Hello, will I have the possibility to install mojave in an iMac Mid 2011 i7 quad core 3.4 with AMD Radeon HD 6970M with 2gb video and 16gb ram? I know that isn´t officially supported.I can not update to Mojave?
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.
macOS 10.14 Mojave on Unsupported Macs Thread
- Thread starter dosdude1
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Could you perhaps show how to make a bootable USB flash drive installer from those files?
Generally speaking even if no ones manages to make it work right now I'm pretty sure someone might find a way after public data or @ least after public release. Especially in the Hackintosh community they often search and find ways through patches or so.
Hackintosh community can't help, if some hardware features are missing. Currently Metal capability is required to run everything smootly. But, this iMac can be easly upgrade to Metal compatible GPU with only minor glitches (no boot screen, no recovery, screen brightness topped out on max and non workable brightness control).
Yes hackintosh community can't just add Metal to the Graphics Card but maybe there will be a patch to make Animations work like in 10.13. I'm just saying I wouldn't give up now just because after 2 days there is no way to Install it. Lets wait for a Month or 2 and then we might be pretty sure what the answer is to this question
I'm thinking of staying on High Sierra on my Mac Pro 5,1 and MacBook Pro 8,3, having one computer run Mojave is just a stupid move. My Mac Pro runs Mac OS Server, I don't want to lose the websites and other features under Mojave update.
[doublepost=1528301477][/doublepost]
did you try putting it in the oven? look on youtube on how to do it
Thanks
I am in the troubleshooting process and have to try the external PSU first before replacing the card. The GPU doesn't exhibit red lines or anything weird like that. The screen just goes black in a hurry, so I suspect foul play with the external PCIe power supply that 2 of the cables are plugged into. I am trying to replace that component first, then deal with the card if necessary.
I’m working on a late ‘09 Mac Mini with OS X 10.11 with not much problem other that the graphic card being obsolete for current video codecs... Keep it running!
Sorry, I just love the command lineThank you. I was deciphering the above, and then saw this. I think I can follow this quicker.
I know there's easier ways, but I jump between linux and macos, and the command line tools are shared, hence easier to learn...
I want to personally thank all of those who work hard to keep our Macs going I am sure there will be a way to get Mac OS Mojave running on older Macs I now OSHackers have video card kexts I have them downloaded but don't know how to open them without my my iMac prompting to install them
This is just an ugly hack that has a slim chance of working, due to a very simple technicality. Intel's graphics cores like "GT2" and "GT3" didn't really change much between Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell, at least to my current knowledge. I am pretty sure it was just internal enhancements and stuff like more "Execution Units" and higher clocks/turbo clocks. These "Execution Units" are what I think are pretty much the same between those three gens. Haswell I think got a little bit different, but since the code for the Accelerators (GLDriver.bundle) is shared (just look at the binary for strings, you'll see they share a source code .cpp folder) then my belief is that if we change the filenames to match those that AppleIntelHD3000Graphics.kext is expecting, then it may do something.
But, if the code is shared, why Apple did not support Metal on HD3000? It has to be something that makes it non-compatible...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_HD,_UHD_and_Iris_Graphics
Just like when in Mountain Lion only we forced the HD 4000 drivers (AppleIntelFramebufferCapri) to run on HD 2500, I think it is just a semi artificial limitation. Looking at the Capabilities table in the Wikipedia link, there's a divide between Sandy Bridge and the rest. Anything Ivy Bridge and later supports opengl 4.x, while before that it is capped at 3.x or 2.x. So I see why it may be that Apple did not include support. It's worth a shot though, since Apple has stuck to OpenGL 3.3 forever on all their drivers, meaning that the HD 4000 driver (Ivy Bridge) doesn't use any Ivy Bridge-exclusive functions, apparently.
The strange of the question is on dual-graphics notebooks, which Radeon, or Nvidia, is compatible with OpenGL 4.1...
I remember that applying the patch of Night Light on my Late 2011 MacBook Pro was equal to using the dedicated GPU all the time...
I remember that applying the patch of Night Light on my Late 2011 MacBook Pro was equal to using the dedicated GPU all the time...
HD2500 = low powered HD4000. HD2500 is not something between HD3000 and HD2000.
Apple are not suggesting at all that any of the above models should be thrown away. The crucial element is that none of the above models support Metal.
There is no conspiracy and we have all seen it coming. Metal was first introduced in El Capitan some three releases back so it was only a matter of time before OpenGL support timed out. In fact I am surprised it didn't happen upon the release of High Sierra with the introduction of Metal 2.
There had to be a cut off point for OpenGL support. Yes I know its frustrating but all of the Macs you have listed above are still perfectly good.
Complain and rant as much as you like but things are not going to change.
Pretending like WWDC 18 didn't have any MacOS announcements makes me feel much better about not being able to run 10.14.
I know it's hard to digest, but seriously, just keep running High Sierra and be happy with it until you can upgrade to newer machines guys.
(Late 2011 15" MBP owner -- what a beauty she's been these last 7 years and will remain so until I put her down myself)
That being said, if by the time the public release arrives we have a fully functional patch, of course I'll jump in
I know it's hard to digest, but seriously, just keep running High Sierra and be happy with it until you can upgrade to newer machines guys.
(Late 2011 15" MBP owner -- what a beauty she's been these last 7 years and will remain so until I put her down myself)
That being said, if by the time the public release arrives we have a fully functional patch, of course I'll jump in
Pretending like WWDC 18 didn't have any MacOS announcements makes me feel much better about not being able to run 10.14.
I know it's hard to digest, but seriously, just keep running High Sierra and be happy with it until you can upgrade to newer machines guys.
(Late 2011 15" MBP owner -- what a beauty she's been these last 7 years and will remain so until I put her down myself)
That being said, if by the time the public release arrives we have a fully functional patch, of course I'll jump in
If these developers felt the same way, there’d be no way half their devices and quite frankly any old unsupported device would be even running High Sierra. This is a tough barrier since it’s no longer driver level but API/System level, we just need to give them time and all the resources they need to make this thing happen. As long as OpenGL isn’t completely gone or the whole system isn’t completely integrated to Metal API there’s always hope.
The Sierra patch especially worked very well. But a Mojave patch if it were possible would be a massive gamble.Pretending like WWDC 18 didn't have any MacOS announcements makes me feel much better about not being able to run 10.14.
I know it's hard to digest, but seriously, just keep running High Sierra and be happy with it until you can upgrade to newer machines guys.
(Late 2011 15" MBP owner -- what a beauty she's been these last 7 years and will remain so until I put her down myself)
That being said, if by the time the public release arrives we have a fully functional patch, of course I'll jump in
Alright, this seems like a single NOP patch. But, I've never done it
if(XNU.safemode=1) then
use.ui.dylib("$GPUDRIVER"GLDriver.bundle) = 1
use.ui.dylib("$GPUDRIVER"MTLDriver.bundle) = 0
else
use.ui.dylib("$GPUDRIVER"GLDriver.bundle) = 0
use.ui.dylib("$GPUDRIVER"MTLDriver.bundle) = 1
fi
There's still one problem with this. In safe mode, ONLY the framebuffer Kext should be loaded, right? So why is it using OpenGL SOFTWARE rendering? Is this due to the fact that Apple HASN'T yet made a software Metal renderer? Thus falling back to rendering the UI in OpenGL, and then running that through the software/cpu renderer? If this is true, then we can continue to rely on WindowServer's OpenGL so long as Apple doesn't develop that software renderer for Metal. Once that happens, they will completely strip the code out of WindowServer (located in PrivateFrameworks/SkyLight.framework)
Lastly, could we get a link to Fredrik's post? I can't seem to find it, and I am going to try some experimenting of my own (I have a Hackintosh on HS with a Xeon E5645 + Radeon HD 5570, so just the GPU is the problem)
[doublepost=1528253002][/doublepost]
Absolutely, totally spot-on. I am not really an established person making the patches, but I've followed the "Unsupported Macs" threads all the way since 10.8 Mountain Lion, and I thought I'd finally try to help out. They do a great job, and they really go out of their way to help people. I'm sure they're thankful for that, that was really nice jdasikainen.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as one patch even though I thought it would be at first. There are at least 6 or 7 checks for where it should use OpenGL or metal and we don't quite understand yet but we're looking.
PS. Your idea does not work for the graphics drivers. I just tried it. The graphics cores are actually very different. Ivy bridge has quick sync and stuff.
Same. I don’t have the time to do it myself or work with other developers on these projects anymore (CS degree comes firstPretending like WWDC 18 didn't have any MacOS announcements makes me feel much better about not being able to run 10.14.
I know it's hard to digest, but seriously, just keep running High Sierra and be happy with it until you can upgrade to newer machines guys.
(Late 2011 15" MBP owner -- what a beauty she's been these last 7 years and will remain so until I put her down myself)
That being said, if by the time the public release arrives we have a fully functional patch, of course I'll jump in
). If @dosdude1 and @parrotgeek1 do find a way to make it work, I’ll be ready for it. Otherwise, I’m looking into buying another MBP.I wish everyone here good luck. I’m happy about what was accomplished in Unsupported Mac Communities over these many years.
Hi, would you like to join reverse engineering effort to reenable OpenGL outside of safe mode?
It's the difference between "GT2" and "GT3". It was a case where Apple included support for a GPU that was not in their real mac. We can infer that it was not intended because they removed it in Mavericks. That's where my hope stems from, but I admit its kind of, highly unlikely.
[doublepost=1528338579][/doublepost]
Ok, well that's good to know. Keep us posted, I can help out if you need it! EDIT: for Sandy Bridge HD 3000, might wanna test AppleIntelSNBVA.bundle --> although I do not know what it does.
[doublepost=1528338734][/doublepost]
I know that was not intended for me, but can you just brief us on what binaries/frameworks you are currently working on? If it takes too much time, then no, but I would like to know how it's going, you know, the more people working the better.
[doublepost=1528338880][/doublepost]
This kind of contradicts the conclusion that in safe mode, macOS uses an OpenGL software renderer to render the UI, that I just heard. I think that macOS DOES use the OpenGL mode software rasterizer in safe mode, but I was just wondering about the two different, contradictory explanations.
And, what is the OpenGL "software renderer" that was removed for testing purposes? Is it OpenGL.framework?
[doublepost=1528341047][/doublepost]AppleIntelHD5000Graphics.kext: ""unable to obtain GPU hang analysis\n"@/Library/Caches/com.apple.xbs/Sources/GPUDriversIntel/GPUDriversIntel-10.30.12/Common/GLKernel/Intel/hsw/IGHardwareRingBuffer.cpp:2149
"
Features "Intel GPU Hang Summary version 1.0.0"
AppleIntelHD4000Graphics.kext: ""unable to obtain GPU hang analysis\n"@/Library/Caches/com.apple.xbs/Sources/GPUDriversIntel/GPUDriversIntel-10.30.12/Common/GLKernel/Intel/ivb/IGHardwareRingBuffer.cpp:2097
Features "Intel GPU Hang Summary version 1.0.0"
AppleIntelHD3000Graphics.kext: "
@/BuildRoot/Library/Caches/com.apple.xbs/Sources/GraphicsDrivers/GraphicsDrivers-10.4.14/Common/GLKernel/Intel/snb/g6_accelerator.cpp:1602
blit command buffer"
No such organized hang summary stuff...
Also, notice the difference between the paths:
HD4000 + HD 5000: "com.apple.xbs/Sources/GPUDriversIntel/GPUDriversIntel-10.30.12"
pre-HD3000 (checked by running strings on AppleIntelHDGraphics.kext): "com.apple.xbs/Sources/GraphicsDrivers/GraphicsDrivers-10.4.14/Common/GLKernel/Intel"
Notice how the GPU's post HD 4000 have the source tree under "GPUDrivers-Intel" ...
And the GPU's HD 3000 and before have the source tree under "GraphicsDrivers"?
This shows that some architecture changed between HD 3000 and HD 4000, therefore making another reason why Apple dropped it. Intel pre HD 3000 was under the same source tree as the rest of the graphics drivers, while HD 4000 and later switched to a subdirectory under the same "GPUDriversIntel" source tree. This shows a change in architecture in the overall code. HD4000 and HD5000 even share the same .cpp filenames, just different code inside.
All it would take now is one leak of com.apple.xbs from High Sierra and we would hit a jackpot. If just one person would zip up the file anonymously... The whole nature that "if we had the source code, we could probably support the old hardware" is just annoying because it's just one person slipping up and zipping the src directory and we would have the source code. They know that if they forked over the sources, the community could manually add support by their own effort, and they don't. Something's going on at Apple... not to point fingers, but it makes me feel odd about the whole nature of closed-source, and withholding the tools that the community could by itself, with no help from Apple, probably support the old computers again.
I mean, someone from Apple leaked the iBoot source code (super high-level), and yet nobody dares to leak the Graphics Drivers source tree (pretty low level compared to the security risk of leaking iBoot) I wonder how it is that nobody has leaked such a low risk item, while the highest risk item (iBoot) has been leaked. No mean to rant or complain, just thoughts.
ONE last thing: I found NVDAGF100Hal.kext in vanilla High Sierra. Apparently it was introduced back in Lion, but no default mac card ever used it. The web drivers actually override it with NVDAGF100HalWeb.kext, so it was just odd to find a non-stock GPU driver in a stock macOS. Hopefully it is in Mojave. Since GeforceTesla.kext and GeforceTeslaGLDriver handle the "legacy" tesla and nothing else, hopefully that means that Geforce.kext also handles Fermi, therefore extending the life of some Mac Pro owners that bought GTX 480's or such.
Does anyone know what the "VADriver.kext" does? GLDriver.kext --> OpenGL, and MTLDriver --> Metal, but what about "VADriver"? ATIRadeonX2000 doesn't have it, and it worked fine? Also, what about AppleIntelBDWGraphicsVAME? It doesn't show up in any other GPU driver...
Last edited:
[doublepost=1528342663][/doublepost]where would I look for com.apple.xbs file on my high Sierra
It was just a rant about the source code of macOS. com.apple.xbs is the source code tree, and we don't have it, because macos is closed-source... sorry if I confused you!