Confirmed microcode version 31 is builded inside macOS Mojave. I keep the firmware at stock 0087.B00 (no microcode at all). Then make a clean installation of the latest Mojave public beta, and I got microcode version 31 straight away.
What firmware version (0085 I’m guessing) is included in the installer, for those machines that haven’t fw upgraded yet?
Also, have you noticed any type of performance degradation?
Also, isn’t this a microcode that loads every time the OS starts, and wouldn’t that mean that if you are booting other OS’s, you are running without the microcode when booted to them (Linux & Windows)?
What firmware version (0085 I’m guessing) is included in the installer, for those machines that haven’t fw upgraded yet?
Also, have you noticed any type of performance degradation?
Also, isn’t this a microcode that loads every time the OS starts, and wouldn’t that mean that if you are booting other OS’s, you are running without the microcode when booted to them (Linux & Windows)?
It’s annoying that they push 0087 earlier, then pull back to 0085. This leaves those of us who have the suspect 0087 fw, to our own methods of stabilizing fw versions. I suppose it’s not a insurmountable problem, but it is annoying for those of us who are OCD about uniformity.
Hopefully the endgame is a polished version of the 0087 that will bring some kind of enhancement for everyone.
Time will tell I guess.
If I wanted (because I’ve been having various booting issues since 0087) to re-flash with the 0085 fw, how exactly would I be able to do that?
1) Mojave DP3 has 0085 version to update any previous BootROM.
View attachment 769058
2) Didn't notice, but I'm not using betas to work. Betas are problematic to benchmark, so much logging and not yet optimized code. Maybe someone did some benchmarking and can answer this question with numbers.
3) Yes, the BootROM firmware initializes the CPU, the OS can update it later - macOS and Linux do the microcode update. Windows seems the problem, various people reported that Windows didn't boot after 0087 was installed, so we may have a problem here.
The problem is not the stock 0087.B00, but the modded version.
If update to the stock 0087.B00 (no microcode), Windows can boot without issue. However, after inject the microcode, existing Windows will shows "unsupported processor", but can still make a new clean Windows installation.
It’s annoying that they push 0087 earlier, then pull back to 0085. This leaves those of us who have the suspect 0087 fw, to our own methods of stabilizing fw versions. I suppose it’s not a insurmountable problem, but it is annoying for those of us who are OCD about uniformity.
Hopefully the endgame is a polished version of the 0087 that will bring some kind of enhancement for everyone.
Time will tell I guess.
If I wanted (because I’ve been having various booting issues since 0087) to re-flash with the 0085 fw, how exactly would I be able to do that?
The problem is not the stock 0087.B00, but the modded version.
If update to the stock 0087.B00 (no microcode), Windows can boot without issue. However, after inject the microcode, existing Windows will shows "unsupported processor", but can still make a new clean Windows installation.
With my install, after I injected the microcode into 0087, I couldn’t even boot off a fresh windows install DVD. It was a complete no-go.
I've actually been having booting problems with the stock 0087 code. Windows, Linux, thumb drives w/macOS Install, DVD installers (Win/Linux), Live-CD's with Linux, and on and on....
I had trouble with CloneZilla and older Linux rescue CDs, until I downgraded back to 0085.
Same here, CloneZilla, Ubuntu, GPartEd...
I've also lost my boot chime. I can do a PRAM reset and get it back, but it only last ONE boot, then it's gone again.
I think that may have something to do with my ACHI/PCIe Apple Blade SSD. I'm going to test this tomorrow.
Same here, CloneZilla, Ubuntu, GPartEd...
I've also lost my boot chime. I can do a PRAM reset and get it back, but it only last ONE boot, then it's gone again.
I think that may have something to do with my ACHI/PCIe Apple Blade SSD. I'm going to test this tomorrow.
That boot chime is suppressed by High Sierra. It seems if once you boot to High Sierra, that boot chime will gone until next PRAM reset.
sudo nvram -d SystemAudioVolume
That boot chime is suppressed by High Sierra. It seems if once you boot to High Sierra, that boot chime will gone until next PRAM reset.
I have no issue with boot chime.
Lou
I lost mine in the 10.13.4 update. I've done 50-60 PRAM/SMC resets. Fixes it every time... FOR ONE BOOT ONLY.
Issuing the terminal command does the same here. IDK what the fudge is going on. I just know that when I don't hear the chime, it worries me that something is amiss. If HS isn't suppressing it, then IDK what to think.
Dare I say... too much time on yer handsWhen 10.13.6 is released, I will blow-away my startup drive partition (including EFI/Recovery) to bare metal as it were. I'll format from scratch, install the new 10.13.6 and test for sound and startup chime. Assuming all works well, I'll add apps one at a time and do 2 reboots after each until I find the critter causing the problem.
Dare I say... too much time on yer hands
I didn't say it would be a quick or instant process. That's why I have several other boot drives.
Besides, if you knew my situation and why I have time, you probably wouldn't say that.
Anyway, Issue Resolved now.
Anyway, Issue Resolved now.