macOS 12 Monterey on Unsupported Macs Thread

[jgleigh]

It probably wasn't intentional, but it was also wasn't checked to still work on Monterey since all the development was focused on Ventura. New OCLP releases 'usually' work fine, but people were running into situations on Monterey where AMFI was disabled due to Ventura patching and it broke their setups. I'm using 0.6.4 on my MacPro without any issues, but I also don't need any root patches. The documentation doesn't specify that Big Sur or Monterey (and soon Ventura) should use older versions, even though the developers on here keep recommending that.

I also spend a lot less time on my old system now that I have a Mac Studio.

 

[makra]

That was my point as well. The interface and options (including updates process) have greatly improved, but support for “older” OS’s like Monterey almost dropped in favor of Ventura, and soon to be Sonoma, without clear feedback. Since OCLP can detect and patch for the specific Mac model hardware, why does it allow / promote the creation of a bootable USB installer of a version of MacOS it no longer fully supports and ends up failing to boot?

AMFI has to be disabled to get 13.3-> running. Therefore it is a good idea not to install 0.6.1-> as long as you're only using Big Sur or Monterey (security and compatibility).
OCLP allows you install Monterey because many have installed it alongside Ventura - to test it, to continue developing or whatever.

Personally I'm very grateful for what they are doing and I feel that with this kind of software, that faces major changes all the time because it needs to react to OS changes, it's my duty to stay informed.

 

[TimmuJapan]

That was my point as well. The interface and options (including updates process) have greatly improved, but support for “older” OS’s like Monterey almost dropped in favor of Ventura, and soon to be Sonoma, without clear feedback. Since OCLP can detect and patch for the specific Mac model hardware, why does it allow / promote the creation of a bootable USB installer of a version of MacOS it no longer fully supports and ends up failing to boot?

I keep writing this thing about “giving each other a break” …. lol

But Now, I think you gotta give the developers a little bit of a break here. OCLP is a fluid and constantly changing VOLUNTEER project. The developers do this for free, and they cannot predict what Apple will do next and how that will affect future releases. I understand your point, but everyone should really come to this message board with the start-line “I’m getting a free service to keep my old Mac alive, and the people who are doing this for me don’t receive a salary for doing it.” That’s the start-line.

Let’s just be aspirational and say “we hope that the point regarding 0.4.11 being the last official release for Monterey continues to become more clear in the documentation, user interface, etc……”

And / or….

“Wouldn’t it be nice if OCLP could evolve to allow the latest version of OCLP to generate appropriate EFIs for both an older target OS and a target machine…..”

or……..
perhaps the latest version of OCLP could detect that the user is making a USB for an older OS and flash a message “please use an older version of OCLP for this OS.”

That would be awesome if we had any of that, sure. I think that since we are receiving a pretty awesome free service from a group of volunteers, all we should do is politely make aspirational requests.

Offering solutions is also more helpful than focusing on problems. 😜

Food for thought.

 

[SemoTech]

I keep writing this thing about “giving each other a break” …. lol

But Now, I think you gotta give the developers a little bit of a break here. OCLP is a fluid and constantly changing VOLUNTEER project. The developers do this for free, and they cannot predict what Apple will do next and how that will affect future releases. I understand your point, but everyone should really come to this message board with the start-line “I’m getting a free service to keep my old Mac alive, and the people who are doing this for me don’t receive a salary for doing it.” That’s the start-line.

Let’s just be aspirational and say “we hope that the point regarding 0.4.11 being the last official release for Monterey continues to become more clear in the documentation, user interface, etc……”

And / or….

“Wouldn’t it be nice if OCLP could evolve to allow the latest version of OCLP to generate appropriate EFIs for both an older target OS and a target machine…..”

or……..
perhaps the latest version of OCLP could detect that the user is making a USB for an older OS and flash a message “please use an older version of OCLP for this OS.”

That would be awesome if we had any of that, sure. I think that since we are receiving a pretty awesome free service from a group of volunteers, all we should do is politely make aspirational requests.

Offering solutions is also more helpful than focusing on problems. 😜

Food for thought.

Far be it for me to disagree and I am not complaining either, I was just making a point.

Just like countless others I am VERY grateful for all the thankless work the OCLP team has done, and for being able to use 10+ year old macs with latest OS' long after Apple has abandoned us.

Given all the new updates in the interface and constant fresh functionality improvements of OCLP, it seemed strange that it allowed the creation of a broken USB installer for Monterey, that's all!

That was the only reason for my post and hopefully this also helps others and saves them countless hours of troubleshooting.

 

[hwojtek]

OK, let’s keep this on topic, we now have TWO threads about „OCLP is not OC” that have become a Hyde Park of thoughts about software development, „bad Apple” obviousness and personal musings. Let’s be done with that and back to regular programming.

 

[SemoTech]

OK, let’s keep this on topic, we now have TWO threads about „OCLP is not OC” that have become a Hyde Park of thoughts about software development, „bad Apple” obviousness and personal musings. Let’s be done with that and back to regular programming.

How is programing choices and incompatibilities without notice not on topic for OCLP??? What thread are you referring to?

 

[deeveedee]

But there's no harm in using newer versions of OCLP, right? I have a Mac Pro 5,1 and iMac 11,1 that seem to being doing fine with OCLP 0.6.7. I like the GUI improvements the OCLP team has made over the past few releases.

based on what I've read in this forum, it appears that your experience will depend on your SMBIOS model (and your dGPU). For me with MBP6,2 (NVidia Tesla), I am booting Big Sur 11.7.7, Monterey 12.6.6, Ventura 13.2.1 and Ventura 13.4 with the same Open Core 0.9.2 EFI generated with OCLP 0.6.7 Beta2 (the AMFIPass branch) that enables AMFI/Library Validation and injects AMFIPass.kext. Post-install patches on all versions of macOS are applied with OCLP 0.6.7 Beta2 (the AMFIPass branch). All versions of macOS boot and run fine for me.

 

[Levina]

The thread I started yesterday in the Mac Pro forum was deleted and my problem moved to this thread (see above). I have installed Monterey with OpenCore Legacy Patcher on my Mac 4,1>5,1. It works well but there are some issues and I have questions as to the best course of action for a problem. But apparently I am not allowed to ask in the regular OpenCore thread or even the hardware forum? There is mention here of a specific OCLP thread but I've not found it. Maybe a link?

I am really confused. I need help, not with Monterey, but with OpenCore and have no idea where to turn now. I thought that although manually installing OC or doing it using the Legacy Patcher both lead to the same thing and as such can cause similar problems after installing. Apparently not... Am I at least allowed to open a new thread in the Mac Pro forum for my OpenCore related problems? Or will that thread be deleted too?

 

[deeveedee]

Today I installed Open Core on my Mac Pro 4,1>5,1 using the OCLP. Installed Monterey. All went well and it works really really well and I couldn't be happier. For some reason Monterey performs much better than Mojave (which is why I went back to High Sierra a while ago). However, I was away for an hour and came back and couldn't wake the Mac from sleep. In the end I just pulled the plug and rebooted.

Anything I can do to fix this? Aside from changing the obvious settings in System Preferences to never let the Mac go to sleep, which is not a good option. It's nice if the Mac can go to sleep when not in use.

There are multiple reasons why your Mac wouldn't wake from sleep, some of which depend on how you tried to wake and some of which depend on your dGPU. If you provide info about your dGPU and the version of OCLP that you used, others here (especially those with MP5,1) may be able to help you.

Also, did you try to wake with keyboard/mouse only, or did you also try to wake by briefly pressing the power button?

 

[jgleigh]

Anything I can do to fix this? Aside from changing the obvious settings in System Preferences to never let the Mac go to sleep, which is not a good option. It's nice if the Mac can go to sleep when not in use.

General troubleshooting | OpenCore Legacy Patcher

 

[Levina]

There are multiple reasons why your Mac wouldn't wake from sleep, some of which depend on how you tried to wake and some of which depend on your dGPU. If you provide info about your dGPU and the version of OCLP that you used, others here (especially those with MP5,1) may be able to help you.

Also, did you try to wake with keyboard/mouse only, or did you also try to wake by briefly pressing the power button?

I tried keyboard/mouse, then pressed the power button for a moment. Didn't wake the Mac.

However, I was also running into other problems where the Mac would boot just fine in Monterey, but not in any of my other Mac OS's, not any of the spinning drives, not the NVMe blade. I was in a world of trouble, no matter what I did, I got a black screen with a prohibited sign. Or a grey screen with a prohibited sign. For a while I had no access to the Mac at all as it also suddenly wouldn't boot into Monterey any more.

I opened up the Mac, removed all my drives but one empty, clean SSD. I was also thinking that maybe some of the problems were caused by the fact that I have a Sapphire RX 580 8GB that isn't flashed so I don't have an Apple boot picker. So I decided to swap it out for the old GT120. Then I managed to boot into the one SSD, uninstalled OpenCore.

So then I started over, installed OCLP again, but now with the GT120 and this time following the step by step guide by Mr. Macintosh on YT. So Monterey works (and wakes from sleep!). But again, the Mac did not boot into my main drive, which is an NVMe blade in a PCIe card slot running High Sierra. It does boot from a spinning drive with High Sierra. But I need my main drive. So, I thought, as OpenCore is installed on a thumbdrive and not actually on the SSD with Monterey, I could try disconnecting and removing that thumbdrive. And sure enough that worked. I don't know if this is a smart move, but it was the only thing I could think of and at least I now managed to boot into my main drive, although it took quite a bit of time for it to boot. I need Monterey only for one specific task, but my main drive will be the NVMe drive with High Sierra because it is very stable and does everything I need it to do, except for the one thing I need Monterey for.

I have not yet tried connecting the thumbdrive with OpenCore but I am assuming I can then boot into Monterey again.

I also want to take out the GT120 and put back in the RX 580, but I'm a bit afraid to do so as I will lose the native bootpicker.

Long story. Sorry. I am new to OpenCore and it can be rather daunting. Thank you for replying. Appreciate that. Although I bet you got more back than you bargained for!

 

[deeveedee]

@Levina Looks like you made progress and it looks like you have multiple variables that you are trying to address simultaneously (graphics cards, different HDs/SSDs and versions of macOS). I don't have an MP5,1, so I'm not familiar with the NVMe / PCIe card. If you populated this NVMe blade with your own choice of NVMe SSDs, then this could cause issues for you too. Newer macOS versions are picky about NVMe controllers. What mfg/model NVMe SSDs are installed on your NVMe blade?

 

[Levina]

@Levina Looks like you made progress and it looks like you have multiple variables that you are trying to address simultaneously (graphics cards, different HDs/SSDs and versions of macOS). I don't have an MP5,1, so I'm not familiar with the NVMe / PCIe card. If you populated this NVMe blade with your own choice of NVMe SSDs, then this could cause issues for you too. Newer macOS versions are picky about NVMe controllers. What mfg/model NVMe SSDs are installed on your NVMe blade?

I have a Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB that is on MR's list of NVMe's that work with my Mac Pro. I paired it with the Aqua kryo M.2 adapter. Three times faster read/write speeds than my Sata SSD. And it's been great so far.

But maybe OpenCore would prefer another?

 

[deeveedee]

This guide has Samsung 970 EVO Plus on the "SSDs to Avoid" and suggests that 970 EVO Plus is supported in macOS with a firmware update. I'm not sure if Samsung Magician is available for macOS, so you may need to update firmware in Windows. Sometimes SSD firmware updates can lose data, so be sure to have a backup if you need one before updating SSD firmware.

EDIT: It's not that Open Core "prefers" another SSD. Newer versions of macOS have different SSD requirements that affect the way TRIM and other operations work.

EDIT2: @Levina There is an option in OCLP that you can try before you take your Mac apart to update NVMe SSD firmware. Look for "APFS Trim" option in your version of OCLP and disable this before you "Build and Install OpenCore". This is not a long term solution, but if you find that your NVMe SSDs work after disabling this option, you may benefit from a Samsung firmware update or you may need to try different NVMe SSDs.

Uncheck this option before Building and Installing Open Core

Spoiler

Also, make sure this option is checked before Building and Installing Open Core

Spoiler

EDIT: @Levina As you are determining whether your Samsung blade is causing problems for you, test with 3rd Party NVMe PM enabled AND disabled. When this option is enabled in OCLP, OCLP includes NVMeFix.kext in your EFI. NVMeFix.kext may cause problems for some NVMe SSDs.

 

[Levina]

Hmmm, never saw that particular guide, although I did know that the 970 EVO+ runs a little hotter. Fans are more active since I had it installed, but temps are okay, I monitor that with Mac Fans Control app. The Samsung's firmware is 4B2QEXM7, so that's okay.

But I wouldn't mind purchasing a WD blade. Never used anything other than WD before getting the Samsung, spinning drives, internal and external SSD's. Which NVMe SSD's have proved to perform well in the Mac Pro with OpenCore, do you know? Could you recommend one?

Thank you so much for your help! 🙏

 

[deeveedee]

@Levina I added notes to my previous post. Try the OCLP settings changes first to see if they help. These OCLP options (disable APFS Trim, Enable 3rd-party NVMe) will help to understand whether the Samsung NVMe SSDs are part of the problem.

I prefer Western Digital SN750 Black and SN850 Black.

 

[Levina]

@Levina I added notes to my previous post. Try the OCLP settings changes first to see if they help. These OCLP options (disable APFS Trim, Enable 3rd-party NVMe) will help to understand whether the Samsung NVMe SSDs are part of the problem.

I prefer Western Digital SN750 Black and SN850 Black.

I read the notes. I will try that tomorrow and report back. Thank you!

 

[reppresident]

Excuse me, little question here. Im on mac pro 5.1 (metal gpu / wifi + bt upgraded) with oclp 0.4.11 and big sur 11.7.7. When i want to upgrade to monterey, i should just dowload from apple directly (OTA) or do i need to make an bootable flashdrive with oclp and clean install?

Thnx in advance

 

[jgleigh]

I read the notes. I will try that tomorrow and report back. Thank you!

This will also help if you want to use the RX 580. I use it with a RX 5700 XT.

General troubleshooting | OpenCore Legacy Patcher

 

[Levina]

@Levina I added notes to my previous post. Try the OCLP settings changes first to see if they help. These OCLP options (disable APFS Trim, Enable 3rd-party NVMe) will help to understand whether the Samsung NVMe SSDs are part of the problem.

I prefer Western Digital SN750 Black and SN850 Black.

As far as I can see everything is set right. And it now seems to work okay. I booted into my NVMe drive with High Sierra and it was quick and flawless. Then turned off the Mac and booted again (so not a reboot) with the OC bootpicker (on the thumbdrive) into the SATA-SSD with Monterey and it too booted quickly without any hiccups.

However, one thing that has puzzled me all along is that in the OC bootpicker, all disk icons look like High Sierra. Monterey should be different. Also, the SATA-SSD with Monterey is now split up in Update and Data. It still boots, but I don't think it should do that. So I did some reading and it turns out that High Sierra apparently messes things up in that it corrupts Big Sur and Monterey preboot entries. It's an Apple bug that Apple is obviously not going to correct. Someone on Github said that it can't be fixed, which I find hard to believe as there are plenty of people using OC Monterey with older OS's in their cMP and cheerfully switching between them.

If I understand correctly, with Martin Lo's OC method you can boot to any older OS you'd like. Since I have no idea how to fix this in OCLP, I have decided to remove OCLP and re-install OC manually using Martin Lo's method; it's pretty straightforward and easy. I will do that sometime next week as we are going to have the first really warm weather of the year this weekend (we've had a really cold and very wet spring here) and I want to enjoy that. ☀️🍦🏊‍♀️ 😁

I might still replace the Samsung with a WD NVMe though. It's pretty crowded in there and cooler is better.

 

[deeveedee]

Excuse me, little question here. Im on mac pro 5.1 (metal gpu / wifi + bt upgraded) with oclp 0.4.11 and big sur 11.7.7. When i want to upgrade to monterey, i should just dowload from apple directly (OTA) or do i need to make an bootable flashdrive with oclp and clean install?

Thnx in advance

I think this is a good starting point. If you have room for a new Volume, you may want to test an upgrade in a "sandbox" rather than risk your production volume.

 

[reppresident]

I think this is a good starting point. If you have room for a new Volume, you may want to test an upgrade in a "sandbox" rather than risk your production volume.

thanks. i already have oclp 0.4.11 as i said before and big sur 11.7.7 running stable, the point was upgrade over big sur to monterey, as i never try this path before, i think i should ask for opinions, but thank you for your attention to reply anyway

 

[makra]

thanks. i already have oclp 0.4.11 as i said before and big sur 11.7.7 running stable, the point was upgrade over big sur to monterey, as i never try this path before, i think i should ask for opinions, but thank you for your attention to reply anyway

Most important part: Create a bootable installer. OTA might work, but why take the risk.

 

[deeveedee]

thanks. i already have oclp 0.4.11 as i said before and big sur 11.7.7 running stable, the point was upgrade over big sur to monterey, as i never try this path before, i think i should ask for opinions, but thank you for your attention to reply anyway

Sorry for my trite reply - I definitely was not trying to dismiss your questions as trivial. My preference with OCLP patched volumes (with OCLP still being Beta software) is to create a new volume, perform a clean install of macOS and migrate data / apps from my current production macOS volume. My production volume is backed-up with TimeMachine and remains untouched until I am certain that my new volume is suitable for production use.

EDIT: I use this same multi-volume strategy on my MacMini8,1 which is my software build production rig and has no OCLP patches. Whenever I test a new version of macOS, I create a new volume that becomes my sandbox for testing while I continue to use my production volume for daily use.

EDIT2: Keep in mind that your OCLP-patched volume must boot from the associated OCLP-generated EFI. You should develop a habit of creating a new EFI with each new version of OCLP that you use.. I "build and install opencore" to a bootable USB drive that I boot from when testing in my "sandbox." I boot my production volume with the EFI on my SSD. The multi-volume strategy requires some macOS knowledge to manage multiple EFIs. Note that I disable TimeMachine in my "sandbox" so that I'm not clobbering my TimeMachine with sandbox backups.

 

[reppresident]

Sorry for my trite reply - I definitely was not trying to dismiss your questions as trivial. My preference with OCLP patched volumes (with OCLP still being Beta software) is to create a new volume, perform a clean install of macOS and migrate data / apps from my current production macOS volume. My production volume is backed-up with TimeMachine and remains untouched until I am certain that my new volume is suitable for production use.

EDIT: I use this same multi-volume strategy on my MacMini8,1 which is my software build production rig and has no OCLP patches. Whenever I test a new version of macOS, I create a new volume that becomes my sandbox for testing while I continue to use my production volume for daily use.

EDIT2: Keep in mind that your OCLP-patched volume must boot from the associated OCLP-generated EFI. You should develop a habit of creating a new EFI with each new version of OCLP that you use.. I "build and install opencore" to a bootable USB drive that I boot from when testing in my "sandbox." I boot my production volume with the EFI on my SSD. The multi-volume strategy requires some macOS knowledge to manage multiple EFIs. If you are using TimeMachine, recognize that migrating apps / data will also migrate your TimeMachine preferences. I disable TimeMachine in my "sandbox" so that I'm not clobbering my TimeMachine with sandbox backups.

thank you for so detailed option path. its safe to say that you developed a trouble free update mode. thank you for your attention to reply. for real