Why not just regress back to Mojave instead? None of the metallization of the standard macOS bundled applications has occurred there and you will be able to use the Safari 13 betas to access the browser improvements.
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 10.15 Catalina on Unsupported Macs
- Thread starter 0403979
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Why not just regress back to Mojave instead? None of the metallization of the standard macOS bundled applications has occurred there and you will be able to use the Safari 13 betas to access the browser improvements.
I have Catalina 19A487m presently. Can I download 19A501i on my Mac (1.39f11) ? Also, my legacy (mail.TWC.com) is halfway working. I can send but can't receive. It show the number count but shows no messages. It worked fine in Mojave but not in Catalina. Any suggestions or fixes would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Thanks
The best approach is to just download the full installer for the current seed using the tool that dosdude1 pointed to.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...unsupported-macs.2183772/page-2#post-27417505
Keep in mind though that if you have the APFS ROM patch applied, using 1.0b9 will force the usage of the APFS patch until that issue gets addressed.
I have found asr fails on Mojave when cloning Catalina disks.
And also ran into an issue on Catalina B3 kp’s right after cloning a Catalina disk. Trying to determine if it is related to a patch or if it’s a bug in the Catalina beta. Going to start with a clean install from a supported Mac. Only remove telemetry and try an asr restore on another clean Catalina disk and see what haopens.
Just go through with some RAM issues and thought I was out of the woods til I found asr behaving badly.
Asr works fine on my base system based boot volume that I created for CloneToolX, but doesn’t tell me anything about what’s going on in a full beta 3.
I often encountered issues in cloning "APFS dmg volumes" with HighSierra/Mojave DiskUtility's asr , failing just at almost completed process in "Inverting target volume", I guess this step is when asr tries to adjust and assign a new UUID to the cloned APFS volume. Probably disabling some image verification or checksum could overcome this.
I read once somewhere that apple (unofficially) don't support more the APFS cloning from diskutility but rather through "dd" , "ditto" or other.
Anyway I obtain less failure rate when I restore cloned APFS dmg volumes from an HighSierra/Mojave Recovery environment where the "Inverting target volume" succeeded and a new UUID was assigned to the cloned APFS Volume.
Probably because from Recovery there are no processes (as spotlight) that can lock the source/target volume and the RAM is better allocated for Recovery's DiskUtility.
Got also issues in cloning Bootcamp NTFS Volumes, while instead zero issues when cloning HFS+ volumes also from GUI Mode.
It isn't overly surprising that the new firm links and their associated data volume would confuse asr in Mojave.
https://www.macobserver.com/tips/quick-tip/reference-all-about-macos-catalina-system-files/
One really wouldn't expect even 10.14.6 to resolve that as the final details of the firm links might not be completely settled by its release.
Apple has added support for APFS in asr since high Sierra. there is a specific section devoted to APFS in the asr man pages.
Inverting should only fail if the disk is more than 50 perfect full. You have to leave room for the inversion.
dd is ok, but it clones UUIDs which is bad if you intend to keep both disks online on the same system. Boot from one and it will boot from whichever it finds first. dd also out of the box will create a volume at the exact size and when you try to expand the volume, it will not use the easy space. This similarly happens on NTFS under Windows. That draw back alone makes dd bad for restores if you intend to upgrade to a larger volume.
I am not having an issue with asr and APFS specifically.
The issue I am having on beta 3 with Dosdude1’s latest patches. When asr finishes, a kernel panic happens.
Run the same command on Cat 3 base system, no issues.
So I am trying to determine if it’s a patch on the full beta 3 OS or if it’s a beta 3 bug.
Ditto is not a good option either as we are dealing with multiple volumes, not to mention 3 other volumes on the APFS container. So ditto which is file based for full disk cloning is not a great solution. either. Ditto works great on a single volume as does rsync.
Again dd does too much and asr does a better job adjusting to difference size volumes. dd is a flat out sector copy and under its basic usage writes zeros to the entire disk.
Each system has its draw backs, and I may include dd as a backup later. Since asr runs fine on a base system, I won’t be switching horses. But I will be investigating what’s up with b3 on a patched system and will compare it with a supported Mac as well.
Furthermore, I may just make the tool available on a boot disk to make it simple and right now it has almost no limitations.
Inverting should only fail if the disk is more than 50 perfect full. You have to leave room for the inversion.
dd is ok, but it clones UUIDs which is bad if you intend to keep both disks online on the same system. Boot from one and it will boot from whichever it finds first. dd also out of the box will create a volume at the exact size and when you try to expand the volume, it will not use the easy space. This similarly happens on NTFS under Windows. That draw back alone makes dd bad for restores if you intend to upgrade to a larger volume.
I am not having an issue with asr and APFS specifically.
The issue I am having on beta 3 with Dosdude1’s latest patches. When asr finishes, a kernel panic happens.
Run the same command on Cat 3 base system, no issues.
So I am trying to determine if it’s a patch on the full beta 3 OS or if it’s a beta 3 bug.
Ditto is not a good option either as we are dealing with multiple volumes, not to mention 3 other volumes on the APFS container. So ditto which is file based for full disk cloning is not a great solution. either. Ditto works great on a single volume as does rsync.
Again dd does too much and asr does a better job adjusting to difference size volumes. dd is a flat out sector copy and under its basic usage writes zeros to the entire disk.
Each system has its draw backs, and I may include dd as a backup later. Since asr runs fine on a base system, I won’t be switching horses. But I will be investigating what’s up with b3 on a patched system and will compare it with a supported Mac as well.
Furthermore, I may just make the tool available on a boot disk to make it simple and right now it has almost no limitations.
Last edited:
I like Mojave but I don’t like using Dark Mode all the time. I tried using the Hybrid patches but I couldn’t get them to work.
Realistically, Catalina is going to be a bit of a rough ride for anyone who isn't on a Metal compatible graphics card.
Maybe I left less then 50% of empty space during APFS cloning/restoring for a target ContainerToInvert, but as I wrote doing that from Recovery's DiskUtility has worked much better in my case.
That is what I used to put Catalina on. His patch & made a flash drive for Catalina.
*Same MacBook Pro, same issue occurring for me on latest build* The workaround for now is to minimize the window using the - sign on the window menu & then launching it from the dock. Seems to "activate" the mouse hover to expand the window for some reason.
Have you found anything else on your end as a fix or insight to this?
Just released another update to Catalina Patcher. This version now includes an option to prevent automatic installation of the software APFS booter, and fixes an issue where the kextcache may not get rebuilt when post-install patches are applied automatically.
This is probably off topic, but having a 2011 MacBook Pro with a Sandy Bridge cpu, it seems that the cpu is either running super hot or the fans are at max, is there any kext or code I can modify to undervolt the cpu ? I ask cause @dosdude1 and others on this thread seem to know what they are doing.
I know there's an app for the core2 duo models and Haswell and up, but sandy bridge for some reason is skipped over.
I have already tried disabling turbo boost, but temps are still bad, under volting is what's required.
If you can help me figure out a way to control it, I would be happy to test it out for other 2011 - 2013 users.
As long as you have a ssd or raid setup there wold be minimal performance decrease, 10-20C temperature decrease and significant battery improvements.
Any advice/ thoughts is appreciated.
I know there's an app for the core2 duo models and Haswell and up, but sandy bridge for some reason is skipped over.
I have already tried disabling turbo boost, but temps are still bad, under volting is what's required.
If you can help me figure out a way to control it, I would be happy to test it out for other 2011 - 2013 users.
As long as you have a ssd or raid setup there wold be minimal performance decrease, 10-20C temperature decrease and significant battery improvements.
Any advice/ thoughts is appreciated.
Last edited:
Thanks for the suggestion but yes ,I have, I've played around with it a TON. Even with running fans at max speed, temps are always above 60 when doing ANYTHING and hot on the balls/ lap.
I've got a profile I am happy with, where the fans turn on slightly when using chrome, go to max in short bursts or is usually quiet in safari but the temps are still pretty high for the light use I use my Mac for.
Under voting it will be the fix cause I don't GIVE 2 ****S about single core performance.
THE CLOUD is my CPU and my Mac is just a client for light tasks. I REALLY appreciate the way Apple has embraced this in its new MacBooks where it uses low power and low performance cpus's in favor for power efficiency and favor high disk speed.
As a mobile device I think they have their priorities straight.
If the Macbook is your primary computing device, buy windows please lol (Mac is **** for cpu / price) . I have my own server and rely on could services.
For all I care the Mac can have a low powered arm cpu and I would be the first customer.
Where's that A12X Mac ????
have a look at the cpu avtivities. Had the same problem with the process secd. maybe secd takes very high cpu usage. in this case disable icloud drive, disable icloud. there should be a problem with cloud keychain.
Hi, thank you very much for your work.
When I select the disk, the installer stucks about in the middle of the progress bar with "3 minutes
remaining", both with b9 and with b10. If you need the log I'll send it to you.
Have a nice day and thanks again!
have a look at the cpu avtivities. Had the same problem with the process secd. maybe secd takes very high cpu usage. in this case disable icloud drive, disable icloud. there should be a problem with cloud keychain.
Well I'm going to pitch in my experience:
I made the installer on a external USB 750gb hard drive,
A have a Mac mini from 2009, 2.26ghz with 8gb of ram and with a 120 SSD, it is not APFS ROM patched,
First the installation froze because I formatted the hard drive in HFS thinking during the installation it would automatically convert to APFS, but apparently it doesn't do that on it's own.
So after I waited a while and figured out it froze, I restarted the installation from scratch, only this time I formatted the hard drive immediately to APFS,
So it eventually went thru, once it install booted again from drive, it patched everything needed to be patched, had to choose dark mode, because light mode is just weird, the patcher updater prompted me to install the broadcom update, because 2 years ago I updated my wifi and bluetooth card, but after it restarted I still don't have wifi, so there is a glitch here
I noticed compared to previous versions of macOS, this one does take a lot more time to install, don't know if it's because of being in beta or not,
So my thoughts are: The system is usable no doubt and I congratulate everybody's efforts on this, but it isn't the most smooth experience in the world mostly due to the graphics I believe, it takes a while to load up windows and system animations, etc.
I think High Sierra is for this system in particular the most smooth, It's not Mavericks smooth but hey, that's never ever going to get that good, as for me personally Mavericks was the best performance wise ( not booting up, but system performance was awesome, talking about more recent stuff, because Snow Leopard was also a beast ).
Anyway, hope along the way macOS Catalina gets a little more snappier on this older machines! This is still without question a huge achievement !!!
I made the installer on a external USB 750gb hard drive,
A have a Mac mini from 2009, 2.26ghz with 8gb of ram and with a 120 SSD, it is not APFS ROM patched,
First the installation froze because I formatted the hard drive in HFS thinking during the installation it would automatically convert to APFS, but apparently it doesn't do that on it's own.
So after I waited a while and figured out it froze, I restarted the installation from scratch, only this time I formatted the hard drive immediately to APFS,
So it eventually went thru, once it install booted again from drive, it patched everything needed to be patched, had to choose dark mode, because light mode is just weird, the patcher updater prompted me to install the broadcom update, because 2 years ago I updated my wifi and bluetooth card, but after it restarted I still don't have wifi, so there is a glitch here
I noticed compared to previous versions of macOS, this one does take a lot more time to install, don't know if it's because of being in beta or not,
So my thoughts are: The system is usable no doubt and I congratulate everybody's efforts on this, but it isn't the most smooth experience in the world mostly due to the graphics I believe, it takes a while to load up windows and system animations, etc.
I think High Sierra is for this system in particular the most smooth, It's not Mavericks smooth but hey, that's never ever going to get that good, as for me personally Mavericks was the best performance wise ( not booting up, but system performance was awesome, talking about more recent stuff, because Snow Leopard was also a beast ).
Anyway, hope along the way macOS Catalina gets a little more snappier on this older machines! This is still without question a huge achievement !!!
