Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

(NEWS) Mountain Lion Mac Pro 1,1

emmab2006 said:
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 :p
Click to expand...

This is an interesting crusade, but it will get you nowhere. You might as well use that energy to make money to upgrade to a newer Mac. Do you really need Mountain Lion that badly?
 
I Dont need Mountain lion at all really , i just wanted to raise awareness of this problem for people out there who are not supported , people like my self who cant afford to pay for the newest Apple Machines , and rely on slightly older machines , its taken me years to get this Mac Pro 1,1 and i do not intend to sell it as it is a perfectly capable machine , i do not work due to Illness so i'm not able to spend great amounts on a Computer ,
 
This whole thing makes sense from a marketing perspective, but given that the 1,1 was the only Mac Pro available for almost 3 years, and the majority of those are still running like a champ today, this will affect a great many people. And don't give me any of that "why do you need ML?" mumbo jumbo. That's hardly the point.

The only thing I can't resolve is that my MP 1,1 says this, right on the box, multiple times

lg.macproxeon.png


Now, I know the explanation, but I don't see any asterisk there. In fact, that's a promotional poster. 64 bit was the biggest selling point, and now the inaccuracy of that subtext is the reason it won't support the newest OS. It's more capable than many other supported machines, with a simple video card upgrade (and "upgrade" is the second biggest selling point, btw). So in a very direct way, this smells like false advertising. And Apple needs to answer to it. This is not a true 64 bit machine, and Apple can fix that with a simple download.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
robogobo said:
This whole thing makes sense from a marketing perspective, but given that the 1,1 was the only Mac Pro available for almost 3 years, and the majority of those are still running like a champ today, this will affect a great many people. And don't give me any of that "why do you need ML?" mumbo jumbo. That's hardly the point.

The only thing I can't resolve is that my MP 1,1 says this, right on the box, multiple times

Image

Now, I know the explanation, but I don't see any asterisk there. In fact, that's a promotional poster. 64 bit was the biggest selling point, and now the inaccuracy of that subtext is the reason it won't support the newest OS. It's more capable than many other supported machines, with a simple video card upgrade (and "upgrade" is the second biggest selling point, btw). So in a very direct way, this smells like false advertising. And Apple needs to answer to it. This is not a true 64 bit machine, and Apple can fix that with a simple download.
Click to expand...

For those in Europe there's probably a case for false advertising that could be pursued with the right governmental agency.
 
Wirelessly posted

These are one of the few times that I think an actual lawsuit makes sense. Every person that bought one of these was marketed to as being 64-bit.
 
macpro2000 said:
Wirelessly posted

These are one of the few times that I think an actual lawsuit makes sense. Every person that bought one of these was marketed to as being 64-bit.
Click to expand...

I would love Apple to release EFI64 for MP1,1 and start supporting 10.8 on the platform, but rationally speaking such lawsuit would have no merit at all. The workstation was labeled as 64bit and it is 64bit. It can run 64bit applications. Ability to run 64bit kernel was never advertised for these machines.
 
nycaleksey said:
I would love Apple to release EFI64 for MP1,1 and start supporting 10.8 on the platform, but rationally speaking such lawsuit would have no merit at all. The workstation was labeled as 64bit and it is 64bit. It can run 64bit applications. Ability to run 64bit kernel was never advertised for these machines.
Click to expand...

Rationality has nothing to do with lawsuits, and the question of fact that would need to be decided is what 64bit would mean to buyers. Even though the Mac Pro was intended as a workstation, the fact that it was sold to consumers means that the trier of fact would need to determine whether the label of 64bit was misleading if it can't run a 64bit kernal as well. As a non-expert, I do not know the difference between running a 64bit application and a 64bit kernal and how one could impact the other, and I suspect that most judges wouldn't know the difference either.

As this is advertizing, then the question is really whether labeling it as 64bit was misleading. Given the cost of litigation, it would seem to make sense for Apple to spend the money on the firmware update and maintain good customer relations rather than spend it on lawyers and make itself look like Microsoft. Even though I have a Mac Pro 3,1 and this doesn't impact me, I can't imagine that the potential development costs of a 64bit kernal for the 1,1 and 2,1 would exceed potential litigation costs in the U.S. and Europe, particularly given how the EU has gone after Apple and Microsoft on antitrust claims. But then I'm not Apple's General Counsel, and he might have a whole different view on this risk-benefit analysis, but as they say, "penny wise, pound foolish".
 
Of course there is no real 'reason' a 1,1 can't run 10.8

I know this because I'm running it right now.

I swear it's like everyone has forgotten what a WCS is from the old VAX days, heck even the Amiga 3000 was infamous for shipping with incomplete firmware (AmigaDOS 1.4!) or the original Amiga 1000 also used a WCS. The idea is they have just enough ROM to boot up the new 'bios' then go from there.

Using the same methodoligy you need to build out a MBR disk, and set it up much like a bootcamp / Windows install but instead load up your Mac like a hackintosh....

Is it easy?

No, not by a longshot.

But there is no reason why EFI 32 could load an EFI 64 that in turn could load up OS X 64bit...

Hopefully Apple will see the light on it, but so much of the good hardware has gone 64bit only it'll be a big pain leaving people with machines that can't boot back into anything 32bit if you needed to fallback for any reason...

In apples defense, machines that softloaded their ROMs were designed that way so engineers always kept that in mind... While the 1,1/2,1 were not...
 
robogobo said:
This whole thing makes sense from a marketing perspective, but given that the 1,1 was the only Mac Pro available for almost 3 years, and the majority of those are still running like a champ today, this will affect a great many people. And don't give me any of that "why do you need ML?" mumbo jumbo. That's hardly the point.

The only thing I can't resolve is that my MP 1,1 says this, right on the box, multiple times

Image

Now, I know the explanation, but I don't see any asterisk there. In fact, that's a promotional poster. 64 bit was the biggest selling point, and now the inaccuracy of that subtext is the reason it won't support the newest OS. It's more capable than many other supported machines, with a simple video card upgrade (and "upgrade" is the second biggest selling point, btw). So in a very direct way, this smells like false advertising. And Apple needs to answer to it. This is not a true 64 bit machine, and Apple can fix that with a simple download.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Apple can't sell the mp 1,1 as a 64 bit machine and then turn around later and say, "oh, we didn't mean that kind of 64 bit". That's against the law, as I've already pointed out in a letter to Tim Cook.

These are professional machines, with a professional price tag. I expect Apple to invest in supporting them for as long as is technically feasible. If they refuse to, I have no reason to ever buy another again.
 
I Hope this happens.

In my lab I have a 1,1 and a 5,1.

The 1,1 runs Dual 3.0 and the 5,1 has Dual Quad 2.26. The 1,1 is frequently "snappier" feeling and yet I look at it as neutered, or less potent.

I have spent some very long hours working out those nifty Fermi EFIs, but they fall on deaf ears in the 1,1. I just imagined how incredibly awesome it would be to run an update on it and have it suddenly be back on same playing field as the 5,1.

And I am 95% certain that the EFI64 for a 1,1 already exists. Look at the 3,1 and note how similar it is. My guess is that it was developed with 1,1 as starting point. SO sitting in the Apple labs somewhere in Cupertino, in the back of a testing lab, or in a storeroom, is a 1,1 running an EFI64. It is likely that it isn't perfect, but could be finished.

But do consider what would happen if such a thing got out in public. Anything that did NOT have an EFI64 would STOP working. SPecifically, Nvidia 7300 and 8800GT cards would not show boot screens on next boot and would need to be replaced. All ATI/AMD cards would be fine as they use a universal EBC style EFI. (exception being X1300 and non-updated X1900XT cards) I asked an Nvidia engineer that I converse with why they went with EFI32/64 instead of EBC as AMD did and got a silent response. I imagine there is a reason.

So any other peripherals that have an EFI32 on them would also quit working.

In other words, APple would open a potential FLOOD of support questions. Most people REFUSE to read much and just expect a custom-tailored support answer for their own personal consumption. No matter how many checkboxes they had "agreed" to or warnings posted, there would be literally thousands of "dead" computers. And instead of helping people post insanely cute puppy photos from their iPhone, the genius bars would be overwhelmed with people bringing dusty, long forgotten 1,1s in and demanding satisfaction.

They would literally have to train every genius at every service location all about this long forgotten machine. So add that cost to the equation. Waking that sleeping dog would be rather pricey.
 
some very good points..
but that isn't the only solution, Apple could keep a dual kernel in the OS just like in lion, simple :)

MacVidCards said:
I Hope this happens.

In my lab I have a 1,1 and a 5,1.

The 1,1 runs Dual 3.0 and the 5,1 has Dual Quad 2.26. The 1,1 is frequently "snappier" feeling and yet I look at it as neutered, or less potent.

I have spent some very long hours working out those nifty Fermi EFIs, but they fall on deaf ears in the 1,1. I just imagined how incredibly awesome it would be to run an update on it and have it suddenly be back on same playing field as the 5,1.

And I am 95% certain that the EFI64 for a 1,1 already exists. Look at the 3,1 and note how similar it is. My guess is that it was developed with 1,1 as starting point. SO sitting in the Apple labs somewhere in Cupertino, in the back of a testing lab, or in a storeroom, is a 1,1 running an EFI64. It is likely that it isn't perfect, but could be finished.

But do consider what would happen if such a thing got out in public. Anything that did NOT have an EFI64 would STOP working. SPecifically, Nvidia 7300 and 8800GT cards would not show boot screens on next boot and would need to be replaced. All ATI/AMD cards would be fine as they use a universal EBC style EFI. (exception being X1300 and non-updated X1900XT cards) I asked an Nvidia engineer that I converse with why they went with EFI32/64 instead of EBC as AMD did and got a silent response. I imagine there is a reason.

So any other peripherals that have an EFI32 on them would also quit working.

In other words, APple would open a potential FLOOD of support questions. Most people REFUSE to read much and just expect a custom-tailored support answer for their own personal consumption. No matter how many checkboxes they had "agreed" to or warnings posted, there would be literally thousands of "dead" computers. And instead of helping people post insanely cute puppy photos from their iPhone, the genius bars would be overwhelmed with people bringing dusty, long forgotten 1,1s in and demanding satisfaction.

They would literally have to train every genius at every service location all about this long forgotten machine. So add that cost to the equation. Waking that sleeping dog would be rather pricey.
Click to expand...
 
adream said:
some very good points..
but that isn't the only solution, Apple could keep a dual kernel in the OS just like in lion, simple :)
Click to expand...

Didn't Macvidcards just say something about "Most people REFUSE to read"? Priceless.;)
 
Support to those with Mac Pro 1,1

Dear Mac Pro 1,1 Community,

Even though I myself no longer use a 1,1 Mac Pro, I feel your pain and want to offer my unconditional support and fight for allowing Mountain Lion to work on your machines. I one time had a 1,1 Mac Pro and got rid of it due to the fact I could not run Windows 7 natively due to the EFI 32/64 thing.

The Mac Pro 1,1 is a very strong and capable machine and it is my hope that eventually someone will come up with a way to flash the EFI to support native 64-bit kernel operation. There is no excuse for this to be happening. The machine was advertised as a 64-bit capable machine. Notice the words, "64-BIT QUAD XEON" on the box. It is misleading and a travesty for those with 1,1 Mac Pros to not be able to run the latest 10.8 Mountain Lion.

I find it disgusting and disheartening that Apple would lie to their customers and be deceitful when it comes to things like this. The 1,1 is still a very powerful computer and I urge many to continue to use it and keep it. After all, going to Intel processors opened up the path to install different operating systems, and only to find out that due to Apple's design errors a 64-bit kernel only OS can't be made to work in native 64-bit?

My support therefore goes out to all of you and this also means those with 2,1 Mac Pros as well. I also find it disgusting that Apple didn't provide any more OS support for PowerPC, but that its ok for a 5-8 year old machine in the PC world to continue to run Windows XP and or Windows 7.

Really disgusting if you ask me and a blatant disregard for customers by Apple.
 
PowerPCMacMan said:
Dear Mac Pro 1,1 Community,

Even though I myself no longer use a 1,1 Mac Pro, I feel your pain and want to offer my unconditional support and fight for allowing Mountain Lion to work on your machines. I one time had a 1,1 Mac Pro and got rid of it due to the fact I could not run Windows 7 natively due to the EFI 32/64 thing.

.
Click to expand...

What do u mean by natively? I have a 1,1 MacPro (2006) with Radeon HD 5770, 8G RAM, and it runs Windows 7 with no issues , but it's through Parallels,.

That being said, I, like every 1,1 or 2,1 owner, am disgusted with what Apple has in their store for us with this OSX ML issue. I say this: why don't we all join forces and mount a mountain class action suit against the greedy Apple company? Why, because of no ML support, should I toss a wonderful machine such as 1,1 after only 6 years of hard and loyal work, not to mention a huge cost?

Listen: I have a 10-year old Dell PC, and it still runs and kicks a*ss with the latest Win 7 onboard and audio/video software. Clearly what Apple is aiming at is to push customers to buy newer machines, so that the greedy execs can put lotta bonus $$$ in their tummy. We should not accept that, we should not allow it. I say a class action suit now. Either Apple allows us to upgrade to ML immediately and support our machines for at least the next 4 years or else we will bring down the house once and for all. The power must be in the customers hands not in the greedy vampire exec hands.

If there is a consumer advocate lawyer onboard here at MacRums, please let us know, I am ready and willing to challenge Golliath and make him sweat, cry and collapse.
 
Last edited:
@MacVidCards

It's as simple as the OS installer checking for a compatible GPU prior to install.

No compatible GPU? Tells you and doesn't install.

Then all they need to do is NOTE that ML has Minimum GPU Requirements - noted in the info prior to purchase.

Done.

Simple

You know.... either that, or code all this crap back in like up to DP2?

Granted, I sold my 1,1 - but I do think this is absolute garbage on Apples part
 
PowerPCMacMan said:
Dear Mac Pro 1,1 Community,

Even though I myself no longer use a 1,1 Mac Pro, I feel your pain and want to offer my unconditional support and fight for allowing Mountain Lion to work on your machines. I one time had a 1,1 Mac Pro and got rid of it due to the fact I could not run Windows 7 natively due to the EFI 32/64 thing.
Click to expand...

What issues? Ive been running Windows 7 64-bit since the day it came out on my Mac Pro 1,1 via Boot Camp. No problems at all.
 
I wonder what the geniuses in an Applestore say when questioned about this? I understand the EFI thing but like everyone says... It flipping says 64-bit on the box. They really need to make a 32/64 boot.
 
I think everyone makes a good case, don't print 64bit on the box.

In Australia Apple had to offer full refunds on the new iPad for printing 4G when it was not 4G capable on our networks.

I'm not a lawyer but would think some precedence would take affect at least in Australia, so if any Australians want to take it up with the ACCC, I'm sure they'd be happy to peruse the matter as they like to take on the big companies that way it looks like our tax dollars are going to something.

If only ACCC would have the balls to take on petrol and energy companies
 
Tiger was 32-bit OS.
Leopard was 32-bit OS.
Snow Leopard was 32/64-bit OS but Mac Pro 1.1 was unable to boot into 64-bit.
Lion is 32/64-bit OS but Mac Pro 1.1 is unable to boot into 64-bit.
But I haven't really seen pissed off people.

Then, all of a sudden, after 6 year of its release, people think "labeled as 64bit" is misleading and think of a class action? just because Apple won't support Mac Pro 1.1 anymore?

Wow, amazing:eek:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back