macOS 10.14 Mojave on Unsupported Macs Thread

[rmendez011]

How is yours a black screen?
[doublepost=1529197125][/doublepost]So... does macOS Mojave require Apple File System (APFS)?

I have a black screen because I used a mod to enable the black screen bootup.

 

[iphone2g&3gfan]

How is yours a black screen?
[doublepost=1529197125][/doublepost]So... does macOS Mojave require Apple File System (APFS)?

It doesn't, because fusion drives still don't support APFS and fusion drives are supported by Mojave.
And also, APFS isn't very optimized yet, on either solid state media or spinning media,

 

[Czo]

How is yours a black screen?
[doublepost=1529197125][/doublepost]So... does macOS Mojave require Apple File System (APFS)?

Mojave still boots and perfectly usable from HFS+

 

[L Caputo]

Hey guys, is it possible to install on my good old macpro 2,1 from 2007 ?
problem on this machine is only 32 bit System i have running System with 10.10.5 with modify kernel and have upgrade this mac with GeForce Nvidia GTX 960.

Or is it easyer to try this Project with Mojave on my Imac 27 inch from 2010 ?

As the MacPros from 2006 and 2007 can't be upgraded to Sierra or High Sierra it is highly doubtful you will be able to install Mojave.Your MacPro is 32bit and these newer OS's require 64bit machines.

 

[Ozboy-berlin]

As the MacPros from 2006 and 2007 can't be upgraded to Sierra or High Sierra it is highly doubtful you will be able to install Mojave.Your MacPro is 32bit and these newer OS's require 64bit machines.

Sure but i have upgrade my mac with Nvidia card 960 and with this mac use 64 bit or?

 

[jackluke]

QE/CI is working? And do you rename kexts hd4000 in S/L/E in hd3000 or any else?

QE aka OpenGL and OpenCL won't work cause they require Metal api, CI works with glitches and slow rendering using only that Framebuffer kext, no need to rename HD4000, maybe better using HD3000 kext taken from a previous HS installation

 

[Mikevdkooij]

Sure but i have upgrade my mac with Nvidia card 960 and with this mac use 64 bit or?

No It won't work. Your chipset has to be 64bit and the chipset that your Mac Pro supports is only 32bit. So it's impossible to run Mojave on your Mac Pro.

The iMac 27 inch 2010 that you are using might be able to update to Mojave later this year.

 

[L Caputo]

Sure but i have upgrade my mac with Nvidia card 960 and with this mac use 64 bit or?

Doesn't matter which graphics card you have installed the basic requirement for Sierra, High Sierra and Mojave are the machines need to have 64 bit chipsets, your MacPro 2.1 is only 32bit, so only as far as El Capitan for you.
Buy a MacPro 5.1

 

[flyinmac]

No It won't work. Your chipset has to be 64bit and the chipset that your Mac Pro supports is only 32bit. So it's impossible to run Mojave on your Mac Pro.

The iMac 27 inch 2010 that you are using might be able to update to Mojave later this year.

Actually, that is incorrect.

The 2006 Mac Pro is a 64-BIT Computer. And it has 64-BIT CPU’s.

And, it does run 64-BIT operating systems. I have El Capitan running on my 2006 Mac Pro with full 64-BIT operation.

I also have Windows 10 Pro 64-BIT installed and running just fine.

The 2006 (and 2007) Mac Pro has a 32-BIT EFI (which can be compared to a PC’s BIOS).

That has absolutely no effect on what operating system it is capable of running. It was simply a decision by Apple to insert a line of code in the permission list to block installation newer operating systems. And that was easily overcome by simply adding the Mac Pro to the list of permitted systems.

That did change with Sierra and High Sierra as those operating systems required SSE 4.1 support in the CPU’s. Which the CPU’s usable in the 2006 and 2007 Mac Pro do not support.

It is unlikely that Mojave will step backwards and run on computers that don’t have support for the SSE 4.x instruction set.

So for that reason, the 2006 and 2007 Mac Pro cannot run any version of Mac OS beyond El Capitan.

It can and will run El Capitan and Windows 10 Pro 64-BIT just fine and runs 64-BIT software just fine.
[doublepost=1529232051][/doublepost]

Doesn't matter which graphics card you have installed the basic requirement for Sierra, High Sierra and Mojave are the machines need to have 64 bit chipsets, your MacPro 2.1 is only 32bit, so only as far as El Capitan for you.
Buy a MacPro 5.1

It doesn’t have anything to do with the 32-BIT EFI.

Sierra, High Sierra, and likewise Mojave, is unlikely to work because the CPU’s don’t support the SSE 4.1 instruction set. Which is completely unrelated to whether a computer is 32-BIT or 64-BIT.

The 2006 (and 2007) Mac Pro is a fully 64-BIT Computer. It has a 32-BIT EFI which has no bearing on what software can be run on the machine (that is essentially the same as the BIOS, and is out of the picture once the boot process turns control over to the operating system).


If we’re going to give someone a technical reason behind why something doesn’t work, then we need to give them the right technical reason. Otherwise we send them off chasing a fix that might be the incorrect fix.

In this case, once the user determined that his computer was a 64-BIT Computer, he’d believe he was all set to pursue the task.

 

[BookEmDanno]

#686
↑
Not sure, for sound you could try to replace AppleHDA.kext and IOAudioFamily.kext from your 10.13.5 but never had a 11” mbair so don’t know really.
just applehda ok

just applehda ok

Jackluke,

Was the lack of sound issue fixed by the AppleHDA.kext from High Sierra for Mojave? I have the same unsupported MBA 13" mid-2011.

parrotgeek1,

I tried to copy (as root - sudo) /System/Library/Extensions/AppleHDA.kext from High Sierra for Mojave use, but i got a permission error. Not sure what the problem is. BTW, how was final exams. I'm sure you aced it.

Mahalo (Thank You) both.

 

[Czo]

#686
↑
Not sure, for sound you could try to replace AppleHDA.kext and IOAudioFamily.kext from your 10.13.5 but never had a 11” mbair so don’t know really.
just applehda ok


Jackluke,

Was the lack of sound issue fixed by the AppleHDA.kext from High Sierra for Mojave? I have the same unsupported MBA 13" mid-2011.

parrotgeek1,

I tried to copy (as root - sudo) /System/Library/Extensions/AppleHDA.kext from High Sierra for Mojave use, but i got a permission error. Not sure what the problem is. BTW, how was final exams. I'm sure you aced it.

Mahalo (Thank You) both.

You need to set the permissions to match to any other kexts, and set te owner to root:wheel with chmod/chown or you need to copy it with thier original permissions.

 

[L Caputo]

Actually, that is incorrect.

The 2006 Mac Pro is a 64-BIT Computer. And it has 64-BIT CPU’s.

And, it does run 64-BIT operating systems. I have El Capitan running on my 2006 Mac Pro with full 64-BIT operation.

I also have Windows 10 Pro 64-BIT installed and running just fine.

The 2006 (and 2007) Mac Pro has a 32-BIT EFI (which can be compared to a PC’s BIOS).

That has absolutely no effect on what operating system it is capable of running. It was simply a decision by Apple to insert a line of code in the permission list to block installation newer operating systems. And that was easily overcome by simply adding the Mac Pro to the list of permitted systems.

That did change with Sierra and High Sierra as those operating systems required SSE 4.1 support in the CPU’s. Which the CPU’s usable in the 2006 and 2007 Mac Pro do not support.

It is unlikely that Mojave will step backwards and run on computers that don’t have support for the SSE 4.x instruction set.

So for that reason, the 2006 and 2007 Mac Pro cannot run any version of Mac OS beyond El Capitan.

It can and will run El Capitan and Windows 10 Pro 64-BIT just fine and runs 64-BIT software just fine.
[doublepost=1529232051][/doublepost]

It doesn’t have anything to do with the 32-BIT EFI.

Sierra, High Sierra, and likewise Mojave, is unlikely to work because the CPU’s don’t support the SSE 4.1 instruction set. Which is completely unrelated to whether a computer is 32-BIT or 64-BIT.

The 2006 (and 2007) Mac Pro is a fully 64-BIT Computer. It has a 32-BIT EFI which has no bearing on what software can be run on the machine (that is essentially the same as the BIOS, and is out of the picture once the boot process turns control over to the operating system).


If we’re going to give someone a technical reason behind why something doesn’t work, then we need to give them the right technical reason. Otherwise we send them off chasing a fix that might be the incorrect fix.

In this case, once the user determined that his computer was a 64-BIT Computer, he’d believe he was all set to pursue the task.

Ok good to know thanks for that.

 

[jackluke]

#686
↑
Not sure, for sound you could try to replace AppleHDA.kext and IOAudioFamily.kext from your 10.13.5 but never had a 11” mbair so don’t know really.
just applehda ok


Jackluke,

Was the lack of sound issue fixed by the AppleHDA.kext from High Sierra for Mojave? I have the same unsupported MBA 13" mid-2011.

parrotgeek1,

I tried to copy (as root - sudo) /System/Library/Extensions/AppleHDA.kext from High Sierra for Mojave use, but i got a permission error. Not sure what the problem is. BTW, how was final exams. I'm sure you aced it.

Mahalo (Thank You) both.

You need to remove from Finder the AppleHDA then copy the previous one from HS, don’t remember if some S/L/E kexts are affected by SIP so disable first as you already know, when remove a kext at the next reboot system will rebuild kextcache

Or as Czo suggested you could fix permissions on the kext:

sudo chown -R root:wheel /Volumes/Mojave/System/Library/Extensions/AppleHDA.kext
sudo chmod -R 0755 /Volumes/Mojave/System/Library/Extensions/AppleHDA.kext

To book a kextcache rebuild
sudo touch /Volumes/Mojave/System/Library/Extensions

Mojave or the label of the disk where 10.14 beta is

 

[roziek]

It doesn't, because fusion drives still don't support APFS and fusion drives are supported by Mojave.
And also, APFS isn't very optimized yet, on either solid state media or spinning media,

APFS support for Fusion Drives is coming in Mojave, as it was announced by Craig Federighi during this year's WWDC keynote.

 

[Larsvonhier]

As the MacPros from 2006 and 2007 can't be upgraded to Sierra or High Sierra it is highly doubtful you will be able to install Mojave.Your MacPro is 32bit and these newer OS's require 64bit machines.

//EDIT//
saw the post with the correct answer too late...
Still a hi! to lightbulbfan.

Not quite.
These are 64bit machines, booting with a 32bit EFI. Using Pike´s 64bit EFI patch, they can boot everything up to El Capitan very successfully.
Since Sierra/High Sierra the OS relies on SSE4.1 instructions, which the XEONs in the 1,1 and 2,1 do not have. Mojave will be no exception.
Would be nice if someone found a patch to the boot flash (hi lightbulbfan!) so we could exchange the XEONs with Harpertown versions that include the SSE4.x set.

 

[iphone2g&3gfan]

As the MacPros from 2006 and 2007 can't be upgraded to Sierra or High Sierra it is highly doubtful you will be able to install Mojave.Your MacPro is 32bit and these newer OS's require 64bit machines.

There's a misconception here. Those mac pro's are indeed 32 bit efi + 64 bit xeon, and we already have the 32-bit patched boot.efi to boot 64 bit os's. Thus we have gotten to El Capitan with no problems, which is 64 bit only. The real issue is that they lack several of those instructions that newer kernels since Sierra and kexts and shared libraries have been compiled with. Hence, launchd has a segmentation fault due to a missing instruction, and the instructions are just not there.
[doublepost=1529240678][/doublepost]

//EDIT//
saw the post with the correct answer too late...
Still a hi! to lightbulbfan.

Not quite.
These are 64bit machines, booting with a 32bit EFI. Using Pike´s 64bit EFI patch, they can boot everything up to El Capitan very successfully.
Since Sierra/High Sierra the OS relies on SSE4.1 instructions, which the XEONs in the 1,1 and 2,1 do not have. Mojave will be no exception.
Would be nice if someone found a patch to the boot flash (hi lightbulbfan!) so we could exchange the XEONs with Harpertown versions that include the SSE4.x set.

I sure hope so. That would be a huge deal, I hope someday we get that... It would be a microcode update, since that's the same thing that some 9-series motherboards needed before they could boot a Broadwell cpu (without the microcode, no POST at all, so similar circumstances.)

Of course, we could also look at the AMD kernels and see if someone implemented an SSE4.1 emulator, since those folks are already modding the XNU sources anyway.

 

[Argyboy]

//EDIT//
saw the post with the correct answer too late...
Still a hi! to lightbulbfan.

Not quite.
These are 64bit machines, booting with a 32bit EFI. Using Pike´s 64bit EFI patch, they can boot everything up to El Capitan very successfully.
Since Sierra/High Sierra the OS relies on SSE4.1 instructions, which the XEONs in the 1,1 and 2,1 do not have. Mojave will be no exception.
Would be nice if someone found a patch to the boot flash (hi lightbulbfan!) so we could exchange the XEONs with Harpertown versions that include the SSE4.x set.

That would be lovely, but a lot of work. I'd love to get more use out of my MP 2,1 on newer versions of MacOS but in the lack of that, I'll keep it running on Windows/Linux with El Cap. They are still awesome machines, even in 2018.

 

[iphone2g&3gfan]

there's another possibility for old mac mini's w/out thunderbolt and macbooks and everything else: If you are willing to sacrifice your internal wifi card, you can get a mini pcie-pcie riser/ribbon cable, which you can use to plug in a graphics card. Some of the newer mac minis and macbook pros use a proprietary airport card connector, but that is a pcie connector and can be used if you find an adapter for it.

You can always plug in a USB wireless card, and getting QE I think is more important than an internal wifi card. You still need an SSE4.1 cpu though. The iMacs I think have the same proprietary connector, I'm not sure which ones use the standard mini pcie. This should be researched...

 

[Stratus Fear]

there's another possibility for old mac mini's w/out thunderbolt and macbooks and everything else: If you are willing to sacrifice your internal wifi card, you can get a mini pcie-pcie riser/ribbon cable, which you can use to plug in a graphics card. Some of the newer mac minis and macbook pros use a proprietary airport card connector, but that is a pcie connector and can be used if you find an adapter for it.

You can always plug in a USB wireless card, and getting QE I think is more important than an internal wifi card. You still need an SSE4.1 cpu though. The iMacs I think have the same proprietary connector, I'm not sure which ones use the standard mini pcie. This should be researched...

iMac7,1 and iMac8,1 use a standard mini PCI-E. Not sure about 9,1 and later. But honestly I had never thought of this. Sounds like an interesting idea.

 

[iphone2g&3gfan]

The mini PCI-e models are great, those will work with the many dozens of egpu mini pcie risers already available. we should also confirm which Apple laptops use the standard mini pcie interface. I know Apple uses the BCM4321 in the standard mini pcie form factor, and BCM43224 for 2012 macs in the proprietary interface and then BCM4360CS2 in the same compatible proprietary interface.

The proprietary interfaces are compatible between the 43224 and 4360, in fact I downgraded my 2015 macbook air (bcm4360cs2, 802.11ac) to the older BCM43224 (802.11n) so I could use the brcmsmac open source driver in linux. It worked without a problem.

The proprietary interface has a pinout available:

https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/...bluetooth-combo-card-for-2013-macbooks.99327/

Now all we need is to acquire the connector to the proprietary interface and a mpcie connector and a flex cable.

From my own knowledge Intel macs have used the following chipsets, in chronogical order from release date + relevant linux drivers for reference:

• BCM4321/BCM4322 (draft-n, 4322 in macpro but irrelevant because we have pcie x16 already) --> b43, brcmsmac, broadcom-wl
• AR9380 (I think compliant to the standard 802.11n, so we can tell it apart from BCM4321) --> ath9k
• BCM4331 (2011 macbook pro, uses a ribbon cable and not a gold, shiny connector and slot) --> b43, brcmsmac, broadcom-wl
• BCM43224 (2012 macbook air confirmed, 2012 macbook pro retina as well) --> b43, brcmsmac, broadcom-wl
• BCM4360CS2 (2013+ macbook air comfirmed, 2013+ rmbp comfirmed but with a 3x3 mimo chip, this one is just 2x2) --> broadcom-wl ONLY
• BCM43602 (all the retina macbooks + the new macbook pros with the infamous keyboards use this) --> brcmfmac

The BCM43224+ use proprietary connectors, the AR9380 + BCM4321 are available in standard mini pcie:

BCM4321: https://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Bcm4321-802-11agn-Bcm94321mc-Macbook/dp/B008XF8QTG

AR9380: https://www.amazon.com/Atheros-AR5BXB112-450Mbps-Wireless-N-Dual-Band/dp/B00L27OW18

Just so we can see what gens of apple macs can use the mini pcie adapter by just looking at what wifi card they have, to avoid having to look at teardowns.
[doublepost=1529289042][/doublepost]So, we have a few connectors used in macs:

Spoiler: Standard Mini PCI-e

Macs: All iMacs we're interested in (Mid 2011 and earlier) use the standard mini pcie connector. Thus, this opens up a large opportunity for a mpcie-to-pcie x1 bridge, and then a GPU.

Spoiler: 1) Proprietary connector 2010

Macs: MacBook Pro, 13" 2010, 2009?

Card: https://www.amazon.com/BroadCom-MacBook-UniBody-BCM94322USA-607-4144/dp/B00H41HADS
Flex cable: WEIRD, goes to display, unknown

Spoiler: 2) Proprietary flex connector rev.1

Macs: MacBook Pro, Mid 2010 (15" + 17")

Card: https://www.amazon.com/661-5541-661...id=1529288822&sr=8-1&keywords=bcm943224pciebt
Flex cable: https://www.amazon.com/Lezhisnug-Bl...27&sr=8-1&keywords=macbook+pro+wifi+flex+2010

I am missing one, the newer proprietary connector that slides into the motherboard, used 2012+ with rMBP and Air. We don't care about this one, because those have native support...

 

[Starplayr]

Some of the newer unsupported Macs have thunderbolt. So an eGPU with a PCIe x16 card inside may work. All depends if the OS will see it and output to it.

 

[BookEmDanno]

...

Mojave on an unsupported Macbook Air 13" Mid 2011.

This is just an FYI.

I was able to install Mojave (via a supported MacMini 2012) on a USB thumb drive for use in booting up on my unsupported MBA2011.
After updating boot args on nvram = "-no_compat_check", I was able to boot my MBAir on Mojave.

BUT (and its a biggie), performance is very slow. I believe it's the same experience as folks on this thread has encountered.

I'm hoping that when dosdude1's patch is available, performance will be much improved.

Best regards and ~Mahalo!~

Update on Mojave testing on this unsupported MBAir 13" mid 2011

Instead of using USB thumb drive for the boot partition, now I am utilizing an External SSD drive. Performance is much faster.

Also, fixes to bugs encountered (namely no sound, graphics issues like in maps, and others), I copied the following kext, bundle and plugin files from High Sierra

Testing will go on. I'm actually liking Mojave and will be my main MacOS as betas are made available.


Mahalo everyone.

 

[jackluke]

...


Update on Mojave testing on this unsupported MBAir 13" mid 2011

Instead of using USB thumb drive for the boot partition, now I am utilizing an External SSD drive. Performance is much faster.

View attachment 766635

Also, fixes to bugs encountered (namely no sound, graphics issues like in maps, and others), I copied the following kext, bundle and plugin files from High Sierra

View attachment 766633

Testing will go on. I'm actually liking Mojave and will be my main MacOS as betas are made available.


Mahalo everyone.

I bet this machine could boot Mojave even without any HD3000 kext copied, especially the GL ones since cannot be loaded due to Metal missing, but I need to know, do you have installed Mojave on your external usb SSD from another supported mac or directly from your unsupported MBA mid 2011 ?

Because I think apart the nvram “no_compat_check” there is a kind of check on firmware.scap so no one could reach the Mojave GUI from an unsupported mac without forcing update the beta EFI firmware first. Considering that the macos recovery, or safe mode or usb boot installer can reach the GUI even without loading any GPU kext, lets say with a standard WXGA kext.

 

[BookEmDanno]

I bet this machine could boot Mojave even without any HD3000 kext copied, especially the GL ones since cannot be loaded due to Metal missing, but I need to know, do you have installed Mojave on your external usb SSD from another supported mac or directly from your unsupported MBA mid 2011 ?

Because I think there is a kind of check on firmware.scap so no one could boot Mojave from an unsupported mac without update the beta EFI firmware first.

Yes, I installed Mojave on a supported MacMini late 2012 into my external SSD drive.
I tried taking out the HD3000 graphics files, but the bugs resurfaced. So I had to reinstall them.

 

[JimmyRhys]

Honestly, I was prepared for this. But without continued LTS I can't say I'm glad I now own a pricey paper-weight. Oh well...