Mac Pro Enthusiasts Raise Concerns Over Upgrade Limitations of Apple Silicon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
lartola
macrumors 68020
Perhaps, but for most people it’s windows they’d want to install and run on the mac. Linux is used by a minority.
OK, but that’s still not right; not only can Linux run natively, but you can run Windows (ARM) natively too, albeit via Parallels.
For most people, it is macOS they want, Windows is used by a minority. Given that Docker is a linux system and how important it is for developers, I am not sure that the small percentage of Mac users who have installed Windows is meaningfully different than that who use Linux. In either case, it is a small percentage of users.
Just look at the context. You said, "The fastest way to get software companies to support it is to make it clear that is the only option for running macOS."
I obviously mean that if you purchase an Apple Silicon personal computer, you are NOT limited to just running MacOS. It can also boot other operating systems, even though MacOS cannot be uninstalled.
By the way, this also implies that an Apple Silicon PC can run Windows too. It doesn't because neither Microsoft nor Apple made an effort to make Windows ARM boot on Apple Silicon, for whatever reasons. There was an user who said he was working to make Windows bootable, but it was probably harder than he expected.
“The only option for running macOS” means that there will be no other supported hardware architecture that will run macOS, not that this hardware can only run macOS. (Edited for clarity for people who have lost the thread.)
While you may have thought it obvious, I would never have guessed that was what you meant, as it is a complete non-sequitur in response to a comment about getting software companies to support a particular hardware architecture for their macOS software.
It can probably run FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and many other operating systems, but I fail to see how that matters at all for this discussion.
Last edited:
I see. But that's not true either... not for now, at least. You can still build a hackintosh system to run MacOS, but you'll have a huge headache making sure all your hardware is compatible.
In theory, it might also be possible to make a generic ARM v8 processor run MacOS at native speed without much hacking, but I don't see people trying that. Not yet, at least. Some patching might be needed.
It’s now gotten to the point where you can google github EFI <your_recent_Intel_motherboard> and have a fully working solution, suitable for use with a bootable Mac USB stick, within just a few minutes. Assuming an AMD graphics card <that’s supported by Apple drivers, granted; there’s no magic happening here>, it’s now, honestly, trivial.
I've tried it a few times, but only managed to make MacOS boot once on my PC. Even then, it was glitchy. I'm sure that if I googled around I could make it run better, but what I saw didn't impress me much.
Currently, how easy it is to make x86 MacOS work with NVIDIA cards?
It isn’t, because Apple doesn’t support nVidia cards. The last OS with nVidia WebDrivers was from 10.14 or 10.15 days, which are now ancient history and not recommended. Yes, OCLP hacks exist, but they’re without Metal, so Metal stuff simply won’t work, and that’s now quite a bit. Not recommended. Get an AMD GPU (something; I’ve used 570, 580, 5700, 6900), google your motherboard EFI hackintosh github, download the EFI, put it on a MacOS installer, and try an installation; it’s all doable.
It isn’t, because Apple doesn’t support nVidia cards. The last OS with nVidia WebDrivers was from 10.14 or 10.15 days, which are now ancient history and not recommended. Yes, OCLP hacks exist, but they’re without Metal, so Metal stuff simply won’t work, and that’s now quite a bit. Not recommended. Get an AMD GPU (something; I’ve used 570, 580, 5700, 6900), google your motherboard EFI hackintosh github, download the EFI, put it on a MacOS installer, and try an installation; it’s all doable.
I don't think I like MacOS that much. 🤣
No company builds a software strategy around unsupported systems. In a small number of years, new releases of macOS will not support that hardware at all.
Again, not something around which anyone is building a software development strategy.
The only supported architecture from Apple moving forward is Apple Silicon. If companies want to be on the platform, that is their only option moving forward.
Not every company will make the transition, but that has always been true.
But that was not the point. You said that it was not possible, I'm saying it is. Whether it is supported or not is another story.
Sorry, but that was exactly the point.
I did not say that it was not possible. I said that it was the only option, assuming that it was clear this was a discussion of what actual ISVs would do. You are correct, it is theoretically possible for someone to build a business around supporting macOS applications on unsupported hardware, but that would not be rational. Going back to the beginning of this discussion, I responded that Apple will not build an x86_64 system because they want to send a message to ISVs that going forward, Apple Silicon’s Unified Memory Architecture is the only option for developing macOS applications.
Arguing that there are other (likely to be even smaller) unsupported ways of running macOS does not really have anything to do with the point that is being made.
dogstar
macrumors regular
So true! It's a different market. Sales would mostly be additive. Plus it would draw more pc users into the Mac ecosystem eventually. It's a win win really and almost a no brainer.What's so bad about having a Mac remain on the Intel platform, I would prefer even two, the Mac mini and the Mac Pro
No, it is not a different market, it is the macOS market.
No, they would not be. They would split the market and would prevent people and ISVs from making the transition.
Really? After how long? You know that Apple sold Intel based systems for several years, right? Why all of a sudden with this do that?
Again, it is a lose - lose situation. It would make the transition slower, and make all those who want to buy software optimized for Apple Silicon wait even longer or forever.
CosmoCopus
macrumors regular
I think they are making a mistake by totally dropping Intel. Especially if the new Mac Pro is not upgradable like the current one.
Apple never makes mistakes!
Like dropping the head of the design team. That's 100% not a mistake at all.
Do you own a 2019 Mac Pro? What is its configuration? How do you use it professionally? Have you upgraded yours? When? In what way?
CosmoCopus
macrumors regular
No, I don’t.
Got it. Makes it much easier to evaluate your opinion on the Mac Pro knowing how much you use it.
I'm not sure what your point is, considering that even though he doesn't use it, the last Mac Pro release was in 2019. And also that the latest M1 Mac Studio / M2 Mac Mini have performance comparable to the 2019 Mac Pro (save for RAM), and that even Apple thinks it is not a good purchase, returning only around $900 on a product that cost up to $ 50,000.
The only justification for buying a Mac Pro nowadays is if you need more RAM. But if you do, you're probably better off with a x86 / x64 / AMD 64 processor anyway (or an entry-level Mx Mac, if you NEED an Apple workflow).
Given that he has been on here for over 10 years, the fact that he is not a Mac Pro user might color my perspective as to how well he understands what Mac Pro users want/need. I live with a Mac Pro user and have consulted for companies that have purchased hundreds (or more) of them.
Just to be clear, did I ask him if he bought a Mac Pro this morning? Did I ask him if he bought one yesterday?
Since we are talking about macOS users, someone arguing that Apple should produce high end x86_64 workstations would have more credibility if they were a user of such tools.
But you're well aware that his perception on the Mac Pro isn't really just his perception. Also, you don't really address why Apple sells the Mac Pro for up to $ 54,000, but only buys it back $970 at most:
Not only that, but several benchmarks show that Mac Pros are outdated in performance, losing to the Mx Macs. The only place they still win is in memory capacity, but like we said, you're probably better off with x86 at this point.
falainber
macrumors 68040
It's a hack. Nobody is going to do it for serious work.