I'm running High Sierra on my early 2009 iMac (9,1) without any issues whatsoever. I've even experienced a minor performance boost.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
macOS High Sierra (10.13) Unsupported Macs Thread
- Thread starter foxlet
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
EDIT: Before I go and get my macbook, aside from the wifi issues in macbooks, is this confirmed still working, my other macbook didn't work with any of the tools/utilities so I want assurance that this will work...
Last edited:
Okay, small update: looks like there's a very minor issue, but I figure I'd mention it anyway. When I adjust the display in any way, or wake the system from sleep mode, the brightness resets to the lowest setting. There doesn't seem to be any option to disable automatic brightness, it just seems like it's forgetting my setting after it either goes to sleep, or if I adjust any kind of display settings. It's not a major issue by any stretch, but I did want to mention it.
I think its common on most unsupported mac's you could download brightness slider its free in the App Store and it will be on your menu bar after installation
[doublepost=1535160628][/doublepost]
What model is your MacBook I have a mid 2009 white MacBook 5,2 and its running the latest Mojave beta
I'm looking into a 2009 mid white macbook, however my previous macbook was a 2008? model I dunno it's a 2,1 and it failed to install any version using the methods for 10.8-10.11 so I plan to just give that old model to a family member and buy a 2009 model if I can't solve the case with it
Ah, okay. I figured. I mean, that seems to be the only issue and it's nothing worth writing home about, in my opinion. I've just been using the brightness button on my keyboard to tap a few times and get it back to where I like it. Still, I'll check out that brightness slider app. Thank you!
My mid 2010 's wifi doesn't work. It says no hardware installed.
From Dusdude1.com:
"Known issues:
- Unsupported WiFi modules in some systems. Macs that use the Broadcom BCM4321 WiFi module will not have functional WiFi when running High Sierra. A fix for this is to open up your machine and install a compatible WiFi card. Machines affected include some MacPro3,1, MacBook5,2, MacBookPro4,1, iMac8,1, Macmini3,1, and MacBookAir2,1 systems. Please note that not all these machines will have an unsupported card, this is just a list of machines known to have shipped with that card in some configurations.
-- You can find out whether or not you have an unsupported card by opening System Profiler (About this Mac>System Report...), and clicking on WiFi under the Network section. Take note of the value listed for "Card Type".
IDs that DO NOT work under High Sierra:
- (0x14E4, 0x8C)
- (0x14E4, 0x9D)
- (0x14E4, 0x87)
- (0x14E4, 0x88)
- (0x14E4, 0x8B)
- (0x14E4, 0x89)
- (0x14E4, 0x90)
Any ID not listed, such as (0x14E4, 0x8D), is a supported card, and will work perfectly fine under High Sierra."
My advise: use a external usb wifi adapter.
Going back to my old post, I'm asking if the hacked installer still works, I was going to use the postmacfactor and other tools to upgrade my 2007 macbook but the tools seem dysfunctional/unsupported by my system because I haven't hacked my way to a higher version (the irony), So I'm asking if the methods for installing high sierra work still to ensure I don't go out and buy a new model only to be disappointed again....
Does anybody know if the XFX RX580 GTS Black Edition will work on High Sierra or Mojave
With a MP31, no.
AMD GPUs stopped working with Sierra in Mac Pro 2008s. All AMD GPUs newer than HD 6xxx need SSE4.2 to work with High Sierra and Mojave.
Has anyone cloned a 10.13 High Sierra patched install from one drive to another? My MacBook5,1 feels really slow, and I suspect it's the SSD. It's a circa 2011 SSD that was slow even for its time.
My MacBook5,5 isn't fast (with a 13% faster CPU), but feels noticeably faster with a much faster SSD.
---
Too late. I just did a complete reinstall on the 2.0 GHz MacBook5,1, after replacing the Kingston V+100 (from 2010) to an Intel 330 (from 2012). The latter isn't fast by today's standards, but is much faster than the Kingston drive.
The 2.0 GHz MacBook5,1 still isn't fast, but is nonetheless noticeably more responsive with the Intel 330 than previously. I guess this makes sense:
Kingston V+100 128 GB random 4K read / write speed: 19.7 / 4.9 MB/s
Intel 330 120 GB random 4K read / write speed: 50.6 / 151.3 MB/s
BTW, my 2.26 GHz MacBook5,5 feels even faster.
Samsung 840 EVO 120 GB random 4K read / write speed: 91.7 / 147.8 MB/s
So, even if it's just for your really old and unsupported MacBook or MacBook Pro, it still pays to get an SSD with reasonable performance, not just any old SSD you have lying around.
---
However, while both my Samsung 840 EVO and my Intel 330 are supposedly SATA II, the 840 EVO shows up as having a 3.0 Gbps speed, whereas my Intel 330 shows up as having a 1.5 Gbps speed. I wonder why. The link speed listed for both is 3.0 Gbps, which is a theoretical max of 150 MB/s, so ultimately my 1.5 Gbps negotiated speed is probably not holding the Intel 330 back that much, but it'd still be nice to know why it isn't negotiating at SATA II's 3.0 Gbps.
My MacBook5,5 isn't fast (with a 13% faster CPU), but feels noticeably faster with a much faster SSD.
---
Too late. I just did a complete reinstall on the 2.0 GHz MacBook5,1, after replacing the Kingston V+100 (from 2010) to an Intel 330 (from 2012). The latter isn't fast by today's standards, but is much faster than the Kingston drive.
The 2.0 GHz MacBook5,1 still isn't fast, but is nonetheless noticeably more responsive with the Intel 330 than previously. I guess this makes sense:
Kingston V+100 128 GB random 4K read / write speed: 19.7 / 4.9 MB/s
Intel 330 120 GB random 4K read / write speed: 50.6 / 151.3 MB/s
BTW, my 2.26 GHz MacBook5,5 feels even faster.
Samsung 840 EVO 120 GB random 4K read / write speed: 91.7 / 147.8 MB/s
So, even if it's just for your really old and unsupported MacBook or MacBook Pro, it still pays to get an SSD with reasonable performance, not just any old SSD you have lying around.
---
However, while both my Samsung 840 EVO and my Intel 330 are supposedly SATA II, the 840 EVO shows up as having a 3.0 Gbps speed, whereas my Intel 330 shows up as having a 1.5 Gbps speed. I wonder why. The link speed listed for both is 3.0 Gbps, which is a theoretical max of 150 MB/s, so ultimately my 1.5 Gbps negotiated speed is probably not holding the Intel 330 back that much, but it'd still be nice to know why it isn't negotiating at SATA II's 3.0 Gbps.
Last edited:
Do we have a clear understanding of why the Software Updates fail to cleanly install under patched High Sierra? My understanding of these incomplete software update installations was that the problematic component was the recovery partition. If that is true, shouldn't this be solvable on machines with the APFS ROM patch applied by switching the recovery partition back to APFS from the current HFS? My concern is that we are going to have issues with the coming security updates if they share this problem.
well referring to the providing information here: http://dosdude1.com/highsierra/ only 2008 and later models are listed as supported. More importantly, does you model fall in the list of "Machines that ARE NOT supported"?
Again, just wanted to point out that a Radeon 7 series card will work in HS on a 3,1 Mac Pro. I'm using the drivers included in DosDude's patch with a flashed 7950. It works fine except for wake from sleep.
Everyone has a definition for what works fine or not. If you don't bother with:
- have to disable sleep
- reddish hue
- default wallpaper becomes red
I don't have any color issues and sleep stopped working properly back in El Capitan. On the other hand, the way you worded your original statement makes it seem as if modern Radeon cards just won't work at all with HS and 3,1 Mac Pros, which is simply not the case. I'm just trying to save people from having to buy a new video card if they don't have to.
And just to clarify an issue with sleep; it's not hardware but rather Apple's shoddy driver integration. My 3,1 will sleep and wake just fine in Windows 10 via Boot camp running the latest AMD drivers.
I'll be happy to post screen shots of my system profile this weekend if you don't believe me.
Apple moved AMD drivers for anything newer than Northern Islands (HD 7xxx and beyond) to SSE4.2. They never intended to support Mac Pro 3,1 beyond El Capitan, so it's not a problem of, like you said, shoddy driver integration. It's just using the resources provided by the supported processors.
To use a HD7xxx with MP3,1 and 10.13, you have to use Sierra patched drivers. The loss of sleep/hibernation is the victim of this. If you tolerate the problems of the hacked Sierra drivers with AMD GPUs newer than HD6xxx, fine by me.
Nvidia didn't yet updated her drivers to use SSE4.2 instruction set, so you still have full support for Nvidia GPUs using High Sierra/Mojave with a MP3,1. If we want to use High Sierra with a 2008 Mac Pro and want full GPU support, working sleep and a almost clean install, you have to use Nvidia GPUs, period. But even that has a expiration date.
Btw, Mojave don't even load Sierra drivers and you can't use HD7xxx and newer cards with 10.14 on a 2008 Mac Pro.
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying. But, what I'm also trying to convey is that these issues in my opinion, can be traced directly back to Apple's driver policies. Current AMD graphics drivers for Windows work just fine with this hardware configuration for instance; something I've mention twice already which you've chosen to overlook.
Having to jump through hoops just to install High Sierra on older but yet very capable hardware looks a lot like planned obsolescence to me. It's a shame really because it leaves many Mac owners with little option other than to purchase new computers in order to run the latest and greatest from Cupertino.
I'm glad people like dosdude1 are out there that find innovative solutions to supposed hardware limitations.
Bottom line is that if Apple wanted to, they could have developed an OS and tweaked drivers that supported legacy machines (up to a limit of course), but they chose not to. They are after all in the business of making money first and foremost so I don't blame them.
P. S. SSE4. 2 is backwards compatible with SSE4.1. your argument of Apple simply using the current processors' resources as the reason why they can't support older hardware doesn't make a whole lot of sense from an architecture perspective. It only makes sense from a fiscal one.
I'm considering replacing my internal HD in my unsupported MacBookPro5,1 (late 2008) but I'm having a hard time researching the issues involved and the best procedure for doing so. It would be really nice if someone could write a wiki on this - I'm obviously not the only one considering doing the swap and I daresay others have the same questions as me.
In short, what I want to do is clone my current HD, running 10.13.6 (HFS+, with a recovery partition), to a SSD (formatted as APFS), and use that SSD as my (bootable) internal drive.
Things I'm particularly unsure of:
1. How to clone the drive - given that it'll be going from HFS+ to APFS. I know some SSDs come with a SATA to USB cable.
2. What happens to the Recovery partition. Will it survive the clone and be bootable.
3. The BootROM issue. This is my main machine, so I'd be really afraid of bricking it. Happy to have the "verbose" booting process (at least initially).
It would be really handy if someone could write a set of instructions for doing what I want to do, explaining options (and consequences) along the way.
In short, what I want to do is clone my current HD, running 10.13.6 (HFS+, with a recovery partition), to a SSD (formatted as APFS), and use that SSD as my (bootable) internal drive.
Things I'm particularly unsure of:
1. How to clone the drive - given that it'll be going from HFS+ to APFS. I know some SSDs come with a SATA to USB cable.
2. What happens to the Recovery partition. Will it survive the clone and be bootable.
3. The BootROM issue. This is my main machine, so I'd be really afraid of bricking it. Happy to have the "verbose" booting process (at least initially).
It would be really handy if someone could write a set of instructions for doing what I want to do, explaining options (and consequences) along the way.
Cloning the drive is simple. I used an external USB to SATA connector and Carbon Copy Cloner. The recovery partition can be cloned as well depending on the options selected in CCC.
As for physically installing the new drive; it should just be matter of removing the laptop's bottom panel. The old drive will be secured by screws. Remove the old drive, swap the mounting bracket over to the SSD and reinstall. Should take you less than 10 minutes. I wouldn't go to APFS just yet. Wait until dosdude's bootrom patch is finished. I'm using a 1TB SSD in my Mac Pro 3,1 and HFS+ just fine.
Thanks. Physically replacing the drive was the least of my worries - done lots of that before.
Interested why you discourage moving to APFS. I thought that was recommended on SSDs? If I install as HFS+ and then later want to convert to APFS (within Disk Utility), won't that function wipe the drive?
Also, I thought @dosdude1's BootROM stuff was finished. As I understood, you can either patch the ROM (with the risk of bricking your machine), in which case an APFS partition can boot natively, or install the APFSRom patch which bodges the boot process and you get a load of scrolling output, but otherwise is the same as booting natively. Have I misunderstood?
I didn't know Collin's APFS BootROM patch was already released. I was waiting for that release - hence my suggestion to wait.
I also stayed with HFS+ because I'm running Windows via BootCamp and I was under the impression that there was issues booting into Windows from an APFS drive. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You've illustrated my point perfectly. Regardless of which one of us is correct about @dosdude1's BootROM patch, and with your uncertainty over booting Windows from an APFS drive, there's enough confusion to warrant a clear list of instructions and implications. Now, getting someone to document it is another matter!
Would you happen to have a link to dosdude's APFS BootROM patch? The last I heard, it was still a few weeks out from release. I also haven't seen it on his website. I suppose if there was a way to revert the patch however, one could always clone a spare drive and give it a shot.