# MacPro1,1 and Lion (10.7)



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dennis Nedry said:


> Since this is absolutely -nowhere- on the internet, I figured I'd post it as a sort of FYI.
> 
> *10.7 does indeed boot and run on a 32-bit EFI implementation, so long as the host CPU is 64-bit compatible. This includes the MacPro1,1 system and anything based on a Core 2 Duo, but with a 32-bit EFI.*
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info and the apparently needless scare.....


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

its my understanding that core duo and core solo models aren't supported, as well as one early model intel imac (late 2006 core 2 duo think)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Thx for the info.

Not sure if we'll move from Leopard to SL or skip to Lion. Biggest issue for us is print drivers, one of the reasons we haven't moved to SL, yet.

Of course, there is also the chance that we may move to a new desktop by then & be "stuck" with it.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Thanks for the info and the apparently needless scare.....


Actually, screature, solid info on this has been extremely scarce--have been wondering about it myself.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I read the post wrong...my apologies to DN... my bad.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

duplicate


----------



## PierreB (Mar 5, 2007)

Thanks for the post. I have a late 2006 Mac Pro and it was not clear to me whether it could run Lion OSX. Looks like it will however likely not as fast as other systems due to processor limitations.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Lion will run on any Intel Mac. 

I had it running on a buddy's old 1.83 MacBook CoreDuo before he sold it. You just have to install the OS on the hard drive via a machine that Lion *does* support, change a plist file and then put the HD back into the MacBook/iMac, etc... It could even be done via Firewire target mode so that you wouldn't even have to physically remove a HD.

Not an "easy" procedure at all, but by no means a "hard" one, at least IMHO.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The longer I hold on to my MacPro 1.1 the more I wish for a mid tower Mac Pro.....

I will never own a iMac for many reasons... But i really don't have the money for a new Mac Pro, as I *need* PCI-E expansion slots for many reasons....

I guess I just have to start saving for a new MP as with Lion the writing is on the wall... 5 years out and your hardware will start to become obsolete for the current Apple OS....

Which leads to another question.... 

Does one really *need* Lion????

And...

Are things changing faster than *we* really need/want them to relative to the cost and the benefits that the change provides?

Again another question....

If one spends over $2000 for a computer how long should one expect a new OS will be compatible with it?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> If one spends over $2000 for a computer how long should one expect a new OS will be compatible with it?


3 years, 4 at the most.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> 3 years, 4 at the most.


Well based on your assessment I am doing well at 5 years... but that is not really true in general outside the Mac world at all as I can still run Windows XP on old equipment well over 7 years old and still get updates to the OS regardless of my hardware...

So are you saying that in this regard Apple is deficient relative to PCs and MS boxes?


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

John Clay said:


> 3 years, 4 at the most.


Oh???

Our mid-2007 Apple iMac "Core 2 Duo" 2.4 24-Inch (Al) and the mid-2003 Apple Power Macintosh G4 1.25 DB (MDD 2003) seem to be quite adequate for our usage.

I would suggest that it depends on what the Mac user does or needs with their particular models.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> Well based on your assessment I doing well at 5 years... but that is not really true in general outside the Mac world at all as I can still run Windows XP on old equipment well over 7 years old and still get updates to the OS regardless of my hardware...
> 
> So are you saying that in this regard Apple is deficient relative to PCs and MS boxes?


I never said anything about the useful life of the machine (which depends on the user, but is 3 years max for me), but rather how long you can expect it to be supported by the current OS.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

John Clay said:


> I never said anything about the useful life of the machine (which depends on the user, but is 3 years max for me), but rather how long you can expect it to be supported by the current OS.


I was rather surprised yesterday when I needed to boot up our MDD in 10.4.11 to help out a friend's wife who's stuck at that OS, and up came a bunch of software updates to install, so even 10.4.11 is still getting updates. No, not the most recent, but still getting software support.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

pm-r said:


> I was rather surprised yesterday when I needed to boot up our MDD in 10.4.11 to help out a friend's wife who's stuck at that OS, and up came a bunch of software updates to install, so even 10.4.11 is still getting updates. No, not the most recent, but still getting software support.


Maybe she hadn't run SW in 2 years.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> I never said anything about the useful life of the machine (which depends on the user, but is 3 years max for me), but rather how long you can expect it to be supported by the current OS.


7+ years out and XP is supported. So are saying that in this regard you believe Apple to be inferior to Windows?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> 7+ years out and XP is supported.


Because everyone loves XP so much...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> Because everyone loves XP so much...


It wasn't that a bad an OS.... but that is quite beside the point isn't it....


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> 7+ years out and XP is supported. So are saying that in this regard you believe Apple to be inferior to Windows?


Yes, if you think that supporting every crappy PC built a decade ago makes them superior. I think it makes for a ****ty user experience. I'd rather be stuck on an old OS that performed well than able to use a new OS that was horribly slow. Users aren't smart enough to make that choice themselves, so I'm glad Apple makes it for them.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> It wasn't that a bad an OS.... but that is quite beside the point isn't it....


I'm still trying to get buy "It wasn't that a bad an OS" - I can't see what makes it better than Windows 95 from a usability standpoint. I realize it's more stable and faster, but stability is not the reason I don't use Windows - the terrible UI is.


----------



## kkritsilas (Mar 1, 2010)

hayesk said:


> I'm still trying to get buy "It wasn't that a bad an OS" - I can't see what makes it better than Windows 95 from a usability standpoint. I realize it's more stable and faster, but stability is not the reason I don't use Windows - the terrible UI is.


Usability is somewhat better, but better in the sense of best of a bad lot. The real advantage of XP was not in the interface, it was the fact that it was a 32 bit OS, and wasn't built on top of a rickety 8/16 bit OS from the early 1980s. XP, from its roots in Windows NT and 2000, was actually mostly inspired by DEC's VMS operating system, through Dave Cutler (one of the archtiects of VMS, and the chief architect of Windows NT). 

I would agree that it wasn't a that bad an OS, in that it was stable (more than anything previous in the Windows world), didn't slow down when a lot of programs were running, and was unified (in that DOS didn't need to load before Windows could load). It also make a lot of the memory management issues go away.

Kostas


----------



## tendim (Apr 6, 2004)

pm-r said:


> Our mid-2007 Apple iMac "Core 2 Duo" 2.4 24-Inch (Al) and the mid-2003 Apple Power Macintosh G4 1.25 DB (MDD 2003) seem to be quite adequate for our usage.


Same boat as you (12" PowerBook G4 running 10.4.x and G5 Quad running 10.5.x). However I think the question is whether or not _OS_ support is present after 4 or 5 years. Clearly, for the G5s and G4s, OS support ended long ago.

But then it becomes a question: does someone _need_ the latest and greatest OS, are they upgrading for the sake of upgrading, or are they upgrading because they _have to_? 



pm-r said:


> I would suggest that it depends on what the Mac user does or needs with their particular models.


Exactly!


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of Mac "support" and what the user wants or needs for their use - and that to me would include software AND hardware.

Apple alone still has recently updated web support pages for:
Apple - Support - Mac OS X 10.3 Panther
Apple - Support - Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger
Apple - Support - Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard

And when Apple deems any product as "legacy" it's often due to the fact that they cannot reliably supply parts for those models.

The update/upgrade comes into place when a user needs to, just like our Nissan Multi we used for almost 22 years when the water pump went kaput and the price to replace it with parts and labour was at least 4-5 times the value of the Multi. Until that time and the costs to repair it, it suited my use very well.

My wife had a newer vehicle as that's what she wanted and needed, and surmised that I got $100.00 -$200.00 more than expected on the trade-in due the amount and artistic use of Canada duct tape on the Multi eh!! ;-)


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

fyrefly said:


> Lion will run on any Intel Mac.
> 
> I had it running on a buddy's old 1.83 MacBook CoreDuo before he sold it. You just have to install the OS on the hard drive via a machine that Lion *does* support, change a plist file and then put the HD back into the MacBook/iMac, etc... It could even be done via Firewire target mode so that you wouldn't even have to physically remove a HD.
> 
> Not an "easy" procedure at all, but by no means a "hard" one, at least IMHO.


I'm not sure I would promote Lion running on any intel Mac if what you need is a second Mac to do the actual install. This may not be possible for many, or more.

Definitely good info for someone in this position though.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Two points:

1. Lion is officially supported (at this point) ONLY on Core2Duo and later machines. This comes directly from Apple's developer notes on the the developer version, which is not under NDA.

2. SCreature is, in point of fact, wrong about Windows XP support. Service pack (bug fix) support for it ended in 2006 for most versions, with the exception of the 64-bit Professional, which ended in 2009, and the XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, which ends in July. Support has even expired for all three of XP's service packs, the last one of which came out in 2008 ("Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first.")

Furthermore, "Mainstream support" (whatever that means) for XP (all versions) ended in 2009, though "Extended support" (whatever THAT means) ends in 2014.

The last version of XP to come out was the 64-bit Professional Edition, in mid-2005. Mainstream support ended for it in mid-2009, a "life cycle" of four years (to be fair, the first version of XP came out in 2001 and was supported for eight years).

Source: Microsoft Support Lifecycle


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

It seems that MS's idea of "Extended support" translates to, if you'll excuse my wife's addage, "It all comesdown to money". Surprise, surprise, or rather no surprise coming from M$ and their $$ support policy.

It seems the BIG OS payers may get a few more years grace, but the consumer support is kaput!!
"... Extended Support is not offered for Consumer, Hardware, and Multimedia products...."
Microsoft Support Lifecycle Policy FAQ

Maybe a better MS XP "support" summary is at Windows XP's Days are Really Numbered Now - PCWorld Business Center

Now back to Macs and their OS program for one's listening or reading pleasure ... ;-)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1. Lion is officially supported (at this point) ONLY on Core2Duo and later machines. This comes directly from Apple's developer notes on the the developer version, which is not under NDA.
> 
> ...


By support I mean it still gets security updates and other updates such as Java. In this regard it is still supported by Microsoft. I know this to be a fact as I still have it installed via Fusion. So in point of fact I am correct.  Your own post says as much, "Extended support" (whatever THAT means) ends in 2014."



> *During extended support, all users receive all security updates*, but non-security hot fixes are provided only to companies that have signed support contracts with Microsoft.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, I too get regular security and java updates for XP Pro via Fusion as well.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pm-r said:


> It seems that MS's idea of "Extended support" translates to, if you'll excuse my wife's addage, "It all comesdown to money". Surprise, surprise, or rather no surprise coming from M$ and their $$ support policy.
> 
> It seems the BIG OS payers may get a few more years grace, *but the consumer support is kaput!!*
> "... Extended Support is not offered for Consumer, Hardware, and Multimedia products...."
> ...


Not according the very article you linked to:



> *During extended support, all users receive all security updates*, but non-security hot fixes are provided only to companies that have signed support contracts with Microsoft.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

It seems odd that PCWorld can get things right, which is supported by your and other's experience, yet the MS MotherShip seems to state otherwise. Anyway, not my problem.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pm-r said:


> It seems odd that PCWorld can get things right, which is supported by your and other's experience, yet the MS MotherShip seems to state otherwise. Anyway, not my problem.


I don't think it is odd at all... MS didn't get where they did without some smarts behind their operation. We like to dis MS because it is fun but TBT they have done some things right, otherwise they wouldn't hold the position they do... bring on the flaming....


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

I sure wasn't dissing MS, but was only curious as to what their real state and policy is - whatever it really is.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pm-r said:


> I sure wasn't dissing MS, but was only curious as to what their real state and policy is - whatever it really is.


Sorry pm-r I really didn't mean to make it sound like I thought you were dissing MS and I wasn't expecting you to flame me... just some other usual suspects.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

No flame meant or intended, I just wanted to clear up my point.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pm-r said:


> *No flame meant or intended*, I just wanted to clear up my point.


And I didn't take anything you said as such..... no worries. Peace.


----------



## iPhone Repairman (Aug 6, 2011)

The real question is _would you want to run Lion on MacPro1,1_
It probably runs slow as hell.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iPhone Repairman said:


> The real question is _would you want to run Lion on MacPro1,1_
> It probably runs slow as hell.


Shows what you know...


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

In my opinion, I always like using Windows XP. Windowss 7 UI seem like a big change, so I have not used Windows 7 or Vista for that matter. I will still use it even after support is gone.... I know its not the best, but I am used to the UI and how it works...

By the way screature, do you mind telling me how I can get the "I support neutrality" banner on my signature? I am assuming its code....


----------



## iPhone Repairman (Aug 6, 2011)

screature said:


> Shows what you know...


Care to back that up or just post mindless crap?


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

iPhone Repairman said:


> Care to back that up or just post mindless crap?


Lion runs fine on my MacPro1,1 basically the same as snow leopard.


---
- Sent from my iPhone


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iPhone Repairman said:


> Care to back that up or just post mindless crap?


The only mindless crap is when you suggested a MP 1.1 is slow and speaking about something of which you have no firsthand knowledge...

For a Newbie you sure are starting off on the wrong foot.









That just my lowly old quad 3.0 check our Mr. CoBalt's GB score from his octo that he posted here recently:









Like I said... shows what you know...


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

screature said:


> The only mindless crap is when you suggested a MP 1.1 is slow and speaking about something of which you have no firsthand knowledge...
> 
> For a Newbie you sure are starting off on the wrong foot.
> 
> View attachment 20963


That is quite a fair score.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Tech Elementz said:


> That is quite a fair score.


You post before I edited my post TE... take a look at what an octo core MP1.1 can score. 

Not too shabby for a 5 year old machine and technology.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

I'm not sure of the relationship of a GeekBench score and the actual Mac OS X speeds, but using a 2008 Mac Pro (albeit a 2008 dual quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro), the speed test a fellow did between SL 10.6.8 and Lion 10.7 shows Lion faster in OS X 10.7 in nearly all test areas, and two out of the three that were slower were startup and shutdown — not exactly something that one would think of for the actual speeds when using the OS.  

See: Macs Only! Apple Macintosh News, Commentary, Reviews & Troubleshooting for the details and results,


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

pm-r said:


> I'm not sure of the relationship of a GeekBench score and the actual Mac OS X speeds, but using a 2008 Mac Pro (albeit a 2008 dual quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro), the speed test a fellow did between SL 10.6.8 and Lion 10.7 shows Lion faster in OS X 10.7 in nearly all test areas, and two out of the three that were slower were startup and shutdown &#151; not exactly something that one would think of for the actual speeds when using the OS.
> 
> See: Macs Only! Apple Macintosh News, Commentary, Reviews & Troubleshooting for the details and results,


Shut down is rather slow on my Mac pro too. Almost painful, but it's not like you need to sit and watch it. 


---
- Sent from my iPhone


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

ive never understood why people get bent out of shape re:startup and shutdown. its something that happens how often?


----------

