 5770. I have that card installed in my MP 1,1, it works flawlessly (at least so far) and it's one of the "current" cards for the Mac Pro, so it should be supported with Mountain Lion without problems.

I guess we shall see in some weeks. I have a MBP from mid2010 so I will upgrade it to Mountain Lion, and will try also the Mac Pro...

 

[rshanahan]

This would be great, am holding out to go to ML for a little bit. I prefer spending 250 on a 5770 video card than 3000 for a new machine!! My MP is the only machine that won't run ML, and I prefer to have everything on the same o/s.

 

[Darth.Titan]

I realise the Mountain Lion Support is down to Graphics Kexts not being 32BIT But having upgraded the graphics to an Nvidia 8800GT 512MB , Which is more than capable of running Mountain Lion's Graphical Engine

Unfortunately graphics drivers are just a minor problem with Mountain Lion on the Mac Pro 1,1. The major problem is that The first gen pro only has 32 bit EFI. Without 64 bit EFI, the older Mac Pros cannot boot a 64 bit kernel without hacks. Mountain Lion does not include a 32 bit kernel, so machines with 32 bit EFI cannot run it without something like the Chameleon boot loader hack. (Basically turning your Mac into a Hackintosh)

The only possible fix would be a firmware update to bring the EFI up to date, but from what I hear the soldered on EFI chip on the Mac Pro 1,1 is physically too small to contain the 64 bit EFI instructions.

I'll be interested in any updates on this that might be forthcoming, but I'd advise you not to get your hopes up.

 

[Flood123]

Keeping my fingers crossed

I have no doubt as to the legitimacy of this email, however I hope that this individual is 100% on point with the information she provided you. This would be truly fantastic news.
If she doesn't know what she is talking about and floating this kind of information to the public it might be incentive for apple to actually act on it to make sure that customers are not mislead yet again. Let's hope it's accurate so we are not subjected to further disappointment.

 

[Mr-Stabby]

Thanks for sharing that email. Looks interesting.

I think another big mistake (perhaps even bigger) was not including the 2008 XServe in the supported Macs list. It's most likely because of the graphics card too, but who the hell cares about graphics on an XServe, most of the time you don't even use the screen!

 

[MacVidCards]

I wouldn't wait by my cable modem.

The engineers are right, there is "no reason" from an engineering standpoint, I'm quite certain an EFI64 file exists for 1,1 and 2,1, it has just never been released. Without a 64bit boot rom for those machines, the ML kernel is hieroglyphics. They knew all of this quite well when ML was being written.

You have a classic example of one hand not knowing what other is up to.

On the other hand it is hard to imagine that a team of engineers, nobody bothered to TRY to install it.

The marketing department are in the charge of the "reason".

 

[emmab2006]

I wouldn't wait by my cable modem.

The engineers are right, there is "no reason" from an engineering standpoint, I'm quite certain an EFI64 file exists for 1,1 and 2,1, it has just never been released. Without a 64bit boot rom for those machines, the ML kernel is hieroglyphics. They knew all of this quite well when ML was being written.

You have a classic example of one hand not knowing what other is up to.

On the other hand it is hard to imagine that a team of engineers, nobody bothered to TRY to install it.

The marketing department are in the charge of the "reason".

Indeed , someone would have tested it , and im sure that a 64BIT EFI exists , its just to apple to release it , while mountain lion isn't that important to me , i just feel it is a bit of an insult by apple to mac pro customers like my self who have spent a lot of money on these machines ,

 

[stmp]

See Cindori's post above for the correct response, that dude speaks only truth.

Maybe start a Facebook Page advocating ML on Mac Pro 1,1, similar to this one:
http://www.facebook.com/MacProsPlease

Doubtful there are enough Mac Pro 1,1 owners out there to make an effective fuss, but perhaps we could get Apple to officially support this lovely workaround:

http://www.j4mie.co.uk/blog/how-to-install-mountain-lion-on-macpro11/

(I know that link is all over Mac Rumors already, but seemed worth mentioning again.)

 

[cybercypher]

I've created a petition at change.org:

http://www.change.org/petitions/apple-inc-support-older-apple-hardware-on-osx-mountain-lion


It definitely needs better wording, and I would appreciate the help. Maybe if we can get them to see there is strong demand for support of some of these machines, Apple will decide to not drop support or add support at at later date.

See Cindori's post above for the correct response, that dude speaks only truth.

Maybe start a Facebook Page advocating ML on Mac Pro 1,1, similar to this one:
http://www.facebook.com/MacProsPlease

Doubtful there are enough Mac Pro 1,1 owners out there to make an effective fuss, but perhaps we could get Apple to officially support this lovely workaround:

http://www.j4mie.co.uk/blog/how-to-install-mountain-lion-on-macpro11/

(I know that link is all over Mac Rumors already, but seemed worth mentioning again.)

 

[TacticalDesire]

If the Apple employee you spoke to is in fact correct, this is fantastic news. But somehow, I don't think this issue was accidental or an oversight. It looks deliberate.

 

[Schismz]

Apple could do whatever they want, I'm sure that from an engineering perspective it's far from impossible to release a ML that works with MacPro 1,1.

The thing is, from a marketing and corporate perspective, nobody cares. You have a 6 year old computer, we don't support it anymore, it cost a lot a money, oh well, deal with it. Presumably you've gotten your money's worth out of it.

Apple tends to support any new piece of hardware for 3 years in a very solid manner. 3-5 years in a halfway, kinda, sorta, we'll prioritize drivers at the very end of the food chain, way. 6+ years, and whatever you've got mounted on it that's working for you, will continue to run, but no new candy.

Engineers understand how hardware and software works, they think in logical and reasonable terms. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with marketing, making money, or how the world actually works (in terms of selling new products, increasing shareholder value, or anything actually). The world is not a logical or reasonable place.

The single exception to all of this seems likely to be the 2009 MacPro. You can upgrade the firmware to 5,1, and you've got a 3 year old machine, that is *exactly the same* as the "brand new!" 2012 MacPro.

2009/2010 will quite likely turn out to be the longest-lived Mac Pros in history. Presupposing you've got at least a Radeon 5770 going, you then have a 3 year old machine, which is identical to the Mac Pro that Apple will continue selling up until "late in 2013" -- or more like early-mid 2014, if they truly are waiting on Intel to release Ivy Bridge Xeons, based on Intel's performance/actual release cycles with the last 2 Xeon updates -- when they finally drop a redesigned new Mac Pro (or just announce that they're discontinuing it altogether in an official manner). That makes 5 years of your computer, being the current model. 8 years of first-class support, and over a decade of continued support before Apple makes it no longer work with the current version of iOS/X.

This is a strange combination of sad, funny and just surreal.

MacPro5,1 Eternal.

 

[emmab2006]

well i guess we will just have to see , i have signed the petition and hopefuly it will do something although i doubt it ,

 

[minifridge1138]

I have to admit that I'm very curious to see what comes of this.

I see 3 possible outcomes:

1) Apple decides/determines to keep things the way they are. No Mountain Lion for the 2006 MP. It could be for technical or marketing or sales reasons.
2) Apple decides to release a version of Mountain Lion that will work with a 32 bit kernel.
3) Apple decides to release a firmware update for the 2006 MP so that it has 64 bit EFI.

I don't see (2) happening because it would be a step backwards for Mountain Lion.
I'd really like to see (3) happen, but I'm afraid of (1).

Good luck!!

 

[MacVidCards]

Not gonna happen

And the REAL insult, is that FIRST they proved that it COULD work. The DP1 of ML had 32 bit kernel and drivers. Literally all it took was editing 2 bytes and the whole thing would install and work on a 1,1. (as long as you had updated GPU at some point in last 5 years)

So they made it quite clear that they COULD make it work if they wanted. Then they removed all 32 bit support. This is really the ultimate tease.

It is almost like a challenge to the hackers of the world. A very good team could take that kernel from DP1 and mod it and GM to work together. Thus creating a GM that would install and work in ALL Intel Macs.

Problem being every point update would cause much handwringing and upheaval, much like it does in Hackintosh world.

Waiting for Apple to feel bad about abandoning their 6 year old 1,1 crowd (and doing something about it) is the same as waiting for our old friend, Godot.

They wrote ML originally for ALL Macs with Intel. Then someone made an executive decision to orphan anything not running a 64bit kernel. The 32bit EFI machines have been knocked from the nest. There is no reason WHATSOEVER to expect Apple to nuzzle them back in with a 32bit kernel.

The only real and permanent fix is a 64bit EFI bootrom. I imagine that APple has one for just about every soon-to-be-orphaned 32 bit Mac. They just have no earthly reason to release it. (aside from lost sales, they would open up a support nightmare)

It is possible that 3rd party could develop an EFI bootrom for 1,1 based on 3,1 code. It has been started but never finished. It would take considerable time and effort to write and perfect and with the prevailing view of IP based on existing code, there is little incentive to finish it. Resources better spent working on existing machines and challenges.

I had plans to produce this from my team and made some purchases and started the process, but realized that there would be no recouping of the investment due to the "warez" crowd declaring it free for all and offering a download link. ("I didn't pirate this, i got it from a guy who did") And if there is no chance of breaking even on this Hurculean task, why start?

In short, it is time to move on. Many people run SL even today, there are a few good years left in the old 1,1 and 2,1. Who knows, maybe Godot will show up with a miracle !

But it won't be Apple.

 

[jeanlain]

Would they really need to put back the 32-bit kernel or to release a 64-bit EFI for the old Mac Pros? Chameleon can boot the 64-bit kernels on those Macs. I'm sure Apple could provide a similar solution (if they wanted to), even though it may not be as elegant as EFI flashing.

 

[netkas]

Correction, 32-bit efi actualy can boot 64-bit kernel, technicaly.

Hell, even 32-bit chameleon can boot 64-bit kernel, in this case kernel starts in 32-bit mode and switches to 64-bit mode on its own, when first beta of snow leopard was released, i wrote a support for chameleon for booting 64-bit kernel in a day!

So, technicaly, 32-bit efi macs just need another bootloaders instead of boot.efi...

 

[goMac]

Would they really need to put back the 32-bit kernel or to release a 64-bit EFI for the old Mac Pros? Chameleon can boot the 64-bit kernels on those Macs. I'm sure Apple could provide a similar solution (if they wanted to), even though it may not be as elegant as EFI flashing.

You don't need to EFI flash. EFI supports plugins. They'd have to add an EFI plugin to ML for older machines that simulated an EFI64 boot.

 

[emmab2006]

And the REAL insult, is that FIRST they proved that it COULD work. The DP1 of ML had 32 bit kernel and drivers. Literally all it took was editing 2 bytes and the whole thing would install and work on a 1,1. (as long as you had updated GPU at some point in last 5 years)

So they made it quite clear that they COULD make it work if they wanted. Then they removed all 32 bit support. This is really the ultimate tease.

It is almost like a challenge to the hackers of the world. A very good team could take that kernel from DP1 and mod it and GM to work together. Thus creating a GM that would install and work in ALL Intel Macs.

Problem being every point update would cause much handwringing and upheaval, much like it does in Hackintosh world.

Waiting for Apple to feel bad about abandoning their 6 year old 1,1 crowd (and doing something about it) is the same as waiting for our old friend, Godot.

They wrote ML originally for ALL Macs with Intel. Then someone made an executive decision to orphan anything not running a 64bit kernel. The 32bit EFI machines have been knocked from the nest. There is no reason WHATSOEVER to expect Apple to nuzzle them back in with a 32bit kernel.

The only real and permanent fix is a 64bit EFI bootrom. I imagine that APple has one for just about every soon-to-be-orphaned 32 bit Mac. They just have no earthly reason to release it. (aside from lost sales, they would open up a support nightmare)

It is possible that 3rd party could develop an EFI bootrom for 1,1 based on 3,1 code. It has been started but never finished. It would take considerable time and effort to write and perfect and with the prevailing view of IP based on existing code, there is little incentive to finish it. Resources better spent working on existing machines and challenges.

I had plans to produce this from my team and made some purchases and started the process, but realized that there would be no recouping of the investment due to the "warez" crowd declaring it free for all and offering a download link. ("I didn't pirate this, i got it from a guy who did") And if there is no chance of breaking even on this Hurculean task, why start?

In short, it is time to move on. Many people run SL even today, there are a few good years left in the old 1,1 and 2,1. Who knows, maybe Godot will show up with a miracle !

But it won't be Apple.

Well said , hit the nail on the head there sir ! , And i agree developing a 64bit EFI is the way forward , but as you state due to the '' warez '' crowd declaring it free '' it would be extremely difficult for people to make money on such a mod , the ONLY way this can be resolved by apple them selves , and i still highly doubt that they will do it , we just have to wait , the only other way i have thought about is to raise some publicity for this against apple , and hope they change there minds , like Contacting Engadget , and Gizmodo , etc , to put something on main sites ..... heh we just have to hope :-( , but for now ! , my MP 1,1 Is still a screamer as the steve would put it