Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Never knew that!

This required a bit of fiddling for me to restore Snow Leopard to my 2010 MBA because it needs 10.6.4 from the thumb drive - which wasn't supplied with the machine and the retail DVD provides 10.6.3. I ended up modifying a 10.6.7 installer and later discovered that the MBA thumb drive had been imaged and shared online. :D

The MacBook Air was after all not intended to be your only machine, but a lightweight companion to your main Mac.

In the case of my 2010 MBA, that's been its perfect purpose.

My 2011 MBA on the other hand has been pushed way beyond what Jobs and Apple's engineers would've ever envisaged...
 
This required a bit of fiddling for me to restore Snow Leopard to my 2010 MBA because it needs 10.6.4 from the thumb drive - which wasn't supplied with the machine and the retail DVD provides 10.6.3. I ended up modifying a 10.6.7 installer and later discovered that the MBA thumb drive had been imaged and shared online. :D



In the case of my 2010 MBA, that's been its perfect purpose.

My 2011 MBA on the other hand has been pushed way beyond what Jobs and Apple's engineers would've ever envisaged...
The Air definitely became more of a general purpose machine after the 2010 redesign, and with the Core chips in 2011 and beyond pretty snappy too. My wife still has a maxed out 2013 11” Air (i7 with 8 GB of memory) as her main personal machine. It’s running Sonoma thanks to OCLP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
The Air definitely became more of a general purpose machine after the 2010 redesign, and with the Core chips in 2011 and beyond pretty snappy too. My wife still has a maxed out 2013 11” Air (i7 with 8 GB of memory) as her main personal machine. It’s running Sonoma thanks to OCLP.

As I've lamented at length in the past, it's a great pity that the RAM cannot be easily expanded on these machines. For me, that's the only fly in the ointment.
 
Tell me you good folks, is there a good reason why older versions of, say, garageband, won't run on, say, Sonoma?
yes, Apple does not want to.
If you are a developer you have to use Apple's tools and those are providing by design a limited compatibility with only a few OS versions.
Where would we go, if you could use an old software on a current macOS without re-paying for an new version?
Apple's shareholder would be very angry.
 
Tell me you good folks, is there a good reason why older versions of, say, garageband, won't run on, say, Sonoma?
They might be 32 bit versions and Catalina marked the end of compatibility with 32 bit macOS software.

Or, they might have dependency on System components that are not present in newer OSes or named differently or are located somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
How much older are we talking about? They might be 32 bit versions and Catalina marked the end of compatibility with 32 bit macOS software.

yes, Apple does not want to.
If you are a developer you have to use Apple's tools and those are providing by design a limited compatibility with only a few OS versions.
Where would we go, if you could use an old software on a current macOS without re-paying for an new version?
Apple's shareholder would be very angry.

Or, they might have dependency on System components that are not present in newer OSes or named differently or are located somewhere else.

I was trying to run the last version compatible with High Sierra. So maybe some or all of those things. Particularly tge shareholders bit...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer
I was trying to run the last version compatible with High Sierra.

I'd wager that's the source of your difficulties. It's very likely a 32 bit version and unfortunately it won't run on the more recent incarnations of macOS.

However, you might find this post of interest.

DosDude patched Catalina works very well and switching 32-bit support on in Catalina just reqiuires adding a "no32exec=0" boot argument btw. You can add the boot argument to the boot.plist file so that it is always present even after NVRAM resets.

Emphasis mine...

Yes, in many cases ... especially on the commandline.

What Apple did was to disable 32-bit support in the kernel first without deleting the capability. They then started removing kernel support and deleting libraries later. That flag switches support back on but I suppose you may need, in some cases, to copy a library file back in from Mojave.

It's something that I've been meaning to try on Catalina but I haven't gotten round to it yet.
 
I'd wager that's the source of your difficulties. It's very likely a 32 bit version and unfortunately it won't run on the more recent incarnations of macOS.

However, you might find this post of interest.



Emphasis mine...



It's something that I've been meaning to try on Catalina but I haven't gotten round to it yet.
Apple usually takes a similar approach to drivers. Often times drivers for Macs are kept around for one OS version more than is officially supported.
 
That's helpful for patching unsupported machines to run newer OS versions. :D

All of this conversation around getting Catalina to play nice with 32-bit applications is promising, but I might hold off until I have a spare Mac to use as a test bed for that and to test all the key 32-bit software I still have and use. On Apple’s software, that includes running iTunes 10.6.3. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer
That's helpful for patching unsupported machines to run newer OS versions. :D
It even means that patching isn’t always required. I got Big Sur working on my unsupported 2012 Mac mini just by disabling the compatibility check. Everything worked as normal sans WiFi, which wasn’t a problem for my hardwired mini.
 
It even means that patching isn’t always required. I got Big Sur working on my unsupported 2012 Mac mini just by disabling the compatibility check. Everything worked as normal sans WiFi, which wasn’t a problem for my hardwired mini.

This is very interesting. How did you disable the compatibility check?
 
sudo nvram boot-args="-no_compat_check"

weebay-thewire.gif


Ah, I was expecting some sort of modification to the installer! :)

Would you enter that command from a compatible macOS version, reboot and then install the unsupported one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
I’ve an M3 24 as my main Mac. A few weeks ago I was given a mid 2007 osx Mac, running El Capitan. Today, after a few days of research, I was able to clone and boot from an SSD, via the USB2 port. It runs a little faster, but I suspect when installed internally it might perk up a bit. I know it’s a wooly mammoth (not quite a dinosaur) but my plans are modest and I’m mostly doing this as a mental exercise.

I’m planning on bumping ram to the 6 gb max. How much benefit would I see? Does it give me that much more headroom? I know the mem is cheap on eBay, but wondering?
 
Reading great classics of literature that are free to download and read in the Ibook Store, I think they have gone crazy. And I do it in my Early 2008 with a retro static that I can only enjoy in OSX Yosemite 10.10 (Metal Brush) with the aesthetics and effectiveness of the Vivaldi browser (they have never made a better version). And HDD ten years old at 7200 rpm, yes ! :)


View attachment 2357440

I absolutely love little anecdotes like this

I really miss the Mac of the 2000's
 
  • Like
Reactions: davigarma
I’m planning on bumping ram to the 6 gb max. How much benefit would I see? Does it give me that much more headroom? I know the mem is cheap on eBay, but wondering?

Look at it this way: a bump from 4GB to 6GB gives your Mac 50 per cent more RAM headroom to work with before tapping into virtual memory. A bump from 2GB to 6GB gives your Mac a 200 per cent more RAM to work with.

I upgraded my early 2008 MBP from 4GB to 6GB around when I set it up to run a patched High Sierra alongside Snow Leopard. The bump-up in memory certainly helps when watching a YT clip in 1080p or making a Signal voice/video call, or when working in applications which enable you to sequester or reserve RAM solely for that application (e.g., Photoshop).

With newer versions of macOS, these systems also benefit slightly from the way the OS compresses active memory previously requested by an open application, but not needed in that moment (such as an open application which is in the background, but hasn’t been used for a bit).

So yes. Going 2+4 on these Penryn and Santa Rosa-era Macs is worth it.

Also, with respect to booting from USB2, versus opening your Mac to put the SATA SSD inside on the SATA bus, the difference in read/write performance will be noticeable — and not by a small measure. You’re basically going from a theoretical 480 Mb/s with USB2 (not including the usual USB overhead, which often cuts that down to something closer to 300–350Mb/s), to a 1.5Gb/s SATA I bus (or, as some Macs in the 2007–08 window quietly offered, a SATA I/II bus (with a 3.0Gb/s throughput).

So, at minimum, you’re doubling, if not trebling read-write bandwidth/pipe for your boot/main drive. You will feel the difference. Between maxing the RAM and moving the SSD to internal, it will feel like you’ve levelled up to a much faster, if not a more modern-feeling computer.
 
Last edited:
Also, with respect to booting from USB2, versus opening your Mac to put the SATA SSD inside on the SATA bus, the difference in read/write performance will be noticeable — and not by a small measure.
I wouldn't boot from a USB 2.0-connected SSD in the long run, even though the negligible access times are noticeable and should™ provide a perceptible speed boost nonetheless (it did on my 2009 Mac mini). It's going to be bottle-necked like crazy. The actual throughput is closer to 25≈35 MB/s via USB 2.0; SATA I is closer to 135 MB/s.
 
Last edited:
It's going to be bottle-necked like crazy. The actual throughput is closer to 25≈35 MB/s via USB 2.0; SATA I is closer to 135 MB/s.

Yah. I was being conservative with those numbers. The difference this person will experience will be substantial.

should™

should™*

* void where prohibited by law. should™ is not responsible for damages, weather, hangnails, or flies in ointments. should™ should only be used as directed. side-effects include hemming, hawing, equivocation, unfulfilled dreams and hopes, and loss of community. should™ should only be used as a qualifier in the most remarkable of circumstances, and it won’t improve your app store experience or bump up your place at the genius bar. all sales are final and come with no implied or expressed guarantees and we should also collect your user data lorem ipsum dolores anderson…
 
@B S Magnet — you got it. I hate situations when something “should” work but doesn’t, or something happens that “shouldn’t”. ;)

So many pop culture examples of relevance came to mind - my favourite is this one because of its timelessness but that would've been too easy to cite and instead I chose the below quote from a justifiably ignored entry in Eddie Murphy's filmography in which his character finds himself grappling with situations where something "should" work but doesn't and something repeatedly happens that "shouldn't." (I've purposefully refrained from including the IMDB link, let's see how many of you recognise it.)

mbro97j.png


What have I done with an Intel Mac? I created this on my 13" 2011 MBP running High Sierra by creating a snapshot in VLC from the video file, which was then exported into the GIMP, where I typed up the text and added an outline to it. Open Source software FTW. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.