macOS 10.14 Mojave on Unsupported Macs Thread

[stormxeron]

Guys, If they are planning to add support for Mid 2012 or later Mac pros, that means they have not integrated Metal on those devices yet right? If and only if apple finds that it is not possible to integrate Metal to those devices successfully due to some technical difficulty, can we see good old OpenGL comeback. I think we have to wait and see for next releases. I really hope this would be the case, but this probability is zero to none.

 

[Czo]

Guys, If they are planning to add support for Mid 2012 or later Mac pros, that means they have not integrated Metal on those devices yet right? If and only if apple finds that it is not possible to integrate Metal to those devices successfully due to some technical difficulty, can we see good old OpenGL comeback. I think we have to wait and see for next releases. I really hope this would be the case, but this probability is zero to none.

Metal API running fine on a 2012 Mac with a Metal capable GPU. Even more, Metal still running fine on a MacPro1,1 with a Metal capable GPU. Anyone can check it with System Profiler and/or GFX Benchmark and/or Pixelmator Pro.

 

[stormxeron]

Metal API running fine on a 2012 Mac with a Metal capable GPU. Even more, Metal still running fine on a MacPro1,1 with a Metal capable GPU. Anyone can check it with System Profiler and/or GFX Benchmark and/or Pixelmator Pro.

Okay, then I don't seem to understand Why apple is saying some devices will be supported on later betas if they working fine on all devices they have listed?

 

[bosozoku]

I installed it on a virtual machine on MacBook Pro early 2011, everything is working fine except for 2 things
1. the new apps like news don't work, I presume there is no way to make them work without a metal supported hardware
2. its slow and laggy, which is normal considering its a beta and its running on a virtual machine not taking advantage of the hardware

Based on that I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to patch it to make it install on older device, the only things that won't work are iOS Apps.

Good news! As long as It runs Xcode to write code and compile, It's fine by me!
I can do web surfing and other staff on my main high Sierra, and code in 10.14 in parallels!

 

[e_ch]

Guys, If they are planning to add support for Mid 2012 or later Mac pros, that means they have not integrated Metal on those devices yet right? If and only if apple finds that it is not possible to integrate Metal to those devices successfully due to some technical difficulty, can we see good old OpenGL comeback. I think we have to wait and see for next releases. I really hope this would be the case, but this probability is zero to none.

From one side they can lift mac pro requirements anytime and restrict 'em to models with proper GPUs. From another, it will look a bit ugly. So yes, we have to wait first beta with mac pro support.

Nothing changed, because this happened multiple times before. When 10.6 come out, real PPC mac users can not upgrade and peoples who running Mac OS X with MOL on thier PowerPC based not apple macs can't update to 10.6. When 10.7 come out, hackintosh with only 32 bit processors can't run it (like real Macs), but many machines had upgradable CPU's (like real Macs) and will worked fine with 10.7 (like real iMacs, Mac Minis). When 10.8 come out, Hackintosh users simply replace thier nVidia cards to Tesla or newer, thier AMD cards to HD2000 or newer. Now, hackintosh users replace thier video cards to nVidia 600 series or newer or Radeon GCN. This is same true for macs also. Macs with compatible hardware can run 10.8 and newer in full accelerated mode, macs without proper hadware is not.

So no, Nothing is changed. Sometimes Apple lifting up hardware requirenments only with device blacklistings (mostly that happened with 10.12 or 10.4 because nearly all G3 macs can run it, the firewire port is only a blacklisting requirenments) and sometimes with real changes (this happened with 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 and now with 10.14).

Sorry, but I think you're messing running 10.14 on unsupported Macs (which is being discussed here) and running it on a Hackintosh PCs. There's no upgrade ways for most dropped macs or it's too risky, complicated and even not worth to do because it's easier to sell one and buy more recent model spending just a little more than upgrade parts cost. Hackintosh is just a PC and you can easily upgrade it (in most cases) to meet OS requirements no matter what OS you're running.

 

[Czo]

From one side they can lift mac pro requirements anytime and restrict 'em to models with proper GPUs. From another, it will look a bit ugly. So yes, we have to wait first beta with mac pro support.

Sorry, but I think you're messing running 10.14 on unsupported Macs (which is being discussed here) and running it on a Hackintosh PCs. There's no upgrade ways for most dropped macs or it's too risky, complicated and even not worth to do because it's easier to sell one and buy more recent model spending just a little more than upgrade parts cost. Hackintosh is just a PC and you can easily upgrade it (in most cases) to meet OS requirements no matter what OS you're running.

No i am not. It does not matter if anyone running it on a real mac or on a hackintosh. If Apple lifted up hardware requirenments, only the supported devices can be used. It does not matter if that device is connected/installed/soldered to a real mac or in a pc (like Mac notebooks, most of the PC notebooks had a soldered/integrated GPU. Most of the dropped iMacs had a upgradable GPU. The current problem is, no one made a proper EFI/BIOS for 3rd party ones (for Mac Pro's multiple cards have BIOS that can be flashed to a cheap pc version and running fine on a Mac Pro with full support)).
Only devices with supported drives can be used. If the hardware does not met the requirenments, the system can't be used. Noone can use hardware accelerated UI with 10.9 and newer on a R520 GPU (X1000 family) on a hackintosh (and of course noone on a real iMac). If the hardware requirenment are changed some devices are left behind. I'am not thinking to running 10.14 on an unsupported hardware without acceleration is a success, because this works alredy (without acceleration El Capitan can be run on a White MacBook from 2006, but noone wan't it because it's painfully slow and it's generates lots of UI glitches). I am not thinking to running 10.14 with OpenGL fallback (to gain some acceleration) is a success, because mostly new things come in 10.14 are required Metal.

 

[Ecefour]

I thought I should mention that I got macOS Mojave running on a hackintosh with a E7500 775 socket core 2 duo CPU which only supports sse 4.1. It’s been about a day and no kernal panics yet. Apparently we don’t need sse 4.2. So it might be possible to get this running on a unibody core 2 duo MacBook or MacBook Pro if we figure this graphics thing out.

 

[stormxeron]

No i am not. It does not matter if anyone running it on a real mac or on a hackintosh. If Apple lifted up hardware requirenments, only the supported devices can be used. It does not matter if that device is connected/installed/soldered to a real mac or in a pc (like Mac notebooks, most of the PC notebooks had a soldered/integrated GPU. Most of the dropped iMacs had a upgradable GPU. The current problem is, no one made a proper EFI/BIOS for 3rd party ones (for Mac Pro's multiple cards have BIOS that can be flashed to a cheap pc version and running fine on a Mac Pro with full support)).
Only devices with supported drives can be used. If the hardware does not met the requirenments, the system can't be used. Noone can use hardware accelerated UI with 10.9 and newer on a R520 GPU (X1000 family) on a hackintosh (and of course noone on a real iMac). If the hardware requirenment are changed some devices are left behind. I'am not thinking to running 10.14 on an unsupported hardware without acceleration is a success, because this works alredy (without acceleration El Capitan can be run on a White MacBook from 2006, but noone wan't it because it's painfully slow and it's generates lots of UI glitches). I am not thinking to running 10.14 with OpenGL fallback (to gain some acceleration) is a success, because mostly new things come in 10.14 are required Metal.

I am sure that OpenGL fallback would be bad for using Hardware accelerated programs. But I don't think most of the people who wants Mojave running on their 7+ years older devices wants to run such intensive programs, they will be quite happy if they could run the UI features for media consumption, web browsing.... and for that purpose I think OpenGL fallback won't be too much of a problem if we could achieve it. I haven't used the unsupported device on latest OS so may be those glitches are worse and this may be the most useless argument. If thats the case, then I am sorry.

 

[Czo]

I am sure that OpenGL fallback would be bad for using Hardware accelerated programs. But I don't think most of the people who wants Mojave running on their 7+ years older devices wants to run such intensive programs, they will be quite happy if they could run the UI features for media consumption, web browsing.... and for that purpose I think OpenGL fallback won't be too much of a problem if we could achieve it.

Maybe yes, but changing my desktop lamp's state in HomeKit is not a graphics intensive program. Maps can't display anything currently and i am thinking is a massive drawback of Mojave. Without proper support, i am thinking, keeping this machines on High Sierra is a better option.

 

[Fiachers]

I'm running High Sierra on a MacBook Pro that is no longer supported ("15-inch, Mid 2009") using the dosdude1 patch. It works perfectly. I installed it last week in fact, from Mac OS El Capitan, and things have never been running so well. I have no doubt that Mojave will get the same hack for older Macs.

 

[stormxeron]

June 4, 2018 conclusions:
We (dosdude1 & parrotgeek1) have thoroughly investigated 10.14 GPU drivers, and sadly, we have concluded that it is not possible for any non-Metal GPU to work, because almost the entire OS uses Metal.

Evidence for this: If you remove the Metal driver, it won't boot. But if you remove the OpenGL driver, it boots with acceleration but random actions throughout the OS cause crashes. Also, removing the OpenGL software renderer doesn't break safe mode, so it must use a non-OpenGL software renderer.

June 6: There is still an OpenGL renderer, it's just intentionally disabled. we're trying to enable it.

This leaves the compatibility list as theoretically (with a Metal capable GPU):

• Xserve 2009
• Mac Pro 2009
• iMac i3/i5/i7 Late 2009-Late 2011
• MacBook Air Mid 2011
• MacBook Pro i5/i7 Mid 2010-Late 2011
  
• Mac Mini Mid 2011

And

I thought I should mention that I got macOS Mojave to run on a hackintosh with a E7500 775 socket core 2 duo CPU which only supports sse 4.1. It’s been about a day and no kernal panics yet. So apparently we don’t need sse 4.2. So it might be possible to get this running on a unibody core 2 duo MacBook or MacBook Pro if we figure this graphics thing out.

Well some progress had been made. Good news. SSE4.2 and Metal is not a requirement now.

 

[Hindrik1997]

And

Well some progress had been made. Good news. SSE4.2 and Metal is not a requirement now.

Wait, so this means I can run Mojave on my 3.1 with GT 640??

EDIT: Removed not allowed question.

 

[abcdefg12345]

that's good news. And does the dark mode work?

yes

You loosing multiple things without hadware acceleration, like h264 hardware assisted decoding orhardware support from the GPU for video scaling, colorspace conversion. Running on a real hardware without acceleration is nearly the same speed that you can achieve in running a VM. Try to play videos from youtube or running Kodi or playing somethings recorded with an iPhone and imported to Photos.

True, but still useful for Mac developers to test software on it before releasing them to the App Store, and it shows that 10.14 doesn't actually require metal , Apple pulled another dick move by disabling some of the frameworks responsible for hardware acceleration, we just need someone to figure out how to re-enable them and were good to go.

Good news! As long as It runs Xcode to write code and compile, It's fine by me!
I can do web surfing and other staff on my main high Sierra, and code in 10.14 in parallels!

According to Xcode 10 release notes you can run Xcode on high Sierra, so you only need a vm to test your apps.

Xcode 10 beta requires a Mac running macOS 10.13.4 or later

 

[bosozoku]

abcdefg12345
Thank you for details! Even if, let's say, xCode 10.3 requires macOS 10.14.x I am fine with my Early 2011 13" i7 MBP! My only concern for now is to upgrade ram from 8 to 16 gigs to run Mojave in parallels without major issues.

 

[homohurre123]

abcdefg12345
Thank you for details! Even if, let's say, xCode 10.3 requires iOS 10.14.x I am fine with my Early 2011 13" i7 MBP! My only concern for now is to upgrade ram from 8 to 16 gigs to run Mojave in parallels without major issues.

Dude you're Running IOS on your Macbook?

 

[bosozoku]

Dude you're Running IOS on your Macbook?

My bad) macOS 10.14.x

 

[e_ch]

No i am not. It does not matter if anyone running it on a real mac or on a hackintosh. If Apple lifted up hardware requirenments, only the supported devices can be used. It does not matter if that device is connected/installed/soldered to a real mac or in a pc (like Mac notebooks, most of the PC notebooks had a soldered/integrated GPU. Most of the dropped iMacs had a upgradable GPU. The current problem is, no one made a proper EFI/BIOS for 3rd party ones (for Mac Pro's multiple cards have BIOS that can be flashed to a cheap pc version and running fine on a Mac Pro with full support)).
Only devices with supported drives can be used. If the hardware does not met the requirenments, the system can't be used. Noone can use hardware accelerated UI with 10.9 and newer on a R520 GPU (X1000 family) on a hackintosh (and of course noone on a real iMac). If the hardware requirenment are changed some devices are left behind. I'am not thinking to running 10.14 on an unsupported hardware without acceleration is a success, because this works alredy (without acceleration El Capitan can be run on a White MacBook from 2006, but noone wan't it because it's painfully slow and it's generates lots of UI glitches). I am not thinking to running 10.14 with OpenGL fallback (to gain some acceleration) is a success, because mostly new things come in 10.14 are required Metal.

Running Mojave on unsupported Mac implies unsupported Apple hardware (by Apple restrictions or physically which is the same thing in most cases). If you upgrade your Hackintosh to meat requirements it becomes supported as far as we can say that about a PC, of course. If you upgrade a 2010 Mac Pro it becomes fully supported too. This tread is about software or hardware modifications aimed to use Mojave on a Macs which are dropped by Apple. Every dropped Mac requires some actions with software to run unsupported Mac OS, some are impossible to run it at all or without some hardware upgrades. In this case ability to run Mojave without HA or Metal is success too. Why? Because it works and that gives some base. I don't think it's really usable in limited mode. I'm sure High Sierra is better than half-working Mojave as you can see by my earlier posts here, but that's a personal matter. If we simply agree that "dropped is dropped" this tread has no need to exist at all.

 

[bosozoku]

If mainboard swap from 2012 unibody MB pro model to 2011 model could be considered an "upgrade", though it would cost around 200 US$ (still less than cost of average metal supported GPU), all 2011 MBPs are "upgradable")
[doublepost=1528375368][/doublepost]

yes

View attachment 765170



True, but still useful for Mac developers to test software on it before releasing them to the App Store, and it shows that 10.14 doesn't actually require metal , Apple pulled another dick move by disabling some of the frameworks responsible for hardware acceleration, we just need someone to figure out how to re-enable them and were good to go.



According to Xcode 10 release notes you can run Xcode on high Sierra, so you only need a vm to test your apps.

Could you please record video of actual interface in Parallels and upload to youtube?

 

[e_ch]

If mainboard swap from 2012 unibody MB pro model to 2011 model could be considered an "upgrade", though it would cost around 200 US$, all 2011 MBPs are "upgradable")

Another MB is another computer, in fact.

 

[Czo]

If mainboard swap from 2012 unibody MB pro model to 2011 model could be considered an "upgrade", though it would cost around 200 US$ (still less than cost of average metal supported GPU), all 2011 MBPs are "upgradable")
[doublepost=1528375368][/doublepost]
Could you please record video of actual interface in Parallels and upload to youtube?

Which interface?

 

[Vyzantion]

No, things changed, but only for Macs. Mac OS was accelerated using Open Gl/CL since 10.5-10.6. Previous limitations were based on SSE instructions and platformsupport. Now if everything really accelerated with metal or software – there's no ways for most dropped Macs. Hackintosh users can change GPU pretty easy and the rest process is pretty easy and habitual.

I have Core 2 Duo with SSE 4.1 . To get SSE 4.2 , I would need to change both the motherboard and the CPU. Expensive and annoying. If possible, I would prefer to change the video card only and leave the motherboard and the CPU alone.
[doublepost=1528377276][/doublepost]

I thought I should mention that I got macOS Mojave running on a hackintosh with a E7500 775 socket core 2 duo CPU which only supports sse 4.1. It’s been about a day and no kernal panics yet. Apparently we don’t need sse 4.2. So it might be possible to get this running on a unibody core 2 duo MacBook or MacBook Pro if we figure this graphics thing out.

What are your hardware specs? I have an Asus system, with Intel Core 2 Duo e8500 (SSE 4.1) Nvidia Geforce 6200 (without Metal support), 2 gb ram DDR3 and High Sierra works very well on it.

 

[Ecefour]

I have Core 2 Duo with SSE 4.1 . To get SSE 4.2 , I would need to change both the motherboard and the CPU. Expensive and annoying. If possible, I would prefer to change the video card only and leave the motherboard and the CPU alone.
[doublepost=1528377276][/doublepost]
What are your hardware specs? I have an Asus system, with Intel Core 2 Duo e8500 (SSE 4.1) Nvidia Geforce 6200 (without Metal support), 2 gb ram DDR3 and High Sierra works very well on it.

I had a core 2 duo E7500, 120 gb ssd (with hfs as the file system), 4 gb DDR2 Ram @ 667 mhz, and it has an asus motherboard with a legacy bios (I can’t remember the exact model number). I was using a 9400 gt 512mb for High Serria. But I temporarily installed a evga gtx 760 4gb for Mojave. For a long term graphics solution I plan to use a gt 610 since I only use this computer for Xcode. As far as I know a gt 610 is metal supported.

 

[Guy Clark]

abcdefg12345
Thank you for details! Even if, let's say, xCode 10.3 requires macOS 10.14.x I am fine with my Early 2011 13" i7 MBP! My only concern for now is to upgrade ram from 8 to 16 gigs to run Mojave in parallels without major issues.

Running an OS within a virtual environment for occasional use has many plus points but to install it and run long term there are too many issues performance wise particularly with macOS due to lack of acceleration. It will make no difference whatsoever how many gigs of RAM you allocate the result will be the same.

 

[0134168]

After clean install Mojave, I start adding essential apps to it. And I do TM backup from time to time. AFter some app install, Finder start freezing with beachball, iamge thumbnail stop displaying, and showing generic icon instead, iCloud start nagging that it cannot communicate with Helper app, And the system wnet down completely. It is not usable at all, due to FInder problem

All I have to do is to restore from good TM backup. I have done this 9 trimes over the past few days, Wasting my time like crazy.

Mojave is the worst seed build I have ever tested. Apple shpuld have a better testing before releasing it. FInder is a very important gateway to the system. Whet it fail, that's the end of story

I may have to go back to High Sierra. But my problem is my TM copy many have problem. When I do migration using Migration Assistant, it just stop half way, look like having file error associated with it. I cannot find out what is wrong, and I jsu cannpot go back

What I have to do is to wait for Apple mercy to fix it soon

It´s a B-E-T-A

 

[EugW]

iOS: We care about your older devices.

MacOS: Please throw away your MacBook (Late 2009), MacBook (Mid 2010), MacBook Pro (Mid 2010), MacBook Pro (Early 2011), MacBook Pro (Late 2011), iMac (Late 2009), iMac (Mid 2010), iMac (Mid 2011), Mac mini (Mid 2010), or Mac mini (Mid 2011).

What a great company...

I suspect these old machines will continue to get OS security updates until 2020. That seems reasonable. That's 9-11 years of official support.

It looks like I'll be keeping my 2008 MacBook5,1, 2009 MacBookPro5,5, and 2010 iMac11,3 on High Sierra, and they'll be viable until 2020 or so. 10-12 years seems like a reasonable run.