amaze1499
macrumors 68000
Out of curiosity: Whats the read and write speed on this 3rd party ssd? I am about to get one as well.
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 Tahoe 26 on Unsupported Macs Discussion
- Thread starter jshayya0184
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
vince22
macrumors 6502a
here's both 1GB v 5GB Blackmagic diskspeed test, cheapest version early last year 4 layer board with 2TB Sandisk nand ($167), surprisingly still working extremely well , very easy Plug n Play install, now you can easy buy 256gb version for $400 at microcenter, wish you well.
1GB
5GB
amaze1499
macrumors 68000
Thanks for the reply! Very useful.
I wonder whether faster r/w speeds than the ones you show are actually needed, since I dont see hardly any app that could make use of that kind of capacity.
For instance Photos is slow since like ever.
The new official OCLP 3.0 will not be released. Most of the developers have left, and the others are unable to continue. The unofficial version OCLP 3.1.4 remains. At the end of December, I posted a link to this or an older version. This is sufficient for Hackintosh because we can change the graphics here. For us, Wi-Fi and audio patches are the most important things. However, older Mac computers with nvidia graphics will no longer have this option.
I think that some things just can't be done with Tahoe. Due to the significantly higher system load, it is probably not a good idea to install Tahoe on very old Mac computers.
From my experience, I can say that the minimum hardware requirements for Tahoe are 6th generation processors and above. If you have a 3rd generation processor or below, you should stay on Monterey ; the lack of AVX2 support will prevent you from using certain programs.
It is more rational to focus on highly efficient PCs with 14th or 15th generation processors. A realistic alternative to MacPro . And here, installing Tahoe makes sense as a way to extend the life of the system or computer.
But we can also work for many years on macOS Sequia, which does not have such high hardware requirements.
I think that some things just can't be done with Tahoe. Due to the significantly higher system load, it is probably not a good idea to install Tahoe on very old Mac computers.
From my experience, I can say that the minimum hardware requirements for Tahoe are 6th generation processors and above. If you have a 3rd generation processor or below, you should stay on Monterey ; the lack of AVX2 support will prevent you from using certain programs.
It is more rational to focus on highly efficient PCs with 14th or 15th generation processors. A realistic alternative to MacPro . And here, installing Tahoe makes sense as a way to extend the life of the system or computer.
But we can also work for many years on macOS Sequia, which does not have such high hardware requirements.
Last edited:
deeveedee
macrumors 68000
@bombardier10 - I don't have any insider information and I know that you don't have any insider information either. But I'll fight for your right to free speech, even if it's just unfounded, baseless and attention-seeking. Now I've given your post more attention than it deserves.
Most of the recent commits by the OCLP devs have been to private repositories. There's nothing to suggest that the progress has halted and that OCLP 3.0 will not be released.
Most of the recent commits by the OCLP devs have been to private repositories. There's nothing to suggest that the progress has halted and that OCLP 3.0 will not be released.
What source did you get this from?Did you make it up or did you tell the truth? Please report.
I am not the right person to speak on behalf of the OCLP developers. However, below is my opinion on the matter, based on logical conclusions. For example, the first public version for the Sequoia system was released in September 2024... Today is February 2025, and there is no version available for Tahoe...
Some WiFi, USB, and audio features work in unofficial versions of OCLP from Laobamac developer . It seems that a lot of work has been put into it, and it is not just an exact copy of the “Nightly version.” However, it will probably not be further improved by this developer, as he does not have the time for it (
So it seems that we have reached the limits of what can be done. Therefore, I believe that OCLP 3.0 in its originally planned form will never be created. Nvidia graphics support will probably never work properly on Tahoe. My suggestion to the OCLP team is to release the program in its current state. The plans were ambitious, but reality is what it is.
The OCLP team may have done a lot of work, but it is others who are providing concrete solutions today. And thanks to them, a large part of Hackintosh or Mac can work on Tahoe at all.
So don't be surprised that some people want a solution that works today 😃
K two
macrumors 68020
Good questions. I suspect he lives in his grandmother's basement and needs a date. 🤨
K two
macrumors 68020
ionizeds
macrumors newbie
What heinous medication are you on?
rehkram
macrumors 65816
You got that right!
ionizeds
macrumors newbie
Isn’t that…What you just did?
Yes, these are my personal opinions. If it motivates the OCLP team even a little, I think it's worth it. Even if a new version will be available next year, many people will still benefit from it. After all, we still have official support for Sequoia.
LuckyOldMan
macrumors regular
If there's no OCLP3.x.x Final yet, then at least a little bit of Voltaire should do. 😉
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
" Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire."
If things really do turn out as @bomardier10 suggested, then we shouldn't be surprised. That's just how it is.
As much or as little as that of any forum member here in the forum. Don't you agree?
Last edited:
ionizeds
macrumors newbie
You said it like an official statement, Not an opinion.
deeveedee
macrumors 68000
No - that is not what happened. The OCLP Devs created the patches and others forked the OCLP Devs' repos and unblocked Tahoe patching. It is the OCLP Devs who created the "concrete solutions today" that you are using to patch Tahoe modern Wi-Fi and modern Audio.
You are entitled to your opinion as are the others who are replying to you.
LuckyOldMan
macrumors regular
To get away from this ultimately pointless discussion of opinions/statements and back to the thread topic:
Similar to what I did with my iMac 18.2 & iMac 18.3, I tried to get Tahoe 26.2 running on my MP5.1, which I managed to do, albeit with some limitations.
Ultimately, it is just a feasibility study.
The iMac 18.2 and 18.3 still lack Wi-Fi, but Bluetooth, audio, and graphics work perfectly.
The situation is different with the MP5.1: Bluetooth and audio and even Wi-Fi works.
However, there's no graphics support, even though the Kepler patch is listed & installed during the patching procedure..
Here are a few pictures.
It has an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 4GB (EFI-flashed for boot screen), which works perfectly with all macOS versions except Tahoe.
Any suggestions?
Similar to what I did with my iMac 18.2 & iMac 18.3, I tried to get Tahoe 26.2 running on my MP5.1, which I managed to do, albeit with some limitations.
Ultimately, it is just a feasibility study.
The iMac 18.2 and 18.3 still lack Wi-Fi, but Bluetooth, audio, and graphics work perfectly.
The situation is different with the MP5.1: Bluetooth and audio and even Wi-Fi works.
However, there's no graphics support, even though the Kepler patch is listed & installed during the patching procedure..
Here are a few pictures.
It has an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 4GB (EFI-flashed for boot screen), which works perfectly with all macOS versions except Tahoe.
Any suggestions?
Last edited:
deeveedee
macrumors 68000
LuckyOldMan
macrumors regular
Did you lose part of your comment above, or what did you mean by it?
I don't know what role you think you need to play here, but the OCLP devs certainly don't need your speech, like the one you just gave in defense.
Their good work speaks for itself, and has for many years.
So calm down and let people have their opinions. After all, you're the defender of free speech, aren't you? 😉
Of course I will definitely wait—just as patiently as you always claim to be. 😉
I don't know what role you think you need to play here, but the OCLP devs certainly don't need your speech, like the one you just gave in defense.
Their good work speaks for itself, and has for many years.
So calm down and let people have their opinions. After all, you're the defender of free speech, aren't you? 😉
rehkram
macrumors 65816
Sure, so long as they are clearly expressed as "opinions", and not "statements of fact".
deeveedee
macrumors 68000
@LuckyOldMan Your post asked "Any suggestions?" I offered my recommendation. I'll gladly assume that from now on, your request for recommendations doesn't ask for mine.
LuckyOldMan
macrumors regular
I completely agree with you.
bombardier10 expressed himself poorly, and he clarified it in #1213.
That should be accepted.
Last edited:
rehkram
macrumors 65816
As should the ridicule that followed. He richly deserved it! And that is all I've got to say about that.
MrMacintoshBlog
macrumors 6502
After reading the last few posts in this thread, I feel like I’ve accidentally wandered into the Twilight Zone. 👽
ionizeds
macrumors newbie
Don’t worry about it, I’ll have a padded room installed in this thread for people who are going insane from waiting for OCLP 3.0.0