macOS 10.14 Mojave on Unsupported Macs Thread

[jhowarth]

One stupid question : Can I use CCC (or other alternatives) to backup my startup disk once patched?

Yes. CCC is agnostic to the patches.

 

[pkouame]

Sorry for the confusion, i have some problems with English. I meant that background of the top bar looks solid with your instructions, but in the original version of Mojave in any other newer mac machine with Metal support it looks blurred like dock's background or Notification Center (actually, it is that you trying to fix). But nevermind, it's not important, i'm bad at explaining something in English. I will try your guide to fix light mode on my mac, and i'll use your git repo to post an issue if i had to. Anyway, thank you.

No problem - Try it out and track your issues in the repo: it is multi-lingual Remember that the Hybrid UI will (currently) not exactly match the stock Mojave one: some compromises had to be made and some refinements are in the queue.

 

[OGNerd]

One stupid question : Can I use CCC (or other alternatives) to backup my startup disk once patched?

Yes for CCC.

 

[serr]

Is it possible to get a recovery partition installed on a MacBookPro8,2 machine that can run 10.13.6 unpatched and has had the APFS firmware update?

Is there a way to get that with this patched 10.14 installer?
Or might I have to install 10.13 and then update to 10.14 instead of clean install? Would that work?

 

[DuncanGarp]

Hybrid Mode v1.1 with full 32 bit support is released here.

Screenshot below shows Steam (still 32 bit) running in Hybrid "Light" Mode.

View attachment 798245

As alway, post issues, problems, enhancement requests in the github repo (how I choose to maintain this). Some are getting the hang of it and their requests are being addressed and slated for subsequent releases promptly.

Read notes and docs carefully as this is still evolving. We have been running these internally for weeks now, so generally pretty solid if you understand the approach, concept and trade-offs. Enough said.

Enjoy (or not)

Anyone tried these on 10.14.1 beta (5 specifically) yet? Thanks.

 

[jhowarth]

Is it possible to get a recovery partition installed on a MacBookPro8,2 machine that can run 10.13.6 unpatched and has had the APFS firmware update?

Is there a way to get that with this patched 10.14 installer?
Or might I have to install 10.13 and then update to 10.14 instead of clean install? Would that work?

You will have to use the recovery patch to make the recovery partition bootable on unsupported machines. I haven't tested that exact configuration here yet on my MacPro 3,1 with APFS ROM patch but certainly it works with HFS partitions. I believe the High Sierra patcher installs the recovery partition as HFS because the APFS ROM patcher is considered too high risk for the general pool of users.

 

[LuisN]

One stupid question : Can I use CCC (or other alternatives) to backup my startup disk once patched?

Yes

 

[jackluke]

Anyone tried these on 10.14.1 beta (5 specifically) yet? Thanks.

I guess it will work as expected even using the 18A391's ones, I mean in Mojave we use extensions/frameworks from HighSierra and they work, I don't think apple touches so much its historical frameworks, only thing will change is the checksum and few bytes around.

Consider I use @pkouame patch on 18A389, so I'm using a future framework version into a previous Mojave build, no much sense but it works fine.
[doublepost=1540552509][/doublepost]

Is it possible to get a recovery partition installed on a MacBookPro8,2 machine that can run 10.13.6 unpatched and has had the APFS firmware update?

Is there a way to get that with this patched 10.14 installer?
Or might I have to install 10.13 and then update to 10.14 instead of clean install? Would that work?

Yes to your first question, maybe yes to the second, and yes to the third/fourth and I guess this last is a good approach, if you re-install the 10.13 officially it will install the untouched original "Recovery HD" partition associating it correctly with CMD+R.

edit:
Probably you could install only the official Recovery package, I don't remember exactly its name it should be "RecoveryHDUpdate.pkg" into the HighSierra InstallESD, but if you follow the regular way through the supported HighSierra Installation the final result will be definitely better.

 

[patsio]

Will the "Hybrid Mode v1.1 with full 32 bit support" be released as a patch within the patcher tool?

 

[0403979]

Will the "Hybrid Mode v1.1 with full 32 bit support" be released as a patch within the patcher tool?

I don't think so. The patch isn't perfect and dosdude said no before.

 

[pkouame]

Anyone tried these on 10.14.1 beta (5 specifically) yet? Thanks.

Yes we have. Some early successful experiments with beta1 (18B45D) are in the repo. But they are not meant for distribution! (In fact I will delete them soon to avoid any confusion)

The good news is, I don't think anything in the beta updates "break" our approach. Supporting rapid fire betas is not on the roadmap - supporting official updates is. This may change as scripted in-place patching is in the final stages of development and testing (as we speak), but this also depends on the "type" of patch (code versus data) being applied. Stay tuned or follow the repo announcements.

Thanks.
[doublepost=1540561433][/doublepost]

I guess it will work as expected even using the 18A391's ones, I mean in Mojave we use extensions/frameworks from HighSierra and they work, I don't think apple touches so much its historical frameworks, only thing will change is the checksum and few bytes around.

Consider I use @pkouame patch on 18A389, so I'm using a future framework version into a previous Mojave build, no much sense but it works fine.

While this works (have successfully tested this personally with 10.4.1betas) I DO NOT RECOMMEND this approach.

These are fundamental core frameworks that are highly inter-dependent. Software updates change these: introduce new code and/or fix bugs and embedded data. This is not like a kext. No amount of compatibility testing will ever guarantee that a framework patch designed for 18A391 will work in a 18B45D environment and (frankly) it is unsafe and unreliable : think of it this way, if some new beta2 updated app depends on a new or altered beta2 AppKit method which no longer exists ---> crash.

So you have to stick to the patch meant for your release: you have been warned.
[doublepost=1540561966][/doublepost]

Will the "Hybrid Mode v1.1 with full 32 bit support" be released as a patch within the patcher tool?

No. Probably never will. This is a different animal.
Bash (unix/terminal) scripts will facilitate the install in the future (v1.x) , a GUI delivery app is being explored.
That said, the manual install is actually pretty simple...recovering from it is too.
Docs are available in the repo.

 

[serr]

You will have to use the recovery patch to make the recovery partition bootable on unsupported machines. I haven't tested that exact configuration here yet on my MacPro 3,1 with APFS ROM patch but certainly it works with HFS partitions. I believe the High Sierra patcher installs the recovery partition as HFS because the APFS ROM patcher is considered too high risk for the general pool of users.

Except that the recovery patch option in the patched installer is grayed out when I select the target drive.

Just to be clear, this is a MBP 8,2 that was fully supported by the 10.13 install even unpatched (and unpatched bugs aside). The machine in question has had the APFS firmware update via the installer and updates. This machine runs 10.13.6 and can boot into the 10.13 recovery partition.

Now, I installed this patched 10.14 to a clean APFS formatted drive.
Was that the mistake? Do you need to format a clean drive to HFS+ (just like is required to run the 10.13 installer) to run this installer even though you were already using APFS and have current firmware?

Aside:
What are the criticisms of the APFS disk format? Is there an argument for keeping HFS+ with a SSD?

 

[jackluke]

Except that the recovery patch option in the patched installer is grayed out when I select the target drive.

Just to be clear, this is a MBP 8,2 that was fully supported by the 10.13 install even unpatched (and unpatched bugs aside). The machine in question has had the APFS firmware update via the installer and updates. This machine runs 10.13.6 and can boot into the 10.13 recovery partition.

Now, I installed this patched 10.14 to a clean APFS formatted drive.
Was that the mistake? Do you need to format a clean drive to HFS+ (just like is required to run the 10.13 installer) to run this installer even though you were already using APFS and have current firmware?

Aside:
What are the criticisms of the APFS disk format? Is there an argument for keeping HFS+ with a SSD?

Well, you a native APFS firmware, if using the Patcher you have a "greyed" Recovery HD patch it means you have an APFS Mojave installation, so try this: fix APFS Recovery on Mojave unsupported macs
[doublepost=1540563830][/doublepost]

While this works (have successfully tested this personally with 10.4.1betas) I DO NOT RECOMMEND this approach.

These are fundamental core frameworks that are highly inter-dependent. Software updates change these: introduce new code and/or fix bugs and embedded data. This is not like a kext. No amount of compatibility testing will ever guarantee that a framework patch designed for 18A391 will work in a 18B45D environment and (frankly) it is unsafe and unreliable : think of it this way, if some new beta2 updated app depends on a new or altered beta2 AppKit method which no longer exists ---> crash.

So you have to stick to the patch meant for your release: you have been warned.

I know, I wasn't fomenting uprising to use those always, and you know, your new 10.14.x hybrid patches are welcomed here.

 

[serr]

I guess it will work as expected even using the 18A391's ones, I mean in Mojave we use extensions/frameworks from HighSierra and they work, I don't think apple touches so much its historical frameworks, only thing will change is the checksum and few bytes around.

Consider I use @pkouame patch on 18A389, so I'm using a future framework version into a previous Mojave build, no much sense but it works fine.
[doublepost=1540552509][/doublepost]

Yes to your first question, maybe yes to the second, and yes to the third/fourth and I guess this last is a good approach, if you re-install the 10.13 officially it will install the untouched original "Recovery HD" partition associating it correctly with CMD+R.

edit:
Probably you could install only the official Recovery package, I don't remember exactly its name it should be "RecoveryHDUpdate.pkg" into the HighSierra InstallESD, but if you follow the regular way through the supported HighSierra Installation the final result will be definitely better.

Thanks jackluke. Would be nice to have a clean install option of course but this isn't the worst.

Any opinions on APFS?
Fully optimizes and improves SSD performance?
A bug riddled disaster that shouldn't ever be touched?
Somewhere in between?

I haven't tried installing packages separately yet. I suppose I'll have to try that. I thought I remembered seeing an option in Carbon Copy Cloner too but haven't ever tried it.

Anyway, thanks again!

 

[jackluke]

Thanks jackluke. Would be nice to have a clean install option of course but this isn't the worst.

Any opinions on APFS?
Fully optimizes and improves SSD performance?
A bug riddled disaster that shouldn't ever be touched?
Somewhere in between?

I haven't tried installing packages separately yet. I suppose I'll have to try that. I thought I remembered seeing an option in Carbon Copy Cloner too but haven't ever tried it.

Anyway, thanks again!

At the beginning I was enough skeptical about APFS, and a big fan of HFS+ , however I'm getting used to APFS, and consider that APFS on Mojave is mandatory to "support" Software Updates. SSDs behave better and as you said "somewhere in between".

Don't try separate packages installing, instead on your current Mojave try my APFS Recovery manual fix I linked before, after applied my suggested fixes then reboot, right after power-on chime hold CMD+R and check if you can boot into a Recovery.

 

[serr]

Just loaded up a MBP 8,2 (2011) machine. Same business as the mid 2010 machine with the trackpad reported as missing when you try to open the trackpad preferences in System Preferences.

Initial boot times are quite slow. 10.13 boots in seconds on this machine. 10.6 is up and booted before the status circle thingy can even load.

10.14 is looking extremely not ready for prime time here. Not being able to set basic system preferences without manual terminal commands is not a good look. This is looking like a bug with 10.14 itself at this point. (Meaning I have yet to see an install with this working!)

Very much appreciate the efforts of everyone involved here!
But today I'm going to call 10.13.6 the current max stable OSX build and hold off on recommending 10.14 to anyone. Interesting as the dark theme business and whatever else might be... the basic nuts and bolts of the OS need to work and they do not at present.

 

[LuisN]

Just loaded up a MBP 8,2 (2011) machine. Same business as the mid 2010 machine with the trackpad reported as missing when you try to open the trackpad preferences in System Preferences.

Initial boot times are quite slow. 10.13 boots in seconds on this machine. 10.6 is up and booted before the status circle thingy can even load.

10.14 is looking extremely not ready for prime time here. Not being able to set basic system preferences without manual terminal commands is not a good look. This is looking like a bug with 10.14 itself at this point. (Meaning I have yet to see an install with this working!)

Very much appreciate the efforts of everyone involved here!
But today I'm going to call 10.13.6 the current max stable OSX build and hold off on recommending 10.14 to anyone. Interesting as the dark theme business and whatever else might be... the basic nuts and bolts of the OS need to work and they do not at present.

Everything working here
MBP 6,2

 

[pkouame]

I know, I wasn't fomenting uprising to use those always, and you know, your new 10.14.x hybrid patches are welcomed here.

No problem man. Just wanted to clarify.

 

[serr]

To those who use Mojave on APFS file system, I have managed to "fix" the APFS Recovery Volume to make it bootable with CMD+R and mainly with USB input devices responsive, working wifi and everything else, just follow next steps, boot from a Mojave APFS Volume, launch Terminal and type:

diskutil apfs list
{locate your "APFS Recovery Volume" diskXs3 [for an internal "APFS Container" is typically mounted on disk1s3]}

diskutil mount diskXs3
open /Volumes/Recovery

landing on Finder, double tap on the "random-numbers-letters" folder, once inside rename these files:

prelinkedkernel into prelinkedkernelbackup
immutablekernel into immutablekernelbackup
PlatformSupport.plist into PlatformSupportbackup

Don't close Finder yet, once you renamed those 3 files, press CMD+N, then from this new Finder Window press CMD+SHIFT+G (or use "Go to Folder"): /System/Library/PrelinkedKernels/

while inside this path copy the file prelinkedkernel into the previous Finder Window, exactly were you renamed those 3 files, lastly rename this fresh copied file from prelinkedkernel to immutablekernel

Now you have a working APFS Recovery Volume.

edit:
On APFS scheme the "APFS Recovery Volume" is always on the 3rd (hidden) partition.

FYI, this did not work. Still get the circle/slash when trying to ⌘R boot into the recovery partition.
[doublepost=1540573297][/doublepost]

Well, you a native APFS firmware, if using the Patcher you have a "greyed" Recovery HD patch it means you have an APFS Mojave installation, so try this: fix APFS Recovery on Mojave unsupported macs
[doublepost=1540563830][/doublepost]

This did not work. Still get a circle/slash when trying to ⌘R boot into the recovery partition.

 

[0403979]

FYI, this did not work. Still get the circle/slash when trying to ⌘R boot into the recovery partition.
[doublepost=1540573297][/doublepost]

This did not work. Still get a circle/slash when trying to ⌘R boot into the recovery partition.

Yep, no one has gotten it to work. Don't know why he's recommending it.

 

[serr]

Everything working here
MBP 6,2View attachment 798499

Heh... Working on a 6,2 but not an 8,2 (or 6,1) eh? Well, that's special!

Yeah, this OS is not ready yet... if it ever will be...

Blacklisting pro model machines (erm... "installer bugs". yeah bugs...). Then all these other bugs. Not a great look here for Apple.

 

[jackluke]

FYI, this did not work. Still get the circle/slash when trying to ⌘R boot into the recovery partition.
[doublepost=1540573297][/doublepost]

This did not work. Still get a circle/slash when trying to ⌘R boot into the recovery partition.

Do you use FileVault 2 volume encryption ? Or do you have more than a partition hybrid HFS+/APFS and Windows or Linux too ? In these cases it won't boot with CMD+R, while in all the previous cases it will work like a charm only if you use Refind Bootloader (or REFIt).

To make CMD+R working you should install a clean Mojave or a clean HighSierra upgrading to an APFS Mojave, because if you attempted many disk repartitioning before it will loose that capability or will point elsewhere.

Otherwise simply install Mojave in HFS+ and use first the dosdude1's Recovery patch and then this: turn HFS Recovery HD into a bootable Volume holding option key
[doublepost=1540575538][/doublepost]

Yep, no one has gotten it to work. Don't know why he's recommending it.

I don't think so. I don't recommend nothing, I'm not seeking for glory, and mainly I use almost always the verb "try", I simply invite others to try something totally safe and harmless for their macOS. And in the end, I edit only my own posts, I never edited the main OP and never will.

By the way, no controversy from my side.

 

[serr]

Do you use FileVault 2 volume encryption ?

No

Or do you have more than a partition hybrid HFS+/APFS and Windows or Linux too ? In these cases it won't boot with CMD+R, while in all the previous cases it will work like a charm only if you use Refind Bootloader (or REFIt).

No, no, and no.

To make CMD+R working you should install a clean Mojave or a clean HighSierra upgrading to an APFS Mojave, because if you attempted many disk repartitioning before it will loose that capability or will point elsewhere.

Did a clean install of 10.14 yes.

Otherwise simply install Mojave in HFS+ and use first the dosdude1's Recovery patch ...

So... a vote of "no confidence" on APFS then apparently?

Thanks for the effort though!

Hopefully Apple will follow up with bug fixes for this trash heap. Or more likely some of you fine folks offering tech help will beat them to it! I'm just going to drop this for today until I see revisions to try I think.

 

[barcode_turk]

I have a technical question and I wonder who is update patches for unsupported macs ? @dosdude or who?

 

[jackluke]

No

No, no, and no.

Did a clean install of 10.14 yes.

So... a vote of "no confidence" on APFS then apparently?

Thanks for the effort though!

Hopefully Apple will follow up with bug fixes for this trash heap. Or more likely some of you fine folks offering tech help will beat them to it! I'm just going to drop this for today until I see revisions to try I think.

For "clean install" I mean erase completely the drive re-creating a new empty gpt scheme and clean EFI partition, then install from scratch Mojave directly in APFS or installing HighSierra (only if natively supported by machine) and converting to APFS on-the-fly, that will populate gpt/EFI entries properly.

The Recovery partition is a very particular apple proprietary hidden process that set the CMD+R at low firmware level, only an ultra-expert could fix that through advanced gpt unix command adjusting the GUID table and pointing rightly to the EFI startup manager, just a taste from Terminal:
sudo gpt show disk0
man gpt

Anyway APFS is tricky, if you install Mojave in HFS+ managing these stuffs will be easier.

There are other ways to obtain a "Recovery partition":

cloning the USB Installer into an internal partition or taking the BaseSystem.dmg and restoring it into a pre-created empty 2 GB HFS partition.

Anyway my APFS Recovery trick works, to those who don't probably have a dirty gpt/EFI entries or other particular conditions that don't allow that.

edit:
For those very expert interested the "gpt -label" is the responsible also of the generic "EFI Boot" label at low level.
[doublepost=1540586712][/doublepost]