[thag-simmons]

This is a tall order, but... can someone with a Mac Pro verify whether the boot drive from a previous intel mac (say, a MacBook Pro) can be cloned onto the boot drive of the Mac Pro, completely overwriting it, and still have it boot and operate fine? Or vice versa. Using Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper, for example.

I used to do this all the time between a G5 tower and a G4 powerbook, in both directions, and it always worked fine.

[Laurence]

I too would appreciate it if someone would test this... Where I work I am responsible for netbooting many machines and imaging them... We will get some new Mac Pros in soon and I don't want to have to keep another image on the server. Right now I have just two... One for the G5/G4/G3s and another for the Intel iMacs we have. I am so looking forward to Leopard for this very reason... hopefully one image will be universal by then!

[OreoCookie]

I wouldn't do it. I don't think it would even work, the Mac Pro has a 64 bit cpu whereas the MacBook Pro is still 32 bit.
Just use Migration Assistant instead. It's quite common that new Macs come with a special version of OS X. Anywho, the Migration Assistant makes cloning pretty much obsolete.

[Art Vandelay]

You won't be able to clone a system from an older Intel Mac onto a Mac Pro because they require a newer build of 10.4.7. However, you should be able to clone a Mac Pro system to an older Intel Mac. You can always go from newer to older, but you generally can't go older to newer.

However, this will change when/if 10.4.8 is released. Once it's out, you can clone any Intel Mac system onto any other Intel Mac system until a newer model is released.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I wouldn't do it. I don't think it would even work, the Mac Pro has a 64 bit cpu whereas the MacBook Pro is still 32 bit.
Just use Migration Assistant instead. It's quite common that new Macs come with a special version of OS X. Anywho, the Migration Assistant makes cloning pretty much obsolete.

If that was the case, then people wouldn't be able to use a common image for G3s, G4s, and G5s. In the op's case, Migration Assistant would be sufficient but there are many other cases where it is not and imaging is a much better solution.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

If that was the case, then people wouldn't be able to use a common image for G3s, G4s, and G5s. In the op's case, Migration Assistant would be sufficient but there are many other cases where it is not and imaging is a much better solution.

Not true. There was no way you could migrate a G3 or G4 system image onto a G5 UNTIL AFTER the next system update following the release of the G5.

Somebody mentioned above that it shouldn't be a problem after 10.4.8 is released, since that will bring all CPUs to the same update level. Currently, the Mac Pro runs a newer system version than that available to the Rest Of Us.™

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by analogika

Not true. There was no way you could migrate a G3 or G4 system image onto a G5 UNTIL AFTER the next system update following the release of the G5.

Somebody mentioned above that it shouldn't be a problem after 10.4.8 is released, since that will bring all CPUs to the same update level. Currently, the Mac Pro runs a newer system version than that available to the Rest Of Us.™

You didn't read my posts very carefully. I was the one that mentioned 10.4.8. What I was referring to in the post that you quoted was OreoCookie's claim that you couldn't use a common system for the Mac Pro and other Intel Mac because of 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

If that was the case, then people wouldn't be able to use a common image for G3s, G4s, and G5s. In the op's case, Migration Assistant would be sufficient but there are many other cases where it is not and imaging is a much better solution.

Please keep in mind that the Mac Pro has just been released. It's not certain that all the necessary drivers are included. I'm not categorical on this, but there is definitely some potential that the procedure might fail.

This is especially true since there is a better alternative out there: the Migration Assistant (as you correctly point out).

Also, if Windows XP 64 is any indication, the x86-64 platform is a lot more sensitive when it comes to 32 bit apps/drivers. Since I don't know whether 10.4 on the Mac Pros is 64 bit at all (the amount of RAM you can put in these machines seems to indicate that this is indeed the case), there is a lot of speculation here. But again, I did not say, that it will fail for sure.

So for these two reasons, I expect that cloning the drive might fail.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

You didn't read my posts very carefully. I was the one that mentioned 10.4.8. What I was referring to in the post that you quoted was OreoCookie's claim that you couldn't use a common system for the Mac Pro and other Intel Mac because of 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

And you're absolutely correct.

Sorry I didn't check quote sources - I just felt your post was confusing the issue.

[Art Vandelay]

I've gotten a verification from our Apple SE on this matter. You can use an image from a Mac Pro on any Intel Mac. You cannot use an image from any other Intel Mac on a Mac Pro yet.

Once 10.4.8 comes out, then you will be able to take an image from any Intel Mac and run it on any other Intel Mac. Apple has always had a policy of keeping the system compatible with all other Macs. The few exceptions are the G5 version of Jaguar and the PowerPC and Intel versions of Tiger, but those exceptions have always been remedied in the next major release.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Since I don't know whether 10.4 on the Mac Pros is 64 bit at all (the amount of RAM you can put in these machines seems to indicate that this is indeed the case), there is a lot of speculation here.

From what I've seen it's 64-bit to the same extent as 10.4 on a G5... >4GB RAM supported, a few 64-bit libraries, but that's it. Leopard will bring a fuller 64-bit environment.

[thag-simmons]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

I've gotten a verification from our Apple SE on this matter. You can use an image from a Mac Pro on any Intel Mac. You cannot use an image from any other Intel Mac on a Mac Pro yet.

Thanks. This is great to hear. So basically we need to use migration assistant, but just *once* to move an older Intel Mac's contents to the Mac Pro. After that, everything's on the Mac Pro's version of OS X, so we can clone back and forth.

[OreoCookie]

Ok, again, you don't need to clone your whole drive in most cases. You can use Migration Assistant at any point to transfer your data, your settings and your apps from any one Mac to the other, you can upgrade from a lower version of OS X to a later version, change cpu architecture at will, etc.

For most intents and purposes, cloning is a waste of time.

[Laurence]

Cloning is certainly not a waste of time. Where I work we have hundreds of Macs and when an employee quits/gets fired/etc. we don't just give there machine to a new employee without wiping the drive. I use Remote Desktop to log into the machine, set the startup disk for netboot and push a new image to it in 10-15 minutes... and this is a 30 GB image with all the latest updates, All the Adobe/Macromedia apps iLife, iWork, etc. If I had to go and format the machine, reinstall all the software and configure all the settings it would take around 6 hours. I also don't have to go to the machine and firewire it to another computer. I can even do this for machines and different sites once the network infrastructure is set up properly. Even at home where I don't netboot, I use CCC to clone my master drive to two backup drives. One backup is nightly and the other is monthly just in case. (It'll be nice to switch to Time Machine for the nightly with Leopard!)

[OreoCookie]

You must have missed the `in most cases'. It's ideal for setting up identical machines.
But certainly not a good way to keep two machines `synchronized'.