macOS 14 Sonoma on Unsupported Macs Thread

[megaksa]

Posting here just in case someone had the same issue as me. I've updated OCLP from 0.6.8 to 1.0.1 and installed newer OpenCore EFI. This broke the EFI and my MBP 15 2015 couldn't boot anymore. The system didn't recognize EFI as a valid one. I had to copy EFI from USB drive (generated by the same OCLP 1.0.1) into internal SSD's EFI.
More details here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenCoreLegacyPatcher/comments/16zxtor/_/k3k2m0y
Wasn't able to file an issue on official github, so posting here as the branch is seemingly relevant.

 

[deeveedee]

Did I read a post that OCLP now only supports macOS installations using a macOS installer created with OCLP (and not a macOS installer downloaded directly from Apple)?

EDIT: Yes - just found this: "New installations only via OCLP generated USB installer!"

 

[coasterOneEightThree]

I'm officially on Sonoma - with a 15-year-old machine, which is insane! 😱😀👍

 

[Potsdamer]

Posting here just in case someone had the same issue as me. I've updated OCLP from 0.6.8 to 1.0.1 and installed newer OpenCore EFI. This broke the EFI and my MBP 15 2015 couldn't boot anymore. The system didn't recognize EFI as a valid one. I had to copy EFI from USB drive (generated by the same OCLP 1.0.1) into internal SSD's EFI.
More details here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenCoreLegacyPatcher/comments/16zxtor/_/k3k2m0y
Wasn't able to file an issue on official github, so posting here as the branch is seemingly relevant.

I tried to boot from the EFI on USB installer, It is the same going to black screen.

 

[deeveedee]

For the computer security experts out there (who, by default, are all software developers or at least Unix system administrators), if you want to fork your own version of OCLP that does not install modern Wi-Fi post-install patches, this is one way that you can do it:

• Download OCLP source
• Modify OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/resources/sys_patch/sys_patch_detect.py: change 'self.modern_wifi = True' to 'self.modern_wifi = False'
• Build OCLP binary
• Patch with the customized OCLP

The logic change would be similar for legacy Wi-Fi (search sys_patch_detect.py for legacy_wifi)

EDIT: As long as OCLP does not offer an option to disable Wi-Fi post-install patches via the OCLP GUI, you will need to edit sys_patch_detect.py each time you download a new version of OCLP Source.

 

[MacinMan]

For the computer security experts out there (who, by default, are all software developers or at least Unix system administrators), if you want to fork your own version of OCLP that does not install modern Wi-Fi post-install patches, this is one way that you can do it:

• Download OCLP source
• Modify OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/resources/sys_patch/sys_patch_detect.py: change 'self.modern_wifi = True' to 'self.modern_wifi = False'
• Build OCLP binary
• Patch with the customized OCLP

The logic change would be similar for legacy Wi-Fi (search sys_patch_detect.py for legacy_wifi)

If WiFi Patching is a concern, wouldn't another reasonable solution be to just buy an external WiFi adapter that might have newer standards than the built in one (depending on the Mac) and also come with drivers?, or at least have the option to download up to date drivers?

 

[deeveedee]

If WiFi Patching is a concern, wouldn't another reasonable solution be to just buy an external WiFi adapter that might have newer standards than the built in one (depending on the Mac) and also come with drivers?, or at least have the option to download up to date drivers?

Not trying to be a smart@$$, but I really would prefer this to be a lesson. See if you can figure out why that recommendation doesn't work.

 

[philippemarques]

Personally, I’d rather prefer to have SIP enabled as much as (im)possible; also many Linux distros are slowly becoming of the “immutable” kind, that is similarly to macOS’s SSV, with the core OS not modifiable: so, the future seems to be more and better security, not only for macOS but also for other OSes.

And it's not a good idea. Are sure to be the owner of your machine ? Or in name of security, the OS and the vendors will do what they want ? As Apple now without OCLP ? In name of security, we loose some individual liberty space. Take care.

 

[MacinMan]

Not trying to be a smart@$$, but I really would prefer this to be a lesson. See if you can figure out why that recommendation doesn't work.

I really can't find a reason in this context. You're the one who was asked to drop this conversation by numerous people because you were concerned about the security risks of the patcher. All I suggested was an alternative was to buy new hardware compatible with macOS that might provide updated drivers that don't require patching.

 

[mikelets456]

Did I read a post that OCLP now only supports macOS installations using a macOS installer created with OCLP (and not a macOS installer downloaded directly from Apple)?

EDIT: Yes - just found this: "New installations only via OCLP generated USB installer!"

I have a 2015 11,4 MBP and I updated from 0.6.8 to 1.0.0 then clicked "update software" from the settings screen and installed with no problems. I went from 13.4.1 to 14.0 through OCLP and settings...no USB. Later I updated to 1.0.1
I also did it this way on my 5,5---it was a little more detailed, but once again, it updated.

 

[the engineer man]

Hi, I don't often post, but I wish to express my personal viewpoint on the "Security" issues that have been discussed here recently.

I am in no way a computer expert, but I am exceedingly grateful to the developers of OCLP for the unpaid time and effort they have put into their hobby, which in turn lets me run the most up to date MacOS on my old Mac.

I understand there are risks, but I feel I can manage them to a level that is acceptable to me.

I, personally, would never criticise, or ask for OCLP to be "altered" in any way (apart from reporting bugs). They are not operating a commercial company or selling OCLP. I am happy to use OCLP as is, or not as the case may be, but it is not my place to ask for changes that they do not feel is necessary.

I have said enough, and will now go back to "lurking"

 

[MacinMan]

I have a 2015 11,4 MBP and I updated from 0.6.8 to 1.0.0 then clicked "update software" from the settings screen and installed with no problems. I went from 13.4.1 to 14.0 through OCLP and settings...no USB. Later I updated to 1.0.1
I also did it this way on my 5,5

I did my two Macs one of each way. I went from 13.6 on the MBP to 14.0 via the macos installer run directly in Ventura with OCLP already installed. On the iMac, I made the USB installer to see if there was any difference. I really didn't see any difference in the end results between the two methods of upgrade.

 

[MacinMan]

Hi, I don't often post, but I wish to express my personal viewpoint on the "Security" issues that have been discussed here recently.

I am in no way a computer expert, but I am exceedingly grateful to the developers of OCLP for the unpaid time and effort they have put into their hobby, which in turn lets me run the most up to date MacOS on my old Mac.

I understand there are risks, but I feel I can manage them to a level that is acceptable to me.

I, personally, would never criticise, or ask for OCLP to be "altered" in any way (apart from reporting bugs). They are not operating a commercial company or selling OCLP. I am happy to use OCLP as is, or not as the case may be, but it is not my place to ask for changes that they do not feel is necessary.

I have said enough, and will now go back to "lurking"

I agree with you, I feel as well, that if there were genuine concerns that really put the casual user into risk here, then the developers would have taken different measures in their development. I personally haven't run into anything yet I've seen concerning, especially for a single home user, which the majority of people who do this probably are.

 

[K two]

OCLPv1.0.1 boots macOS14.1b2 as expected on this Mini7,1.
🥳

 

[BeatCrazy]

I've read the 1.0.0 FAQ several times over and I think I'm in the clear to update to Sonoma, but would someone 'check my math'?

I'm currently using OCLP 0.6.8 running Monterey 12.6.9 on the following:

• iMac 11,1 Late 2009 27" with updated Kepler GPU and Bluetooth module
• Mac Pro 5,1 2012 with AMD RX-5700XT and updated Bluetooth module

I don't even mind doing a full wipe/re-install if that will improve chances for stability. Do you recommend I update these two above to Sonoma?

 

[deeveedee]

I have a 2015 11,4 MBP and I updated from 0.6.8 to 1.0.0 then clicked "update software" from the settings screen and installed with no problems. I went from 13.4.1 to 14.0 through OCLP and settings...no USB. Later I updated to 1.0.1
I also did it this way on my 5,5---it was a little more detailed, but once again, it updated.

Thank you for this information. I believe that the requirement to use OCLP-generated USB installer is only for new macOS installations and not upgrades (e.g. OCLP-generated USB installer is required to install a new instance of Sonoma in a new APFS Volume, but not to upgrade Sonoma 14.0 -> 14.1).

 

[macOS XP]

Did I read a post that OCLP now only supports macOS installations using a macOS installer created with OCLP (and not a macOS installer downloaded directly from Apple)?

EDIT: Yes - just found this: "New installations only via OCLP generated USB installer!"

Yes, they want you to do that, which I can totally understand. That way the possibility of user errors while creating the installer are reduced, so there are less people reaching out for support and blaming OCLP for their own error. At least that’s what I imagine being the reason.

However, "New installations only via OCLP generated USB installer!" just means they want you to use OCLP to create the install USB, but you can still use an existing installer, directly downloaded from Apple.

And if you don’t even want to do that, that’s fine. I made my Sonoma installer with the classic createinstallmedia command, which works perfectly fine in OCLP if you format it correctly beforehand (Otherwise it just won’t show up in OCLP, that’s when people try to get support for their errors….). So they probably just don’t want these unnecessary support requests, that are the result of human error. Also generating the USB by Open Core is the easiest and most user friendly way, but I prefer to do it myself as well, which is no problem at all.

I really can't find a reason in this context. You're the one who was asked to drop this conversation by numerous people because you were concerned about the security risks of the patcher. All I suggested was an alternative was to buy new hardware compatible with macOS that might provide updated drivers that don't require patching.

I think the problem @deeveedee is referring to, is that you will still have to install the WiFi root patch, as you would most likely want you’re graphics drivers to work, and you can’t install them without the WiFi patch. I don’t think it’s a huge deal, I just wanted to explain what deeveedee probably means.

 

[MrGimper]

Would appreciate any heads-up regarding success or failure of running Sonoma on a 2014 Retina iMac. I have Ventura running successfully and had to use tccplus to grant permissions to apps such as mic and camera to Teams.

Thanks.

 

[cmedina90]

Exactly @PoloHofer! As you say: "In Ventura it (= Continuity Camera) didn't work first and later the developers fixed it."
But I think that the solution also came with an Apple update of Ventura (13.3 or 4), rather than just a new version of OCLP. We'll see if it will be like this this time too. Let's hope so…

Thanks Okonnel for your info. I have got an iMac14,2 27" late 2013 but ...
Do you use Parallels Desktop?
If you use Parallels desktop, Can you tell me if Parallels Desktop runs without problems?
I don't want to upgrade without Knowing that...

Thanks

 

[deeveedee]

Yes, they want you to do that, which I can totally understand. That way the possibility of user errors while creating the installer are reduced, so there are less people reaching out for support and blaming OCLP for their own error. At least that’s what I imagine being the reason.

Thank you for clarifying! And you are correct about Wi-Fi patching. If I understand OCLP correctly, when OCLP builds a USB installer, it injects the root-patch into the installer (so that root patches may not be required after the installation). Is that correct?

Also, there were two people who posted interest in a version of OCLP that did not apply Wi-Fi patches (and both of these people wanted the customized version for reasons OTHER than computer security). That is why I posted the custom OCLP solution.

 

[macOS XP]

Would appreciate any heads-up regarding success or failure of running Sonoma on a 2014 Retina iMac. I have Ventura running successfully and had to use tccplus to grant permissions to apps such as mic and camera to Teams.

Thanks.

I think if Ventura is running well, go for it. Sonoma really isn’t slower or less stable than Ventura, but if you have the possibility I would recommend that you first try installing it on an external SSD or a separate Volume to see if there are any problems occurring on your system.

Thank you for clarifying! And you are correct about Wi-Fi patching. If I understand OCLP correctly, when OCLP builds a USB installer, it injects the root-patch into the installer (so that root patches may not be required after the installation). Is that correct?

I don’t think so, at first the installer is just a generic one after the creation, the magic happens for the first time when building Open Core itself, because that’s also the first time you need to specify your model, if you are creating it on a different Mac. But please don’t take my word for it, as I have always created the installer manually.

 

[Sven G]

And it's not a good idea. Are sure to be the owner of your machine ? Or in name of security, the OS and the vendors will do what they want ? As Apple now without OCLP ? In name of security, we loose some individual liberty space. Take care.

And that’s of course true, too: we cannot really trust corporations or states that have too much concentrated power and whose main goal is profit (instead, power should be distributed among the citizens themselves, and money should only be a means and available to all, at least ideally). But anyway, I think that trying to be as secure as possible is a good idea: and there’s probably still some space for improvements for this, in OCLP…

 

[deeveedee]

I think if Ventura is running well, go for it. Sonoma really isn’t slower or less stable than Ventura, but if you have the possibility I would recommend that you first try installing it on an external SSD or a separate Volume to see if there are any problems occurring on your system.

I don’t think so, at first the installer is just a generic one after the creation, the magic happens for the first time when building Open Core itself, because that’s also the first time you need to specify your model, if you are creating it on a different Mac. But please don’t take my word for it, as I have always created the installer manually.

Excellent observation. I have not used the new 1.x installer yet which is why I was asking. OCLP does have auto-detect functionality, such that it can "Build and Install Open Core" without the user needing to specify their model (OCLP detects the model). I was thinking that maybe OCLP would create a USB installer after first detecting the model on which OCLP was running. I think your logic makes more sense. When I use OCLP 1.x, I'll use it to build a new macOS installer and then see if post-install patches are required after the macOS installation. Thank you.

 

[macOS XP]

Also, there were two people who posted interest in a version of OCLP that did not apply Wi-Fi patches (and both of these people wanted the customized version for reasons OTHER than computer security). That is why I posted the custom OCLP solution.

If you really think this extra layer of security is very important for many people, you could fork it and publish your own, modified version on GitHub, just as (I think) Ausdauersportler recommended. That would probably mean a lot for those people. Also then there would be an improved OCLP (for the people who are concerned about that).

 

[MrScratchHook]

After switching to Sci, press a few numbers and C (to clear) before switching back to Basic.

EDIT: You may need to attempt a simple calculation in Sci mode and then C before returning to Bas.

unsuccessful sir. sci mode, math equation plus clear isnt working, but thank you, ill just download another calculator.