Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 Next 110 Replies Latest reply: Jun 23, 2013 8:07 PM by dcouzin Go to original post
  • FatMac>MacPro Level 4 Level 4 (3,430 points)

    TOAO wrote:

     

    ...I have a family pack license but have not installed SL or any other operating system on more than one computer as per SLOA agreement. (and no, the installer disc I purchased does not come with a booklet, the 2012 has no installer disc whatsoever but the retail SL installers do)...

    I may be misunderstanding this but it sounds like you have a retail SL installer (10.6.3) that's a Family Pack (i.e., 5 licenses) plus a single license installer disk (10.6.4) that you bought directly from Apple. As has already been mentioned somewhere in these 74 posts, SL 10.6.4 is the minimum that can be installed on the 2010 Mac Pro and that install DVD is what was included in the box with the 2010 Mac Pro. It's unlikely that Apple would create a separate SL DVD specifically for the 2012 Mac Pro that did not come with it installed so I bet what they shipped you is the same as I got in the box with my 2010 Mac Pro. I know that Apple will provide replacement DVD installers for people who have lost those that came with their Mac's, but I'm still surprised that they would knowingly sell you one that is not deemed suitable for your machine and was not originally supplied with it.

     

    In any case, I would assume that you ran the 10.6.8 combo update (http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1399) on the Snow Leopard partition and I assume that it worked without complaint. That was released before the 2012 Mac Pro was so if it installed properly, that would suggest the update's install script couldn't tell the difference between the 2010 and 2012 Mac Pro's.

  • TOAO Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I actually have a retail family pack and a retail single license AND a mfg SL installer.

     

    I typically do not involve myself with psycho analysis that involves speculation as it becomes conundrum.

    Why did Apple sell me the 10.6.4 installer disc????.... Because I specifically asked for it.

     

    As far as guessing what the final results will be on the 2012 versus the 2010, only time will tell, and yes it is fully updated to 10.6.8 as I previously posted.

     

    What has been noticeable and in the interest of being purely technical was posted in my previous.

    The firmware change has made a difference.

    What "ALL" that difference will be in specific terms remains to be ascertained.

    The most noticeable difference in firmware observed immediately, is that the mfg 10.6.4 installer disc WILL boot using the "C' key on the 2010 and Will Not boot using the "C' key on the 2012.

    (a Hint of things to come)

     

    The installer script on the SL update was released Before the 2012 as you stated and was not modified to comply with 2012 firmware restrictions. The script code on that update does not read the firmware, it reads the hardware.

    The hardware is "virtually" identical,.... problem is.... "virtual" is not identical because firmware can make identical hardware electronically different.

     

    Everything else is a guess at this point.

    Guesses that will not become knowledge until it is knowledge.

    (unless you are willing to execute a Boolean Analysis on both PROM, LGA, associated interfaces and Source Code)

  • FatMac>MacPro Level 4 Level 4 (3,430 points)

    TOAO wrote:

     

    ...The most noticeable difference in firmware observed immediately, is that the mfg 10.6.4 installer disc WILL boot using the "C' key on the 2010 and Will Not boot using the "C' key on the 2012.

    (a Hint of things to come)

     

    The installer script on the SL update was released Before the 2012 as you stated and was not modified to comply with 2012 firmware restrictions. The script code on that update does not read the firmware, it reads the hardware.

    The hardware is "virtually" identical,.... problem is.... "virtual" is not identical because firmware can make identical hardware electronically different...

    Since "restoring" is now done either by Recovery Partition or online recovery, I wonder if the ability to boot from a DVD/CD has simply been eliminated by the firmware restrictions you mention. That would be significant because Disk Warrior (and probably other programs) needs to be run separate from the standard startup disk in order to function and Alsoft provides a bootable CD system to do that (we Mac Pro users take multiple startup partitions for granted but most Mac users are not so fortunate).

     

    As to the combo update, I suspect part of the hardware's identity is the firmware (just as another part is the software we call the operating system and which blocks an OS installer from doing a down-grade) and goes into the customization that the combo updater script does as it's run on any particular Mac; whether it's run on a 2010 or 2012 Mac Pro, the installer script simply doesn't care because both are MacPro5,1, which is what the firmware tells it.

  • TOAO Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    That was precisely my point.

    Unless you are an PGA / LGA certified hardware engineer the topic of firmware becomes a very lengthy discussion.

    In this case the evidence of what firmware does should be clear to the typical user.

    The Hardware that is interface to the optical drive in the 2010 and 2012 is perfectly identical including the drive itself.

    The firmware in the 2012 denied booting from a system installer and the 2010 firmware did not.

    Identical hardware whose electronic function was altered by firmware.

    I am investigating what will eventually be defined as ALL the limitations imposed. (including things like DiskWarrior)

    I have not had time to do this.

    It is also very likely that the firmware changes are sophisticated and deny only certain sets of code.

     

    For what its worth.... IF.... the firmware denied all optical disc booting then I would not be able to boot from optical drive whatsoever.

    This has been proven false, the firmware DOES allow booting from optical drives, you just can't boot using the "C" key AS I PREVIOUSLY POSTED.

    Here is yet another point involving this particular firmware and is not empirical for ALL types of firmware.

    Booted in SL, the 2012 firmware ALLOWS launching the retail SL 10.6.3 installer. (don't be stupid, the minimum required OS on the 2010 and 2012 is 10.6.4)

    OBVIOUSLY.... the firmware in the 2012 is ALSO Mountain Lion dependent because the 10.6.3 installer is denied all access.

    This 2012 firmware IS quite sophisticated.

     

    The SL updater cannot "read" into the firmware code. The firmware code allows or denies certain operations when presented with specific logical conditions.

    The SL updater was not modified for the 2012 firmware restrictions and only reads the hardware and installed system.

    This is a discussion that does not help the typical user.

    Barring any future discoveries, Snow Leopard CAN be installed and operate on the Mac Pro 2012 despite firmware restrictions.

    All that remains to be witnessed is what restrictions the 2012 firmware has created in Snow Leopard.

    As of this moment.... there is a 50/50 chance that no "operational" problems will be discovered and evidence is suggesting that the 2012 firmware is only "fully" activated when running Mountain Lion.

    AS I PREVIOUSLY POSTED.... the only glaring exception observed as of this moment is.... disk permissions that cannot be repaired while running Snow Leopard.

     

    With that.... can Snow Leopard be installed and run on the Mac Pro 2012?

    It depends on what your definition of "run" is.

    In technical terms.... "fully" functional has yet to be determined.

    Apple chose not to perform boolean analysis using Snow Leopard in conjunction with the new firmware.

    Therefore, the Corporate answer from Apple is, NO... Snow Leopard is not compatible with the 2012 Mac Pro.

    If pressured.... Apple states and does not waver.... there is ZERO support for running Snow Leopard on the 2012 Mac Pro and Apple will not confirm that Snow Leopard will run.

    Put self in Apple's shoes.

    Why waste time and effort testing a discontinued operating system's software on a new computer with new firmware? Makes no sense. The ONLY answers from Apple will be.... NO or not supported.

     

    One more time with appropriate humor.

    The only way to "down-grade" a computer is to take a hammer to it. Your computer is Hardware.

     

    Case in point.

    Long ago I ran windows 98 via emulation software on an old Mac.

    I then ran the same software on a Mac several generations newer.

    On the old mac, the emulation boot time was roughly 3 minutes.

    On the new mac running the same OS as the old mac, the boot time was Less than 1 second (faster than a blink)

    Evidently your computer IS hardware.

    An older more compact OS running on new generation computer hardware can be stunning in performance and at the same time also place limitations on some operations.

    Take Leopard for example.

    Leopard was designed to fit the hardware of some very old computers and was forced to impose some restrictions, especially on ram, or the computer would crash. Installing Leopard on a new Mac Pro would impose software restrictions but it cannot down-grade the computer.

    Lucky us.... the restrictions in Snow Leopard are virtually non-existent and do make good use of a new Mac Pro.

     

    There is a psychological problem that software engineers have.

    IF.... a computer's hardware can run ten times faster than its previous generation, the software engineer will demand that the computer execute ten times as much.

    The result of this psychopathy is that the user never really notices any stunning performance increase.

    Case in point.

    Many of todays typical program operations were being run back in the 90's on a computer whose hard drive was only 200MB and thousands of files and operating system code was all contained with room to spare on 200MB.

    Realty check. CAD was also being executed on the same machine.

    WHY have operating systems become Gigabytes?

     

    I did not edit this post, please forgive my constant typos.

  • TOAO Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    THIS or similar is what remains to be witnessed with regard to the Mac Pro mid 2012 running Snow Leopard.

    ANYONE including 2010 users can perform the same arbitrary test.

     

    For MY experiment, I intend to run Adobe CS6 on both Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion on the exact same computer. (anyone who is running both systems on a Mac Pro may use any software to conduct the same test)

    At this moment I have not done this yet.

    I can tell you this as a prediction that may or may not be proven true fact.

     

    I will not be surprised at all if the performance of CS6 is more efficient and stable running in Snow Leopard.

    The reason should be quite obvious.

     

    EVERY FILE in Mountain Lion is being converted and prepared for web transfer in the background due to the integration of facebook and twitter in the operating system.

    This "feature" is just dandy for iDevices but effectively deClaws, deFangs, and Neuters a desktop workstation such as the Mac Pro by forcing the computer to execute functions that are entirely superfluous with respect to the designed function of a true workstation.

    Workstations have no true need for such programs and IS the reason I purchased a NonMobile computer.

    The workstation (Mac Pro) is doing computing work that is not required or needed and this slows down and creates potential problems for all program executons.

    Snow Leopard does not have this "feature".

     

    So, is Snow Leopard running on a Mac Pro a "down grade"????

    I'll know soon enough..... if forced to rub the technical crystal ball..... my prediction is.... Snow Leopard is not a down grade at all.

    We'll see if this proves to be true.

     

    Please note, these tests must be performed on software that is compatible with both operating systems.

    Installing the same application on the same computer twice does not violate SLA agreements.

    Application features that require Mountain Lion specifically must be excluded from the tests. (this is why I chose CS6)

  • MlchaelLAX Level 4 Level 4 (1,965 points)

    Would a Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.7 Universal Install flash drive help out your problem?  I have not tried this, but here it is:

     

    http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20120123175902871

  • TOAO Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I bet that would be useful for some people, thanks.

    For me personally.... I just called up Apple and ordered the proper Snow Leopard installer.

    No muss no fuss.

    Might be a good suggestion for anyone who has lost their original installer.

     

    For us Mac pro mid 2012 machines, there is no installer disc.

    Simply order the SL installer 10.6.4 for Mac Pro 2010.

  • dcouzin Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    Thank you, TOAO, for demystifying the (Snow Leopard) Mac Pro 2010 - Mac Pro 2012 difference.   Using the 10.6.4 installer DVD for Mac Pro 2010 (if Apple will sell it) is the prettiest, most legal approach. 

     

    In the meanwhile, the retail 10.6.3 DVD did get Snow Leopard into my Mac Pro 2012.  Using an old 2006 Mac Pro, I installed 10.6.3 onto two volumes of an external hard drive and then ran the10.6.8 Updater Combo on one of them.  The 10.6.8 volume could then boot the Mac Pro 2012.  From that boot I ran the 10.6.8 Updater Combo on the remaining 10.6.3 volume.  The hope was that this 10.6.8 installation would be more nearly optimal for the Mac Pro 2012 than the 10.6.8 installed using just the old 2006 Mac Pro.  But I wonder, could this method still result in a less than optimal installation of 10.6.8 for running the Mac Pro 2012, since it starts with a 10.6.3 installation for old hardware?  In other words, to what extent is an OSX installation specialized to the hardware that does the installation, and how much of this can be undone in updates done with the newer hardware?

  • TOAO Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Perhaps I did not mention that I was aware of the procedure you mentioned.

    I was fully aware of that method of installation.

    I do not approve of the method but if there is no other choice....

     

    I wish I could could provide a solid answer to you, sadly I cannot.

    The only thing I know for certain is that the 10.6.4 installer IS specific to specific hardware.

     

    I can provide guesses but that is ALL that they are.

     

     

    GUESS 1

    It seems that the primary problem with the 10.6.3 Retail installer is improper video drivers.

    The 10.6.3 installer does not provide a driver for one of the primary differences that occurred between the older and newer machines.

    That primary difference is Display Port or Mini Display Port.

    It makes no difference if the MDP is being used or not, what makes a difference is the video card itself.

    I did try a 10.6.3 install using a DVI monitor attached to the 5870 card via DVI port and this made no difference.

    IF.... I had the money to spare.... I would install a non Display Port video card and repeat the process with a DVI monitor. (maybe someday)

    In any case, once the install is updated to 10.6.8, Display Port video cards are supported and not before with the only exception being.... the 10.6.4 installer.

     

     

    GUESS 2

    Since older Mac Pros are compatible with virtually all new versions of software including Mountain Lion, then it stands to "fuzzy" reason that the 10.6.8 update provides all that newer and older Mac Pros require in terms of hardware.

    The reason this is "fuzzy" is based upon observed practice.

    Apple does Not provide a 10.6.4 installer for the Mac Pro mid 2012, there must be a reason other than just a desire to have all run Mountain Lion. (then again, maybe that is the only reason)

     

    Bottom line, I cannot provide a direct answer to your question.

    Is a 10.6.3 retail install updated to 10.6.8 "fully" compatible with the newest Mac Pro?

    I just don't know.

     

    Here is what I Do Know for certain.

    My Mac Pro mid 2012 was provided a 10.6.4 installer because my purchase with Apple had that condition specified as part of my purchase agreement.

    My Mac Pro mid 2012 runs very well under Snow Leopard 10.6.8 after a 10.6.4 install. (in fact, extremely well)

  • The hatter Level 9 Level 9 (60,520 points)

    you can request the mac pro 2010 OEM DVD that has driver for a ATI 5x70 graphic cards

    10.6.5 DVD woukd be too easy and logical

    10.4.6 and 10.5.6 DVD so why never sold .6.6?

  • dcouzin Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    Strangely, Apple offers two different 10.6.4 installer DVDs for Mac Pro: P/N 2Z691-6698 for mid 2010 Mac Pro and P/N 2Z691-6744 for late 2010 Mac Pro.  What could the difference be?  Is the latter a safer bet for the 2012 Mac Pro?

  • The hatter Level 9 Level 9 (60,520 points)

    every two weeks there was a newer build... the ATI drivers were buggy too at first, later is better but once you update to 6.8 it will not have mattered.

    wish a retail 10.6.8 though, I waited until I hadLion installer to buy the 5770

  • MlchaelLAX Level 4 Level 4 (1,965 points)

    You do know that once you buy the retail 10.6.3; there is an updater procedure to bring it to 10.6.7 as a burned disc?  You just have to look to find out how...

  • TOAO Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I used the 6698 version on my Mac Pro 2012 and it is working very well.

    I was forced to do this due my CAD/CAM software requirements.

    In short, I NEEDED Snow Leopard.

     

    I would guess that the newer version is the best bet but the older version has not given me any troubles.

     

    What IS a concern regardless of which version you use is the Mac Pro 2012 firmware.

    Snow Leopard was Not written for these firmware changes.

    The potential for an error Does Exist.

     

    For example, Apple's new XD code is not part of the operating system, it is part of the firmware.

    This simply means that Snow Leopard cannot utilize the XD firmware which is effectively hardware.

    There is a rare potential that this firmware may cause a rare problem because Snow Leopard does not have the code required to avoid creating a problem.

    So far,.... knock on wood.... I have not witnessed or experienced a problem, which means that Snow Leopard simply does not use the XD firmware.

     

    So, here is the deal.

    If you absolutely must have Snow Leopard as I do on a Mac Pro 2012, then you must accept a potential for troubles and use Snow Leopard at your own risk. (not supported by Apple)

    If you do not absolutely require Snow Leopard then your computer IS more compatible and your files are safer running Mountain Lion. (especially if you use the internet)

    Mountain Lion makes full use of the Mac Pro 2012 anti malware and anti hacker Firmware.

     

    ON that note.... it was a brilliant idea for Apple to put its anti malware code into firmware rather than software.

    Malware can alter anything that is software but it cannot alter firmware.

     

    My advice, only use Snow Leopard on a Mac Pro 2012 if you absolutely must.

     

    As far as my totally useless opinion goes....

    I prefer Snow Leopard over Mountain Lion as an operating system but cannot in good conscience state that Snow Leopard is the best choice in all conditions.

    Snow Leopard is a very good choice for computers that are Not Networked. (a rare condition these days)

    Coincidentally, my Mac Pro 2012 is Not Networked.

  • The hatter Level 9 Level 9 (60,520 points)

    you can also run Snow Leopard in a VM under Lion or Mountain Lion you realize, not ideal and there is a penalty, but given you could have the hardware and put SL on its own SSD, allocate half of one processor and throw in 8GB RAM....

Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 Next