Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

macOS 14 Sonoma on Unsupported Macs Thread

Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.
TheDebunker said:
No problem. Like I mentioned, I think at the end your idea isn't inherently bad, just the initial presentation wasn't good and it produced knee-jerk reactions from many of us, including me more or less. Glad the discussion turned more civil, at least between me and you.

It's not a bad thing to be conscious about security but honestly OCLP was originally meant to be a small project to use for people who know a thing or two. We never anticipated the influx of people coming in and in turn making the Discord server too quite chaotic at times, which is why the lead developer stepped away from the main channels for mental health reasons.

Also to comment on a bit on what someone said about "it's a small project so it doesn't matter as much".
I think that has some truth to it. Let's take Windows and macOS for example, macOS definitely is in some ways more secure by design but another very big reason it has stayed mostly free of malware is that its market share is significantly lower than that of Windows, which means Windows gets targeted more. OCLP users are a fraction of that marketshare.
Windows is also majorly used in businesses where the real money is and attacks of modern days have mostly moved there, regular users aren't really the interest of the malware writer groups anymore as there isn't nearly as much money to be made. Ransomware is the biggest modern day malware after all and that is because of money.

People also root their Android phones using custom tools and do all sorts of tinkering on them.

Information security can be a bit of a sly thing, sometimes it makes you too conscious about security when the reality is you have to balance between security and convenience. People in information security always have very sophisticated methods to protect oneself but those don't really apply to the average user who mostly just doesn't care because it's too inconvenient.

People with OCLP choose the convenience of keeping their old Mac instead of paying for a new one, with slightly lowered security. It also helps the environment when old systems get extended life and aren't thrown to landfills.

EDIT: Oh and to add, WiFi patching definitely isn't new to Sonoma with OCLP, it just had to be extended to more modern systems. We've had to rely on it more or less since Monterey (if not earlier, I joined OCLP around Monterey and I'm forgetting whether dosdude1 patchers did WiFi patching) at least for the old Mac Pro models and pre-2012 systems. Apple keeps removing drivers in subsequent OS releases and we have to add them back.
Click to expand...
Thank you for rescuing me and turning my apparently off-topic, misguided, uninformed, uneducated posts into something relevant and meaningful for this thread.

I fully understand and appreciate the small project exceeding your expectations - that's usually a great problem to have! Congratulations. Maybe there's still a chance that the increase in exposure warrants a strategy change that includes the clear data-security warnings (during patching and upon each boot), since it is now clear that OCLP's adoption is likely to grow well beyond your intended audience. I didn't know that you were already applying root patches for Wi-Fi before Sonoma, as I haven't had a platform that required pre-Sonoma Wi-Fi root patching. It was the Wi-Fi root patches that triggered my data security concerns about OCLP. I'm sure you're aware that there is a parallel project enabling Intel Wi-Fi for Mac that does not require breaking the macOS seal. Maybe worth investigating for its application to Brcm? Not sure.

During this learning experience with you, I have refocused my intended use of OCLP from extending the useful life of my "production" Mac (where I build software, access my Apple Developer Account, do my banking, check e-mail, check Facebook, etc.) to a hobby and an experiment on a non-critical Mac - still very fun and entertaining, but not something that risks any sensitive data or identity information.

Thank you again for this outstanding interaction. You have been a pleasure to talk to!
 
  • Like
Reactions: HyperX7
deeveedee said:
Thank you for rescuing me and turning my apparently off-topic, misguided, uninformed, uneducated posts into something relevant and meaningful for this thread.

I fully understand and appreciate the small project exceeding your expectations - that's usually a great problem to have! Congratulations. Maybe there's still a chance that the increase in exposure warrants a strategy change that includes the clear data-security warnings (during patching and upon each boot), since it is now clear that OCLP's adoption is likely to grow well beyond your intended audience. I didn't know that you were already applying root patches for Wi-Fi before Sonoma, as I haven't had a platform that required pre-Sonoma Wi-Fi root patching. It was the Wi-Fi root patches that triggered my data security concerns about OCLP. I'm sure you're aware that there is a parallel project enabling Intel Wi-Fi for Mac that does not require breaking the macOS seal. Maybe worth investigating for its application to Brcm? Not sure.

During this learning experience with you, I have refocused my intended use of OCLP from extending the useful life of my "production" Mac (where I build software, access my Apple Developer Account, do my banking, check e-mail, check Facebook, etc.) to a hobby and an experiment on a non-critical Mac - still very fun and entertaining, but not something that risks any sensitive data or identity information.

Thank you again for this outstanding interaction. You have been a pleasure to talk to!
Click to expand...
I think I do know about the Intel Wi-Fi patch but since I'm not really a developer in OCLP, I can't comfortably tell if there's big differences in the methods used. I know quite a bit of how OCLP works because I'm testing pre-release stuff for the main devs but that's about it.

Yeah it's probably likely to grow a bit still, however we're on a borrowed time anyway. I presume within the next 2-3 years the demise of Intel support will be upon us and therefore that means the end of OCLP. If Apple entirely removes the x86 support from the kernel (why wouldn't they as doing it helps with optimization), that would be too big of a task for this team to make work, whether it would even be possible.

And yeah your stance is what I've seen many users take, use OCLP on secondary old Macs for fun and then use a different system for work and other activities.

EDIT: Also due to Ventura being a hell to patch, I think I vaguely remember the lead dev almost wanting to call quits back then but after all still got the power to plow through. Sonoma was much easier in comparison, hence why support was out much earlier.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HyperX7, Marfan-58 and deeveedee
TheDebunker said:
If Apple entirely removes the x86 support from the kernel (which they probably will do because why would you keep it in as removing it helps with optimization), that would be too big of a task for this team to make work, whether it would even be possible.
Click to expand...
What you probably don't know (because your experience with me is very recent) is that I was your biggest cheerleader. There are people in this forum whom I have helped and now who hate me (and there were many who already hated me anyway), but for me that was a risk worth taking because I felt it was important enough to disclose my OCLP security concerns. I feel fortunate that I don't possess the chip that requires "likes" in a popularity contest. In fact, when I see the masses running one way, I usually run the other way.

I wish you had known me in my OCLP-friendly days so that we got started on better footing. You are a special person for being able to see through the nasty dialog. Thank you.

EDIT: And before I completely forget why extracted the quote above, the magic that you and the OCLP Devs have performed is beyond compare. The skill, creativity and pure talent is a pleasure to behold. If anyone can tackle new challenges with macOS, it is you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HyperX7, jotzet, reppresident and 2 others
deeveedee said:
What you probably don't know (because your experience with me is very recent) is that I was your biggest cheerleader. There are people in this forum whom I have helped and now who hate me (and there were many who already hated me anyway), but for me that was a risk worth taking because I felt it was important enough to disclose my OCLP security concerns. I feel fortunate that I don't possess the chip that requires "likes" in a popularity contest. In fact, when I see the masses running one way, I usually run the other way.

I wish you had known me in my OCLP-friendly days so that we got started on better footing. You are a special person for being able to see through the nasty dialog. Thank you.

EDIT: And before I completely forget why extracted the quote above, the magic that you and the OCLP Devs have performed is beyond compare. The skill, creativity and pure talent is a pleasure to behold. If anyone can tackle new challenges with macOS, it is you.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Yeah, I think some of the devs are also tired of answering the same exact questions (especially ones that are documented) and also being essentially kindergarten supervisors on the Discord (the influx of 13 year olds is huge) and that sometimes leads to lashing out. I think both parties could've handled it better but it's what happened and can't be changed.

Also reason why we don't want Hackintosh reports is because then we can't know for sure whether it's an issue with the patcher or an incompatibility issue caused by random hardware in the hackintoshed system that isn't compatible with macOS. OCLP after all is more or less a "configurator" (to put it in basic terms) that just tailors OC configurations for real Macs, plus root patching which was a needed addition once in-memory injection no longer was enough. Hackintosh users are meant to use the actual OpenCore project with a different documentation made for it, although depending on the hardware they also might need root patching. Typically PC hardware is more easier to replace/upgrade with compatible ones though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HyperX7, roronl and deeveedee
Mitsuthos said:
Hi, i update oclp in my imac mid 2010 21" from 0.6.8 to 1.0.1 under macos ventura and when i log in with my password user, dont do anything.
Click to expand...
Had the same problem today. Follow the steps under "Stuck on boot after root patching" here. When you restart the unpatched system, maybe use v1.0.0?
 
TheDebunker said:
Also reason why we don't want Hackintosh reports ...
Click to expand...
Then don't read my OCLP for hackintosh guide ;) I'm sure that's one reason why Jazzzny hates me!

I hope you understand that I preferred to use OCLP on my HackBookPro6,2, because it was just too boring and lacked any challenge on my real MBP6,2. Sorry about the confusion that must have created through analytics. I did only submit (on Discord) two app crash reports generated on a real Mac, but my hack's analytics must have been confusing. Sorry about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HyperX7
deeveedee said:
Then don't read my OCLP for hackintosh guide ;) I'm sure that's one reason why Jazzzny hates me!

I hope you understand that I preferred to use OCLP on my HackBookPro6,2, because it was just too boring and lacked any challenge on my real MBP6,2. Sorry about the confusion that must have created through analytics. I did only submit (on Discord) two app crash reports generated on a real Mac, but my hack's analytics must have been confusing. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
No problem. I guess since we're naming names now, Jazzzny also asked himself to be removed from the main channels after what happened. I won't delve more into it since I don't want to speak on behalf of others or create more unneeded drama.

Anyway, I hope this discussion at least somewhat helped you to understand why we do what we do and how OCLP works, even when I made this throwaway account seem very fishy with the name. You may not agree with everything of course but such is life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HyperX7 and roronl
TheDebunker said:
Anyway, I hope this discussion at least somewhat helped you to understand why we do what we do and how OCLP works, even when I made this throwaway account seem very fishy with the name. You may not agree with everything of course but such is life.
Click to expand...
You liked one of my posts. Now your account is worthless, so yes, you should throw it away. Thanks again.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kevo
alfon_sico said:
Mac mini 2014 Sonoma and OCLP 1.0

Works everything ok yesterday, change the wallpaper with a random city ones, it works

Today turn on but wallpaper is grey. Enter setup to force another wallpaper anyone works, dark grey desktop

Update OLCP 1.0.1 but after reboot is the same point. No way yo change any photo. Screensaver works ok with a personal album photo random one
Click to expand...
See my post earlier in the thread about using XQuartz and the grey screen issue. I had to remove it because the LaunchD items that set the display were messing with the wallpaper when using video wallpaper. On a normal reboot, you may see a grey desktop, but then the picture should come back automatically. If you don't use X11, then check to see if you're using anything else that might modify your display and might be incompatible with Sonoma.
Ever since I removed XQuartz, and checked the rest of my third party software to confirm it was the only thing causing problems, everything has worked fine since. I have two Macs running Sonoma with OCLP 1.0.1

Late 2013 13" MBP MBP11,1
Late 2015 27" iMac, iMac 17,1

Both are working perfectly. So your Mac Mini is between the two of those so should also work. As I said check whatever other software you're using to make sure you're not using something incompatible with Sonoma.
 
Last edited:
MacinMan said:
See my post earlier in the thread about using XQuartz and the grey screen issue. I had to remove it because the LaunchD items that set the display were messing with the wallpaper when using video wallpaper. On a normal reboot, you may see a grey desktop, but then the picture should come back automatically. If you don't use X11, then check to see if you're using anything else that might modify your display and might be incompatible with Sonoma.
Ever since I removed XQuartz, and checked the rest of my third party software to confirm it was the only thing causing problems, everything has worked fine since. I have two Macs running Sonoma with OCLP 1.0.1

Late 2013 13" MBP MBP11,1
Late 2015 27" iMac, iMac 17,1

Both are working perfectly. So your Mac Mini is between the two of those so should also work. As I said check whatever other software you're using to make sure you're not using something incompatible with Sonoma.
Click to expand...
Thanks but not XQuart or X11 as far as I know, I don't know if LaunchD is in Docker.app, trying to exit in Monitor Activiy

The question is that the first reboot of Sonoma it works, and maybe I could say that in the second reboot it still works. It happen today but I don't install nothing new I think

switch off some items in beginning launch: docker, steam, adobe acrobat, Citrix and wallpaper back to live in the next reboot

next stage figure out if mediaanalized is enabled actually
 
Last edited:
alfon_sico said:
Thanks but not XQuart or X11 as far as I know, I don't know if LaunchD is in Docker.app, trying to exit in Monitor Activiy

The question is that the first reboot of Sonoma it works, and maybe I could say that in the second reboot it still works. It happen today but I don't install nothing new I think

switch off some items in beginning launch: docker, steam, adobe acrobat, Citrix and wallpaper back to live in the next reboot

next stage figure out if mediaanalized is enabled actually
Click to expand...
Sounds like you have the right idea, just go through and see what is interfering in your setup, and you'll know what to disable, or uninstall.
 
I'd like to report that macos sonoma on a mac pro 5,1 runs well with the exception (so far) that the calculator gives me "not a number"..needs further testing but that it so far.
Also im shocked and surprised that protools 2023.6 works along with my uad2 pcie, fabfilter, waves, plugin alliance, ssl native, oek soothe 2, native instruments and softtube plugins(this was a shocker) but none of the websites for those 3rd party apps state they work. today im a 😁 camper. no more upgrades for a year for me...
20231004_094257.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: coasterOneEightThree, m4v3r1ck and reppresident
imac.png
Another day, another success, Thank you, It's Alive, I use it everyday for work and browsing, works a charm. Some app not working like CleanMyMac but there is enough alternative to found solution. Thank you for your hard work with a little bit of luck I can push it for another 2 or 4 years more.
 
deeveedee said:
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.
Click to expand...
ill try that in the morning as im currently at the employment until late, ill get back with my results, thank you
 
MrScratchHook said:
I'd like to report that macos sonoma on a mac pro 5,1 runs well with the exception (so far) that the calculator gives me "not a number"..needs further testing but that it so far.
Also im shocked and surprised that protools 2023.6 works along with my uad2 pcie, fabfilter, waves, plugin alliance, ssl native, oek soothe 2, native instruments and softtube plugins(this was a shocker) but none of the websites for those 3rd party apps state they work. today im a 😁 camper. no more upgrades for a year for me...View attachment 2288883
Click to expand...
That's great! Does graphic acceleration work on your machine? I installed it on a spare drive to experiment and found that it worked great, except for the graphic acceleration and Bluetooth not working.
 
blauesliebe7 said:
That's great! Does graphic acceleration work on your machine? I installed it on a spare drive to experiment and found that it worked great, except for the graphic acceleration and Bluetooth not working.
Click to expand...
acceleration seems to work. seeing as i dont need bluetooth or the wifi because im hardwired and i dont need bluetooth for anything i turned it off, but upon start up it asked me to engage bluetooth but i opted not to
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back