Yes, it is.Hi,
@dosdude1
Is the GM (10.15.0 GM, build 19A582a, installer 15.0.32) working with the latest version of Catalina Patcher ?
Thanks,
Serviteur
Yes, it is.Hi,
@dosdude1
Is the GM (10.15.0 GM, build 19A582a, installer 15.0.32) working with the latest version of Catalina Patcher ?
Thanks,
Serviteur
Try building the drive again, and using a different USB drive if possible.
[automerge]1570224926[/automerge]
I tried a different USB drive and created it on my MacBook Air with the latest supported Mojave installed. When I booted the USB drive on my MacPro 3,1 it starts to boot but then gives me the same screen as before with a circle with a line through it.
Any other ideas?
@dosdude1 I am using an unpatched version of Catalina on a Mac Pro 5,1. SIP is normally enabled.
The Recovery boot on the Catalina disk does not work.
- Is there a way to patch it?
- How about installing the CatalinaInstaller partition as Recovery? I do not mind the extra space. It would be convenient.
If you have the APFS ROM Patcher installed, you will see an "EFI Boot" partition for every APFS volume you have. This is just a side effect of the unofficial APFS support added to your BootROM. If you delete BOOTX64.efi from the ESP, that will get rid of one of them.Hey everyone,
Something has gone whack with the installations. I seem to have 3 EFI Boots now. View attachment 866900
One of them is my patched install Catalina partition, which I’m not worried about. However, the EFI Boot on the very left brings me straight into my Mojave partition (downgraded from Catalina after chrome wouldn’t work, couldn’t take care of work without chrome). The second EFI Boot partition brings me into what seems as the APFS patch, running the black and yellow code before booting into my Mojave partition.
My Boot ROM has been patched to natively boot APFS, so the patch is not necessary and thus the EFI Boot is not needed.
When I mount the EFI disk from terminal, there are three files in it:
apfs.efi
APPLE > EXTENSIONS > Firmware.scap
BOOT > BOOTX64.efi and startup.nsh
Which files do I delete to get rid of these EFI Boot options at startup? Thanks!
I’ve not used any patches from the usb installerI recall see that issue awhile back when I accidentally applied the legacy video patches onto a machine with a Metal-compatible GTX680 graphics card.
If you have the APFS ROM Patcher installed, you will see an "EFI Boot" partition for every APFS volume you have. This is just a side effect of the unofficial APFS support added to your BootROM. If you delete BOOTX64.efi from the ESP, that will get rid of one of them.
Yes, but you can also use the Install to This Machine option of Catalina Patcher, which will be fully automated and does not require using the boot menu at all.My metal supported GFX card EVGA GT 740 is a PC based card and non Mac EFI supported one so I don’t see the apple logo during boot up or if I want verbose mode during the startup procedure. Is the only way to choose the startup disk is from within MacOS system preferences, startup?
There was no such problem with Mojave.
I've seen this issue both on a format-and-clean install and an install-over-Mojave setup.
Not sure if it affects other languages.
The problem seems to be with so-called Romaji input which is where Japanese hiragana and katakana characters are input from a Roman alphabet keyboard. If the direct input is set then hiragana/katakana is OK. If Romaji input is set, then the Japanese character input fails and は appears as ha.
View attachment 866984View attachment 866983
There is also a new setting (Apps) in the Language and Region Sys Pref tab that I wonder might be related to the issue.
I have had 0 problems with my MacBook Pro 2009, so I don't see why you would have any serious issues. That being said, I'm no expertHi guys, anyone who has installed on macbook pro 2010 had any very serious problem can report?
I can read to page 100 of this forum ...
For what it's worth, Chrome should be working again (it only broke due to an "improved" OpenGL patch that I suggested, which has now been reverted).Hey everyone,
Something has gone whack with the installations. I seem to have 3 EFI Boots now. View attachment 866900
One of them is my patched install Catalina partition, which I’m not worried about. However, the EFI Boot on the very left brings me straight into my Mojave partition (downgraded from Catalina after chrome wouldn’t work, couldn’t take care of work without chrome). The second EFI Boot partition brings me into what seems as the APFS patch, running the black and yellow code before booting into my Mojave partition.
My Boot ROM has been patched to natively boot APFS, so the patch is not necessary and thus the EFI Boot is not needed.
When I mount the EFI disk from terminal, there are three files in it:
apfs.efi
APPLE > EXTENSIONS > Firmware.scap
BOOT > BOOTX64.efi and startup.nsh
Which files do I delete to get rid of these EFI Boot options at startup? Thanks!
@pkouame, @testheit and @jackluke have created some patched versions of system frameworks which completely re-enable transparency in light mode on non-Metal systems. I believe @0403979 has an automated installer for these patches too.I just realized, this affects dark mode too. A little downgrade on dark mode, but a huge improvement on the light mode in my opinion. I'm also curious if you could do something with the 'Color Filters' setting to get rid of this effect without reducing transparency. This at least proves that the transparency causes the incorrect grayness though.
Original Dark Mode:
View attachment 867033
Reduced Transparency Dark Mode:
View attachment 867036
Original (bugged) Light Mode:
View attachment 867037
Reduced Transparency Light Mode:
View attachment 867038
In both reduced transparency modes, the real downside to this solution is the dock. It makes it much worse. I usually have mine disappear automatically though, so this is a very viable solution.
Weird. Your screenshots look like they're from a Mac with a Metal-supported GPU, right? Were they taken on the machine with the issue?There was no such problem with Mojave.
I've seen this issue both on a format-and-clean install and an install-over-Mojave setup.
Not sure if it affects other languages.
The problem seems to be with so-called Romaji input which is where Japanese hiragana and katakana characters are input from a Roman alphabet keyboard. If the direct input is set then hiragana/katakana is OK. If Romaji input is set, then the Japanese character input fails and は appears as ha.
View attachment 866984View attachment 866983
There is also a new setting (Apps) in the Language and Region Sys Pref tab that I wonder might be related to the issue.
[automerge]1570337009[/automerge]I just realized, this affects dark mode too. A little downgrade on dark mode, but a huge improvement on the light mode in my opinion. I'm also curious if you could do something with the 'Color Filters' setting to get rid of this effect without reducing transparency. This at least proves that the transparency causes the incorrect grayness though.
Original Dark Mode:
View attachment 867033
Reduced Transparency Dark Mode:
View attachment 867036
Original (bugged) Light Mode:
View attachment 867037
Reduced Transparency Light Mode:
View attachment 867038
In both reduced transparency modes, the real downside to this solution is the dock. It makes it much worse. I usually have mine disappear automatically though, so this is a very viable solution.
Thanks! This will fix my only complaint about running Catalina[automerge]1570337009[/automerge]
https://github.com/rmc-team/bluesky/releases/tag/1.4.3 if you follow the instructions here you don't have to reduce transparency
For what it's worth, Chrome should be working again (it only broke due to an "improved" OpenGL patch that I suggested, which has now been reverted).
[automerge]1570333772[/automerge]
@pkouame, @testheit and @jackluke have created some patched versions of system frameworks which completely re-enable transparency in light mode on non-Metal systems. I believe @0403979 has an automated installer for these patches too.
[automerge]1570333876[/automerge]
Weird. Your screenshots look like they're from a Mac with a Metal-supported GPU, right? Were they taken on the machine with the issue?
Just trying to figure out if the legacy video patch has anything to do with this.