macOS 10.14 Mojave on Unsupported Macs Thread

[jackluke]

can anyone upload Flurry screen saver to me? seems it was crashed after upgrade to 10.14.4.
thank you!!

Weird, Flurry screensaver has always worked even without Graphic Acceleration, anyway I attached the default /System/Library/Screen Savers/ folder from a clean working 10.14.3 18D109 Mojave.

I guess if doesn't work neither this one, you should replace also the OpenCL.framework from 10.14.3 , because from my tests I noticed only replacing OpenGL.framework is not suffice for overall 10.14.5 Graphics stability, and maybe same method is valid also for 10.14.4 .

 

[pjpowell]

I have Late 2011 MacBook Pro (8,1) and iSight was working fine before the latest update 10.14.4

I seem to remember previously an option in the post install patches for a legacy iSight patch. That seems to be missing since updating the dosdude1 patcher to the latest version. Is this because it’s just not possible with the latest patcher or just not possible on this machine anymore?

Thanks for any advice.

 

[maxcasal]

This is what happens now when I open Pallales Desktop 14:

10.14.4 MaPro 3,1

With 10.14.4 I have so many issues with graphics.

 

[TimothyR734]

It makes sense, since Mojave patches are essentially from HighSierra and prelinkedkernel rebuild is done targeting Mojave kernel and extensions, so that should work for many.
[doublepost=1554022144][/doublepost]

I guess it's an expected condition, more advanced system version requires a bit more RAM.

If I remember during the early beta's of macOS Mojave in July last year I remember I had to install the backlight and ambient light patches from the High Sierra patcher to get into my desktop then your patched core brightness after but I haven't need the it since 10.14.1 as the old saying goes anything is sometimes new again

 

[jackluke]

This is what happens now when I open Pallales Desktop 14:View attachment 829646
10.14.4 MaPro 3,1

With 10.14.3 I have so many issues with graphics.

Maybe it's required the OpenCL.framework from 10.14.3 to support better the 10.14.4accel patch, but I don't have any 10.14.4 installed so cannot test for sure.

Because all those secondary graphics elements in Mojave probably are drawn by OpenCL framework, especially third party apps, maybe apple internal use Cocoa, Carbon or Quartz or whateverelse.

 

[maxcasal]

Maybe it's required the OpenCL.framework from 10.14.3 to support better the 10.14.4accel patch, but I don't have any 10.14.4 installed so cannot test for sure.

Because all those secondary graphics elements in Mojave probably are drawn by OpenCL framework, especially third party apps.

Probably. Same issue most likely with the OneDrive dropdown window (appearing when clicking on OneDrive icon on menubar) not showing up in 10.4.14.

Hopefully someone will prepare a fix.

 

[jhowarth]

The 10.14.4 is definitely more RAM hungry than 10.14.3(at least on my system). Just opening iTunes causes a memory pressure spike to yellow/red. It is ridiculous. I did everything I need and more on 10.14.3 with only 2GB RAM installed. I think I am going back.

You are taking the 'minimum ram requirements' way too seriously. At a minimum, you should have 4 Gb and realistically 8 Gb. One can pretty much gauge what Apple thinks the true minimum ram requirements are by what memory configurations that they are currently shipping. That currently is 8Gb across the board.

 

[TimothyR734]

I have 10.14.4 running on my iMac 9,1 and my MacBook 5,1 my MacBook only crashed once but that was before I could install the updated patches from the patch updater makes me wonder what is the difference from the Nvidia 9400 and 9400M GPU one drive seems to be working on my iMac 9,1 syncing folders now after syncing no drop down menu darn

 

[K two]

Could not stop the random KPs in 18E226, even replaced the memory with new OWC modules, no improvement. So, re-installed 10.14.3, 18D109 on top of 10.14.4 using the v1.2.3. patcher.

Again, perfection.

ahoy dosdude1 - Please consider adding the Broadcom WIFI patch into v1.2.3 and v1.3.0 Mojave patchers like the Atheros "legacy" patch?

 

[antony34]

Weird, Flurry screensaver has always worked even without Graphic Acceleration, anyway I attached the default /System/Library/Screen Savers/ folder from a clean working 10.14.3 18D109 Mojave.

I guess if doesn't work neither this one, you should replace also the OpenCL.framework from 10.14.3 , because from my tests I noticed only replacing OpenGL.framework is not suffice for overall 10.14.5 Graphics stability, and maybe same method is valid also for 10.14.4 .

Thanks and you are right! after replaced and reboot. it still not work. But other like shell and arabesque are work well...

maybe need to replace both OpenCL & OpenGL.framework as well.

would you provide those file to me for test? i have no 10.14.3 here... thank you!

 

[jackluke]

Thanks and you are right! after replaced and reboot. it still not work. But other like shell and arabesque are work well...

maybe need to replace both OpenCL & OpenGL.framework as well.

would you provide those file to me for test? i have no 10.14.3 here... thank you!

You already have the OpenGL.framework correctly replaced by dosdude1's 10.14.4accel patch , I cannot upload OpenCL.framework here is too big 217,9 MB, compressed becomes 83,7 MB .

 

[souljah]

Did you reboot from the USB installer and apply the post-install patches per your machine?

After my comment i somehow figured it out after numerous restarts and poking around. Thanks still! Now gonna hit google up with another thing. Osx is slow as hell, restarts real quickly and wakes from sleep with the new ssd upgrade i just made. But yeah...dragging windows and trackpad etc.. are laaaaging.

 

[jackluke]

Third and I guess last attempt to trying bring back OpenGL Acceleration on 10.14.5 beta1, checking through "otool" the OpenGL.framework dependencies the most significant I considered are: CoreGraphics.framework , CoreServices.framework, IOSurface.framework .

Tried to replace all three from 10.14.3 to 10.14.5 beta1 and the beta1 still boot fine with them, even a bit faster I'd say, but still no OpenGL Acceleration, only Video Framebuffer.

I recap for those who want to attempt 10.14.5 beta1 booting on unsupported machines, after applied the accustomed dosdude1's Mojave patches, add these steps:

- no need to remove or rename the GPU GL driver
- Replace from 10.14.3 the /System/Library/Frameworks/OpenCL.framework
- Replace from 10.14.3 the /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/GPUWrangler.framework

Then you'll have a working 10.14.5 beta1 with Video Framebuffer, but no OpenGL Acceleration that in my opinion this time appears too far.

 

[avz]

I had addressed the matter too, a while ago apfs local snapshots

but I add an important issue (reported by others), not only the APFS local snapshots but even a TimeMachine created over an APFS Volume will work only if the machine has a native APFS BOOTROM (tipically all those produced after 2009/2010), APFS ROM-patched ones only work with HFS+ Volume.

I know TimeMachine backups are saved over HFS+ external disks, but their "Restoring" over an APFS Volume will fail if it's APFS-ROM Patched.

I am very happy to report that APFS local snapshots do in fact work on my APFS ROM patched MacBook5,1!
I did a snapshot, boot into APFS Recovery and restored the system from that snapshot. Previously I did a rookie mistake(completely forgot that I excluded my Macintosh SSD from the Time Machine backups). Doh!
[doublepost=1554052703][/doublepost]

You are taking the 'minimum ram requirements' way too seriously. At a minimum, you should have 4 Gb and realistically 8 Gb. One can pretty much gauge what Apple thinks the true minimum ram requirements are by what memory configurations that they are currently shipping. That currently is 8Gb across the board.

Yes, you are right, but the take away message here is that 10.14.3 seems to be still the King for the unsupported Macs.

 

[TimothyR734]

You already have the OpenGL.framework correctly replaced by dosdude1's 10.14.4accel patch , I cannot upload OpenCL.framework here is too big 217,9 MB, compressed becomes 83,7 MB .

maybe pkouame might et you post those frameworks on SpiraMira GitHub page just a thought

 

[Sveto]

Hi all,
I'm trying to get the bootable drive created and no matter what I'm trying to use (flash, hdd, ssd) I end up here during the usb creation process. Any tips on what might've been wrong? (trying to create it for my Mac Pro, creating on MBP 2018 10.14.4 .

EDIT: Seems like some problem in 10.14.4, when I tried to create USB on Mini with 10.14.1, everything went flawlessly.

View attachment 828507

Yes, from my own testing it seems, that as of 10.14.4 the System Integrity protection is being enforced for the entire HD, instead of just for "system important locations". So as of 10.14.4 all programs are being checked against digital signatures. It almost matters not to have Gatekeeper off all the time. Even regular apps with modified signatures (hacked once for example) won't open, or if opened will be strongly limited in their rights. In other words, if you are on a "supported" mac with 10.14.4 applied you are pretty much in a jail cell. Can't do anything. The way out is to disable System Integrity for good. Once you do that on a "supported" mac you will notice at first a really responsive system. It literally flies without having to check signatures for each and every app. And then everything will work with zero problems guaranteed. In your case just disable System Integrity on your supported mac and try to created the same 10.14.4 USB patcher. It will work like a charm. Think about the moral of the story.
[doublepost=1554056098][/doublepost]

I installed the latest Mojave on my MacMini 3,1 but the fonts and graphics have the jagged edges. Any fixes for this?

Must be something at your end. I have 10.14.4 on the same Mac mini and all looks pretty nice.
The positives of 10.14.4:
* you can reuse the 1.4.1 patch of pocume and fix the appearance of the system.
* it seems apple has made optimizations to SAMBA and now it reaches speeds similar to Windows, but in previous versions we were getting roughly about 50% of the performance when compared to Windows
The negatives of 10.14.4:
* it is clear, that 10.14.3 was the last "native", rock-solid version for unsupported macs. As of 10.14.4 we can clearly see the begining of the end for us, the unsupported. 10.14.4 is presenting crashes for no reason with different system apps, iOS apps and third party apps. Even if you clear caches, remove spotlight plugins and any other optimizations, you won't be guaranteed not to experience a crash just out of nowhere. Under the hood the interface is departing strongly from the old carbon/OpenGL stuff and going deep into metal. All what is done now to make 10.14.4 work for us is to replace old components from 10.14.3, or earlier, which is a workaround, but certainly not a definitive solution and it introduces incompatibilities with unpredictable results. I would go as far as to foresee, that by 10.14.6, if updating reaches it, and by 10.15 if not, we are going to get a gimmicky, patched OS with many compromises to accept. For a solid performance we will be coming back to 10.14.3, so don't delete your copy of that version, soon it will be very popular, maybe even 10.14.4 if major shortcoming are fixed, but as of right now 10.14.3 is the true winner.

 

[TimothyR734]

Yes, from my own testing it seems, that as of 10.14.4 the System Integrity protection is being enforced for the entire HD, instead of just for "system important locations". So as of 10.14.4 all programs are being checked against digital signatures. It almost matters not to have Gatekeeper off all the time. Even regular apps with modified signatures (hacked once for example) won't open, or if opened will be strongly limited in their rights. In other words, if you are on a "supported" mac with 10.14.4 applied you are pretty much in a jail cell. Can't do anything. The way out is to disable System Integrity for good. Once you do that on a "supported" mac you will notice at first a really responsive system. It literally flies without having to check signatures for each and every app. And then everything will work with zero problems guaranteed. In your case just disable System Integrity on your supported mac and try to created the same 10.14.4 USB patcher. It will work like a charm. Think about the moral of the story.
[doublepost=1554056098][/doublepost]
Must be something at your end. I have 10.14.4 on the same Mac mini and all looks pretty nice.
The positives of 10.14.4:
* you can reuse the 1.4.1 patch of pocume and fix the appearance of the system.
* it seems apple has made optimizations to SAMBA and now it reaches speeds similar to Windows, but in previous versions we were getting roughly about 50% of the performance when compared to Windows
The negatives of 10.14.4:
* it is clear, that 10.14.3 was the last "native", rock-solid version for unsupported macs. As of 10.14.4 we can clearly see the being of the end for us, the unsupported. 10.14.4 is presenting crashes for no reason with different system apps, iOS apps and third party apps. Even if you clear caches, remove spotlight plugins and any other optimizations, you won't be guaranteed not to experience a crash just out of nowhere. Under the hood the interface is departing strongly from the old carbon stuff and going deep into metal. All what is done now to make 10.14.4 work for us is to replace old components from 10.14.3, or earlier, which is a workaround, but certainly not a definitive solution and it introduces incompatibilities with unpredictable results. I would go as far as to foresee, that by 10.14.6, if updating reaches it, and by 10.15 if not, we are going to get a gimmicky, patched OS with many compromises to accept. For a solid performance we will be coming back to 10.14.3, so don't delete your copy of that version, soon it will be very popular, maybe even 10.14.4 if major shortcoming are fix, but as of right now 10.14.3 is the true winner.

Another one Apple is doing on supported mac's is the unique hardware identifier to update apps

 

[hvds]

How much does this affect battery life, as I could do this on my MacBookPro5,1?

Cheers

Hugh

I made a comparison between 9400 and 9600 power consumption:
Running Quicktime player with a slide show as workload,
System info to read the current consumption,
and Activity display.
I've put the display backlight level to quite low (4 points). Charger disconnected, battery at 90% of 14Ah capacity (and new, only 10 cycles), at 8Volts.

Had to do the comparison on 10.14.3 because Quicktime player in 10.14.4 with the 9400 gave KPs too frequent for a decent observation. 10.14.4 stable though with the 9600.

for 9600: 3.2 - 3.6A (about 4-4.4hrs runtime)
for 9400: 2.5 - 2.8A (about 5-5.5hrs runtime).

So there is an observable but moderate difference. For comparison, a reasonable display backlight level of max-4points instead of the low 4points, increases the current also by about 0.7A.

 

[Hughmac]

I made a comparison between 9400 and 9600 power consumption:
Running Quicktime player with a slide show as workload,
System info to read the current consumption,
and Activity display.
I've put the display backlight level to quite low (4 points). Charger disconnected, battery at 90% of 14Ah capacity (and new, only 10 cycles), at 8Volts.

Had to do the comparison on 10.14.3 because Quicktime player in 10.14.4 with the 9400 gave KPs too frequent for a decent observation. 10.14.4 stable though with the 9600.

for 9600: 3.2 - 3.6A (about 4-4.4hrs runtime)
for 9400: 2.5 - 2.8A (about 5-5.5hrs runtime).

So there is an observable but moderate difference. For comparison, a reasonable display backlight level of max-4points instead of the low 4points, increases the current also by about 0.7A.

Thanks. I also have a new battery, on 10 cycles !
Not too bad considering; it might be worth losing an hour of battery time to have a stable 10.14.4 , but I'll stick with 10.14.3 for the moment and see what the boss (dosdude1) comes up with.

Cheers

Hugh

 

[varad]

I don't have a copy of of 10.14.3 the Mojave Patcher 1.2.3 downloads the current macOS I think I need to brick my iMac I am so mad all my college work lost

I am not sure what the policies are regarding torrents, but

https://mac-torrent-download.net/macos-mojave-10-14-3-18d42/ this might help you.

 

[0403979]

I don't have a copy of of 10.14.3 the Mojave Patcher 1.2.3 downloads the current macOS I think I need to brick my iMac I am so mad all my college work lost

I dm you a download link for the 10.14.3 installer if you want? Note to mods: It was available officially until like a week ago. The illegality of this is next to none.

 

[TimothyR734]

I dm you a download link for the 10.14.3 installer if you want? Note to mods: It was available officially until like a week ago. The illegality of this is next to none.

Thank you its will be good to make a Mojave Patcher just in case so far 10.14.4 is now stable on my iMac 9,1

 

[Larsvonhier]

Thanks to @0403979 questions about RAM in a MB5,2 (and pointing me to actual differences between early/late 2009 models) I found a surprising fact:
The late´09 model can handle and really use 8GB of RAM instead of the "inofficially" claimed 6GB (MacTracker, lowendmac and others).
Now my question would be: Is that related to the 6400S type (800MHz) 4GB DIMMs I used for testing and only in combination with Mojave? I think I´ll contact LEM, but to be sure - can anyone reproduce this? (The 4GB modules are not too common and quite pricey so perhaps not a large user base can test it, even under macOS "supported" conditions).

Speed difference between 667 and 800MHz RAM in real world (Geekbench total score, #core independent) is around 5-8%, but the max. memory throughput bandwidth between a single module 667MHz and two 800MHz modules ranges from 25-30%.

[doublepost=1554066617][/doublepost]

Is this legal?

"Best Apps WebCrack" readme file in the archive speaks a clear language.
Moderator is informed to take post down.

 

[TimonJey]

can anyone upload Flurry screen saver to me? seems it was crashed after upgrade to 10.14.4.
thank you!!

I have the same problem

 

[Vyzantion]

For me, it is quite ok to have it without graphics acceleration. I already have it like that for some years. O realise that for most people this is a no no. Yet, if we will hit a wall, no way to go next, except if we gave up on graphics acceleration, it may still worth it for some. I am very grateful to dosdude1, but also for the rest of you, who help get Mojave on this old hardware. My Hackintosh could not ran Mojave as it ran High Sierra due to the ancient GPU that can not run Metal at all. But my hope is that, as long as OpenGL is still there, we will get it through. I am afraid that you shall give up at some point, realising that, although you will be able to run Mojave, it will run so restricted, that you will consider it not worth it. Perhaps it will still be worth it. I ran Mojave on a 2004 GPU and 2 gb ram, although there are some clear limitations (like iMovie not working, iTunes visualisation mostly not working), the OS still works pretty well. Audio editing software still work. YouTube is working pretty well. Some of you invested into you Macs a long time ago a lot of money, perhaps you can give it more chance, not give up to easily, even if things shall not be perfect. If we made so far and achieved so much, it makes sense to continue and find a way. A long as the kernel works on the CPU and motherboard, there is still hope and it is still worth it. Probably the hardware requirements of macOS 10.15 will be the same as for Mojave, even if the OS will probably ditch more of the past, perhaps OpenGL will be ditched for good. But I am confident we can make it even then.
macOS is an Unix OS, like Linux. Linux has a very hardware compatibility and flexibility. macOS and Linux are far more similar then most people think. I would really like to see macOS becoming more similar to Linux, more open to possibilities, more available. Keep it up, guys.
[doublepost=1554071053][/doublepost]Perhaps at some, instead of keep replacing with old components, you should fork them into open source variants.