Why is my mac pro not compatible with Mountain Lion?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by davidnssbm, Jul 28, 2012.

  1. davidnssbm macrumors regular

    Oct 23, 2009
    Here are my specs:

    Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
    Processor Speed: 3 Ghz
    Number of Processors: 2
    Total number of Cores: 8
    L2 Cache (per Processor): 8MB
    Memory: 4GB 667 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
    Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz

    Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Slot-1
    Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Slot-2
    Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Slot-3
    Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Slot-4

  2. TacticalDesire macrumors 68020


    Mar 19, 2012
  3. PowerPCMacMan macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2012
    PowerPC land
    This is very sad for owners of 1,1 and 2,1 Mac Pros. However, nothing is invulnerable. I read somewhere that someone edited the .plist and changed the installer to allow 1,1 and 2,1 mac pros to install Mountain Lion.. but I am not sure where this is at the moment.

    I really feel sorry for those who spend 1000's of dollars a few years back and can't run 10.8, where as Microsoft when Windows 8 comes out will be able to run on 5-8 year old hardware.

    Truly sad and pathetic!
  4. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    Largely because it is old.

    "... Vintage products are those that were discontinued more than five and less than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued hardware service for vintage products with the following exception: ..."

    The specs are largely immaterial. However, the video cards are obsolete and out of spec with minimal OpenGL levels in 10.8 . Having four of them only makes it four times obsolete. (Nvidia isn't supporting those cards either. This isn't an "Apple thing". ). Similarly, Intel has desupported the the CPU. The RAM DIMM format is vintage and in limited support by vendors.

    The Mac Pro 2007 (2,1) superseded some of the Mac Pro 2006 models. That "discontinue + 5" date was April 2012. Already past. The notion that these machines aren't on the verge of being desupported by Apple is a farce. Even the 2,1 was superseded in Jan 2008 so it has less that 5 months reprieve. It is on death row. There is no rational reason for Apple to add a new feature to a death row product.

    Lion (10.7) works on these machines just fine. In the year left where it is getting security updates is plenty of time to come up with a plan to either retire the 2006/2007 Mac Pro or arrange to completely firewall it from the Internet (e.g., Nanny block it with parental controls for no access with a router/gateway ).
  5. SilverTard macrumors member

    Jul 18, 2012
    Because you were sold a machine represented as "64-Bit" that was not really "64-Bit". Read this thread for more info.

  6. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Dec 2, 2010
    Apple deliberately not included the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 as supported in ML. My thought on why is so that these people upgrade to a current version. Apple has lots of Mac Pros in stock currently that they need to get rid of before they update it. Its smart, but a real pain for everybody how has a 06, 07 MP
  7. PowerPCMacMan macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2012
    PowerPC land
    I call it greed and not caring for their customers. Apple marketed the 2006/2007 Mac Pros as 64-bit Xeon based.. there was NO fine print saying.. "Oh, its a pure 64-bit machine, but we have limited you to 32-bit efi forever" - This was piss poor marketing on Apple's part.

    The 2006/2007 Mac Pro community has my prayers that one day Netkas and his team will make a 64-bit EFI tool for 2006 and 2007 owners just as one can flash the EFI firmware from a 5,1 mac pro to a 4,1, making it a 5,1 instantly.

    Also, I am sure some one has working a way to edit a certain install .plist which one can edit what machines the installer will allow Mountain Lion to be installed on.

    I can't imagine that a 64-bit EFI flash utility for those folks can't be made, but then again who thought a 4,1 to 5,1 flash util could do it?

  8. blackhand1001 macrumors 68030


    Jan 6, 2009
    Windows 8 will run on stuff from the beginning of the millennium. And pretty well too. Apple is really dropping the ball by discontinueing support for machines that way more than enough power to run these OS's. Those Mac pros can run 64 bit windows with no issue. And quite frankly they perform better in windows as well.
  9. PowerPCMacMan macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2012
    PowerPC land
    Agreed, even the PowerPC Macs are still fully functional today. There was no need to stop at Leopard for them, and yet a Quad G5 is still powerful enough for even the most demanding tasks and yet its stuck on Leopard.

    Again, its really sad that Apple has changed their ways about forced obosolence. The only time a machine is rendered obsolete is if it can't run what you want it to run, or the tasks you do everyday can't be done anymore. Proof one:

    I am using a PB G4 1.67 for my everyday tasks and with many tweaks I have done, I can view 1080p and 720p on my powerbook with no problems. So much for "forced obsolesence". The same can be said for those with 2006-2007 Mac Pros, Why cut them off from 10.8 just because it was their fault that they advertised those machines as being 64-bit capable? Where is or was the fine print on these machines stating it can't boot in 64-bit kernel mode??

    You get where I am going with this. And please don't just because I use a PB G4 for my everyday stuff. My Mac Pro is being used right now as a server and file cabinet for all my stuff.

  10. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Oct 28, 2008
    This is about the best answer you will get.

    There are many threads already about this, however it boils down, because Apple says so.

    As far as I am aware Apple have not made a statement as to why they have made this choice, although there is plenty of thought already written on the web as to why. If anyone has a statement from Apple ( including source ) as to the reason why then please provide it.

    There are multiple places on the web about getting Moutain Lion working on a Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 and I understand the earlier developer previews worked on them so it isn't a technical reason as to why it isn't supported, although the shipped graphics cards and supported cards for them don't support the graphics engine I believe. People have added there own flashed cards and Apple 5770 cards, which I believe again Apple chose not to support in the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 although they do work and it is with cards like this that 10.8 is working the 1,1 and 2,1 models.

    I have read through the threads on here and haven't seen anything in them as to why Apple HAVE to or MUST add support for a Mac Pro 1,1 or 2,1 to Mountain Lion.

    There is plenty of expectations and assumptions, however I cannot see anything in them as to why Apple has to support them with 10.8, other then that the owners of Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 models want them too, as they do not want to have to buy newer hardware.
  11. Asgorath macrumors 65816

    Mar 30, 2012
    Major difference here is that Apple sells hardware while Microsoft (currently) does not. Apple could make $20 from selling you Mountain Lion, or $2500 by selling you a new 2012 Mac Pro. Which do you think they're more inclined to do?

    Edit: To be clear, the underlying reason is no 64-bit EFI, as others have mentioned. I'm not even sure 64-bit EFIs were around when those systems were released in 2006/2007.
  12. SilverTard macrumors member

    Jul 18, 2012
    If the 1,1 & 2,1 machines were honestly 64-Bit platforms, which Apple stated there were, then there would be no 32-Bit limitations in the system. That is the entire point. If it had a 64-Bit EMI it would run, which can be proven because if you hack the machine (and lose official support) you can run ML.

    This comes down to the fact that Mac Pro 1,1 & 2,1 systems are NOT truly 64-Bit Workstations as they advertised. Simple.

    They just wanted to drop 32-Bit support and the MP 1,1 & 2,1 got caught in the crossfire.... and we are just supposed to say "oh well".

    So what, I get screwed for believing their initial advertising, becoming an early adopter of the platform and spending $8000 on the machine? Just too bad for me? I don't think so.

    Go watch the WWDC 2006 video on Youtube. They push that it is a "64-Bit Workstation". Lie.
  13. Matthew Yohe macrumors 68020

    Oct 12, 2006
    It sounds like you're getting you're gearing up for quite the legal battle here...

    Let me save you the embarrassment though. The Mac Pro is indeed a 64-bit system. This is evidenced by being able to run 64-bit apps.

    Apple simply hasn't written a 64bit kernel extension for supporting their own operating system. But you could certainly use other operating systems that does indeed support this hardware.
  14. alvindarkness macrumors 6502a

    Jul 11, 2009
    The developer previews worked because the older kernel could boot in 32bit and 64bit mode, and the kexts contained both 32 and 64bit code. Thats not the case with build 12A269 (GM/Release). Not a bad decision, as its the obvious way forward. The GM release had a 1.5GB smaller footprint on my hdd compared to DP4 (although I'm sure some of that was also removing debug code).

    You are right, you can get the 1,1 working by installing chameleon. Search netkas's forums for more details. Looks like the 7300 lost support late in the game, but there are cheap alternatives out there, especially once have chameleon/chimera installed.

    The other obstacle could be getting ML to start installing once it checks your system specs. This can be bypassed by editing the distribution file in the installer. Or possibly by editing the smbios once you have chameleon running.




    Heres more info.
  15. mustang_dvs macrumors 6502a


    Feb 9, 2003
    Durham, NC
    I'm sorry, but your math is incorrect.

    January 8, 2008 + 5 years ≠ April 2012.

    The 2,1 machines are a specific configuration of the 1,1 -- with upgraded firmware to support the Quad-Core X5355 and X5365 CPUs. The only thing that the 3.0GHz octo-core 2,1's superseded were the 3.0GHz quad-core 1,1's.

    Apple's internal documentation considers them essentially the same. And more importantly, Apple's 'discontinuation date' for both the 1,1 and 2,1 Mac Pros is January 8, 2008; the day the 3,1s were announced.
  16. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Oct 28, 2008
    In addition to the argument regarding the 64bit ness of the machine, Apple also don't provide support for that models official graphics cards in Mountain Lion. People are either running unofficial graphics cards that work in a 1,1 and 2,1 or hacking in the support for the official graphics card to be able to work as well. There is more to 10.8 and Mac Pro 1,1/ 2,1 then just the EFI implementation from what I am seeing on the Web.

    Apple hasn't ever ( to my knowledge ) claimed that 10.8 would run on the Mac Pro 1,1 2,1, and as far as I am aware has not provided any statements as to why they don't support it. When asked why not supported then they have declined to answer as to why. They have simply said that is Mac Pro 2008 model onwards, nothing has been forthcoming from Apple as to why. Only speculation on the internet that is due to the EFI being 32bit, AND graphics cards support.

    Hence why I asked if anyone does have a statement from Apple about why officially not supporting to let us know why. All we have at the moment is what non-Apple people have worked out.

    So assuming you win your case, and Apple agree to provide a 64 bit EFI it still won't work with Mountain Lion whilst running only Apple supported upgrades as those GPU isn't supported, and Apple still won't support the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1

    Does Apple even have a legal requirement to support a model it stopped selling 4.5 years ago with Mountain Lion
  17. SilverTard macrumors member

    Jul 18, 2012
    With all due respect Mountain Lion is not even 100% of the argument anymore. Considering that they decided to not support the 1,1 and 2,1 machines it EXPOSED the fact that the machine was never really a full 64-Bit workstation to begin with.... as they claimed.

    Tell you what, if they supplied a 64-Bit EMI for it now I would have no problem putting a correct video card in the machine. I have no problem with that and nor is there any valid claim about THE VIDEO CARD. The machine itself however, not being a true 64-Bit Workstation, totally different story.

    The FTC will have issue with this considering that there are still video recordings of the WWDC 2006 Conference, Magazine Ads and their own web pages where they advertised and presented their new top end workstation as a "64-Bit Workstation". How anyone can try to say it is a 64-Bit Workstation when the SOLD THEM with 32-Bit limitations is beyond me. They need to address this problem as they sold an expensive piece of hardware on false information and now the machine can not even be updated as a cause (or at least partial cause) of it.

    I mean, it does go without argument that they went 100% to requiring a real 64-Bit Workstation with Mountain Lion, the latest OS... The fact that I purchased something they told me WAS a "64-Bit Workstation" and come to find out is not... that is a problem. I did not buy this platform to get tossed to the side due to a lie and be forced to have to go to Linux or Windows on the machine to be able to stay with some type of current OS.

    They kicked us to the curb... period.

  18. derbothaus macrumors 601


    Jul 17, 2010
    So really anyone who has bought a Mac since PPC G5 can claim Apple lied to them as the OS and extensions have not been up to 64-bit totally until a few days ago. What about the 64-bit procs they won't allow to boot the 64-bit kernel? That was only a couple years ago. Same story. Wasted time if you ask me. Apple does what Apple does. If you have not bought a computer in 5 years they don't want you as a customer anyway, apparently. They will take the loss. This isn't 2002 anymore.
  19. SilverTard macrumors member

    Jul 18, 2012
    Nope, your argument doesn't hold water.
  20. derbothaus macrumors 601


    Jul 17, 2010
    How's that? Not sure I even had an argument. You saying your 64 bit processors are more 64-bit than G5's were?
  21. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Dec 17, 2009
    Dont worry about silvertard. He has a doctorate in computer science, his brother is a high powered attorney with 40+ attorneys under him, and he invests heavily in silver. He knows what he is talking about (although I'm still confused why if all of the above is true why he cares so much about an investment made 6+ years ago).... Just saying...
  22. derbothaus macrumors 601


    Jul 17, 2010
    Probably asking over $1,000,000 in personal residuals as well:rolleyes:
    And I don't make excuses for companies. They are bloodless entities. But you need some legs to stand on and I just don't see it. I am a dumb-ass and see the swiss cheese of this argument. Apple has been using 64-bit touting every year for 9 freakin years (June 2003). "New" 64-bit. Starting with the 64-bit "capable" PowerPC G5 IBM processor. They forgot about 64-bit advertising during PPC/ Intel changeover (probably hoped we did too as we never got 64-bit anything on G5) until their new 64-bit "capable" OS 10.5. Then 64-bit kernel welding 10.6. Then EFI64. Then... Show me a Mac they still support after 5 years? That's the reason. Planned obsolescence. It is the American way. Otherwise we would have no economy as everything is built elsewhere. We need constant consumption. Courts will not rule against capitalism. Sorry. end rant\
  23. SilverTard macrumors member

    Jul 18, 2012
    It is the principle of it.

    Furthermore, I have been honest about everything I said. If this does move forward to a suit you will know the name of the firm specifically. :)
  24. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Oct 28, 2008
    Where is the support for his 7300GT cards, or any other Graphics Card that this model officially supports n Mountain Lion. You would still have to hack to get the graphics to work or run a 5770 that isn't supported in the model ( even though it works ) As such it is not just a 64 bit EFI as to why not supported. To say that the thread starters Mac Pro would start to run ML if he had a 64 bit EFI is just not true.

    If the argument is about 64bit or not then you are in the wrong thread. The thread is about why the thread starters Mac Pro is not compatible with Mountain Lion. It isn't about 64bit ness of the model.

    As Mountain Lion doesn't support the 7300GT card either, or the ATI cards that his Mac Pro officially supports then it is not just about whether the machine is a 64 bit machine. Even if he had a 64 bit EFI he would have to apply hacks to make it work on the machine, or upgrade to a non supported configuration. If he has to apply hacks or run non-supported hardware then the machine isn't compatible with Mountain Lion is it.

    That still would not change the fact that Apple have chosen for a reason known only to themselves not to support this model. No one has yet brought forth a statement from Apple about why not supporting it. Where have Apple said that they haven't supported the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 due to a 32 bit EFI limitation. There is plenty of stuff on the web from reviewers etc about this being the reason but nothing from Apple so is just speculation.

    You talk about putting the correct card in there, what card is it that is officially supported in the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 models that is supported by Mountain Lion. Doesn't this show that is more then just a case of a 32 bit EFI regarding compatibility?

    As hardware gets older it stops being supported by newer Operating Systems. These boxes haven't been sold for 4.5 years. This isn't anything new in the PC industry. What is the legal requirement for Apple to provide support on a new OS with a machine that they stopped selling 4.5 years ago.
  25. goMac macrumors 603

    Apr 15, 2004

    Past five years, don't plan on getting OS updates.

    I've heard this at various times from people at Apple. As soon as the machine is declared vintage, they don't want to spend time testing on them.

    7 years is if you're lucky. Hoping my old 2008 is lucky long enough for whatever Apple is doing next year to come out.

Share This Page