same still does not work with spare internal HDD drive and only GPU plugged in
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 1,1-5,1 MacPro5,1: What you have to do to upgrade to Mojave (10.13/10.14 BootROM upgrades instructions thread)
- Thread starter tsialex
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
same still does not work with spare internal HDD drive and only GPU plugged in
I decided to do a fresh install of 10.14 on my NVME drive. Then downloaded full installer of 10.14.5. Getting the firmware prompt, but still black screen issue. Hmmm. Will try taking everything out of machine so it's just ssd and GPU next when I have time.
Yeah it is connected via DP. I'll try unplugging monitor for a couple min and trying again. thanks for the suggestion.
Hi,
I have a Mac Pro 5,1 with a WD Black SN750 NVMe M.2 with LyCOM DT-120. It´s bootable with Mojave 10.14.5 thanks to Carbon Copy Cloner, no with Time Machine. I can see it like external drive in Utility Disk, my question is can I see it like internal disk? Will be more quick?
Thank you so much!
Thanks for your work.
I have a Mac Pro 5,1 with a WD Black SN750 NVMe M.2 with LyCOM DT-120. It´s bootable with Mojave 10.14.5 thanks to Carbon Copy Cloner, no with Time Machine. I can see it like external drive in Utility Disk, my question is can I see it like internal disk? Will be more quick?
Thank you so much!
Thanks for your work.
To Mac Pro firmware, only south bridge SATA ports connected drives are internal. All PCIe drives are external.
Internal/external don't have speed differences.
There is a way to do this. IMHO, it's silly, but here it is:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/innie-a-fix-for-pci-drives-seen-as-external.2136229/
And, remember. no matter where the drive is shown, The drive icon can be easily changed.
Lou
Yes you certainly can, start reading the beginning of this thread, it contains all your answers on how to proceed.
I was asking because I read on some other post that single core should not get the bootrom update.
I followed the instructions and I tried to install Mojave, the installer asked me to click to turn off the computer and upgrade the firmware, but it just stays on. Reading the console shows some error, but I could not understand what is causing this.
You need to read again the first post, this is explained there.
Single CPU or Dual CPU works the same, btw.
Yes, you probably did. BUT - that was for an earlier version of the Boot ROM (142.0.0.0.0) As I recall, that was never publicly released. It was only released as a Beta. So, at this time, updating the FW on a single CPU machine is a non-issue.
Lou
Alright that was it, thank you
[doublepost=1558761404][/doublepost]
thank you
I did but I stay stucked at point 11.
Each time I try to launch the firmware upgrade it just doesn't do it.
I'm gonna copy the console and report it.
The only reason that could cause this is that I downloaded the Mojave installer from my other computer, as I don't have access to fast internet at the studio.
I have the RX580 installed, I remove my 4K monitor, OS is on SATA2. I have a PCIe USB3 installed and Sata3 card (for cache files) I'm gonna take them out. But from I remember it seems related to authorization/permissions.
I also did all the updates of High Sierra before trying to install Mojave.
I have a Sierra OS on another SSD on the SATA2, I'm gonna remove it too.
yes I'm on MP51.0089.B00
I had no issue to install this firmware and High Sierra.
I installed it from my previous OS on another SSD, as I didn't want to upgrade my previous system but do a clean new one.
Wipe out a drive, install it on a southbridge SATA2 port, then do a clean install of 10.13.6. This is your starting point to upgrade to Mojave.
Thanks again, what is a southbridge SATA2 port? does the optical drive port work for that? that might be the issue as the additional SSD is there.
Southbridge SATA ports are the four drive bays and the two ODD bays. Disconnect everything that you not gonna use, simplify.
then it is what I did, clean install on SSD on one of the southbridge SATA port from another OS on a SB SATA port too.
I'm gonna try to re-install High Sierra from a USB stick to the SSD.
That 142.0.0.0.0 caution should not even included in the first post to confuse people. It is a beta firmware which should not be discussed in this forum according to Apple's agreement.
You can just ignore the caution and do the regular update, because you will never be able to see this 142.0.0.0.0 beta firmware as a regular user.
Did you ever read the first post here? Seems not, since it only includes 142.0.0.0.0 on the history of releases.
You don't maintain the posts, you don't do research, you don't help, why you still trying to police what is posted here?
Seems you are obsessed with firmware 142.0.0.0.0. Let’s talk about that version a while. I tested it and I also bricked a machine with it. I had plenty of discussions with Developer Relations about firmware 142.0.0.0.0.
It was included in two test previews and ADR wasn’t aware of the problem that it caused. Thankfully I had @tsialex as a resource to help isolate firmware 142.0.0.0.0’s limitations with regards to CPU compatibility.
I recovered from this non-functional condition caused by firmware 142.0.0.0.0 rather quickly with the help of @tsialex . Apple released the firmware 142.0.0.0.0 in the another successive DP version as well.
With further communications to ADR about the inclusion of firmware 142.0.0.0.0, I was able to demonstrate the issue with firmware 142.0.0.0.0, and Apple pulled firmware 142.0.0.0.0. In this way, further damage was not caused by people attempting to use firmware 142.0.0.0.0.
It seems you don’t want people to know about the dangers of firmware 142.0.0.0.0. You should know there are plenty of developers who are not hardware gurus. They install DP versions to test with their own software creations. Said developers also received firmware 142.0.0.0.0 and needed help to recover. Help that Apple could not provide since they didn’t know about the problems with firmware 142.0.0.0.0.
Personally I’m very appreciative of the now-near, common knowledge, about the dangers of firmware 142.0.0.0.0. I have many friends here in the MR community who averted problems caused by firmware 142.0.0.0.0 by learning of its dangers through continued discussions about firmware 142.0.0.0.0.
Thank you for your highlighting concerns about firmware 142.0.0.0.0. By bringing highlighted attention, and reviving the topic of firmware 142.0.0.0.0, perhaps you have made many more people aware of the dangers of firmware 142.0.0.0. Now, with all the discussions about firmware 142.0.0.0.0, it will hopefully be easy to find information when someone uses the search phrase firmware 142.0.0.0.0.
Last edited: