Wait... what the heck's the difference between 2006 Mac Pro and 2007 Mac Pro?

TheSpaz

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 20, 2005
7,032
1
Well?

I thought the 2006 and 2007 Mac Pros have 32bit EFI. How come then is the 2007 Mac Pro not listed under Apple's unsupported hardware for Windows 7 in Boot Camp 3.1 today?

On my 2006 Mac Pro, I can't boot from the 64bit Windows 7 retail DVD and I assumed it was the same for the 2007 Mac Pro... so how did they get so lucky?

I'm really confused now. What's so wrong with 2006 Mac Pro?
 

gugucom

macrumors 68020
May 21, 2009
2,136
0
Munich, Germany
The 2007 Mac Pro was not officially a separate model. It got some firmware development and so the firmware model is 2,1. The most likely explanation is that the 2007 works exactly the same as the 2006 in terms of firmware updates.
 

TheSpaz

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 20, 2005
7,032
1
The 2007 Mac Pro was not officially a separate model. It got some firmware development and so the firmware model is 2,1. The most likely explanation is that the 2007 works exactly the same as the 2006 in terms of firmware updates.
If it's the same then why isn't it on the list?
 

bozz2006

macrumors 68030
Aug 24, 2007
2,530
0
Minnesota
Apple is terribly vague and offers the public a very incomplete picture of what's going on under the hoods of their computers.
 

TheSpaz

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 20, 2005
7,032
1
because in Apple's queer thinking there is no such thing as a 2007 model. Every reasonable person would have named the firmware 1,2 instead of 2,1 but thats Apple for you.
My question is... why did they update the firmwares on those models if they were the same as the 2006 model? That doesn't make any sense. There must be different hardware to need different firmware separate from the 2006 Mac Pro.
 

MacVidCards

Suspended
Nov 17, 2008
7,506
1,029
Hollywood, CA
I think the 2,1 machines are the Dual Quad 3.0 machines. Perhaps there is some small difference in the firmware, if nothing else the digit "1" being replaced by "2".

When I reference these various Macs, I consider a "1,1" machine to be first Gen, "2,1" to be 2nd, "3,1" to be third, and....wait for it......"4,1" to be 4th gen. Makes it much easier than calling a "3,1" a "2nd Gen", etc.

But to each his own...call them the "Scooby Doo Special" if you like....the only important difference to us is that the first 2 take 32bit EFI GPUS and OS, and the newer 2 take the 64bit cards and OS.
 

gugucom

macrumors 68020
May 21, 2009
2,136
0
Munich, Germany
I think the 2,1 machines are the Dual Quad 3.0 machines. Perhaps there is some small difference in the firmware, if nothing else the digit "1" being replaced by "2".

When I reference these various Macs, I consider a "1,1" machine to be first Gen, "2,1" to be 2nd, "3,1" to be third, and....wait for it......"4,1" to be 4th gen. Makes it much easier than calling a "3,1" a "2nd Gen", etc.

But to each his own...call them the "Scooby Doo Special" if you like....the only important difference to us is that the first 2 take 32bit EFI GPUS and OS, and the newer 2 take the 64bit cards and OS.
The 2,1 was indeed able to identify the quad CPUs. The 1,1 wasn't. Perhaps that is the only or near only difference between the two firmware versions. New microcode for the X5300 Xeon series.
 

TheSpaz

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 20, 2005
7,032
1
I think the 2,1 machines are the Dual Quad 3.0 machines. Perhaps there is some small difference in the firmware, if nothing else the digit "1" being replaced by "2".

When I reference these various Macs, I consider a "1,1" machine to be first Gen, "2,1" to be 2nd, "3,1" to be third, and....wait for it......"4,1" to be 4th gen. Makes it much easier than calling a "3,1" a "2nd Gen", etc.

But to each his own...call them the "Scooby Doo Special" if you like....the only important difference to us is that the first 2 take 32bit EFI GPUS and OS, and the newer 2 take the 64bit cards and OS.
That's exactly what I thought, but when Apple says "2006 Mac Pro" I think they're misleading their customers that Mac Pro's purchased in 2007 will be able to boot from the Windows 7 64bit DVD... which it should not.
 

Mackilroy

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2006
3,614
58
That's exactly what I thought, but when Apple says "2006 Mac Pro" I think they're misleading their customers that Mac Pro's purchased in 2007 will be able to boot from the Windows 7 DVD... which it should not.
I purchased my Mac Pro in 2007 and it booted from my Win7 DVD. *shrug*
 

TheSpaz

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 20, 2005
7,032
1

Mackilroy

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2006
3,614
58
Then why can't the 2006 Mac Pro boot from the 64bit DVD? Why isn't there a firmware update for our machines?
I have the 2006 machine, Spaz. I purchased it in 2007. ;)

Hmmm... And I recently went through the process of offloading my 07 machine for an 08 machine because I was concerned it wouldn't be able to support windows 7.
Nope, it supports it excellently. I wrote this post in Win7.
 

TheSpaz

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 20, 2005
7,032
1
I have the 2006 machine, Spaz. I purchased it in 2007. ;)



Nope, it supports it excellently. I wrote this post in Win7.
If I remember correctly, you downloaded the Windows 7 iso file and had to burn your own DVD. If you burn the Windows 7 DVD, it will boot just fine... however, booting from the retail authentic Microsoft disc will not work in a 2006 Mac Pro.

That's what you did. Once I burned Windows 7 onto a blank DVD, it booted and installed perfectly fine. The only other thing I had to do was manually launch the bootcamp64.msi manually with command-line.

Hope that clears up some confusion about it.
 

Mackilroy

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2006
3,614
58
If I remember correctly, you downloaded the Windows 7 iso file and had to burn your own DVD. If you burn the Windows 7 DVD, it will boot just fine... however, booting from the retail authentic Microsoft disc will not work in a 2006 Mac Pro.

That's what you did. Once I burned Windows 7 onto a blank DVD, it booted and installed perfectly fine. The only other thing I had to do was manually launch the bootcamp64.msi manually with command-line.

Hope that clears up some confusion about it.
I recall that. However, there's nothing to suggest my .iso was any different than your retail disc from Microsoft.

As we really don't know what the differences are, there isn't much point discussing it. I'm not going to ask Microsoft for a DVD, and I doubt you're going to use the retail DVD to attempt an install again.

Oh, before I forget, I didn't have to use the command line for anything.
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
I recall that. However, there's nothing to suggest my .iso was any different than your retail disc from Microsoft.

As we really don't know what the differences are, there isn't much point discussing it. I'm not going to ask Microsoft for a DVD, and I doubt you're going to use the retail DVD to attempt an install again.

Oh, before I forget, I didn't have to use the command line for anything.
The retail disks have all the versions on it, and features are unlocked according to the Key used. To do this, there's a mod to the ISO standard that's not on those in the EFI32 systems (has to do with version tracking, delineated by ;1).

The retail disks can be moded though, (i.e. burnt to a new disk without the version tracking), and will then boot and install (source). The downloads likely got rid of the various versions in the retail disk to make a smaller .iso, as some users' ISP's do have data caps.
 

MRU

Suspended
Aug 23, 2005
25,312
8,706
Other
Then why can't the 2006 Mac Pro boot from the 64bit DVD? Why isn't there a firmware update for our machines?
It can.... Just google for the solution.

Apple official support is missing, that doesn't mean it does not work.

My 2006 mac pro ran win 7 64bit not trouble at all after I applied the fix I found on the net.
 

Mackilroy

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2006
3,614
58
The retail disks have all the versions on it, and features are unlocked according to the Key used. To do this, there's a mod to the ISO standard that's not on those in the EFI32 systems (has to do with version tracking, delineated by ;1).
Ah. Does that include 64-bit? Because I'm running Win7 64.

Yeah I got that, especially as it's not on apples no go list.

I was saying the speculation was that it would be on the unsupported list.

'workarounds' ignored that is.
Indeed.

Workarounds? All I did was stick in the DVD, go through the upgrade process (I was originally running XP 32-bit) and that was it. I didn't have to do anything else.
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
Ah. Does that include 64-bit? Because I'm running Win7 64.
Yes.

Only those in the Retail and Upgrade (IIRC) packages for 32 or 64 bit though (plastic box, not paper & plastic sleeve is a simple way to tell ;)). OEM, System Builder's (SB), and downloaded ISO's directly from MS don't (i.e. no torrents :p). Those are single versions ONLY.
 

TheSpaz

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 20, 2005
7,032
1
It can.... Just google for the solution.

Apple official support is missing, that doesn't mean it does not work.

My 2006 mac pro ran win 7 64bit not trouble at all after I applied the fix I found on the net.
Same with me. Found the fix, made a DVD and it runs fine now.

I recall that. However, there's nothing to suggest my .iso was any different than your retail disc from Microsoft.

As we really don't know what the differences are, there isn't much point discussing it. I'm not going to ask Microsoft for a DVD, and I doubt you're going to use the retail DVD to attempt an install again.

Oh, before I forget, I didn't have to use the command line for anything.
Yes, your burned DVD is different from the authentic DVD. You don't have 2 partitions on your DVD. Stop arguing with me. If you had the original Microsoft factory DVD, you'd see that your Mac won't start from the 64bit disc. (32bit disc starts though). Since you burned the DVD yourself, it's going to work fine because that portion of the disc isn't there on the burned version.

Ah. Does that include 64-bit? Because I'm running Win7 64.

Indeed.

Workarounds? All I did was stick in the DVD, go through the upgrade process (I was originally running XP 32-bit) and that was it. I didn't have to do anything else.
Again, we know that your burned DVD worked. My burned DVD works too! Wow, what a concept. Fact is, the 64bit retail disc won't boot on an EFI32 Mac. RETAIL, not BURNED.
 

Mackilroy

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2006
3,614
58
Yes, your burned DVD is different from the authentic DVD. You don't have 2 partitions on your DVD. Stop arguing with me. If you had the original Microsoft factory DVD, you'd see that your Mac won't start from the 64bit disc. (32bit disc starts though). Since you burned the DVD yourself, it's going to work fine because that portion of the disc isn't there on the burned version.
Remarkably, I do understand the difference between a retail and burned DVD. I've never claimed I had two partitions, and I'm not arguing with you. I'm just talking and asking questions. If I'm wrong, that's all right. That's why I ask questions. If that offends you and makes you angry, well, that's your problem.

Again, we know that your burned DVD worked. My burned DVD works too! Wow, what a concept. Fact is, the 64bit retail disc won't boot on an EFI32 Mac. RETAIL, not BURNED.
I'm not attacking you, man. I've asked a few questions and gotten a few answers.

There's really no point in insulting me. Was I presumptuous saying I didn't think there were any differences between my disc and a retail copy? Sure. But nanofrog corrected me politely. You became hysterical.

:rolleyes:

I don't recall - did you upgrade directly from XP/Vista or did you do a fresh install? I only did a fresh install the second time I tried putting Win7 on my machine.
 

TheSpaz

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 20, 2005
7,032
1
Remarkably, I do understand the difference between a retail and burned DVD. I've never claimed I had two partitions, and I'm not arguing with you. I'm just talking and asking questions. If I'm wrong, that's all right. That's why I ask questions. If that offends you and makes you angry, well, that's your problem.


I'm not attacking you, man. I've asked a few questions and gotten a few answers.

There's really no point in insulting me. Was I presumptuous saying I didn't think there were any differences between my disc and a retail copy? Sure. But nanofrog corrected me politely. You became hysterical.

:rolleyes:

I don't recall - did you upgrade directly from XP/Vista or did you do a fresh install? I only did a fresh install the second time I tried putting Win7 on my machine.
I'm sorry if I was a little attackative toward you. You just keep insisting that all you had to do was boot from the DVD and install it. We already know this. You also said that "However, there's nothing to suggest my .iso was any different than your retail disc from Microsoft.". Well, I was just trying to tell you that there is a difference between a burned image of Windows 7 and the actual retail disc. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be tutorials all over the internet on how to burn a DVD to make an early Mac Pro able to boot from it. I've also experienced it first hand, so I'm not just going by user reports.

All you need to know is Retail Disc ≠ User Burned DVD. Even though you didn't actually modify your .iso image, your burn did not burn the extra disc partition with the boot check files on it.

Again, sorry for attackifying you a bit... I was just getting frustrated from explaining it over and over.

Edit: To answer your question, I did a full clean install on a formatted drive.