How many of you purchased the mac pro 1, 1 thinking it was 64bit?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Flood123, Jul 12, 2012.

  1. Flood123 macrumors 6502a


    Mar 28, 2009
    Living Stateside
    How many of you purchased the mac pro 1, 1 thinking it was 64bit based on Apples advertising, only to find out later that is was a 64bit xeon but a 32bit EFI? What are your feelings regarding this?
  2. Intell macrumors P6


    Jan 24, 2010
    It is 64-bit. It being able to run Lion means it has a 64-bit CPU. At the time it came out, there wasn't a reason to have a 64-bit EFI.
  3. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Dec 17, 2009
    If in 2006 I told you apple would "only" support this computer for the next 6 years would you still have bought it? And what does It matter that it only has a 32bit EFIs? It still runs 64bit OS and apps right?
  4. bearcatrp macrumors 68000

    Sep 24, 2008
    Boon Docks USA
    Marketing BS to make money. Have no doubt apple could fix this but won't. Sold mine awhile back. Glad I dumped apple for heavy duty computing. Not worth the money!
  5. akadmon Suspended

    Aug 30, 2006
    New England
    Those who are holding on to their 1,1s are bound to find some workarounds that will enable them to run ML. MP 1.1 is still a good machine (I'd prolly would have held on to mine for another year, had I known how little boost - relative to the cost - I would get from my "2012" six-core MP).
  6. semaja2 macrumors 6502a

    Dec 12, 2005
    Its easy to point the blame at Apple for not supporting Mountain Lion on the old machines... but seriously look at any other company how many PC makers update their drivers to support a new OS? We have laptops that have XP but no drivers for Vista/7?

    Apple may invest money into user bases where they might see profit, and hence upgrade the drivers and make them compatible but at some points it just not a financially suitable path to take...

    Also the general rule in IT is a computer is to last 3 years, MAX 5 years so how old is your machine? and does it still run what Apple promised?
  7. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    For those that bothered to actually look up Apple's policy on the matter, they did tell you.

    Apple's view on Vintage/Obsolete has been very consistent for a long time. The above document has been recently modified but in general this has been Apple's policy at least since shortly after the second coming of Steve Jobs. (i.e., over a decade).

    This has to do with getting the 64-bit kernel started, not with running 64 bit applications.

    Again for those without selective memory would recall that Apple reverted to 32-bits with the Intel transition. Toward the end of the PowerPC era there was a big deal made out of going to 64 bits. When Apple decided to move to Intel that trend regressed. In part, because Intel didn't have a full 64 line up to go to. There were a couple of "Core Solo" models in the Mac line up for which 64-bit kernels were a no-go anyway.

    In part because of the Apple's edict to transition the whole line to Intel in less than a year Apple too some short cuts with the "Version 1.0" Intel products. One of those was only doing EFI32.

    Also it seems to be lost on folks that this era's version of Mac OS X only had 64-bit user apps. Not Kernel. 10.4 Tiger's technical improvements:

    "... and with support for 64-bit userland address spaces on machines with 64-bit processors ... "

    Again this is somewhat willful ignorance. Version 1.0 products almost always have built in compromises. EFI32 in the Mac Pro 1,1 was one of them. It was right there in plain site when Apple started to sell the Mac Pro and has been all along since then. There are numerous folks in these forums and spinning how great utility of Mac Pro 1,1's that have swept this issue under the rug for years.

    Apple is dumping 32-bit kernels. If anyone didn't see that coming since 2004-2005 you have staring at the wrong issue ( 64 bit user apps. )
  8. -hh macrumors 68020


    Jul 17, 2001
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    True, but in reviewing the above, one will notice that this only covers HARDWARE, not their software and not even their OS.

    Indeed ... there were also many of us who have had G5 PowerMacs under the impression that we were getting 64 bit too...such as what the above Tiger statement gives the impression of.

    Understood, and while the 0th generation Intel Macs were indeed plunges, we should also recall that the Mac Pro was the last hardware to make the transition and since it was expected to be running with high end components by its product placement, there's certain elements of this that shouldn't really have been accepted.

    And yes, the time for 32 bit kernels to sunset is right, although we should also not forget the Apple-Adobe fiasco where 64 bit Photoshop was delayed for two years, etc, etc.

    Particularly in light of the claims made in that recruitment video which came to light this past week, it is evident that there's a lot of areas where Apple isn't living up to their self-proclaimed and self-imposed standard of excellence....and the demographic of the Mac Pro customer is all the more likely to be aware enough (and critical enough) to recognize these shortfalls as shortfalls.

  9. dermeister macrumors 6502


    Jan 19, 2003
    The matter at hand is whether the computers were misrepresented. Specifically, the claim that they "were 64-bit". The layman does not understand the difference between 64-bit "user" mode and a 64-bit "EFI" to boot a 64-bit kernel.

    There is another issue - some video cards for the macpro1,1 don't have 64-bit drivers. But my macpro1,1 and many others have long since had a new video card installed. Apple could easily check for this in the installer, and set a video card requirement in the ML spec rather than bar any macpro1,1 even if it has the latest and best video card.

    Now, not "supporting" an older machine after six years is fine... If it's for a technological reason. But the problem here is that the technological issue (32 bit EFI) was something of a swindle. Sure some people understood exactly what a 32 bit EFI was, but they were surely a minority.

    Apple should do the right thing and implement a workaround to bridge the macpro1,1 into the 64-bit kernel if it wants to ditch the 32-bit kernel. They should do anything reasonably feasible to "patch" the macpro1,1 EFI-32 issue because it was quite underhanded.

    One day the macpro1,1 should stop running a new Mac OS, but not because it's a 64-bit computer who's OS can't be updated because 32-bit was dropped.

    Dropping 32-bit support is NOT a good reason for a 64-bit computer to stop working.
  10. gnasher729 macrumors P6


    Nov 25, 2005
    Well, the fact is that the Mac Pro 1,1 _is_ a 64 bit computer. So calling it a 64 bit computer in 2006 was absolutely truthful. Unfortunately the criterion whether a computer can run Mountain Lion or not is not whether it is a 64 bit computer, but whether all the needed drivers are available as 64 bit drivers - which they are not.

    Did Apple make a promise "this computer will run any software until the day that we release computers with more bits"? Was it realistic to expect this? No on both counts.
  11. derbothaus macrumors 601


    Jul 17, 2010
    There was no other option at the time of sale anyway, right? 32-bit EFI was all there was. Now 6-years later things have advanced. Not a big deal really. But I can see there would be confusion until you do some reading. Now that the reading is done sounds like you are just upset/ disappointed. Apple always artificially caps things. A bizarre testament to the reliability actually. I still have a G3 pismo Powerbook that runs 10.4. Can't believe it. Was dead for 3 years and I just replaced the CMOS battery. Boot up just like new. I am sure other have even older Mac's but they are not butt hurt Apple dropped support. A 1,1 is just over the PPC rainbow.If they start dropping support for 4 year old Mac's I'll start complaining. Support ending for 10.6 is going to hurt
  12. Flood123, Jul 13, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012

    Flood123 thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Mar 28, 2009
    Living Stateside
    I'm not livid by any means. Just a tad butt hurt. Such is life. This too shall pass. Would it be fun to have a 64bit efi? Sure, I like fun shiny new things like the next guy. In the end, this will become a windows machine for browser testing when a suitable upgrade is released to support my normal workflow.
    The thread was started more as an honest question as to how many people were in my boat and what their feeling was. Not that I was gonna cry myself to sleep over it. ;) call it morbid curiosity. Oh and I just noticed the down vote was removed. When did that happen?
  13. bpd115 macrumors 6502a


    Feb 4, 2003
    My biggest gripe is that there is not a suitable replacement. I'm ok with dropping official support, but at least give me the possibility of moving to new hardware that isn't 3 years old.

    I'm running ML GM just fine on my 1,1 anyway until 2013 rolls around. They better have something fantastic in store.
  14. G4DP macrumors 65816

    Mar 28, 2007
    Deconstruct, posting the apple info about old machines is fine, but you could still buy a 1,1 up to Christmas 07, that is less that 5 years ago. So Apple are lying once more.

    I know you could still buy one because I had Apple Sales on the phone trying me to buy. Thankfully I told them to leave me alone till the updates came around.
  15. dermeister macrumors 6502


    Jan 19, 2003
    Correct, it's a 64 bit computer - that can't directly load a 64-bit kernel.

    The criterion to load ML is 1) all necessary drivers 64 bit and 2) EFI-64.

    Plenty of MP1,1s have an upgraded video card and thus meet 1), but they are all handicapped by the EFI-32.

    So we are left with this bizarre situation in which dropping 32-bit support kills the MP1,1, which is a 64-bit computer, and was advertised as such.

    You mentioned promises. Apple said it was a 64-bit machine. It's a handicapped 64 bit machine - the CPU is 64 bit but the EFI is 32. Any layman buying this computer advertised as a 64 bit machine would never have imagined that Mac OS dropping 32 bit support would kill them. They considered themselves future proof on this point and rightfully so. Some other req could have obsoleted them, but not this.

    The machines were definitely misrepresented. Anyone could have found out with some research and digging, but the standard that counts is whether the average person (layman) had any reasonable expectation of understanding that their machine was not completely 64 bit.

    Apple didn't just "give people butt-hurt" on this, they swindled them. This isn't a matter of whiners complaining about not getting an OS upgrade that they have no claim to be entitled to 6 years later. It's a case of people spending top-dollar to get a machine advertised as "64-bit" only to get locked out the second Apple moved completely to a true 64-bit OS from the kernel up... Because the MP1,1 is not a true 64 bit machine. The least they could do is provide a workaround now that the consequences of their swindle have come to the attention of their paying customers.
  16. thekev macrumors 604


    Aug 5, 2010
    The G5 thing happened extremely fast. The last generation debuted in late 2005. The mac pro wasn't out until the 3rd quarter of 2006. By early 2008, no current application had a Power PC version or universal binary code. Even before that, Apple spent virtually no time on bug fixes once the first intel machines started to trickle out.

    When does 10.6 support end? I was hoping to see a stable mountain lion first.

    The G5s got it much worse. Overall don't expect full support past the duration of an applecare policy.
  17. throAU macrumors 603


    Feb 13, 2012
    Perth, Western Australia
    It IS 64 bit, and will run 64 bit applications.

    It is unsupported by an operating system released 6 years after the machine. There are still supported operating systems available for it (Lion, Snow Leopard).

    Most machines are expected to have a 3-5 year (tops) support life time - expecting software released 6 years later to target your machine is wishful thinking. Irrespective of the technical reasons (if any - which only apple truly know, given future plans for ML, and onwards), a line has been drawn in the sand.

    Get over it.


    Could? Sure. However it is not financially worth it. You don't see GM or Ford releasing new accessories for their cars from 2006 now do you?

    The machine is END OF LIFE. Don't expect further software development.

    I can't get BIOS updates any more for the PC motherboard that i bought in 2007. Intel must suck.
  18. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    There is no rational reason to port OS software to de-supported hardware. If someone wants to play "stuck in time" with their Mac system they are better off coupling software stuck in time to it. Besides Apple the return on investment is extremely poor since the vast majority of users will abandon the hardware once de-supported and the die-hards that are left will generate higher than average support costs.

    This 32 or 64 bit kernel issues has been around for a long time. ( a quick google search for discussions of the issue

    2006 here on Mac Forums

    [ Note here the Apple docs stated ".. Most device drivers do not need to change ..." . The most effective way of doing this is to leave the kernel 32-bit so don't break drivers. Apple "eased" the transition perhaps too much to the point where people who had no idea what they were reading were lulled into complacency with their ill conceived notions.

    But yes, the general overall sloppiness of the notion of being a "64-bit" OS is being generated by the Users, not the Apple docs they actually link to. You can somewhat see how the Apple docs were revised over time with the section
    " Beginning with version 10.4, Mac OS X supports command-line 64-bit executables on G5-based Macintosh computers and 64-bit-capable Intel Macintosh computers.

    Beginning with version 10.5, Mac OS X supports full-featured 64-bit applications on G5-based and 64-bit-capable Intel Macintosh computers.

    Beginning with Snow Leopard, Mac OS X uses a 64-bit kernel on some Intel computers."

    "executables" ( really applications without a GUI) and Applications are the only 64-bit porting option for 10.4 and 10.5.

    2006 Just to show that now all the technical writing was confused about the issue ... from Dr. Dobbs early in 2006 almost five months BEFORE the Mac Pro 1,1 came out.

    "... However, there is a 64-bit caveat: Support for 64-bit programming is not available throughout the entire OS X API for 64-bit computing on OS X Tiger. ... "

    2009 At the Snow Leopard Transition

    Apple KB arcticle on 10.6 32-bit vs 64-bit kernel booting.

    This is not particularly material since the transition timeline was so short ("must move entire line up over to new platform in a 12 months" ) that development proceeded on all Macs in parallel fashion. There was no time to reflect upon what had already done with the other Macs to feedback into the Mac Pro. The transition was not that leisurely executed.

    High end components and server like roles typically lead to longer product development cycles since those customers tend to be more intolerant of bug/defectives.

    Again this is more a miss-read of Apple is saying. Apple's whole "no detail is too small" will actually remove considerations for usage at end of life, not support it. Apple being "obsessive compulsive disorder" about what they can do now with the technology they have now means they they differ what they can do later with future technology to the future.

    In 2006 Apple could ease the transition to 64 bits by support user-land/apps before the kernel. Apple kicked the 64-bit kernel down the road. Therefore the 2006-2007 Macs were optimally designed for 2006-2008 era Mac OS X. When 2008-2009 era comes then the Mac OS X target moved. There are downsides to a 64-bit kernel. For one they soak up more memory. If already have apps that soak up all the available memory then is actually a non-optimal feature.

    So instead of getting an "OK" EFI32 and EFI64 out the door in 2006, Apple will concentrate on getting a "great" EFI32 out the door in 2006 and then work on a even greater EFI64 later on. Trying to do too many products and subcomponents at one time will pragmatically mean pulling resources away from some. For a fixed number of experts there is only so much they can work on at one time.

    In contrast, Microsoft Windows 64-bit OS require all new drivers for the 64-bit kernel coupled to the 64-bit apps.

    The intent at Apple is to somewhere over the 5-6 years the hardware is supported to come out with a new machine that is even better with the new tech and techniques they bring to the next, even greater, product for the user to transition to.

    This is more so a subset of the Mac Pro demographic that puts a high priority on "future proof" properties. "Great" does not mean lasts a long time; it means there is something it "needs" that isn't provided with the initial product but shows up later. As opposed to, "great" gets the most out of what is available at the time.

    If the primary feedback clogging the "Mac Pro feedback" channel to Apple is about "how about firmware for 6 year old machines" then that isn't about work that is "going to change the world". The is just mundane maintenance code.
  19. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
  20. -hh macrumors 68020


    Jul 17, 2001
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    Sorry, you missed my intended point.

    My point is that Apple doesn't promise to maintain their software for 5 years.

    One of the recent security patches made this quite clear: Leopard was less than 3 years old, yet literally weeks up on weeks went past after Lion & Snow received their patches. This isn't for nice-to-have feature enhancements or bugs but for a bleeping SECURITY patch.

    Oh, I'm sufficiently aware of the whole hybridization mess they made.

    Before we get into the fine print, let's look at the press releases, such as Apple's first one for the G5 from 2003:

    (second paragraph):
    “The 64-bit revolution has begun and the personal computer will never be the same again,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “The new Power Mac G5 combines the world’s first 64-bit desktop processor, the industry’s first 1 GHz front-side bus, and up to 8GB of memory to beat the fastest Pentium 4 and dual Xeon-based systems in industry-standard benchmarks and real-world professional applications.”​

    This press release specifically mentions 64-bit sixteen (16) times, and 32-bit only twice (2), so let's not blame the customer for Apple hammering away on the 64-bit parade.

    And there was the whole Apple-Adobe bit with 64-bit carbon.

    Despite there being reports that OS X had been running on Intel since 2001 and that the demo to Steve to go Intel only took a day or two to program IIRC.

    Yes, which is why the Mac Pro went last ... but still didn't get the key pieces it needed to be reasonably assured of a server-like product lifespan. Again, hearken back to Apple's 2003 announcement ... everyone knew that 64-bit was the plan.

    Actually, it depends on how one defines "no detail too small", since it includes a time element scale - - which you go on to then illustrate precisely by stating that Apple ignored these 64 bit details in 2006 by kicking the issue down the road...that's classical "Short Term" myopia from the perspective of holistic total life cycle management.


    Wrong apology for Apple: the consumer's statement is the forward looking one: "Will this new machine that I buy today be solid for X years?".

    Yes, all good things do indeed have to eventually come to an end, but the 32bit EFI in the 1,1 Mac Pros is simply indicative of Apple cutting corners back in 2006, rather than doing it right and in accordance with a vision that predated 2003.


Share This Page