macOS 10.14 Mojave on Unsupported Macs Thread

[jackluke]

Hello,

Thank you for this tutorial.
When I open recovery folder using open /Volumes/Recovery, I find 8 "random-numbers-letters" folders !

View attachment 798713

My question is do I have to do the "renames" in all those folders or only in the recent one ?
I think each "random-numbers-letters" folders has been created with each Mojave Beta I have installed before in my MB7,1.

Thank you

This is an interesting behavior, keep in mind that even on real supported macs sometimes after an upgrade the Recoveries don't work. However to check the right APFS Recovery UUID folder do these steps rigorously from Mojave Terminal:

diskutil list
[locate your "APFS Volume Mojave" (NOT the Recovery!!!) diskXs1]

diskutil info diskXs1 | grep "Volume UUID"

that is your current Recovery folder to open.

 

[joelw135]

Open Terminal and type: system_profiler SPSoftwareDataType
That will show the most important part that is the kernel version, the others are just strings.

I get this 18A391 Darwin 18.0.0
[doublepost=1540651892][/doublepost]

Does it say 10.14.1 Beta? If not, try the whole thing again.

Is this supposed to make a folder on my desktop? Well it did and when I try to run this again it says "Couldn't be completed as file exists" I pressed enter and I get no such file or directory. I am letting it run and will patch again.

 

[pkouame]

@pkouame
I needed to switch to v1.1 to run Portal2, which is 32-Bit...
For this both HIToolbox and CoreUI needed to be replaced with the fat-framework, HIToolbox alone was not sufficent to open the game...
Now it runs
Just in case this helps you to draw any conclusions

Yes all v1.1 patches are needed. Glad it's working for you. All framework patches will be delivered fat.

 

[Loyd-01a]

Don't trust me on this but I think you should probably delete all of the older ones.

Thank you for your suggestion !

 

[0403979]

I get this 18A391 Darwin 18.0.0
[doublepost=1540651892][/doublepost]
Is this supposed to make a folder on my desktop? Well it did and when I try to run this again it says "Couldn't be completed as file exists" I pressed enter and I get no such file or directory. I am letting it run and will patch again.

If this fails again then I’d like a screenshot of your desktop folder structure (resized for full names) and your terminal windows after running these commands to the end.

 

[joelw135]

If this fails again then I’d like a screenshot of your desktop folder structure (resized for full names) and your terminal windows after running these commands to the end.

Please a little more detail! The terminal does run to the end.

 

[Loyd-01a]

This is an interesting behavior, keep in mind that even on real supported macs sometimes after an upgrade the Recoveries don't work. However to check the right APFS Recovery UUID folder do these steps rigorously from Mojave Terminal:

diskutil list
[locate your "APFS Volume Mojave" (NOT the Recovery!!!) diskXs1]

diskutil info diskXs1 | grep "Volume UUID"

that is your current Recovery folder to open.

Ok !

info disk2s1 | grep "Volume UUID"

Volume UUID: 2FE0AFDA-A239-4394-B768-2E9E22027363

Effectively, it's the most recent one.
So can I erase the others folders like 0403979 suggested ?
Thank you

 

[joelw135]

Ok !

info disk2s1 | grep "Volume UUID"

Volume UUID: 2FE0AFDA-A239-4394-B768-2E9E22027363

Effectively, it's the most recent one.
So can I erase the others folders like 0403979 suggested ?
Thank you

 

[0403979]

Please a little more detail! The terminal does run to the end.

I'd like you to send me a screenshot of your desktop folder from Finder.

 

[joelw135]

I'd like you to send me a screenshot of your desktop folder from Finder.

 

[jhowarth]

This is mine from a clean install or from upgrading regularly a previous HighSierra into APFS:

EFI disk0s1
APFS Container disk0s2
APFS Container Scheme disk1
APFS Volume disk1s1 (used for HighSierra or Mojave)
APFS Preboot disk1s2 (used for FileVault 2 encryption)
APFS Recovery disk1s3 (used for Recovery and CMD+R)
APFS VM disk1s4 (used for sleep image)

I believe that those who fail with CMD+R in some way has that feature associated to the "Internet Online Recovery" that's why they fail, in that case there is no escape to the platform check.

While instead upon suggestion of @ASentientBot , deleting (or renaming) the PlatformSupport.plist corresponds to editing and inserting inside it your Mac Model Machine ID. So it's not the issue.

The com.apple.boot.plist inside the APFS Recovery targets to its immutablekernel root, but neither that and the immutablekernel inside the Mojave /S/L/Prelinkedkernel won't work because they are build for the original Mojave supported machines, so it's needed a patched immutablekernel, an easy working trick is use your current prelinkedkernel patched for your machine, renaming it into immutablekernel.

I'm still looking for a way to make APFS Recovery available at startup manager but that's very hard, it handles with APFS Roles, meanwhile I've found a way to make the APFS Recovery the default system to boot, but then to boot normally you have to keep option-key and target Mojave Volume or edit the com.apple.boot.plist but this is annoying, so I will test other.

It was never clear to me if the existing APFS ROM patch changes were supposed to be a sufficient framework for obtaining the recovery volume in the option boot selector or if additional changes to the boot ROM would be required. Certainly the current implementation does have its quirks, such as display a second phantom 'boot efi' icon as well as the actual APFS volume name icon.

 

[serr]

Pretty much everybody here is getting absolutely the same speed performance in both HFS+ and APFS on 10.14 as it was on 10.13. In your case you might have a hardware problem/damage, or a problem with the Mojave installation.
That being said, function-wise Mojave is less compared to High Sierra. Same as HighSierra had a lesser functionality compared to El Capitan. This is so, because Apple is slowly imposing their business model, which is to abolish the difference between iOS and macOS. As I have written before, in a very near future we will be allowed to only run severely limited applications bought solely from the Apple Store.
On the other hand each and every new macOS version is getting heavier to run on the same hardware, but users would never notice it, because modern hardware is able to handle much higher loads. To a contrast, power users will notice this sluggishness on older Macs, because they would often put the hardware to its limits. Basically Apple is continuously bloating the OS with flashy junk (in an effort to wow regulars, lacking knowledge) and is limiting, or even plainly removing most professional functionality pertinent to computers in general. Apple is about to bastardize the open computing as it was once known in favor of the mediocre, closed and limited iOS model. Thank god there is still Android, Windows and Linux. I really enjoy my cell with Android 8 and my PCs/Macs under latest Windows 10, so I am quite irritated, but certainly not worried by Apple's sneaky practices. I think those completely invested into the Apple ecosystem will soon get a bad taste in the mouth once the above becomes obvious.

Hmmm well... I should try to run the installer aimed at a blank HFS+ formatted drive anyway just to be thorough.
If it's the same laggy performance, then at least I can say I gave it a proper chance.

There's absolutely no hardware damage or issues here. And the gen 8 and 9 MBP's are their flagship models. I'm not screwing around with any of the newer generation disposable machines with all the hardware problems.

10.13 is snappier on my MBP than 10.11 was. I wasn't convinced that the previous new revisions after trusty 10.6.8 helped speed anything up but 10.13 actually is snappier across the board. I'll still keep that 10.6.8 install around for the occasional thing I just don't feel like reinventing but that's getting fewer and fewer. I haven't tried 10.13 on my Mac Pro studio monster yet. I was planning on setting up a couple heavier studio projects (DAW work) and having a shootout between 10.11, 10.13, and 10.14. I'll report back when I do that. (Although it's going to be a stretch to take 10.14 seriously enough to include it after seeing this initial poor performance.) 10.12 was like an unfinished 10.13. The initial implementation of the force touch business on the trackpad was a particular disaster and basically broke trackpad usability for a spell. 10.13 fixed all the really glaring stuff and seems genuinely solid.

I don't think this new 10.14 was intended for more powerful machines though. For one thing, Apple doesn't make more powerful machines anymore! Everyone buying the extra watered down models with the circa 2003 specs would see a significant downgrade. Is anyone really buying the top end (what's now called) MBP with a max lifespan of 3-5 years for $3000 - $6000? I'm thinking not too many takers there.

Anyway...
Appreciate the discussion and tech work going on around here!
Thanks again to Dosdude1 too!

 

[0403979]

Can you show me the contents of the package folder?

 

[joelw135]

Can you show me the contents of the package folder?

 

[0403979]

Looks good, can I see the Payload folder and your system information app?

 

[joelw135]

What do you want in system info?

 

[0403979]

What do you want in system info?

Just show me the window.

 

[joelw135]

What do you want in system info?

[doublepost=1540655526][/doublepost]

Just show me the window.

 

[0403979]

[doublepost=1540655526][/doublepost]

It seems that the first command worked but the second didn't. Can you please copy and paste exactly what you ran?

 

[joelw135]

It seems that the first command worked but the second didn't. Can you please copy and paste exactly what you ran?

pkgutil --expand-full ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1.pkg ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1
yes | sudo cp -rf ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1/ /

Are these two separate lines that need to be entered one at a time with enter after each?

 

[0403979]

pkgutil --expand-full ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1.pkg ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1
yes | sudo cp -rf ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1/ /

Are these two separate lines that need to be entered one at a time with enter after each?

One at a time. Also try yes | sudo cp -rf ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1/ /Volumes/Mojave\ HD instead of yes | sudo cp -rf ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1/ /

 

[joelw135]

One at a time. Also try yes | sudo cp -rf ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1/ /Volumes/Mojave\ HD instead of yes | sudo cp -rf ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1/ /

Ok doing it again, should I delete the folder created?

 

[0403979]

Ok doing it again, should I delete the folder created?

Don't delete anything, just run that command I sent and let me know what happens.

 

[joelw135]

Don't delete anything, just run that command I sent and let me know what happens.

No luck all the commands seemed to have run but the system still says the same not beta.

I tried it on my MacBook Pro 7,1 and my MacMini 3,1 both same results.

 

[thegurgz]

One at a time. Also try yes | sudo cp -rf ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1/ /Volumes/Mojave\ HD instead of yes | sudo cp -rf ~/Desktop/macOSUpd10.14.1/ /

I ran it the same as @joelw135, two times. Code finished running after around 10 minutes, reboot, apply patches, still on GM. Not sure how you did it.