Woodcrest MacPro- Benefit from SL?

[OZMP]

Well, With Snow Leopard on the horizon, and there already being some 64bit operating systems out there which are a hassle to get working with the "woodcrest" MacPro machines, eg, W7 x64 is a no go, and I have read that it is a PITA to get Vista x64 going(and a waste of time anyway). It has gotten me thinking, will Snow Leopard work in true 64bit form in the machine that was advertised as a 64bit Pro workstation?
I am eager too see how much of a difference Grand Central and Open CL make!

Thanks for your input(in advance).

 

[gugucom]

This I cannot understand. I have Vista 64-bit running on a Woodcrest without much ado. You have to sort out the SATA drivers because Apple firmware is crap about that, but truely all Xeon 5000 series and all C2D are 64 bit capable and even support 64-Bit Windows virtualization in hardware. Even XP-64-Bit would run if Apple were providing drivers. Enough people have done that on their own. I had XP64 on a MBP and would bet to be able to run it on a Macpro1,1. So what is the issue with W7-64?

 

[OZMP]

have to modify the ISO to get it working.... something i can not be bothered doing in my personal time considering it is part of my day job

 

[gugucom]

Oh, I understand what you are talking about. This is an incompatibility between the Apple EFI and the multiple image iso that Microsoft uses in their Vista publishing. I do not think it is limited to specific machines and will be better for new models. The problems occurs to all 64-Bit machines in Apple's line up.

The EFI boot loader cannot digest multiple images on the Microsoft installation disk. Microsoft puts them on to enable anytime upgrade from Business to Ultimate. I agree it is a pain in the ass to isolate the images with vLite. It is another great example of Microsoft and Apple not working together for the benefit of the customers.

This issue will be sorted by new Firmware I guess. If they do it to Nehalems they should also do it to Woodcrest/Clovertown.

 

[Eithanius]

This issue will be sorted by new Firmware I guess. If they do it to Nehalems they should also do it to Woodcrest/Clovertown.

In your dreams perhaps. From my experience on Apple's one-after-another blunders, they will only issue firmware to older Macs to address critical issues. Once a generation of Macs are superseded, they're left behind without any hints of firmware developments.

I've wrote to Apple regarding my Clovertown in relations to the EFI firmware on the recently updated graphics cards, they only care to reply me with a meaningless case number.

 

[Tesselator]

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7724166/

 

[OZMP]

Oh, I understand what you are talking about. This is an incompatibility between the Apple EFI and the multiple image iso that Microsoft uses in their Vista publishing. I do not think it is limited to specific machines and will be better for new models. The problems occurs to all 64-Bit machines in Apple's line up.

The EFI boot loader cannot digest multiple images on the Microsoft installation disk. Microsoft puts them on to enable anytime upgrade from Business to Ultimate. I agree it is a pain in the ass to isolate the images with vLite. It is another great example of Microsoft and Apple not working together for the benefit of the customers.

This issue will be sorted by new Firmware I guess. If they do it to Nehalems they should also do it to Woodcrest/Clovertown.

yeah, i meant W7 though... anyway.
A mate killed my EFI boot loader with linux, so had to be re-written or remapped too.... all good now though.

 

[gugucom]

In your dreams perhaps. From my experience on Apple's one-after-another blunders, they will only issue firmware to older Macs to address critical issues. Once a generation of Macs are superseded, they're left behind without any hints of firmware developments.

At least it will definetely not be an issue that gets resolved by Snow Leopard. I have little experience with Apple's firmware upgrade policy. I only know they do them occasionally. Considering that there are workarounds and 3rd party Software is causing the problems they my not adress this for a long time. Perhaps the 2010 or 2011 Macs will have a solution.

BTW, there are also significant problems in the educational market because MS release a lot of stuff online to students with multiple images. Perhaps that is why Apple isn't so keen to fix it. Keeps the future customers from using MS on their machines.

 

[OZMP]

In your dreams perhaps. From my experience on Apple's one-after-another blunders, they will only issue firmware to older Macs to address critical issues. Once a generation of Macs are superseded, they're left behind without any hints of firmware developments.

I've wrote to Apple regarding my Clovertown in relations to the EFI firmware on the recently updated graphics cards, they only care to reply me with a meaningless case number.

wouldnt their new OS not working be critical?

 

[mcnaugha]

Not all Core 2 Macs support 64-bit

It's not really an incompatibility when some Macs with 64-bit Core 2 processors can't run 64-bit stuff. It's just firmware fact. You either get 32-bit or 64-bit firmware from Apple regardless of the processor's own 'skillset'.

To check your own system's firmware, run this command in the Terminal:

ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

Apple tends only to include 64-bit firmware in 'Pro' hardware. Consumers haven't needed it before apparently.

 

[OZMP]

It's not really an incompatibility when some Macs with 64-bit Core 2 processors can't run 64-bit stuff. It's just firmware fact. You either get 32-bit or 64-bit firmware from Apple regardless of the processor's own 'skillset'.

To check your own system's firmware, run this command in the Terminal:

ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

Apple tends only to include 64-bit firmware in 'Pro' hardware. Consumers haven't needed it before apparently.

specs in the sig

| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFI32">

 

[gugucom]

I have run a quick check on my 2008 MBP with 64 bit EFI. It is actually showing two disk symbols. If you hit the Windows named disk it will load multiple images boot disks.

So the issue is already fixed and it appears that all 64 bit EFI machines can boot MS multiple images disks without workaround.

Not a big issue for someone with a bit of a mind to improve his machine. Fixing the SATA issue on Woodcrests was a much tougher challenge.

It is definetly not an issue of Pro versus Consumer hardware, just that newer machines get an upgraded EFI. My 2006 MBP with 32-bit EFI had the same problem as the 2006 Macpro1,1 and I had to filter the images.

The whole thing really has nothing to do with 64-bit operating systems. Apple's system disks will never be hit by this issue. And it can occur to 32-bit install DVDs with multiple images as well. So if you are affected just do the work around to filter out the image you need.

 

[Sehnsucht]

specs in the sig

| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFI32">

I just went and checked all the Macs in my house, all returned this:

| |   "firmware-abi" = <"EFI64">

2006 Mac Pro already on the way to becoming abandonware? That's sad.

 

[Infrared]

Oh, I understand what you are talking about. This is an incompatibility between the Apple EFI and the multiple image iso that Microsoft uses in their Vista publishing. I do not think it is limited to specific machines and will be better for new models. The problems occurs to all 64-Bit machines in Apple's line up.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't

A lot of people had this issue with Vista x64 SP1 (integrated).
For me the issue never occurred. I had the disc sent directly
from Microsoft, i.e., I didn't burn it from a downloaded image.
So maybe I ended up with something different on the disc to
what others had. But the fact remains I've installed Vista SP1,
Server 2008 and Windows 7 and never seen this problem.

 

[Infrared]

I've wrote to Apple regarding my Clovertown in relations to the EFI firmware on the recently updated graphics cards, they only care to reply me with a meaningless case number.

Apple won't do anything unless they perceive it as damaging their image.
Which essentially means a lot of people kicking up a fuss about it, or one
or two high profile bloggers. Embarrassing Apple is what works. I wish it
were otherwise, but that's how it's proven to be so many times before.

 

[gugucom]

2006 Mac Pro already on the way to becoming abandonware? That's sad.

I don't think you can say that. The Macpro1,1 launched with a 32bit EFI and why should Apple fix something that isn't broken? It would be nice to have firmware development of that kind but it is hardly enforceable.

 

[Infrared]

I don't think you can say that. The Macpro1,1 launched with a 32bit EFI and why should Apple fix something that isn't broken? It would be nice to have firmware development of that kind but it is hardly enforceable.

Well, the problem is a lack of foresight on Apple's part. They shouldn't
have gone with 32-bit EFI in the first place. And they ignored UEFI 2.0,
which means they chose a dead-end technology:

http://download.intel.com/technology/efi/docs/pdfs/EFIS001Spr06.pdf

The UEFI 2.0 specification is the current evolving standard.
The EFI 1.1 specification won't evolve beyond EFI 1.1.

Apple are way behind the curve here compared to Microsoft. Which is
ironic given their talk of legacy operating systems.

Despite all that, however, one shouldn't exaggerate the importance of
these issues. Many people will not know and will not care.

 

[Tesselator]

We all know that the current version is EFI 1.3 though right? Auto-updated to 1.2 in pre 2008 machines and 1.3 in the 2008 Mac Pros. Not sure what the 2009's come with.

 

[Infrared]

We all know that the current version is EFI 1.3 though right? Auto-updated to 1.2 in pre 2008 machines and 1.3 in the 2008 Mac Pros.

That's Apple's own version number. It does not, I believe, refer to the
version of the EFI standard implemented. There is no EFI 1.3 standard.
If you check the EFI version string using rEFIt, it remains 1.1 even after
applying the 1.3 update.

So I would think the '3' means, "our 3rd implementation of the EFI 1.1
standard". Or something like that.

 

[OZMP]

I just went and checked all the Macs in my house, all returned this:

| |   "firmware-abi" = <"EFI64">

2006 Mac Pro already on the way to becoming abandonware? That's sad.

Well, the problem is a lack of foresight on Apple's part. They shouldn't
have gone with 32-bit EFI in the first place. And they ignored UEFI 2.0,
which means they chose a dead-end technology:



Apple are way behind the curve here compared to Microsoft. Which is
ironic given their talk of legacy operating systems.

Despite all that, however, one shouldn't exaggerate the importance of
these issues. Many people will not know and will not care.

Is there anyway to bring it up to EFI2.0? is it just a matter of Apple writing the code and us loading it?

Once there is a MacBook quicker than my MacPro this thing was going to be made into a server, but things don't look good for it right now.

 

[Tesselator]

That's Apple's own version number. It does not, I believe, refer to the
version of the EFI standard implemented. There is no EFI 1.3 standard.
If you check the EFI version string using rEFIt, it remains 1.1 even after
applying the 1.3 update.

So I would think the '3' means, "our 3rd implementation of the EFI 1.1
standard". Or something like that.

Ah, OK. Thanks for that. I actually suspected as much but thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[MacVidCards]

when i put Vista64 SP1 on my 1st Gen I had no idea it was supposed to be problematic so it went fine for me. I found a newer 64 bit bootcamp and installed with no issues

64bit Vista runs A-OK

 

[Eithanius]

when i put Vista64 SP1 on my 1st Gen I had no idea it was supposed to be problematic so it went fine for me. I found a newer 64 bit bootcamp and installed with no issues

64bit Vista runs A-OK

I seriously don't understand how you could run 64-bit without a problem while I'm sitting here struggling to cope with driver incompatibilities...

 

[MacVidCards]

I seriously don't understand how you could run 64-bit without a problem while I'm sitting here struggling to cope with driver incompatibilities...

yeah....sorry about that. now that i know i should have problems....maybe i will.


i DID download the latest bootcamp 64 bit package to make it work....not the one on Leopard disc.

apple's keyboard tricks took some work....had to install a few times, but all working

 

[Eithanius]

yeah....sorry about that. now that i know i should have problems....maybe i will.


i DID download the latest bootcamp 64 bit package to make it work....not the one on Leopard disc.

apple's keyboard tricks took some work....had to install a few times, but all working

I used the same 64-bit drivers downloadable from the Apple website, not the leopard disc. Installed twice, no luck. It kept on prompting me an error message some services would not work, and failed to complete the installation. Keyboard functions totally failed to work.