I've done a few graphic and I/O cards, including that 25P10AV chip above and I was surprised just how much heat those CMOS chips can take.
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
I've done a few graphic and I/O cards, including that 25P10AV chip above and I was surprised just how much heat those CMOS chips can take.
Already tried, SMC reset apparently works, while PRAM reset shows no power-on led but fans turn on in high ramp speed, the only way to turn off is unplugging the battery.
[doublepost=1534930396][/doublepost]
Agree, the EFI CHIP itself is endure to very high temperatures and it is also very hard to break, but consider that my EFI CHIP was on a logic board produced in 2008, and the entire board is not so much bigger than a GPU desktop card. Anyway the EFI CHIP has been soldered on the adapter to be re-programmed with stock firmware, everything went fine except soldering back to MBA, I repeat maybe too hot air has damaged on logic board 1 of 8 pins or something else.
Attachments
Last edited:
Honestly in macOS Mojave Developer Preivew 7 and 8, Reduce Transparency actually looks pretty good in Dark or Light Mode. I posted some images but, if it weren’t for my love of Dark Mode, I’d seriously consider using Light Mode even with Reduce Transparency. At the moment I’m using Dark Mode with Reduce Transparency because of the issues with Light Mode only apps and before DP7, I wouldn’t even have considered using Light Mode because of how grey everything looked. Here are the images: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ed-macs-thread.2121473/page-232#post-26372633
You're right - not too shabby. Almost makes light mode worth trying...I haven't installed 7 yet (believe it or not) but the code I see is changing...maybe by dp11 this will be a non-issue
Maybe try smc bypass ? hold power button 10 seconds, put in charger, release power button. Fans running high could be smc issue, so I think its worth trying.
Also if the efi chip wasn't recognised properly when you flashed it, then maybe the backup that was taken is corrupt ?
You're right - not too shabby. Almost makes light mode worth trying...I haven't installed 7 yet (believe it or not) but the code I see is changing...maybe by dp11 this will be a non-issue
I sure hope so, maybe you’ll figure out a fix though. Currently it’s the only issue (aside from the usual issues in betas) plaguing my machine.
After that I could boot into safe mode but got caught in the loop. It was always safe booting afterwards.
Changing sudo nvram boot-args="-v -no_compat_check" to sudo nvram boot-args="-no_compat_check" in Safe Mode didn't help either. So I booted from the boot stick and used that Terminal which solved the problem.
Anyways windows seem to be drawn correctly in Safe Mode. Also I had the feeling that the fonts look much clearer.
Normal Boot (transparency) Safe Boot (no transparency)
EDIT: Forget about it, reduce transparency has exactly the same effect to the windows
Last edited:
@dosdude1
Hi - APFS ROM Patcher has reached a new level of popularity. Would you consider some of these enhancements. I think they can make a world of difference in terms of usability and flexibility:
- an option to simply copy (backup) the current rom without flashing
- an option to load a rom from a local backup
- correspondingly an option to ad-hoc test the integrity of a loaded rom (maybe against a trusted "signed" local version). I'm thinking of the equivalent of a SHA-xxx file signature
- an option to list the current rom models you support. I haven't looked at your implementation, but you must surely have a table of valid ROM chips per machine embedded somewhere (a plist?) in your software
what do you think? I know you're busy...
Hi - APFS ROM Patcher has reached a new level of popularity. Would you consider some of these enhancements. I think they can make a world of difference in terms of usability and flexibility:
- an option to simply copy (backup) the current rom without flashing
- an option to load a rom from a local backup
- correspondingly an option to ad-hoc test the integrity of a loaded rom (maybe against a trusted "signed" local version). I'm thinking of the equivalent of a SHA-xxx file signature
- an option to list the current rom models you support. I haven't looked at your implementation, but you must surely have a table of valid ROM chips per machine embedded somewhere (a plist?) in your software
what do you think? I know you're busy...
I think the binary EFI ROM backup is ok, fans louder were exactly as the day I bricked the EFI CHIP with APFS patcher a month ago, tried all attempts, holding 10-15 seconds power button got same behavior of a bricked or missing EFI CHIP, while if desolder and solder back to EEPROM tool it is perfectly identified/readable/erasable/checksum/flashable without issues, I don't recommend to anyone to handle with desoldering/soldering a MacBookAir EFI CHIP too thin components, CHIPs and logic board.
Last edited:
I agree, it sort of spoils the Mojave party. At this point, time is my limiting factor ... juggling many different projects ... but it's moving. But post-GM is the proper time to apply any code-level patch. The beta code is still very much in flux (as you just saw with translucency)...
I used dosdudes rom tool to backup without flashing . worked great . its under other software in his webpage.
I agree, it sort of spoils the Mojave party. At this point, time is my limiting factor ... juggling many different projects ... but it's moving. But post-GM is the proper time to apply any code-level patch. The beta code is still very much in flux (as you just saw with translucency)...
Well I hope one of us can figure it out soon.
Here's a grim prediction about macOS 10.15, macOS updates, macOS installers, and macOS patchers. Next year, when Apple introduces macOS 10.15, the following things relating to macOS updates, macOS installers, and macOS patchers will have changed:
The removal of access to the macOS installation and update files will make macOS patching much more complicated if not impossible. If someone has any thoughts on this, reply to this post. Remember, this is just my prediction but with updates in macOS 10.14 being in System Preferences and downloadable installers no longer being available on the 10.14 App Store, this looks like it's an unavoidable future. (Mention me in replies.)
- There will no longer be downloadable macOS installers
- There will no longer be macOS installer partitions
- There will no longer be downloadable macOS updates
- All updates will be done from System Preferences
- All reinstalls will be done from macOS Recovery or macOS Internet Recovery
The removal of access to the macOS installation and update files will make macOS patching much more complicated if not impossible. If someone has any thoughts on this, reply to this post. Remember, this is just my prediction but with updates in macOS 10.14 being in System Preferences and downloadable installers no longer being available on the 10.14 App Store, this looks like it's an unavoidable future. (Mention me in replies.)
Btw. Increase contrast and reduce transparency in Accessibility pref pane enables the exact same look as Safe Mode.
Increase Contrast is not necessary, only enable it if you want.
That I know. But Safe Mode does look like both checkboxes applied.
I agree, + the "enhanced security" will complicate things even further.
Soon the only apps you can install will be the ones in the App Store, I find that really disappointing.
I still think that there will be workarounds to use unsupported Macs at least to some degree.
this sounds about right
i’d add that by 10.16 or 10.17
macos wont run without a t2 chip
Probably a later version considering that not even all current models have a T2 chip. Maybe 10.18 or 10.19. I do believe that T2 chips will eventually come with all Macs and will prevent any System modifications whatsoever by using hardware instead of software to inforce intense security which will most likely include a macOS version iBoot and System file and boot file checking and hardware encryption.
I'm sorry it did not work out
Thanks for your advices, but really doesn't matter, that wasn't never been my primary machine, and as we seen APFS is almost mandatory to support next upgrades, Mojave in HFS+ is becoming not so much reliable.
Last edited:
APFS is still unsupported on Time Machine disks and only now supported on Fusion Drives. Even SSDs and HDDs have only been supported with APFS for a year.
Ok, but regarding your theory #5839, HFS+ should be deprecated on future next major MacOS releases. I would say it's mainly thanks to HFS+ that we have still unsupported Mac OS Installers (USB or disk internal partition).
edit:
Unless Apple will add the capability to support Installing MacOS 10.15 directly from an external APFS formatted disk.
Another fact is that, for those who converted from HFS+ during upgrade, since HS/Mojave the Recovery HD hidden partition is already in APFS formatted, so an APFS Installer may be possible soon.
Last edited: