Apple’s OS X Mavericks on the original Mac Pro

“The list of OS X Mavericks compatible Macs, like that for OS X Mountain Lion, doesn’t include the original original Mac Pro (a.k.a. MacPro1,1),” Fairer Platform reports. “However, with a little gumption, graphic card upgrade and some Terminal voodoo, there is a way to run Apple’s newest desktop operating system on its oldest (Intel) pro desktop.”

“Yes, there are caveats. For example, to make a 2006 Mac Pro run OS X Mavericks, you will be hacking it,” Fairer Platform reports. “Definitely going off res, but actually not that big of a deal that’s roughly on par with jailbreaking an iPhone.”

Fairer Platform reports, “That said, to run OS X Mavericks on an original Mac Pro, you will need a newer, more powerful graphics card.”

Read more in the full article here.

29 Comments

    1. Those original Mac Pros have geekbench scores equivalent to the current (2012) low end Mac Minis. Mac Classics are clearly obsolete, whereas macs from 2006 are perfectly capable of running most current software.

      1. I really don’t understand this thread of derision in the Mac community towards people who use perfectly capable but older Macs. The irony is that the Mac Pro from 2006 has higher benchmark scores than even most MacBook Pros up to just a couple of years ago. If there is one older computer that clearly doesn’t make sense to dismiss with this mentality, it is the Mac Pro line.

        But it even applies to lower end machines. I was using a PowerBook G4 last year that still did the majority of the tasks I needed, at a reasonable speed. It showed signs of aging, and there were reasons to upgrade— but the Mac Pro line from 2006? Seriously? It should totally capable of most current computing tasks.

        1. I work with such a machine and it’s still a monster. A typical working session will have me using Indesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, an FTP client, 2 web browsers (don’t ask…) a mail client and then possibly, as the icing on the cake, VMware. All of this runs smoothly and I see no reason to upgrade to a newer machine apart from the fact that my OS is at risk of running out of support. I think that such expensive, valuable machines should be supported for at least 10 years. Who set up the rule of thumb that one has to renew his valuable equipment at least every 5 years?

  1. I am reading into this that there must be quite a few people out there who aren’t completely taken with the new Mac Pro. Why else would these Mac enthusiasts put so much effort into extending the lives of their current 7-year-old machines?

      1. Jim, your general statement might have a kernel of truth, however, the size of the Hackintosh community and their propensity to spend on computing equipment should not be underrated. If Apple would go back to delivering a more complete range of hardware offerings — not ludicrously so like Dell, but much more reasonable — then a lot of these Hackintoshers would be spending a lot more money on new Apple hardware. As it is, Apple seems to be denying itself hardware sales, sending future Mac Pro customers to 3rd parties in a search for docks & peripherals. That’s a bizarre business model.

        1. Mike, me thinks you jest!!!

          “If Apple would go back to delivering a more complete range of hardware offerings — not ludicrously so like Dell, but much more reasonable — then a lot of these Hackintoshers would be spending a lot more money on new Apple hardware. ”

          You are talking about people that spend weeks to save a few dollars in hardware. These people have more time on their hands than is good for them!! lol

          Maybe Apple should spend a lot of money on a larger screen iPhone so it could sell a small number of units just like Samsung is doing with its largest new phones. Cause wasting money is always a good thing.
          Just saying.

    1. It’s not about not liking the new Mac Pro (besides the fact that you can’t really to any upgrades besides more ram and more storage). The reason for doing this is because the 7yr old machines are still really quite capable. You can also upgrade the dual core xeon’s to a pair of quad core xeon’s for $60-$200 depending on the clock speed.

      It is my MSi GTX 570 that the article links to and I can say that 64 bit Mavericks is a very nice jump over 32 bit Lion.

      1. because those of us with a 2006 mac pro can upgrade to mavericks now for $20, opposed to $3000+ for a new computer. I upgraded to the radeon 5770 last year, apple still sells them for $250 (what I paid) but there should be faster cards available now.

        So $300 with a new graphics card versus $3000. Hmmm..

        Still running with the original quad 2.6 xeons and “only” 10GB of ram.

  2. dur, if it won’t run on the same bike path as me, whats the use obviously everyone should just spend tons of money on the newest otherwise they are dumb even though maybe they see their older mac as a wise investment that lasts them longer than the average kid’s attention span.

    so funny how people will say that macs are meant to last but then others will laugh and deride people who don’t upgrade as often as apple wishes they would.

    what, your MBP is PRE-unibody? what are you, a caveman? your worse than grandma wiht vista

  3. I can easily see this turning into a free compatibility utility accompanying the proviso of upgrading your graphics card.

    BUT: I must point out that Apple’s NDA (non-disclosure agreement) is still in force for OS X 10.9 Mavericks. Very naughty Fairer Platform.

  4. I’m going to wait and get my new trash can – I mean, New MacPro … really.

    I tried installing Lion on my 2006 at work and it was a no-go. It didn’t trash it, but it didn’t work either.

      1. I’m curious, I too have a Mac Pro with everything original and used to I could run fcp & Photoshop at the same time, if needed and it didn’t miss a beat. but today opening one app makes the machine crash. Apple says upgrading it for $20 to the OS before mavericks will help, but you’re saying you upgraded to mavericks? how is that possible? can you help me? what do I need for my machine to run mavericks and be rejuvenated? Thanks. Brendon – gobrendon@gmail.com gobrendon.com

  5. Want a new Mac Pro, sure do.
    But it comes with a catch.
    No Thunderbolt PCIe Adapters for SCSI ATTO UL5D for LTO 3 Tape Drive.
    So new Adapter, PCIe card, LTO x Drive.
    Manufacturer conspiracy, anyone for Class Action on this?
    Progress is pricey at the bleeding (money) edge. 😡

  6. Can I get Mavericks on my 2006 Macbook pro? I currently have Lion installed and I cannot upgrade to Mavericks. I have a MacBook Pro 2,2. 2.16 processor and 3 gigs of ram. any help?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.