Bootcamp is different on two identical Mac Pro 2013 towers, Windows 7 vs 8

OK, so we bought two identical Mac Pro 2013 towers, took them out of the box and updated the system, and checked to see if could use Bootcamp.  Hopefully to install Windows 7, but, failing that, Windows 8.  We got two different results:
One of the machines says only Windows 8 can be installed, but the other has a dialog about Windows 7.
The only difference here is that I messed around with the partitions on the second one.  I may have jumped the gun and called one partition "BOOTCAMP" before being advised not to do so and attempting to get rid of that partition.  My partition attempts have led to that system dialog...
What's the reason these two are different?  IS it possible to install Windows 7?

According to Boot Camp: System requirements for Microsoft Windows operating systems - Apple Support
Mac model
Windows 8
64-bit
Windows 7
64-bit
Windows 7
32-bit
Windows Vista
64-bit
Windows Vista
32-bit
Windows XP
32-bit
iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014)
BCA
BCA
iMac (21.5-inch, Mid 2014)
BCA
BCA
iMac (27-inch, Late 2013)
5
5
iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2013)
5
5
W7 64-bit is supported, but W7 32-bit is not. Are you certain your W7 media is correct and complete? If the media has both 32-bit and 64-bit on it, it will be rejected.

Similar Messages

  • Two identical mac pros, both kernel panicking under heavy load

    I have two nearly identical Mac Pros that Ive been using to the scientific calculations. They both have 32GB of OWC (non Apple) memory, 4x 2TB hard drives in RAID 5, and 2x quad core 2.26 GHz Nehalem cpus. Both are running full patched 10.6.2.
    On each of them I run a single multithreaded process that gets the cpu usage up to 1500+% and uses 10-20 GB of memory. The process also hits the hard drives pretty heavily (it is java, however, so I'm not doing any odd low level system stuff).
    Every few days under this load, one or the other of them will kernel panic. Usually it happens when I also do something else on the machine (like scroll a web browser), but sometimes I wake up and found one has kernel panicked over night. The panics are usually "thread_invoke: preemption_level -1, possible cause: unlocking an unlocked mutex or spinlock" on the process kernel_task, but Ive also had one referring to an error on the RAID card.
    On both machines I've run memtest for days on end and it never finds any errors. But if it was a hardware problem I'd expect only one to have problems anyway. Could this be a java problem? No matter how poor my programming is, nothing I do from java should be able to kernel panic the machine, right? Does anyone know of people actually using mac pros under these kinds of conditions?

    smeister989 wrote:
    Using a temperature monitor, I am noticing something odd. Both machines are using about 1500% cpu, but on both machines the temperatures for CPU A are about 10-12 degrees (C) higher than on CPU B. Does this make any sense? What is the safe operating temperature for these machines? I'm seeing ~ 58 degrees C for the CPU A heatsink, and 68 degrees C for the CPU A temperature diode.
    If I had to guess, I would say CPUA is the first in line for airflow, meaning it probably has a thicker coating of dust on it.
    Dust is an excellent insulator, which unfortunately does not work in your favor.
    I would shut the machines down, open them up and carefully inspect for dust.
    And don't put your Mac on the floor! It will suck up way more dust than if it's on your desk or off the floor by at least a couple of feet. Dust is evil, and people underestimate it's affects - but if you are pushing your machines, and it sounds like you are, even a light coating of dust can cause uneven temperature spikes and hardware problems. And for the memory too! Apple memory has heatsinks for a reason - ensure they are dust free as well as the CPU heatsinks.

  • Trouble using firewire drives via thunderbolt adapter on bootcamped Mac Pro 2013 towers

    Here at the university, we've just installed a new classroom of Mac Pro towers (late 2013).  We like to use Bootcamp in said classroom, and so I (painstakingly) installed Windows 8.1 on a test machine.  I've found that the brand new firewire-to-thunderbolt adapters we bought don't seem to work when booted into Windows.  I have few LaCie firewire drives I use to install software packages, and the occasional WD My Book, and our students are encourage to purchase G-Drives to back up their film projects.
    I have a couple of LaCie drives that I've partitioned as part Mac OS Extended and part ExFat (or even MS-DOS just in case).   The Windows-friendly partitions don't mount or even get detected, so I think it's the adapter(s) not being recognized by Windoes, especially since the firewire to thunderbolt adapters work on the Mac side.
    Could this be a driver problem like what's mentioned here?

    Well, no one answered at all, but somehow the problem solved itself.  I'm not sure if one of the automatic Windows updates cleared things up or what, but now I can connect Firewire drives with no problems.  Also, as some kind of bonus, Windows 8 is able to read Mac partitioned firewire drives, which I don't think was possible in Windows 7.
    The problem may also have been that I hadn't entered the Windows activation key in yet? I'm not sure that makes sense in terms of Thunderbolt adapters...
    10+ years ago, I read a Microsoft tip of the day that said "Problems that go away by themselves can come back by themselves." It's haunted me ever since.

  • Why mac pro 2013 not supporting illustrator GPU rendering

    Here, all nvidia cards supporting this:
    http://helpx.adobe.com/illustrator/kb/gpu-performance-preview-improvements.html
    now I'm thinking, that buying the new mac pro 2013 maybe wasn't the best idea... Apple put in AMD GPu's, that is fine by me, but come on, give us some more support for them! Normal windows PC (for 800€) with nvidia GPU is faster at rendering in Illustrator, than my workstation mac (3500+€)! Really? O.o
    And story doesn't end here. I was reading one article about GPU usage in this new mac pro and then I tested it myself. Only one GPU is used and the other is barely touched! And this goes for Maya, photoshop, illustrator and other adobe programs. I was shocked, that I discovered I have one GPU to warm up my room and only one actually doing all the work.
    Ok I understand, that also software developers needs to support stuff and write their software to actually use GPU's, but adobe creative suite is one of examples, where software is actually capable of using GPU via openCL and in some cases even CUDA from nvidia.
    And there is one more thing: new mac pro, has 2 identical AMD GPU's inside, which can work in crossfire configuration under windows in bootcamp, but not in OS X. Sometimes I even play some games on my mac and sometimes I'm testing them (I'm artist, but I also like to develop and test some games in my free time) and it's kinda a shame, that I can run games with better performance under windows in bootcamp.
    When I bought this computer I thought this is going to rock and sweep up with all my previous machines. Well in practice it is much of unused potential and great room warmer. It's kinda sad, that on my girlfriend's PC I can play games with better frames and details on GF 660GTX than on my mac pro... I know I know, mac's aren't for gaming, but hey, sometimes it is good to get my mind on rest and blow up some enemies!
    I'm not saying mac pro isn't great product, which is (very great). But support to use all computer capabilities is very limited and Apple should kick developers in their back side and push them to start developing things to use GPU's more.
    I'm also not expecting Apple to jump on their feet and fix problems overnight. No, just start thinking of adding more support and things that would make our computers much more used and not only good decoration on desk. First would be a good steep adding crossfire support to OS X. That might even help at rendering some 3D scenes?
    Next step would probably be better cooperation with software developers, like Adobe , Autodesk,... If adobe made good support for GPU rendering in Illustrator, aim that we get that support soon as well. I'm sometimes having a lot of paths and objects and rendering goes pretty slow then.
    I'm also thinking about that AMD choice Apple made wasn't so good when you see that Nvidia puts much more effort into supporting more and more stuff, while AMD is sitting idle not even updating their drivers anymore.
    Oh and one more thing: Can we please, please, please, please, preeeeeetty please get 10-bit output support on OS X? It's kinda sad, having good mac workstation with 10-bit capable monitor (dell UP2414Q) and no support for it, while other PC workstations all support it... Photoshop is working much better on OS X and here I have much better integration and everything and I really love working in Photoshop running on OS X, but some basic things are missing and I'm really asking myself sometimes: was that good decision? Photoshop was first written for macs and in 2014 there is much better support for adobe software on windows than on OS X. Where went wrong?
    Don't take me wrong and think I'm just ranting here without any good reason, but think: buying very expensive computer that is supposed to make creative work easy and painless is actually just on paper. In reality computer potential is pretty much unused and that makes me thinking if I would be much better buying iMac instead of mac pro...
    TL;DR: I wish for some more support from Apple for their new expensive mac pro's 2013. They are great piece of equipment, but equivalent PC's running windows are surpassing them in this department, specially when GPU's are involved. Now I would like to point this out to Apple, so I don't know where to write so they will read so I first wrote that here. I hope someone from Apple reads this and give us some feedback on those missing things or maybe I get direction where to write to Apple so I get maybe some response from them(?):
    -not enough GPU support for creative software (adobe suite, autodesk,...) - nvidia + windows offering much more for less money?
    -no crossfire support on OS X. Any particular reason for that?
    -no 10-bit support for 10-bit displays. Why not? Hardware is capable, why software isn't?
    -lack of openCL software out there. Apple isn't doing much to get more support or developers just too lazy to put more effort into this? GPGPU isn't the future as some companies are trying to convince us?

    Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:
    All displays are supported by one GPU -- the display GPU. The second GPU is reserved for un-interrupted GPU computing and has no Display output Hardware.
    Anandtech has a discussion of this in his review of the late 2013 Mac Pro.
    Under OS X the situation is a bit more complicated. There is no system-wide CrossFire X equivalent that will automatically split up rendering tasks across both GPUs.
    By default, one GPU is setup for display duties while the other is used exclusively for GPU compute workloads. GPUs are notoriously bad at context switching, which can severely limit compute performance if the GPU also has to deal with the rendering workloads associated with display in a modern OS. NVIDIA sought to address a similar problem with their Maximus technology, combining Quadro and Tesla cards into a single system for display and compute.
    from section 9:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/9
    Another problem here: on windows bootcamp crossfire IS working, but not in OS X. As I wrote, sometimes it would be better to get more rendering power than computing power (actually at current state of GPU computing software, computing GPU isn't working very much if at all). It would be nice to have an option to switch on and off crossfire so we could use more rendering power when needed.
    Also not all people are doing video rendering on their computers. What about 3D modelling and 2D work in photosohp? And maybe people like me are occasionally wish to play some games on their mac?
    You linked me GPU usage from one program (probably adobe after effects or premiere pro or apple final cut X?), that is probably one of the only pieces of software that actually uses both GPU's under OS X. I made same experiment with software I use and I even tested some software I don't use but it is advertised it is "optimized" for mac pro like pixelmator.
    And guess what? Second GPU is 99% time idle. Even when some stuff is using openCL in Photoshop, stuff is still computed on rendering GPU and not on computing one, which makes computing GPU just a good room warmer as I wrote before. Wouldn't be better to at least use second GPU for something than heating air?

  • Do Mac Pro 2013 support six TV using HDMI/DVI?

    Hi everyone,
    I found in Mac Pro support six displays using thunderbolt, but can I using HDMI or DVI?
    I have six TVs, all of them have hdmi,dvi, and vga ports, I want to using one Mac Pro (2013) to display my screen in six TV as one screen, such as this:
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmlsePKH6AY
    Because Mac Pro using AMD display card, can I using  Eyefinity technology?
    Thanks a lot.

    Yes. However, only two adopters can be passive. The rest have to be active.
    All mini displayport to VGA adapters are active.
    Mini displayport to DVI adopter can either be active or passive. The active ones say actie and cost more than passive ones.
    If the display is greater than 1080X1200 you need dual-link mini displayport to DVI adapter. All the dual-link adopters are active and require USB connection for power.
    I have no idea what " Eyefinity technology?" is

  • Best Mac Pro (2013) configuration for photo editing/processing?

    Hi all,
    I couldn't find a reliable answer to this in my searching here or on google, hence I'm posting it here.
    I'm going to buy and upgrade to the new mac pro when it's announced this month (Dec 2013).  My primary use will be photo processing in photoshop.
    Configuring it with 64gb RAM is the no-brainer part. And probably a 512gb or 1TB flash drive too.
    The bit I'm unsure about is whether to opt for the 6 core processor option over the quad core?  For photo editing (adding layers, filters, brushing in, multiple files open at times, running batch edits etc), does anyone have an opinion on whether the performance increase (if there is in fact any increase for photo work?) of the 6 core 3.5ghz would justify paying the extra AU$1300 difference over the quad core 3.7ghz option?
    And from my earlier research paying the huge prices for 8 or 12 cores would simply be a waste for photo processing.
    Thanks for the advice...

    Mozzzaaa
    I have the exact same requirements, here are my findings based on some observations from Activity Monitor and research based on how the hardware works.
    Photoshop does not utilize multiple cores well for many standard editing ativities - therefore one core will be busy while the rest remain idle, however I have noticed over time that upgrades to Photoshop seem to take more advantage of multiple cores as Adobe updates the code. For example, appling filters utilize all of the cores while the filters are computing changes (smart sharpen for example).  Try running CPU monitoring in Activity Monitor (double click the CPU graph to display all cores).
    Lightroom utilizes all of the cores for Import, export and other activities that process multiple files.  Being more modern code, it beter utilizes muti cores.
    Keep in mind that each core handles two code threads, therefore a four core system is capable of processing 8 "streams" of code, the 6 core can manage 12 threads, etc.  
    Here is a screen shot of Mac Book Pro running PS CC Smart Sharpen:
    All the new Mac Pro run at 3.9Hz Turbo Boost - they are all the same in that respect.  This means that when the processers are not hot, at least one core will run at 3.9Hz - therefore on a relativly idle machine (just editing in PS for example) you would likley be running at 3.9Hz on all the Mac Pro 2013.
    There are also the GPUs to consider.  Apple as usual has not made enough information available to easly determine the cost benefits of the more powerful GPUs and I don't know if PS would utiliize the AMD GPUs well now,  or perhaps better utilize them for the future.  Perhaps someone could comment on that.  Here is an interesting article: http://architosh.com/2013/10/the-mac-pro-so-whats-a-d300-d500-and-d700-anyway-we -have-answers/
    Clearly the D500 that is standard with the 6 core seems a major bump over the 4 core D300 (therefore the costs of the 6 core reflect that).  I don't know how much the D700 would cost - it would be helpful if this were published so I could consider my order.
    There are two GPU in the new Mac Pros - but the purpose of the second one is not toally clear (thanks again to Apples's communication).  It likley will be utilized for all sorts of things that don't really exist now and FCP X is scheduled for a new release better utilize the GPU for video (as nwaphoto mentioned video processing will be a major use of this equipment).
    I was interested in your comment regarding 64 Meg ram.  Yes that would be a hudge boost to PS performance, but would it be better to purchase from Apple or wait for OWC who offer RAM at major discounts over Apple.  Once again, no info yet that I am aware of.
    I believe the flash drive is upgradable but rumor has it that it uses a proprietary connecter. Makes me want to go with the largest size but once again OWC might be the way to go for an upgrade in a year or two.
    In the past, the 6 core 2012 Mac Pro's were somewhat of a sweat spot in terms of horsepower vs cost.  I will be considering that in my decession to upgrade. So I am considering a 6 core,  will check out the Ram and Flash diIsk based on price - which is the infor I don't have.  If you have anything please post
    Thanks

  • Problems printing to printers connected to a MAC pro from a Windows Laptop

    Folks,
    I got a MAC PRO a couple of weeks ago and I have two USB printers (an EPSON CX 4200 and a CANON S900 connected to it).
    I tried both Ifelix's procedures to add the printers connected to the MAC and I had problems with both procedures.
    If I try the http://mac-ip:631/printers/printer-name I am successful in adding the printer to the Laptop running windows XP however when I try to send something to that printer the job goes straight to the "completed" queue on the MAC and nothing prints at all. I used the respective windows drivers for each printer on the XP Laptop.
    I spent two hours with Apple support on the phone and they could not figure out what was going on and suggested that I post my issue to this forum to see if anybody has any ideas.
    I also tried to configure the printers using Bonjour (as per Ifelix's documented method) but at some point during the printer setup I get an error message indicating that I do not have "sufficient access" to install the printer driver even though I am logged in as admin on the windows XP computer.
    Has abybody experienced similar pain? Is anybody here being able to print to printers connected to a MAC PRO from a Windows XP laptop?
    I should also say that my computers are in a network and both are connected to a Linksys Wireless Access point/router.
    The Laptop is a wireless laptop and the mac pro is conneced to the linksys router via a regular network cable.
    Also, I have no issues printing straight from the mac to both printers.
    Would appreciate any suggestions/comments.
    Thanks in advance for your time.
    regards,
    marcelo

    What risks does that imply?
    Well, it implies that the battery is not user serviceable, which it is not. However, your warranty has already been effectively voided by the spill. So, you don't have that much to lose. As I already said though, there are risks inherent in cleaning any electronic equipment with any sort of liquid. The safer route is definitely to take the machine in for repair, as eww says.
    And for the Q-tips, when I opened the machine, it seemed really complicated to unmount or access parts with Q-tips.
    Unfortunately, it is complicated. It's not something to undertake unless you are comfortable with it. And it can never be guaranteed that it will actually be clean because there are many spaces that you'll never be able to clean. I should perhaps emphasize that I would only clean the machine myself if there was no chance of being able to pay for repairs. It is sort of a last-ditch option to attempt to avoid the cost of repairs. Nothing is guaranteed though and you may have to pay for repairs anyway.
    Wouldn't it be better to just let it bath in the distilled water, wait a few minutes and then let it dry?
    Definitely not. If you do that you can forget about the machine ever working again, at all.
    do you think there is hope that once cleaned, everything would work again ?
    It is doubtful. Like I said, if paying for repairs are not an option, then you should consider at least attempting to clean it. Otherwise, you should have the top case replaced (new keyboard and trackpad).
    --Travis

  • CUDA NVIDIA video card to Mac Pro 2013

    Is there any way to get the Mac Pro 2013 to run a CUDA enabled NVIDIA video card?

    This graphic from ifixit.com shows the two special cards, still with heatsink paste in place, just after removal. The silver diamond surrounds the big graphics chip, just inside the RAMs on the card. Those RAMs contact heatsink pads on the central cooler. The whole business is secured with four screws beyond the RAMs, roughly centered on the sides of the diamond. So the Big GPU chip and the RAMs are pressed with heatsink paste and heatsink pads, respectively, against the central cooler. This is in lieu of allowance for a separate fan (which in many "standard" cards is what takes up the space of the second slot.
    Power appears to be supplied by lugs in the outer corners of each card, so the cards are deliberately not interchangeable. One has connections that feed to the graphics outputs, the other has connections for the PCIe SSD socket.
    The text says those connectors resemble the CPU daughter card connectors used in the late G4 and G5s.
    https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Pro+Late+2013+Teardown/20778

  • Mac Pro 2013 internet (ethernet/wifi) lag on load

    Hi,
    Anyone has a lag with the new Mac Pro 2013 using Safari to surf the web, on WIFI and/or ethernet, when loading a page?
    Meaning the blue bar on the link that loads after you hit enter.
    The page lags to load for 2-5 sec before loading all at once.
    I consulted Apple support, we tried all of this:
    - plug directly in modem
    - test on other devices the internet
    - tried on Firefox
    - loaded in safe mode
    - loaded in recovery mode local
    - loaded in recovery mode web
    - reseted the following folders:
    A) System library folder
    Input method
    Internet plugins
    Scripting addition
    Preferences/system configuration
    B) User library folder
    Preferences, com.apple.safari.plist
    C) System preferences
    System pref menu, startup item
    Still not fixed.
    Anyone has that issue?

    Hi,
    Thank you for the reply.
    I do not see a difference with this, it lags regardless:
    "When trying to access a website via its DNS name, such as www.apple.com, there may be a delay that ranges from several seconds up to several minutes before the page loads at normal speed, depending on the operating system version and configuration. However, if you access the website's numerical IP address, such as http://17.149.160.49, the page loads immediately."
    Still directly plugged in modem, I see the DNS by default under NETWORK/ETHERNET/ADVANCED are the ones from the ISP.
    I typed the 3 DNS manually, saved, rebooted. Still doing it.
    Same problem with Google IPv4 and IPv6 public DNS.
    I might remind you I do not have this issue on my iMac beside it which is under Snow Leopard.
    All other devices are fast. Even download on the Mac Pro is fast.
    Booting under Safe Mode, Recovery Mode (local and web) did not help. That means with a clean instance of Safari from a completely different partition.

  • After installing 10.9.3 my Mac Pro 2013 doesn't see the third display

    Does anybody know what to do... My Mac Pro 2013 has 3 displays, with thunderbolt adapter each. After upgrading to 10.9.3 one display (of 3) is always "abcsent". I attached displays to different buses, changed thunderbolt inputs — nothing helps. The configuration of displays changes, but always one of them (every time not the same) is black... Who knows what to do? Thank you in advance!

    The following steps have been reported to solve the problem. Probably not all are necessary.
    1. Reset the System Management Controller.
    2. Reset the PRAM.
    3. Install the Combo updater.

  • Mac Pro (2013) with Mavericks and Mac Office Excel

    Using MAC Excel VBA, and obviously with my personally written Excel VBA application, I have discovered that
    in a multi-Workbook Excel app, I am unable to "Open" additional Workbooks (xlsm-type) successfully
    from any Workbook OTHER THAN with the very first Workbook opened in the app. In other words, if my app needs
    2 or more Workbooks opened at any one time, only the 1st Workbook opened can "open" any other workbooks
    successfully.
    If the 2nd or any other Workbook in my app tries to execute an "open workbook" procedure of its own, no Err is thrown
    and no indication is given that its "open Workbook" statement did not work, but the program/routine just continues as if
    nothing was wrong. Additionally, all statements pertaining to the "not-opened" Workbook don't do a thing also
    (i.e., .Clear, .ClearContents, .Range, .Copy, etc. don't work and don't throw errors).
    On the other hand, when I restructure my Excel application such that the very first opened Workbook also "opens"
    all the other Workbooks needed in my entire application, then my Excel application works great, even when I call
    other subroutines that don't include "open workbook" statements but do include opject references and database
    statements for whichever already-opened Workbook it needs. In this case also, all the final "close workbook"
    statements must be properly placed in the first workbook's code and eventually executed at the end, and the entire
    app works appropriately and successfully.
    My question is, is it an Excel rule that ONLY the first workbook opened is allowed to open additional Workbooks, or
    is this a MAC Excel limitation only, or is there a MAC Excel or VBA setting that solves this situation? I have done VBA
    debug tracing in my app code to "prove" my point over and over here, and have found nothing that solves my delimma.
    Maybe there's an additional workbook "open" parameter that might help, but I haven't discovered it yet. Note that
    I am openinfg all my Workbooks with ReadOnly:= false
    Note: I am using a Mac Pro (2013) 6-core, Mavericks, and Excel 11 VBA. Everything else on my entire system works great.
    Thank you for any suggestions. I have used Windows Excel for many years very successfully and don't recall ever
    encountering this situation with Workbooks before.

    18. Can I connect a Mini DisplayPort monitor or monitor using a Mini DisplayPort adapter to a Thunderbolt port on my Thunderbolt-equipped Mac?
    Yes. A Mini DisplayPort display or a display connecting with a Mini DisplayPort to VGA, DVI, or HDMI adapter will work just like it was connecting to a Mini DisplayPort connector when plugging in directly to the Thunderbolt connector on your Apple computer. Click here for more information on Mini DisplayPort connections and adapters.
    19. How do I connect my Mini DisplayPort monitor or monitor using a Mini DisplayPort adapter to my Thunderbolt-equipped Mac when I have other Thunderbolt devices connected?
    When connecting a Mini DisplayPort display or a display using a Mini DisplayPort adapter to a Thunderbolt peripheral (except as described in question 14), make sure the display is connected at the end of the Thunderbolt chain. You can use only one Mini DisplayPort device in the Thunderbolt chain.
    Note: Systems with more than one Thunderbolt port, like an iMac, can have more than one Mini DisplayPort monitor or monitor connected with a Mini DisplayPort adapter connected as each Thunderbolt port can support one Mini DisplayPort display.

  • Where can I buy the Mac Pro 2013 motherboard? Just the motherboard

    So where can I buy JUST the Mac pro 2013 motherboard? If you can, please link it.
    Thanks!

    This is a User-to-User help site.
    Helpers get their rewards by helping.
    I know some good solutions to a lot of problems with Mac Pros. And other readers know a whole lot more solutions.
    I do not know of any problem that can be solved by replacing these boards in a nearly-new Mac Pro. The processor board is sold as a bare board, with no processors or heatsinks. It takes an hour of trained technician time just to install the processors and heat sinks, and you MUST get the correct parts or it will not work. If your technique is not correct, the processor(s) will self destruct when you power them up.
    The mainboard does not include the SATA connectors, which are actually on a wiring harness that is attached from behind.
    What problem are you trying to solve here?

  • I have a 2009 Apple Mac Pro with no windows,can I surf the web on virgin media wifi

    Can I surf the web on the Apple Mac Pro with out windows on Virgin media wifi

    What are you asking? Are you saying you do not have Microsoft Windows on your computer? If so, Microsoft Windows is not needed to surf the Internet. Or, are you saying that the site you are surfing to requires Windows Internet Explorer which you do not have?
    Rephrase your question being more specific as to your issue.

  • Mac Pro 2013 fan speeds up to maximum after restart.

    My brand new Mac Pro 2013, hanged on shutdown..
    so I had to restart by using the button on the cylinder, when it restarted it sounded like a vacuum cleaner, the fan started to spin fast and didn't stop anymore and my mac was suddenly very slow :S.
    After restarting the mac pro works fine again! this happened 2 times now...
    Already called with apple they said that i should try and work with it and see if the problem comes back again.
    Maybe any of you knows what could be wrong.??????
    I'm mainly using the machine for Logic Pro X and sometimes for some video editing.
    OS : Yosemite - 10.10.2
    Mac Pro 6core 2013

    Reset the SMC and PRAM
    Intel-based Macs: Resetting the System Management Controller (SMC)
    About NVRAM and PRAM

  • Mac Pro 2013 Using Too Much RAM

    I have a 6-core Mac Pro (2013) with 64GB of RAM. I have this feeling that the computer, and some assortment of processes, is sucking up a lot more of the RAM than they need to. As a point of reference, I use the vast majority of the RAM for audio production.
    My concern is that, when I turn my computer on, it is already using 10 GBs of RAM right off the bat. One particular process, kernel_task, likes to use anywhere from 2-10 GBs. I can't imagine there is any reason for the Mac and all of its other processes to ever exceed even 4 GBs of RAM, let alone the upwards 20-30 that it will eventually consume. I say this because I migrated all of the data and processes form my 2010 Macbook Pro, which only has 8GB. Upon start-up, it is never using more than 2-4 GBs of RAM. I would assume, then, that my Mac Pro can get by using little more 4GBs (preserving the other 60GB for my much more resource-intensive music work). Both the MBP and Mac Pro have Mavericks 10.9.
    Is there a way to cap the amount of RAM the computer, and any other process, uses, so I can preserve the majority of it for the tasks I know need it most?

    Have you seen www.macperformanceguide.com ? focus is more on graphics and photography and where 128GB is shown to help.
    The old method, to conserve and not use memory, went away years ago so as not to let a valuable resource sit idle and not being used.
    Even if you don't have pageouts the system dynamically will use more if and when there is more memory present.
    The numbers you report are not unusual. 1-2GB in today's world is like 50MB might have been 20 years ago - people were moaning over the fact that OS 7 was a memory hog as it now needed 40-50MB just to launch the Finder.

Maybe you are looking for