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

Should I sell my 2006 Mac Pro?

B

Bakari45

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 17, 2010
227
2
I am so bummed that I can't upgrade to Mountain Lion because my Mac Pro is a mere 5 years too old. I write about Apple software a lot, and there are some features in Mountain Lion that I definitely want to use. But am I selling myself short by getting rid of a perfectly good Mac with 8 GB of RAM just so I can run a $20 operating system? I feel as though if I don't upgrade, I will run into software compatibility issues in coming months as developers produce more applications. Would appreciate others' feedback about this problem. Thanks.:mad:
 
Bakari45 said:
I am so bummed that I can't upgrade to Mountain Lion because my Mac Pro is a mere 5 years too old. I write about Apple software a lot, and there are some features in Mountain Lion that I definitely want to use. But am I selling myself short by getting rid of a perfectly good Mac with 8 GB of RAM just so I can run a $20 operating system? I feel as though if I don't upgrade, I will run into software compatibility issues in coming months as developers produce more applications. Would appreciate others' feedback about this problem. Thanks.:mad:
Click to expand...

Sell it now while there are a few buyers who don't yet realize that Apple just abandoned a perfectly good machine and will still pay the asking price.
 
You know, I had forgotten all about the Mac mini, which in the long run might probably be a more affordable solution, especially since Macs don't seem to last past five or six years without needing an upgrade. But you guys think I should wait for the next upgrade of the Mac mini? It doesn't seem like to get more than $500 for my Mac Pro.

In terms of selling my Mac Pro, how dishonest would be if I don't till potential buyers that the machine is not compatible with Mountain Lion?

Thanks for feedback.
 
Bakari45 said:
I am so bummed that I can't upgrade to Mountain Lion because my Mac Pro is a mere 5 years too old. I write about Apple software a lot, and there are some features in Mountain Lion that I definitely want to use. But am I selling myself short by getting rid of a perfectly good Mac with 8 GB of RAM just so I can run a $20 operating system? I feel as though if I don't upgrade, I will run into software compatibility issues in coming months as developers produce more applications. Would appreciate others' feedback about this problem. Thanks.:mad:
Click to expand...

I stumbled on this the other day. May help you.
http://www.jabbawok.net/?p=47
 
Bakari45 said:
You know, I had forgotten all about the Mac mini, which in the long run might probably be a more affordable solution, especially since Macs don't seem to last past five or six years without needing an upgrade. But you guys think I should wait for the next upgrade of the Mac mini? It doesn't seem like to get more than $500 for my Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

You know there's really no point in buying something that must go for 5 years, as there's no way to tell what your software will require at that time. Windows machines typically require upgrades too if you're running updated software revisions or your requirements have grown. It happens. The awkward thing with the mac pro is that it starts high, so you're locked into a certain minimum sale no matter what. I'm not that big on the mini. They use notebook parts which aren't that cost effective, and you do receive less storage capacity, but obviously it can still work.

Bakari45 said:
In terms of selling my Mac Pro, how dishonest would be if I don't till potential buyers that the machine is not compatible with Mountain Lion?

Thanks for feedback.
Click to expand...

I guess some of them might ask. Just list it as what it is including Mac Pro 1,1. Some jackasses list it as a Mac Pro 2.66 ghz hoping someone will mistake it for a 2009 model. That is something I find disingenuous. If I'm selling a computer, I'll answer anything that is asked (including OS compatibility), but in terms of listing something, I'll just mention any known problems, any marks, and the exact specs including whatever OS will be on it when it is transferred to the buyer (and if disks are included).
 
Bakari45 said:
You know, I had forgotten all about the Mac mini, which in the long run might probably be a more affordable solution, especially since Macs don't seem to last past five or six years without needing an upgrade. But you guys think I should wait for the next upgrade of the Mac mini? It doesn't seem like to get more than $500 for my Mac Pro.

In terms of selling my Mac Pro, how dishonest would be if I don't till potential buyers that the machine is not compatible with Mountain Lion?

Thanks for feedback.
Click to expand...

Unless they ask and you lie by saying it is compatible it is not a problem. I have never seen an ad for a computer listing what it is not capable of running. They just list the computers the specs of the hardware and software. It's up to the buyer to decide if it will do what they want it to do.
 
Keep the Mac Pro. You're almost definitely going to find a use for such an amazing computer, whether it's a server or anything else.
 
Absolutely sell it.

Just like all the PC users sold their XP computers when they found out they weren't compatible with Vista.

:p

If your profession depends on using the latest and greatest, then I think you have no choice but to buy something that will run 10.8. But that doesn't mean you have to part with your 2006 MP.

It's still a very powerful, capable machine.
 
Not as outdated as you think

Check out the other posts on this forum. As long as you have a relatively recent graphics card, you can easily run Mountain Lion on your 2006 Mac Pro. That's what I am doing now and it runs amazingly good.
 
The issue, with using a bootloader to boot Mountain Lion is you get all the bad hackintosh stuff and none of the good.

While the 1,1 is a good computer IMHO it's not worth the trouble of saving. It's not that fast anymore (relative) it uses more power than modern computers and it already 6 years old. Just stay on Lion or Snow and use it as you were using it yesterday.
 
Bad Hackintosh Stuff

What bad Hackintosh stuff? Once the bootloader boots, it is running a 100% pure unaltered Mac operating system. No patches to any files of the actual operating system whatsoever. The only difference is that at the initial boot it uses Chameleon to allow the system to boot into Mountain Lion. No foreign software is running once the system gets past the initial bootloader. A "real" Hackintosh does have quite a few altered active system files.
 
Rad said:
What bad Hackintosh stuff? Once the bootloader boots, it is running a 100% pure unaltered Mac operating system. No patches to any files of the actual operating system whatsoever. The only difference is that at the initial boot it uses Chameleon to allow the system to boot into Mountain Lion. No foreign software is running once the system gets past the initial bootloader. A "real" Hackintosh does have quite a few altered active system files.
Click to expand...

Until an update breaks support for the HW. It's mac HW but not supported Mac HW. How much longer is the the OS going to recognize IDE optical drives? FW 400 ports, PCI REV 1 or even the CPU's? It's not quite the same but hackintosh couldn't move to Ivy until Apple released an Ivy Mac. You CPU's are no longer supported so the code doesn't need to stay, they may clean it out on future revision.
 
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