This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mac Pro article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Mac Pro has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Reviewer: MWOAP ( talk) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Passed. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Good Job!
About sourcing every bullet point in the software and hardware requirement sections... I can't find a source that says this directly:
OS Minimums – The lowest version of the operating system that will support the Mac Pro is Mac OS X version 10.4.7. Earlier versions will not boot the computer.
It's logical, though, as earlier versions did not have the software to support booting up the yet unreleased Mac Pro. Is it OK to keep or should I just remove it? Airplaneman talk 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Done everything.
Airplaneman
talk
23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Not done Reference 26 is I think dead, or requires registration. Reference 24, 31, and 17 is not acceptable per
WP:RS. Reference 25 is another wiki, fails
WP:RS. This puts some parts under questioning. Please find different references. I can only hold this for a few more days. -- /
MWOAP|
Notify Me\
01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Done -- /
MWOAP|
Notify Me\
01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
We might want a comment about how the original Mac Pros don't support Mountain Lion due to the EFI32 EFI mode (links like http://best-mac-tips.com/2012/07/14/mountain-lion-compatible-apple-mac-hardware/ mention this.) Belltower ( talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Images - found three more. Airplaneman talk 21:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at Pro Readability Report, I have a concern about how readable the article is. I will take a more indepth look at my next chance. Also, three or four dead links on refs per Report for Mac Pro. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Doing...
Airplaneman
talk
18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
For over a year now, the Mac Pro's _professional_ user community has been complaining about the amount of time it has taken for Apple to update this particular product line. This relates in particular to the technical specs of the machine, which are becoming increasingly less "top of the range". This professional consternation has been widely reported in the online IT press. The Facebook campaign "We Want a New Macpro" has in a short time snowballed from 54 Likes on 17 May [ [4]] (Warning link site not NPoV!) to nearly 18,000 Likes (as of 12-JUN-2012), for example.
This disquiet among professional users is newsworthy because many of them (e.g. professional video editors, 3D modellers, etc) are locked-in to the Apple platform (in terms of the time/training/hardware/software and other related costs of changing platforms) but are becoming increasingly suspicious that Apple is starting to ignore professional users in order to focus on the consumer and home market.
Because of the newsworthiness of this topic, it deserves at least a brief mention in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.103.146 ( talk) 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please add a speed comparison between the machines? Like SPECINT or something.
Not sure if we should mention an expected update in June 2010...
THANKS -- Michael Janich ( talk) 04:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to this. There are a few pictures in this page with broken images. I do not feel comfortable enough with copyright to replace them but I am just alerting anyone who wishes to fix this. Yackilote ( talk) 10:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Congrats! I'd just like to tell you that you have way more information in this article as does Apple Support by now. I've just called the official Apple Support line in my Western European country (where the person answering had trouble speaking my language) to ask them about what specific RAM type I need for my first-generation 2006 Mac Pro, and they insistently told me there was no Mac Pro in existence prior to the second-generation Mac Pro 2008 (they even called it "second-generation"), and first tried to tell me that what I have must be the MacBook Pro laptop, and when I told them this is really, really a desktop machine with a huge tower, they insisted that I must have a PowerMac!
Add to that the fact that they were incapable of finding my 2006 e-mail registration with this Mac Pro or any other account to my name. They then told me to remove my "laptop battery" to give them the machine's serial on it, and when I repeated that this is no laptop, they told me to check some "This Mac" window in MacOS, which I couldn't because I'm running Windows on this machine. And when I told them that I'm running Windows on it, they flat-out refused to continue that support call any longer because they said it would be "impossible". -- 93.232.164.99 ( talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, the unofficially highest MacOS that can run on the 2006 first-generation Mac Pro has now been determined to be Mavericks beta, on the very same forum that originally cooked up the hack for Mountain Lion: [5]. -- 37.80.190.4 ( talk) 04:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You can now download a Boot.efi file that allow the 2006 Mac pro to run 10.9 without the need a a boot loader, such as chameleon. See http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1598176&page=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.61.85 ( talk) 04:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The picture used to illustrate the Mac Pro is NOT the current Mac Pro. The picture is of a Mac Pro yet to be released. It should be changed back. 2601:D:480:109:2480:C8DD:E1E:5C9E ( talk) 17:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The new Mac Pro has technically been sold at this point (the RED auction), and the 2012 Mac Pro is no longer available for sale through Apple. I think we can safely change the picture back to the new Mac Pro now.
An unsourced document shows original design concept referring to SR-71 jet engine, extreme cost and "a challenge worth of Apple" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.254.6 ( talk) 16:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this 'design inspiration' speculation appropriate for wikipedia? It appears to be one person's imaginative guess at what inspired the design.
It's not a guess ... its the first concept document summary. Maybe it can be cleaned up. I take your point but you could undertake scrutiny of the design process as much as the final product itself. It may surprise you to know that the initial concept was rejected by another computer maker prior to Apple accepting it. Apple was aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.254.6 ( talk) 13:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia upholds its tradition of expanding the human advertisement. A place where nothing outside of the marketing brochure is offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.254.6 ( talk) 00:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The table says "Kernel Default Mode: 32-bit in Mac OS X (client), 64-bit in Mac OS X Server" for some models, but isn't this for a specific (and outdated) version of OS X? It appears by all accounts that my old Mac Pro is running K64 here, even without OS X Server (which is now mostly just some management software, anyway). Did they switch to K64 for all EFI64 models at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 ( talk) 00:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that the two have very little in common, the article is presently humongous, and that a great deal of information on the older design's intricacies was accrued over the article's lifespan, I think it would be best if pretty much everything related to the pre-2013 systems was split into its own article. 66.133.250.190 ( talk) 05:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Should we close this, or re-list for further comments? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Closing… Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
So where is it being produced in the end? In the US? Nestea Zen ( talk) 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Just wondered what type of PCIe this uses/is? It's not mentioned on the page at all, when I'd have thought it vital to understanding the throughput it can handle in comparison to the rest of the marketplace out there. Jimthing ( talk) 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The dual picture in the infobox is misleading, and it is not to scale. The new Mac Pro is a tiny fraction of what is shown, if it were shown to scale. Today I unpacked my own unit, and I took snapshots (no pretense of great photography), but take a look... https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s2a37jnqt0l28og/AAB0YZ1CLGX6cRp7_PraHJcta?lst -- Mareklug talk 05:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I am leaving this message on talk pages of the reverters. Also, see Finnish revert by some Finnish editor who openly asks, why did you revert this? My point exactly.
If you don't like the background, surely you can remove it yourself in a derived work, or ask the Graphic Lab on commons to do so. But why do you negate the obviously encyclopedic valors of my image? It is the only one we have a full year into the machine's existence, and one that is sharp, high-resolution, and shows what it looks like with ports in view, and which shows what the machine looks like in a home environment, how it is highly reflective. Clearly if a better backgrounded picture surfaces, let's use it. But in the interim, this is the best picture for the encyclopedic use. Sincerely,
-- Mareklug talk 18:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Why does Apple use a comma in the model identifiers (e.g. Macmini1,1)? 74.96.73.25 ( talk) 04:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
"Intel Kush"?
The link in the article seems to go to an unrelated page, and Intel Kush doesn't appear to match anything relevant on Google.
Did Intel really use a variety of pot as a brand name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.121.162 ( talk) 03:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
When I arrived, this section was littered with "citation needed" notations. I've removed those, replaced them with a single citation-needed template at the end of the section, and added Template:NPOV-section. This section sounds like it's written by a fan of second-gen Mac Pros. I've heard very mixed reviews about the new design, with a lot of valid and significant issues being brought up, none of which are noted in this section. We're clearly missing at least one side of the story. — Zenexer [ talk] 21:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mac Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Because of the recent iMac Pro, isn't the Mac Pro no longer the "most powerful computer made by Apple"? I thought there might be some reason this wasn't changed that I did not think of, I just wanted to confirm before changing it.
20pargyle ( talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro are the two most powerful. They also released a new one that is a lot more powerful. PCelestia ( talk) 20:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, we know the new Mac Pro is coming. BUT as the moment it's still not available and no date has been given for when it will be. So at the moment the current Mac Pro is the old Trash Can from 2013. This should be reflected in the main picture.
Now it is out. PCelestia ( talk) 20:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. Where do I find, that the "generation" of a Mac Pro is based on its exterior design?
I ask, because I cannot find it anywhere except on Wikipedia. And, as I understand it, Wikipedia shouldn't invent stuff ( WP:NOR), so...
To be more clear, some articles called them "2nd generation" and "3rd generation", but there is no norm here, because different articles call them different generations. (Example: 2013 model as 2nd and 2009 model as 3rd gen); Also, Low-End-Mac doesn't share those casing&exterior-design-based generations used in this Wikipedia article.
So where do they come from?
‣ Andreas• ⚖ 17:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)?
I have long thought that this was a bad way to organize the Mac Pro page. It would make a lot more sense to have the generations be based on the internals of the machines, not the externals; there were significant changes with the 2009 Mac Pros, both in terms of processor architecture as well as ports, drives, and internal design, which results in much better performance and features, plus significantly longer support by Apple for the later machines. As a result of those changes, but not changing the structure of the article, it is difficult to find out about features and capabilities of the different models, since the 2006-2012 models are all mashed together in one section, when there are significant differences between them.
The correct organization should be: 2006-2008 - Gen 1; 2009-2012 - Gen 2; 2013 -- Gen 3; and 2019 -- Gen 4, with different sections talking about each of these sets of similar machines.
Leekil ( talk) 07:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The article was using GB and TB in (at least) two different ways, with both binary and decimal interpretations used for both. The same is probably true for MB, but I haven't got there yet. Anyway, the first use of GB was binary so I edited the rest of the article to use 1 GB = 1024^3 B, while the first use of TB was decimal so I edited the article with 1 TB = 1000^4 B. The tables still need to be updated for consistency - that can come later. Before we get to the tables, any suggestions for better disambiguation between binary and decimal interpretations? Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 08:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
You guys should add Windows XP 64-bit versions to the compatibility list, of which there were three:
I had a MacPro 1.0 Woodcrest and had bought it with a 2005 Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, as the marketing boasted about the Woodcrest finally being both compatible with Windows *AND* able to run 64-bit OSs. Alas, for as long as my Woodcrest remained operative, there was a *SOFTWARE* problem, which was that BootCamp that was required to install Windows couldn't recognize Windows XP Professional x64 as a genuine Windows version yet as it was simply too new for BootCamp at the time. Hence, I never got my awesome Windows XP 64-bit to work up until I got a new Intel PC with Windows 10 on it and ran the XP 64-bit in Oracle VirtualBox. -- 2003:EF:1704:7285:35AD:CD8:22AA:2C42 ( talk) 09:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Supported Windows & OSX versions seems wrong... i have a 5,1 2010 and works flawless in Win8.1 proper Bootcamp drivers, installs and works flawless. Apple has many different v5.x Bootcamp drivers.
i don´t know why it says Partial / Patch. but Windows8.1 needs Boot partition to be BIOS Only, Not DUAL Bios + UEFI. i haven´t tested UEFI Only. UEFI is required to Boot from M.2 NVMe drive.
Model 5,1 2012 has the same Hardware as 2010 but has different Board Firmware, that makes it incompatible with OSX SnowLeopard 10.6.8 2010 Firmware is more desired than 2012, as far as i know there is No advantages to the 2012 FW, only more limitations. Windows with 2012 Firmware, i don´t know.
The 4,1 2009 has similar hardware as the 5,1 2010 / 2012, the CPU heatsink is different, requires CPU delid, the 5,1 CPU tray heatsink works with standard CPU lid. the CPU tray seems the same PCB design, but Firmware is different, and that makes it incompatible to swap between a 4,1 and 5,1 CPU trays.
Dual CPU 5,1 tray can be swapped to a Single 5,1 CPU tray and back, No problem.
4,1 Back panel Board seems the same as 5,1 but also has a different Firmware that makes it incompatible with OSX Mojave unless Firmnware is upgraded unofficially to 5,1, or OSX is installed with a patch.
same a 2012 needs Firmware downgrade to 2010 to be compatible with OSX SnowLeopard
Of all the "generations" we made up across our Mac articles, the ones here made the most sense; but still, no one refers to them as "the 2nd-gen Mac Pro" and "3rd-gen Mac Pro", they just call them "trash can Mac Pro" or "2013 Mac Pro", and "2019 Mac Pro". We should align the headings with the common terms, if only to make sure readers aren't lost.
That's also the rationale behind including "Trash can" in the heading; that's the common, most recognizable name, and we want readers to be able to find it easily. DFlhb ( talk) 03:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean, it is the same shape Serouj2000 ( talk) 23:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)