Interesting….. It’s awesome if it works both ways…..K Two has been quadruple booting unsupported macOSes on separate partitions for like 500 years now, so I would still put my money on separate partitions being a more stable solution for multi-booting macOSes versus separate volumes, especially when mixing supported and unsupported OSes with opencore…… is there anything official from the dortania site about this? I poked around, I didn’t see anything about this specifically.
Well, you'd better!
Much better, separate drives. My experience with partitions is so sad.
Until it just disappeared, dude, and then you reinstalled high sierra in its place and got the ? symbol on the third boot….
Github says:
Please read the reason provided in the release notes once again. If you feel or experience problems with the current spoofing method move on an check if she spoofless method solves your current problem. If not stick with the current method! You can always use the current minimal spoofing with newer versions of OCLP. It is an option to solve some problems in some configurations, not a must.
That’s why I’m asking the question now. As I mentioned in my first post about this, I tried 0.4.2 with minimal spoofing that I’m using on 0.3.1, and the system consistently hung during boot.
This may also potentially cause Big Sur for not being able to boot up as someone has mentioned before that HS will somehow corrupt other macOS if installed on the same partition (or even same disk ?).
This installation was just an experiment on behalf of this discussion - I've already deleted the volume again. I understand now, where NVRAM comes in.
The developers here have done a fantastic job for making effort documenting the use of OCLP, which is far better than some of the other tech docs I've seen and involved in the past when I was a programmer (20 years ago though ?).
No, Catalina didn't just disappear. I made it, because I installed Big Sur from scratch and moved my stuff there. Therefore I couldn't test just like that. And therefore I installed High Sierra to test it with a supported OS.
MBP5,2 also on 12.2.1 now. Works fine.
Hello,
Firmware updates can only be done by the OS updater. My MBP9,1 (also 2012) is stuck at 421.... like yours. I've tried to trigger that with a partition, where I installed and updated Catalina as the last supported OS. But I've learned that some machines need the original HDD to be updated. When I replaced it with a SSD, I reused the original HDD for backup purposes. So I have given up the firmware update. 421.... hasn't caused any problems.
If you still have the hard disk, it is so easy to place it back on a 2012 MBP.
I wasn't taking a jab at their English competency, I was pointing out that a lot of the documentation is aimed at developers and not regular users, which I think is a fair statement.
The notes are fine, but I can see how someone without good computer knowledge may have trouble understanding.
I recently did just this on the same spec machine as yours, as SilentKnight was telling me my firmware was out-of-date: no problems whatsoever, they exist happily side-by-side, and I can easily boot into whichever I choose.Well, now it's my turn to ask a question
And just to confirm, Catalina is installed on a separate *volume* ("iCatFD"), not *partition*.
I may have a similar sentiment but the logic is not precise though
It's more like an exception than a norm. I'd says it's still a good practice to install different macOS on seperate partition. High Sierra probably needs to be installed on a different disk.
