Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can I boot to Mohave on the new mac studio ?
- Thread starter Msbeezy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Definitely no way. Mojave (or even Catalina) won’t even run on an M1 Mac, much less a brand new one.
It’s odd that a new computer released in 2022 can’t run a no longer supported operating system from 2018, than ran on a totally different processor architecture? Even if it was the same processor, recent macs have never been able to boot into OS’s older than the original they shipped with.
You can always have a secondary Intel machine to run all those other programs; that's what I do and it's a great method. Yeah it's a bit lame to have to use another computer, but it serves a good purpose.
I see in your signature you have a 5K iMac - just use that in addition to the Mac Studio.
Save your software keys in text file so you can get the new versions at discounted price!
I have an M1 mini connected to 2x4k, a 2014 iMac, 2010 iMac and a QHD monitor and I put the appropriate programs on the appropriate machines. Some programs like a lot of screen real-estate and some like a lot of performance. I do hope to go 100% Apple Silicon some day but Apple not offering a consumer iMac 27 is a problem for me. I'd love to get a Studio solution but it's just hard shelling out $1,700 for that display when my $500 iMac takes care of my needs for a 5k display, speakers, microphones and video camera and even includes a computer. I run a Windows 10 VM on the 2010 iMac for some work and it's nice to be able to do that.
You could probably run Mojave on your Mac Studio using QEMU but you'd take a significant performance hit. I am watching the progress on Windows on ARM as it may be a solution down the road. It would be nice if Microsoft officially supported Apple Silicon when their exclusivity deal with Qualcomm expires.
You could probably run Mojave on your Mac Studio using QEMU but you'd take a significant performance hit. I am watching the progress on Windows on ARM as it may be a solution down the road. It would be nice if Microsoft officially supported Apple Silicon when their exclusivity deal with Qualcomm expires.
That's Windows on ARM and I understand that the solution works but it isn't supported. If you're a business that requires supported platforms, then it's really not an option.
It's supposed to be Windows compatible though - so I'd guess that there's a mode that doesn't require Monterey but maybe doesn't give you all of the features either.
One other approach would be to use an Intel Mac running Monterey and run Mojave in a virtual machine.
Someone will try it soon enough. (I agree) My guess is non-supported Macs will have the same limitations as Windows PCs.
Apple Confirms Studio Display Will Work With PCs, But With Some Caveats
Apple has confirmed to MacRumors that the brand new Studio Display will work when connected to PCs, but critical new features of the display will not...
www.macrumors.com
Apple Studio Display To Offer Basic Functionality for Incompatible Devices
Studio Display lists a compatibility list that may scare off buyers. The fact is, it may still be a good purchase even for Windows users.
www.macobserver.com
You'll need to look at your software on a case-by-case basis. Some Mojave-era software will run fine on M1 using Rosetta, some will have free or cheap upgrades to native versions.
If anything you use is still 32 bit only (which is nothing to do with M1 vs. x86) then it has already been abandoned for several years and you're going to need to find an alternative soon, anyway. I'm still on Mojave and it's just starting to become a nuisance, with new versions of things like Logic not being supported.
Reality is, with Apple, software breaking after 4-5 years is part of the package. Windows is there for people who want to run 10-20 year-old software - but retaining that backwards compatibility is also what keeps it clunky in some respects.
...and there you have one of the big problems with both the iMac and the new Studio display: most half-decent 3rd party displays have multiple inputs that you can switch between with a couple of button presses. The iMac has no inputs for external computers and the Studio Display only has a single Thunderbolt input (...and I've never heard of a Thunderbolt KVM switch box...) - you'd have to juggle cables.
There are things like Luna Display that let you use the iMac (or a Studio Mac/Display setup) as a display via a network or thunderbolt link, but they can introduce lag and artefacts so I wouldn't want to rely on it as a primary display. Might be good enough for your "legacy" intel Mac Mini, though.
Or, how about getting a refurb Intel MacBook as your legacy system that had its own display but which you could bung in a drawer when nit using it?
Part of this dilemma comes from starting with an all-in-one iMac that can't really act as a display for anything else. So, taking the long view, perhaps no iMac is a good thing - but the Studio Display (only one input, one type of input and only guaranteed to work well with supported Macs) is only a partial, and quite expensive, solution. Looking around at what 3rd Party options are available would be a good idea. Although there are few, if any, 5120x2880 options there's a much wider choice of sizes and formats with 4k which is a pretty close second to 5k in image quality.
You might be able to negotiate with the software provider to get a discount or an upgrade price.
I agree. For all of Microsoft's faults, they make sure primary hardware manufacturers such as Intel, AMD, and Nvidia are in the loop.
Apple's decision to not even allow support for 32-bit apps meant I had to keep on hand an older Mac to run mission critical apps that weren't updated for 64-bit. For some customers I have to run older versions of software that have since been updated to 64-bit.
Apple's never been developer-friendly and now is no exception.
When Apple released OSX, it was possible to still run OS 9. When Apple switched from RISC (PowerPC) to CISC (Intel) they maintained some level of compatibility. Now, with billions of dollars in the bank and making roughly $2billion in profit per week, they can't do the same that they're moving back to RISC (ARM)? Seems stingy. So for some to reply to you and claim sarcastically, "It’s odd that a new computer released in 2022 can’t run a no longer supported operating system from 2018, than ran on a totally different processor architecture?" Well, yes, yes it is odd.
OP wrote:
"Hmm...lots of unknowns still at this point...guess time will tell"
No.
There aren't "unknowns" as far as bootability is concerned.
You WILL NOT be able to "boot" a Mac Studio to Mojave.
Not possible.
Cannot be done.
The Studio will REQUIRE Monterey as "the minimum OS" from which it can boot.
"Hmm...lots of unknowns still at this point...guess time will tell"
No.
There aren't "unknowns" as far as bootability is concerned.
You WILL NOT be able to "boot" a Mac Studio to Mojave.
Not possible.
Cannot be done.
The Studio will REQUIRE Monterey as "the minimum OS" from which it can boot.