# Talk:Mac Pro

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mac Pro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Passed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


### Criterion
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good Job!
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Not needed. No copyright images.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### To Fix List
OR & NPOV Tags
 Doing...Airplaneman talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 Fixed Airplaneman talk 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The small paragraph with 3 OR tags, below the OSes supported, "often" is a reliative term meaning not often, this needs sourcing or removal.
 Doing...Airplaneman talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 Fixed Airplaneman talk 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
"diskutil" Wikilink or explain.
Where? I can't find it :(. Airplaneman talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Found it,  Fixed it. Airplaneman talk 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Under compatibility, all *s need rerferences.
 Doing...Airplaneman talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
References to deal with: 28 (requires subscription), 26 (dead), 7 (dead/issue). -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 Doing... - is it OK if you don't close it today so I can fix the referencing issues under "compatibility"? All I need is time, which I'm short on at the moment. Thanks, Airplaneman talk 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Supplemented #28 with another ref saying the same thing. Airplaneman talk 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed #26. Airplaneman talk 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed #7. Airplaneman talk 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I can hold it over this weekend. No problem. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
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)

Otherwise, it's just the "Hardware requirements" section to reference now! Airplaneman talk 05:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ya, it still has to go thought. I tried looking for sources myself and couldn't find anything. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, deleting. Airplaneman talk 23:38, 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)

 Doing... Airplaneman talk 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 Fixed #24 [1]. Airplaneman talk 01:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Commented out #31 and the content it referenced.
 Fixed #17 [2]. Airplaneman talk 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Number 26 seems to be working for me. Airplaneman talk 01:32, 6 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)


### Comments
Where, exactly? Airplaneman talk 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Found and  Fixed. Airplaneman talk 21:02, 10 January 2010 (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)

The checklinks displayed no dead links when I looked at it. I'll try to make it more readable. Thanks, Airplaneman talk 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I screwed the link, here it is. [3]. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 Doing...Airplaneman talk 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Airplaneman talk 06:47, 16 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)

Which machines? No, Wikipedia isn't a place for rumors. Airplaneman  ✈ 04:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
All machines mentioned in the article: all mac pro generations. -- Michael Janich (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
An interesting idea definitely worth considering. In what format should it be presented (prose, table, etc.)? Airplaneman  ✈ 05:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't table the most obvious? column 1: model name; column 2: specint (or whatever measure). -- THANKS -- Michael Janich (talk) 03:42, 17 September 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)

And a link from that thread also claims it's possible to run Win7 64-bit on the 2006 first-gen Mac Pro: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/126089-howto-boot-macs-with-intel-chipset-in-ahci-win7-vista-xp-linux/page-11 --37.80.190.4 Something like a workthrough given here:[6] (talk) 04:32, 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)

I've updated the caption on the picture, is that sufficient? DavidAmis (talk) 01:35, 13 September 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) 

Depends on the model. My MP1,1 is 32-bit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2014 (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)

Disagree - I don't feel like article is exceedingly long. Both machines are sold under the Mac Pro brand and share the same processor family.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Disagree - Concur with Shivertimbers433.  The article is not that long.   Tabanger  08:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Disagree, but... - Although I think it's best to keep the article consolidated, I do think the page needs some reorganization. Not (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the article should be split, because the new one (2013) is different enough as physical computer build. There are precedents for this. See Power Macintosh G3 vs. Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White). It facilitates clean infoboxes etc. For example this page gives the impression that you can install "OS X 10.4.7 and later" on the 2013 Mac Pro. I bet you can't install 10.4.7 on it. The page is messed up badly enough to be a quickfail for a WP:GAR. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Disagree - The article is certainly in need of some work but I do not believe a split as proposed would be helpful in improving it. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: The reasons above pretty much cover it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: Agree with the comments above. --tooki (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (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)

Suzhou. That's right up the street from Shanghai, in a country called China. Nice patriotic comnpany, Apple is. Make the stuff elsewhere, skip out on the taxes, pretend you have no idea what Foxcon is doing until someone rubs their nose in it (plausible deniability) ... nice people. They make Billy over at Mickeysoft look like a responsible humanitarian. 116.231.75.122 (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
At least the new ones sold here in the US are produced by Flextronics in Austin, Texas, USA.  I added the name/link Saulinpa (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2017 (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)

If people have objections to the carpet in the picture -- don't understand why, that is an irrational and prejudicial objection -- just ask the Graphic Lab on Commons to skillfully remove the background.  The infobox picture of the actual Mac Pro late 2013 edition on a Turkmen rug is the only one on Commons, and it is a high-quality, high-resolution image that shows the ports of the machine, and is generally ency, depicting it in daylight, in  an installed setting.  The old infobox picture was misleading, because it juxtaposes two machines not to scale, and is a hand-drawn cartoon, with no information whatsoever, unless you claim a cartoon silhouette without scale information or features drawn in to be a picture worthy of encyclopedia.  Please try to take a rational view, and do not edit-war on this for silly objection reasons that only expose your cultural prejudices (against Turkmen carpets, or whatever). --Mareklug talk 18:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


### A message for the reverters of the actual picture of the machine (on the carpet)
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)

I think it doesnt need an explanation. The pic. is not good enough to change--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean, not good enough?  Have you looked at it in full magnification?  It shows the ports very clearly and using the electric power plug, you get scale information. If you don't like the carpet, fix it. --Mareklug talk 19:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The pic. distorted--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
What is distorted about it?  It is truthfully depicted from the angle of above and to the side.  That is not distortion, only perspective.  Even if you think that is a fault, it is still the most useful picture we have, as it shows what the machine looks like in real life, AND it gives good close up view of its ports, and using the standard power cable plug used, it gives useful scale information. When a better picture arrives, feel free to use it, but don't put back inferior information depictions like cartoons and not-to-scale comparison shots. --Mareklug talk 19:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This is WP:BATTLEGROUND, not a discussion. We have a major and totally unnecessary edit to 29 international wikis in violation of consensus, after having negative reviews on IRC. We have a preemptive personal attack and declaration of war (in abuse of antiabuse policy itself) in response to a simple revert, followed by an actual WP:3RR global edit war. We have WP:OWNER, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and I'm pretty sure WP:TEND. We have an editor who considers any (even perfectly obvious, factually cogent and policy backed) dissent whatsoever about one of the most aesthetically violent and generally unnecessary images possible on a computer article, to be tantamount to a prank, vandalism, and a culturally bigoted insult -- with imaginary personal accusations. Not to mention the fact that he deleted imagery of half the product line. He asserts that it's the incumbent upon the rest of the world to fix his obvious damage and violently prevents them (including obviously ESL editors struggling to keep up in English) from doing so. He got his faux-solicited response, and has blasted a disingenuously faux discussion. And of course this isn't the first time for contentious and aggrandizing behavior. These are egregiously reportable offenses by someone who notoriously knows better, to a well versed community. Other editors are encouraged not to stoop to his level with a WP:3RR but instead to report the abuse.   — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:50, 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)

Here are some things I've heard, though I haven't verified any of them, except the case issue:
The unusual case size/shape makes expansion difficult (for example, with PCIe cards)
The PSU is insufficient for power-hungry GPUs
The cooling isn't actually all that great (seems particularly subjective)
The price doesn't match the hardware
—Zenexer [talk] 21:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I took off the "citation needed" tag of the end of the reception for the new "coke can" style (well, that's what I call it) Mac Pro as there are already two sources there. If you know what's missing a ref, let me know and I'll see what I can dig out. I've recently gone through several teardown videos of Mac Pros (mainly so I can turn a dead one into a working one, which thankfully on a pre-2012 Mac Pro is not too hard) so i should be able to dig out some sources to fix the other tagged areas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 13 December 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022073755/http://fairerplatform.com/2013/10/original-mac-pro-run-os-x-mavericks/ to http://fairerplatform.com/2013/10/original-mac-pro-run-os-x-mavericks/
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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)

Thanks!
I have mentioned the same problem on the Talk:Mac Mini#Processor-based split. I think Apple already has something that incorporates those "generations" nicely, and it is the model number. If you would separate the "generations" by model number (from everymac.com), this is what you'd get:
A1186 (lookup)2006-2008: MacPro1,1, MacPro2,1 and MacPro3,1
A1289 (lookup)2009-2012: MacPro4,1 and MacPro5,1
A1481 (lookup)2013: MacPro6,1
A1991 (lookup) and (Rack:) A2304 (lookup)2019: MacPro7,1
Especially with the "1st generation", by model number this would become two separate generations. Which is what you just said.
Generally I would prefer the term "generation" only to be used as a verbal expression, and the model numbers when being specific.
‣Andreas•⚖ 20:28, 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:

Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for Itanium 1 systems (2002, based on Windows XP)
Windows XP 64-Bit Edition (2003, for Itanium 2, based on Windows Server 2003)
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (2005, based on Windows Server 2003, but including client features not found in Windows Server 2003 or the 2003 Windows XP version)
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)

Reasonable suggestion, so I've made the change. No strong opinion on it. DFlhb (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Serouj2000, seems somewhat like saying the first gen Mac Pro is "PowerMac G5 with Intel Xeon" although that would be more unusual obviously. Is the case the defining factor in the generation? It's simpler to me to just say "4th gen" rather than extent it out to so many words. Which brings up another issue, that we aren't really citing this categorization to reliable sources so it is just a shortcut for our purposes, which I'm not entirely sure we are supposed to do according to the MOS. I think, from something else that came up recently, that we actually are not supposed to make up any abbreviations or labels that don't come up from reliable sources.
I would say on the contrary that maybe we should remove all "generation" from this article and go by what everyone else does, the year a given model was released, or a range of years if appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I still support eliminating them; was just feeling nonassertive today — DFlhb (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I could have sworn that if the Apple Silicon Macs looked like their intel predecessors, they were still considered within the same generation as their predecessors in their own pages. Also, the M2 Ultra Mac Pro looks a lot more like its Xeon W predecessor than the xeon woodcrest mac pro looked like the powermac g5.
But if removing generations means no more ambiguity, then I'm all for it.
(For the record, I just posted this on the talk page just so that a repeat of last night doesn't happen again) Serouj2000 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I've now removed generations from those two tables. Even though they have the same design, it's a major release with still many unknowns (I'm very curious how it'll work with PCIe) and no doubt it'll have its own "Reception" paragraph. Declaring it a 3rd gen revision is inconsistent with it getting a top-level "Apple silicon" heading. But it's all WP:OR anyway so we can save ourselves the headache and remove. DFlhb (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks better. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I tried doing the same for the iMac page, and well... it went heywire Serouj2000 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)