32EFI Mac Pro video upgrade path dying out?

[nanofrog]

If the 64EFI is just a firmware thing, then what's stopping them from changing it?

Greed.

There MUST be a reason why they don't offer it. I bet if you asked Apple, they would say that it's a hardware thing and cannot be fixed with a firmware update.

No. The hardware on the board is the same used in any other PC based Xeon of that erra, and is capable of 64 bit operation. Even the graphics card is actually capable of 64 bit, but the EFI32 in it is a problem as well (prevents true 64 bit operation). So it would be best to swap it.

But the graphics card could serve as an excuse. But it's not a valid reason IMO, as they chose to use EFI32 in the first place.

 

[maghemi]

The thing that triggered this all for me was the attempt to install Windows 7 on the machine so I could learn the differences for work reasons.

Now I know there are work around's, but that's not the point as far as I'm concerned. That's why it triggered me to think about what is keeping with this Mac Pro.

 

[PurpleLogix]

The longer this thread goes the more angry I get. So much for 64bit pro computer.

I have bought enough Apple crap to deserve an upgrade. If i knew how to upgrade my EFI I would do it my self. First a rip off for an Apple 4870 card, and now this!! (yes I did flash my 4870)

ok feel better now, off to find some X5355 cpu's that will last me till 10.7, maybe.....

 

[Infrared]

The longer this thread goes the more angry I get. So much for 64bit pro computer.

It will happily run a Windows 64-bit kernel. It will probably
run Windows 8 if it does not run OS X 11.7. It's a Windows
workstation, really ;-)

 

[nanofrog]

It will happily run a Windows 64-bit kernel. It will probably
run Windows 8 if it does not run OS X 11.7. It's a Windows
workstation, really ;-)

Yes, but there's work arounds required to make it work on EFI32 machines.

And there's another little niggle. Quite a few members, if not the majority, bought them for OS X, not Windows.

 

[Infrared]

Yes, but there's work arounds required to make it work on EFI32 machines.

What is "it"?

 

[Bat Commander]

What is "it"?

Windows 64bit. You have to burn a modified install disc in order to install the 64bit version of Windows 7 on a 2006-2007 Mac Pro.

 

[CoryTV]

Windows 64bit. You have to burn a modified install disc in order to install the 64bit version of Windows 7 on a 2006-2007 Mac Pro.

That's just not true. I had no problem installing Windows 7 64 on my Mac pro 1,1. However, I did have to 'modify' the Bootcamp 3.0 drivers, if that's what you're talking about. In that case, you're adding support to whole 'artificial limitations' argument that this is all about in the first place...

 

[gugucom]

That's just not true. I had no problem installing Windows 7 64 on my Mac pro 1,1.

Your logic is faulty. Just because you had no problem installing a special Win-64 bit distribution you cannot conclude that it will be true for everybody in the future.

The Windows installation problem with EFI32 systems stems from the fact that Microsoft has used a different ISO standard compared to Apple's EFI32 since 2007 when they introduced Vista. This deviating ISO uses versioned file names where the versions parameter is delimited by a semi colon in the file name. The problem only arises when multiple versions of an operating systems are included in a distribution ISO. Microsoft calls these distributions anytime upgrade. You basically get Home, Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate on one DVD or one ISO. The type of COA you use on the DVD determines which features are released for use. If you enter a new COA with higher value you unlock additional features. The downside is the use of the versioned file names.

Obviously Microsoft has started the Win7 distribution with a fair quantity of non upgradable online distributed ISO versions. We can expect that to change very soon. With the conventional distribution methods providing the bulk of the market needs we will see the anytime upgrade versions coming back in force. The need to re burn ISOs will return at the same time.

 

[CoryTV]

Your logic is faulty. Just because you had no problem installing a special Win-64 bit distribution you cannot conclude that it will be true for everybody in the future.

My Logic is fine. The original quote said "You have to burn a custom ISO to install on a mac with efi32" and I said, that's not true as I didn't have to. I never said that it would work fine for everyone. All I said is it worked for me so I didn't "HAVE" to make a custom installation of windows 7 to install it w/ 64 bit.

But congrats on your encyclopedic knowledge of windows 7 distribution mechanisms. I hope it serves you well in the future.

 

[TheStrudel]

Apple actually released Snow Leopard the same month when the last Power Mac G5 from August 2006 went out of Apple care. If we go by past performance a K64 only OSX will not be coming before spring 2011 when the last MacPro3,1 go out of Apple care.

It seems more logical that they'll start going K64 only when the last Mac Pro 2,1 goes out of apple care (since the 3,1's support K64), or when the most recently released consumer machines that can't do K64 - I don't know what they are, I don't really track them as much - go out of Applecare. I'm willing to bet it'll be the latter, I don't think the Mac Pro was the last machine made that didn't support K64.

Or maybe they'll just release it and market it less as a mandatory upgrade, unlike 10.6

 

[Bat Commander]

It seems more logical that they'll start going K64 only when the last Mac Pro 2,1 goes out of apple care (since the 3,1's support K64), or when the most recently released consumer machines that can't do K64 - I don't know what they are, I don't really track them as much - go out of Applecare. I'm willing to bet it'll be the latter, I don't think the Mac Pro was the last machine made that didn't support K64.

Or maybe they'll just release it and market it less as a mandatory upgrade, unlike 10.6

What's wrong with them just keeping a 32 bit version of the kernel in the OS so that older machines will still be able to run the latest OS?

 

[akadmon]

That's just not true. I had no problem installing Windows 7 64 on my Mac pro 1,1. However, I did have to 'modify' the Bootcamp 3.0 drivers, if that's what you're talking about. In that case, you're adding support to whole 'artificial limitations' argument that this is all about in the first place...

Ditto. No problems installing 64-bit Win7.

You guys worry too much. Just try it, chances are it will work (it did for a couple of us )

 

[Bat Commander]

I'm thinking about getting the PC version of the ATI 4870 1GB just so that I don't have to keep fussing with the kext file every time Apple issues an OS update.

 

[nanofrog]

The original quote said "You have to burn a custom ISO to install on a mac with efi32" and I said, that's not true as I didn't have to. I never said that it would work fine for everyone. All I said is it worked for me so I didn't "HAVE" to make a custom installation of windows 7 to install it w/ 64 bit.

It's a bit misleading though, as some could read something like "easy, no problems or additional effort whatsoever".

Some may need to burn an ISO that will install, depending on the exact copy they're using.

Then there's the issues with BC 3.0 (for now). Assuming BC 3.1 solves this as expected, it will get easier. Some could have no issues at all. But ultimately, others could still have issues with the Windows Install disk, and can't deal with the work-around for some reason.

MS saves money by making the same disk for all versions, and use the license key to set the features that install. All that's needed is specific packaging. A rather smart thing to do actually.

It seems more logical that they'll start going K64 only when the last Mac Pro 2,1 goes out of apple care (since the 3,1's support K64), or when the most recently released consumer machines that can't do K64 - I don't know what they are, I don't really track them as much - go out of Applecare. I'm willing to bet it'll be the latter, I don't think the Mac Pro was the last machine made that didn't support K64.

Or maybe they'll just release it and market it less as a mandatory upgrade, unlike 10.6

IIRC, the '07 models are the last to use EFI32. If you base it on intial release, then history gives 4 years. If from the Apple Care methodology, you get 3 yrs from 2007. Either way, it works out to end in 2010. If they have problems with dumping the K32 support, it could take another year or so. But that's a technical issue that extends it, not Apple feeling "generous" to their user base.

What's wrong with them just keeping a 32 bit version of the kernel in the OS so that older machines will still be able to run the latest OS?

Spaghetti code. It tends to slow things down, and cause bugs. Not to mention, there's features that wouldn't be available to some users without the 64 bit firmware (GPGPU float limitations for example, and if not double precision, be disabled by the target application).

 

[gugucom]

It seems more logical that they'll start going K64 only when the last Mac Pro 2,1 goes out of apple care (since the 3,1's support K64), or when the most recently released consumer machines that can't do K64 - I don't know what they are, I don't really track them as much - go out of Applecare. I'm willing to bet it'll be the latter, I don't think the Mac Pro was the last machine made that didn't support K64.

Or maybe they'll just release it and market it less as a mandatory upgrade, unlike 10.6

Actually I made a typing error. I meant MP2,1 which is the 2007 model name. This model was sold until spring 2008 and will run out of Apple care in spring 2011. So Apple by past performance will not obsolete hardware that is still in Apple care and k64 only OS X versions should not be expected before that date. If they decide to bring OS X 10.7 before they will most likely release it with k32 again.

I suggest that we find a common view about this issue so that advise to less experienced users is not clouded by a permanent discussion of when Apple will likely cease to support EFI32 machines.

 

[nanofrog]

Actually I made a typing error. I meant MP2,1 which is the 2007 model name. This model was sold until spring 2008 and will run out of Apple care in spring 2011. So Apple by past performance will not obsolete hardware that is still in Apple care and k64 only OS X versions should not be expected before that date. If they decide to bring OS X 10.7 before they will most likely release it with k32 again.

I suggest that we find a common view about this issue so that advise to less experienced users is not clouded by a permanent discussion of when Apple will likely cease to support EFI32 machines.

I'm under the impression though, that Apple would still support the systems with the max Apple Care term, but exclude the K64 versions of the OS. They'd still cover the hardware, and the K32 editions of OS X.

But we don't know exactly when 10.7 will ship. IIRC, it took 2.5 years for Leopard, but just under 2yrs for SL to release (from ship dates, not announcements). Assuming 10.7 does drop K32, it may take longer to develop, especially as lean as Apple is running their code operations (as I understand it). So it could take anywhere from 1 to 3 years (depending on if it's only K64 <only drop K32>, and what features/refinements they may add, increasing development time needed). But if they can hold to a 1yr release schedule, they'd just not support that particular version of OS X on EFI32 systems, for those with remaining support coverage.

Assuming the work on 10.7 has only been going on for a month or so, 2010 is looking harder to do, given the short time available (i.e. announce in say June, and ship within Q3, likely Q4). But I'd think it's been on longer than that, given the number associated with the build (#47 in the articles out there). That still leaves a fair bit of margin (2010 - 2012; so as much as 3yrs, and figure around 2yrs is more likely, making 2011 more realistic).

I agree, it would be ideal to have a unified answer, but it's a tad hard to predict without further information. I guess given the avg of 2yrs - (2.5 on the outside) or so through the last couple of OS revisions, maybe we could settle for 2011 as a rough target date.

 

[Bat Commander]

The thing that bugs me is that these old Mac Pros are way more capable than Apple gives them credit for. My machine is still going very strong and it's FASTER than the day I bought it, which is pretty amazing for a 4 year old computer. I wonder if Apple could maybe have a firmware upgrade in the future to enable first and second gen Mac Pro users to upgrade even if it's a paid upgrade.

I know that my Mac Pro is still way better than my MacBook Pro (and the MacBook Pro HAS K64 support).

Why would Apple leave us in the dark when they know that our machines are STILL very capable and they're even better today than they were when we got them. I feel like I'm being ripped off for some reason.

They're not G5s for pete's sake. They're Mac frickin' Pros. Intel, Quad-Core. They're still kickin' and I really hope Apple doesn't drop support for these fine machines for NO REASON.

 

[gugucom]

You better not hunt any illusions. Apple have an extreme philosophy of reducing development cost by reduced complexity. This means they offer a fixed set of HW, FW and SW options. They never increase their work load at a later point in time when they have cashed in on the development by selling the all in one product. They simply move to a new product generation and unless serious malfunctions against the spec are discovered they never touch it again. There is practically no more precious resource in a company than development engineering hours. Even a single hour spend without creating new sales will hurt. So they will never justify using their own resources. If a partner company would buy the license to do after market development I could imagine it, but just the legal problems to such a venture were mind boggling. As I said, better forget it.

 

[nanofrog]

The thing that bugs me is that these old Mac Pros are way more capable than Apple gives them credit for. My machine is still going very strong and it's FASTER than the day I bought it, which is pretty amazing for a 4 year old computer. I wonder if Apple could maybe have a firmware upgrade in the future to enable first and second gen Mac Pro users to upgrade even if it's a paid upgrade.

It'd have to have the profit of a new system associated with it I think before they'd even consider it. That would put it over $1k USD I think, given the cost of the Xeon chips these days, and it's not going to be pretty with Gulftowns either. Then add in the development cost, and likely a profit for that too. It would be too ugly, and not worth it IMO.

Why would Apple leave us in the dark when they know that our machines are STILL very capable and they're even better today than they were when we got them. I feel like I'm being ripped off for some reason.

You are being ripped off. All in the name of greed, as they don't make money on support, and little on the software. Their profits are derived from hardware sales, and even a paid firmware upgrade wouldn't be worth it to them, as they'd see it as a lost system sale. Figuring it would need the same profit in actual amount (not margin %), it would be too expensive.

They're not G5s for pete's sake. They're Mac frickin' Pros. Intel, Quad-Core. They're still kickin' and I really hope Apple doesn't drop support for these fine machines for NO REASON.

Unfortunately, this is the case so far, and I've seen no indications there's going to be a change in their thinking or methods. The fact Boot Camp 3.1 excludes the EFI32 systems is a clear indication of this. Had theses systems been listed as supported, it would mean a firmware update is coming.

gugucom, I doubt Apple would want to sell it off, as they'd have to give access to their firmware, and they don't want competitors (it would reduce the sales of new systems in their view). They also like keeping their IP to themselves, taking more than giving (what they have offered, is limited compared to what they utilize). And in this particular instance, it certainly wouldn't be released on a free, open spec basis either. That could open up other vendors to use their OS.

 

[MacVidCards]

Not to mention....every firmware update must bring them hours of extra fun for their Customer Service folks on the phone.

Potentially thousands of eligible Mac Pros around the globe, suddenley people doiing update while power goes out, etc...basically a potential support nightmare for what?

As far as they are concerned there would be VERY LITTLE gained whilst opening this potential Pandora's Box of issues. Not gonna happen.

The only way my 1,1 Pro is ever gonna run EFI64 is if some brilliant person (Netkas or the like) figures it out. SInce he doesn't have one....I wouldn't wait by your inbox.

MAYBE if we all joined together to buy Netkas (or some other interested genius) a 1,1 Mac Pro it would happen.

As Gugu said, the only way Apple is going to put out an EFI64 update is if there is some horrible bug that can only be conquered in these machines with update. Since that isn't likely, you may as well try prayer.

That being said....I'm gonna guess that Apple has ALREADY got an EFI64 written for these machines, in case they need it. So if some kind (and recently disgruntled) Apple employee where to post it somewhere....imagine......

 

[nanofrog]

Not to mention....every firmware update must bring them hours of extra fun for their Customer Service folks on the phone.

Good point. I forgot about that.

....So if some kind (and recently disgruntled) Apple employee where to post it somewhere....imagine......

Civil and criminal charges brought by Apple = Jail time + fines for the poor soul that does it.

 

[Cindori]

there are firmware updates for mac pro

http://support.apple.com/downloads/Mac_Pro_EFI_Firmware_Update_1_3

that's for the 2008, so it be 64bit
i guess you can fiddle with it to remove the versionchecker and run it on a 2006/2007 mac

but I havnt been arsed to fiddle with it, already fried my mobo once, aint gonna to that route again

 

[nanofrog]

there are firmware updates for mac pro

http://support.apple.com/downloads/Mac_Pro_EFI_Firmware_Update_1_3

that's for the 2008, so it be 64bit
i guess you can fiddle with it to remove the versionchecker and run it on a 2006/2007 mac

but I havnt been arsed to fiddle with it, already fried my mobo once, aint gonna to that route again

It's a different board though, and though very similar, it's going to have different microcode for the CPU's and chipset.

It would need to be modified or work as an example to re-write the existing firmware. Lot of work though to reverse engineer what's there. Too big a gamble otherwise, and wouldn't recommend taking a "stab in the dark" with it.

 

[PurpleLogix]

I like the idea of buying a MP and letting the brains on here have a go. Any other MP K32 owners willing to try this and start a collection???