I'm extremely happy with Mojave and expect to stay on it for the life of my Intel Macs or as long as I own them. I don't plan to upgrade an x86 stuff to Big Sur unless I buy a new x86 Mac. My opinion on operating systems is that Big Sur is too expensive for Intel Macs (outside of monster systems) and that it's more well suited to Apple Silicon.
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.
Hackintosh Community Response to Apple Silicon
- Thread starter Yebubbleman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm extremely happy with Mojave and expect to stay on it for the life of my Intel Macs or as long as I own them. I don't plan to upgrade an x86 stuff to Big Sur unless I buy a new x86 Mac. My opinion on operating systems is that Big Sur is too expensive for Intel Macs (outside of monster systems) and that it's more well suited to Apple Silicon.
I've found Big Sur more stable than the prior two releases on x86 machines.
I've found that the performance penalty makes it unusable.
I try it again every couple of months though.
The thing I linked is an apple specific broadcom chip in a pci adapter. it enables all bluetooth and wifi features natively. I never tried sidecar so I have no clue if it works or not.
Sidecar works on a hackintosh if you have support for IGPU video encoding and if you are using an SMBIOS that makes use of it (not iMacPro1,1 or MacPro7,1 - those use the T2 for encoding the Sidecar stream).
Thanks for clarifying. As pointed out above by @CMMChris, it requires a iGPU, which AMD doesn't not have. It has nothing to do with the Wifi/Bluetooth chip. Since you said everything works 100% I assumed there's now a way around this, maybe by offloading to GPU. That doesn't seem to be the case, so some things remain not working on a AMD hackintosh.
Sorry, I think I meant to say "booter" and not "bootloader". Definitely Apple's bootloader is custom no matter which architecture we're talking about here.
For sure. Though, are you suggesting that it will be no more or less difficult? I think that's more what I'm curious about.
From https://support.apple.com/guide/security/startup-security-utility-secc7b34e5b5/web
Full Security boot policy
Full Security is the default boot policy, and it behaves similar to iOS and iPadOS or Full Security on a Mac with Apple silicon. At the time that software is downloaded and prepared to install, it is personalized with a signature that includes the Exclusive Chip Identification (ECID)—a unique ID specific to the T2 chip in this case—as part of the signing request. The signature given back by the signing server is then unique and usable only by that particular T2 chip. When the Full Security policy is in effect, the UEFI firmware ensures that a given signature isn’t just signed by Apple but is signed for this specific Mac, essentially tying that version of macOS to that Mac. This helps prevent rollback attacks as described for Full Security on a Mac with Apple silicon.
From the line you posted:
"This ingenious new boot process does have consequences, though. Failure of internal storage means failure of the whole Mac, which can’t then boot from an external disk, which lacks the essential iSC and can’t provide 1TR either. I think this is already true for Macs with T2 chips, with their single security policy, rather than one for each bootable operating system as in the M1. I suspect it’s also, in part at least, responsible for the lack of an Internet Recovery Mode in M1 Macs."
They appear to have taken things further with the M1 Macs but they appear to have already been heading down this road with the T2.
The site you posted a link to has an article on the three types of Mac and the differences in how they boot:
Are external boot disks a thing of the past?
Before Apple added T2 chips to Intel Macs, external boot disks were valuable for many users. How has that fared since?eclecticlight.co
"As far as external bootable disks are concerned, M1 Macs are more permissive than Intel models with a T2 chip, but what they permit is more restricted: there can be nothing equivalent to Boot Camp, for example."
The element of 1TR is new to Apple Silicon Macs. Same with the whole notion that the SSD going south renders the whole machine unbootable. That's where I noted differences between the two. Certainly the T2 is more restrictive, but you can turn those restrictions off. You can also boot to Internet recovery if the SSD goes south so as to at least diagnose the SSD and/or make emergency use of either Internet Recovery Mode's instance of Safari or an external boot volume. The fact that you can't do this on an M1 Mac is not the best.
I had a look at a thread on TonyMacx86 and they indicated that they have 11th gen running but you can't use iGPU - you have to use a dGPU as the macOS will not run on the iGPU (Intel made significant performance improvements).
Some are suggesting that supporting 11th gen isn't a priority as it's just a short-term stopgap and the performance delta (or regression in some cases) isn't worth the effort.
Some are suggesting that supporting 11th gen isn't a priority as it's just a short-term stopgap and the performance delta (or regression in some cases) isn't worth the effort.
Thank you! That was exactly the answer I was looking for! Though, that is some sad (but rather understandable) news. I might try to build a 9th Gen based Hackintosh. They are fun to build and it looks like the end times for it being as convenient as it was pre-11th Gen are nigh.
Tenth gen parts are being discounted now along with ninth gen parts. If I had to build a strong hack right now, I'd look at the i9-10900K. That chip is an option in the 2020 iMac 27 (as is the i7-10700K) so it should work.
What would you use for a dGPU or would you go iGPU?
The livelihood of hackintosh will depend on those working in that "just in case" building in Cupertino who maintains builds of macOS that are processor independent. 
Jobs has said back in the intel switch that Apple's rules of OS X is to be processor independent, and back then every project must be build for both PPC and intel. I wouldn't be surprised that current projects of macOS must be build for both x86 and ARM.
Jobs has said back in the intel switch that Apple's rules of OS X is to be processor independent, and back then every project must be build for both PPC and intel. I wouldn't be surprised that current projects of macOS must be build for both x86 and ARM.Only when people talk BS and claim things that are not true.
omg, I never used sidecar, how dare I...
The fact that you don't even understand what you're saying doesn't make it better. I'll highlight it for you.mg, I never used sidecar, how dare I...
You claimed everything works 100%. You did not say that everything you have tested works 100%, you did not even provide a list of what you have tested. Not providing restrictions implies every feature. People are now reading what you wrote in addition to all the false information that's already out there on the forums, run out and buy a AMD rig only to find that a lot of things are not working.
The truth is, macOS on AMD hardware is working on a very minimal level. Many features do not work, some software doesn't work due to missing instructions. When building a hackintosh the recommendation is always to stay away from AMD hardware when a wider range than email and browsing the web is on the to-do list. Just check the forums (hackintosh-forum in particular where many developers are members) to find plenty of issues after people read "everything works 100% on AMD hardware".
You sure are not alone with this, so no worries. I keep telling my students working on their bachelor and master degrees or scientific publications to pay attention to what they claim and be accurate. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it doesn't make it better that many people do it this way.
"Hey Siri" didn't work either... but you know what, I don't use that either. I have an iPad and an iPhone on my desk with that function, I don't need it on my computer too. You forgot to attack me for not using that too.
You used a fraction of what most people use, yet you claimed it works 100%. You failing to understand this is speaking volumes. As they say "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".
I might go iGPU given that most apps that I use on the Mac are games that also exist for Windows. Though, if I get a good deal on a compatible Radeon, then that's totally an option.