Not all actually. All macs have different required kexts (apparently) and some kexts are actually only supported for PC such as NVME fix and BlueToolFixup. How has Sonoma been for you?
There is no need to guess. Use OCLP to "Build and Install Open Core" for various target models and look at the generated EFI (View Build Log without Installing to Disk). You will see that each target model typically does require different kexts. NVMeFix and BlueToolFixup are used in both hackintoshes and real Macs.Not all actually. All macs have different required kexts (apparently) and some kexts are actually only supported for PC such as NVME fix and BlueToolFixup. How has Sonoma been for you?
I wasn’t guessing. But that’s your opinion.There is no need to guess. Use OCLP to "Build and Install Open Core" for various target models and look at the generated EFI (View Build Log without Installing to Disk). You will see that each target model typically does require different kexts. NVMeFix and BlueToolFixup are used in both hackintoshes and real Macs.
Not true.All macs have different required kexts (apparently) and some kexts are actually only supported for PC such as NVME fix and BlueToolFixup.
they don't become hackintoshes cause the have a real SMC unlike the pcs running Mac OS unlicensedNot true.
NVMeFix is a set of patches for the Apple NVMe storage driver, IONVMeFamily. Its goal is to improve compatibility with non-Apple SSDs. It may be used both on Apple and non-Apple computers. Typically used when Apple's SSD is upgraded with non-apple SSD. On newer Intel Macs, Apple relaxed their strict requirement on NMVe SSD's so that NNMeFix was not required those Macs.
BlueToolFixup kext is required for all unsupported Macs with legacy BT hardware from start of Big Sur as Apple changed the bluetooth stack from kernel-space to user-space as detailed in here and here.
If you did not know, Intel based Apple Macs are based on the PC architecture as used by majority PC manufacturers and that architecture was developed with many Industry consortiums (PCIe, USB, etc).
Intel sent over 400+ engineers to Apple to help them design & move from PowerPC proprietary architecture to Intel based PC architecture.
So in essence, now unsupported Intel PC architecture based Macs have now become Hackintosh's.
It would be interesting to get a confirmation from Apple that running macOS on unsupported Mac is licensed.they don't become mackintoshes cause the have a real SMC unlike the pcs running Mac OS unlicensed
I thought that multi booting of different versions of macOS is not against the "rules"?If you really try, you might get as far as this guy:
BEANTWORTET: macOS on unsupported Macs - legal or not? OpenCore - Mac OS X
So… driving on the wrong side of the street legal or illegal?? This is a bit of a grey space as driving on the wrong side maybe needed if the road is damaged or a vehicle is stopped blocking the path. Clearly it does carry risks! So technically Apple doesn’t support older legacy hardware and...de.ifixit.com
But that only confirms what the license states:
"you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time"
I guess that's what I did!
I'm not a lawyer...I thought that multi booting of different versions of macOS is not against the "rules"?
the license states the device must be apple branded. which it is even though its a unsupported macIt would be interesting to get a confirmation from Apple that running macOS on unsupported Mac is licensed.
But... I guess we going off topic now.
The expected conclusion of this debate is Apple coming to their senses and realizing that in the onset of the Great Depression it is important for any company "to be with the people" as much as possible at least in terms of support of older Macs. In the end it is not too much of an effort not to remove one WiFi kext or a couple of older frameworks.So glad we're finally debating the legality of hackintoshes and multi-booting macOS, since it's never been debated before. How will the conclusion of this debate help us to install Sonoma on unsupported Macs?
It's been debated plenty of times, you just missed it the last two plus decades. Looking for sarcasm in case I missed it in your post.So glad we're finally debating the legality of hackintoshes and multi-booting macOS, since it's never been debated before. How will the conclusion of this debate help us to install Sonoma on unsupported Macs?
Found it? ;-)It's been debated plenty of times, you just missed it the last two plus decades. Looking for sarcasm in case I missed it in your post.