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
Find My Kanye
macrumors newbie
The last system where HD4000 could be launched using spoofing method was Sequoia.
But some drivers have been removed from Tahoe. Without the new OCLP, you won't be able to do anything.
coolio.fit
macrumors newbie
Tahoe running smoothly (Intel 500 Graphics, Airdrop, Wifi, Continuity) on a hackintosh with similar specs as my old 2016 macbook I'm soo jealous haha 😂
Yes HD 530 is a newer GPU than HD4000. For full working Airdrop etc You must use OCLP .
Here is one of my first Tahoe installations on a 6th generation processor.
A “clean” installation without using OCLP is sometimes possible anyway.
Here is one of my first Tahoe installations on a 6th generation processor.
A “clean” installation without using OCLP is sometimes possible anyway.
coolio.fit
macrumors newbie
I get what you mean but I'm saying that my 2016 mbp has a intel Iris 550 and similar wireless hardware but I can't get graphics or wireless patches as OCLP 3.0.0 is not ready yet 😔
OKonnel
macrumors 6502
For me, it would be enough if the new version of OCLP eliminated all the problems and flaws that prevent macOS Sequoia from working perfectly on all Macs not supported since 2013.
That would be the best way to end this wonderful experience on a high note and teach Apple a lesson in human civility and ecology!!!
In my case, for example, after six months with Sequoia, I went back to Sonoma because I couldn't stand the malfunctions in Preview (which is essential for me), the flaws in AirPlay, and other minor bugs, even though they weren't important to me.
With Sonoma, on the other hand, my Mac is 100% stable, as all Macs should be.
And in fact, I don't notice any difference, nor do I feel envious, starting with the fluidity of Finder, etc., when I optimize the various M1 Macs, etc. of friends and family, compared to my late 2013 iMac with Sonoma.
This is also because the beauty of my iMac's 27" screen compensates for most of the 13" MacBooks (that almost every people has), especially for the confusion that the Tahoe interface creates on small screens.
What's more, after working extensively with BetterDisplay Pro settings, I've turned my display into a true 10-bit 5K, and its sharpness is perfectly equal to the Studio Display. System Settings even shows the same images for adjusting the screen, as if it were a Retina Studio.
Therefore, it would be sufficient to refine OCLP up to Sequoia, since Tahoe introduced a new world.
And this new world is beginning to betray, in many ways, the simplicity and ergonomics, imagined by founder Steve Jobs, that we used an appreciated until a few years ago.
After all, computers are useful and are used to run work (or game) programs, and it is harmful to attach great importance to bells, whistles, and various gimmicks, such as transparencies, etc., which do not appeal to children (or perhaps distract them from the simplicity with which Mac OS X allowed them to use the computer well) and perhaps offend the intelligence of adults.
It is a my opinion only, but not a diktat
That would be the best way to end this wonderful experience on a high note and teach Apple a lesson in human civility and ecology!!!
In my case, for example, after six months with Sequoia, I went back to Sonoma because I couldn't stand the malfunctions in Preview (which is essential for me), the flaws in AirPlay, and other minor bugs, even though they weren't important to me.
With Sonoma, on the other hand, my Mac is 100% stable, as all Macs should be.
And in fact, I don't notice any difference, nor do I feel envious, starting with the fluidity of Finder, etc., when I optimize the various M1 Macs, etc. of friends and family, compared to my late 2013 iMac with Sonoma.
This is also because the beauty of my iMac's 27" screen compensates for most of the 13" MacBooks (that almost every people has), especially for the confusion that the Tahoe interface creates on small screens.
What's more, after working extensively with BetterDisplay Pro settings, I've turned my display into a true 10-bit 5K, and its sharpness is perfectly equal to the Studio Display. System Settings even shows the same images for adjusting the screen, as if it were a Retina Studio.
Therefore, it would be sufficient to refine OCLP up to Sequoia, since Tahoe introduced a new world.
And this new world is beginning to betray, in many ways, the simplicity and ergonomics, imagined by founder Steve Jobs, that we used an appreciated until a few years ago.
After all, computers are useful and are used to run work (or game) programs, and it is harmful to attach great importance to bells, whistles, and various gimmicks, such as transparencies, etc., which do not appeal to children (or perhaps distract them from the simplicity with which Mac OS X allowed them to use the computer well) and perhaps offend the intelligence of adults.
It is a my opinion only, but not a diktat
Last edited:
LuckyOldMan
macrumors regular
While we all are very, very, very .... patiently waiting for the final release of OCLP3.x.x, I have done some further testing starting from #1.217.
This time not with the NVIDIA Geforce GTX 680 4GB but with a Gigabyte HD7950: it is recognized with the full 3GB instead of the 9MB of the Kepler.
At least a small step forward. 😉
This time not with the NVIDIA Geforce GTX 680 4GB but with a Gigabyte HD7950: it is recognized with the full 3GB instead of the 9MB of the Kepler.
At least a small step forward. 😉
Sven G
macrumors 6502a
BTW, the OCLP 2.5.0 nightly can be downloaded and tried rather easily: let’s hope that the final release will be out soon (2.5.0 is of course only for macOS up to Sequoia); while patiently waiting for OCLP 3.0.0 for Tahoe…
Do you have GPU hardware acceleration on Tahoe (with OCLP 2.4.1 or an alpha/beta version of OCLP 3.0?)
LuckyOldMan
macrumors regular
hvds
macrumors 6502a
MBP11,1 (13", 2013): looking forward to Tahoe on that machine. Happy with 15.7.3 on it. My workhorse though is an MBA16,13 (15", M4 2025) since a while now.
Allow me an off-topic Macintosh anecdote from the 1980s. I was working at the particle-physics experiment UA1 at CERN at the time, and as soon as the first Macs were released, we converted the experiment controls to use them. Very fitting as these Macs used Motorola 68k whose bus had motivated the VMEbus used for our experiment electronics. So this, and also CAMAC electronics was simply memory-mapped to the Mac. It needed some addition to the Mac motherboard (to drive the processor bus to outside the Mac). I wrote an F77 compiler using the OS9 runtime libs to bring part of the wealth of CERN software to the Macs. We were proud for the modernization of the nobel-price-winning experiment and traveled to Cupertino to show them. If I'm not mistaken they didn't even lough at us... but we liked our system and were grateful to Adele Goldberg et al at Xerox to have invented the principles of such machines. Note the fancy Mac-style black and white diagram shown below.
Allow me an off-topic Macintosh anecdote from the 1980s. I was working at the particle-physics experiment UA1 at CERN at the time, and as soon as the first Macs were released, we converted the experiment controls to use them. Very fitting as these Macs used Motorola 68k whose bus had motivated the VMEbus used for our experiment electronics. So this, and also CAMAC electronics was simply memory-mapped to the Mac. It needed some addition to the Mac motherboard (to drive the processor bus to outside the Mac). I wrote an F77 compiler using the OS9 runtime libs to bring part of the wealth of CERN software to the Macs. We were proud for the modernization of the nobel-price-winning experiment and traveled to Cupertino to show them. If I'm not mistaken they didn't even lough at us... but we liked our system and were grateful to Adele Goldberg et al at Xerox to have invented the principles of such machines. Note the fancy Mac-style black and white diagram shown below.
Attachments
Last edited:
Mac or MacBookPro 2013 is not good hardware for Tahoe. This system has much higher hardware requirements,
as you can see . But you can use older systems just as well, or even better.
And, of course, the oldest computers will end their lives not on macOS but on Linux.
That's the natural order of things 🙂
as you can see . But you can use older systems just as well, or even better.
And, of course, the oldest computers will end their lives not on macOS but on Linux.
That's the natural order of things 🙂
amaze1499
macrumors 68000
Agreed. However, software still seems to be the bottleneck no matter what hardware you've got. Despite the differences in overall performance, oddly enough stock apps like Photos still run underwhelmingly bad on new hardware as well. I do compare MacMini M4 with the MBP2012, using both machines side by side on a daily basis.
The only situation where r/w speeds were barely going above three digits for instance, was when Thaoe did prepare a software update. Other than that, 2 digit r/w speeds are pretty normal. Begs the question, why paying for nvme speeds up to 7000 MB/s when current processes wont reach a 1000MB/s on the built in ssd?
Many software related issues are not yet being fixed in the latest OS either. Funnily enough, most of the cores are actually bored in this new (entry level!) machine. Very good hardware, no doubt the overall performance improved greatly. But the software is still not able to put the rubber to the road most of the time.
Last edited:
loby
macrumors 68020
Watching this tread of course can get a lot of people all worked up. The current build v. 2.4.1 works well as intended.
To me, it has been the best overall and I am very grateful to the developers who have put a lot and I mean A LOT of work into this and to provide for the public a FREE solution so our "good" old Macs that still work fine are able to "still work fine" and don't become door stops or land fill. 😊
Many thanks to the developers so far.
macOS Tahoe is probably the biggest challenge that the developers have had yet to make our old legacy Intel Macs work. It WILL probably stop after maybe macOS 27 when intel support ends and I do not think that is my opinion.
If the developers can pull that off and continue further...they should work at Apple. 🤣
It is better not to tempt the developers to rush a half-baked patch like Apple did with macOS Tahoe. I personally can wait.
I do not think the developers are motivated or really "care" what the public say. They should not...they are not being paid for this. They do it for their own reasons. Don't make them mad.
I hope we all just settle and be grateful to "wait". "If" no other version comes out...it has been a good run. I hope at least they get macOS Sequoia solid in working on most old Macs, along with the other older OS's that some of the old Macs work better other than Sequoia.
If the developers can do THAT..that is a good end. EVEN If they end now, v.2.4.1 is good and we all can be happy.
Let's encourage instead of put-down or complain please. 😃
OKonnel
macrumors 6502
Hello friend! Perhaps you missed the news, but the great @khronokernel (co-founder of OCLP along with @dhinakg and a few others) has been hired by Apple and is now working in a security department.
This is a positive development, as we know that a person with an honest, generous, and good spirit can be like a grain of yeast or a mustard seed that grows and influences the whole dough.
Note.
Since my message was subject to misunderstanding, I inserted two parentheses in place of commas and also used italics. But for greater clarity, I emphasize that, as far as joining Apple is concerned, I am referring only to @khronokernel and no one else.
Last edited:
Since when was dhinakg hired by apple? I don't remember seeing that...
loby
macrumors 68020
This is good to hear, I did not know. Was the recent? Maybe why the delays in OCLP?
hvds
macrumors 6502a
It is in Mykola's blog from June 2025 https://khronokernel.com/macos/2025/06/20/OCLP-RETROSPECTIVE.html and was put into the announcements in the Discord OpenCore Patcher Paradise.
Thank you for your previous post, very well said.
Last edited:
PotentPeas
macrumors 6502a
Development hasn't stopped. Some devs have chimed in, in this very thread, to confirm as much. They're working on the side (WIP code is not public) and it will be made available "when its ready"; no ETA has been given.
This makes sense. If they make the code public too early, people will run with it and complain when things don't work right or they get themselves into trouble. If they give an ETA, it will just generate anticipation, and complaints if they don't happen to meet it. Even if they were to just post regular status updates, they would be hounded with "Is it done yet?", "Let me try it!", etc... This is the best way for them to operate.
Correct, and there is no "probably" here — macOS 26 is the end of the line for Intel Macs ("supported" or otherwise) and also Hackintoshes. Apple will not produce Intel builds of macOS 27, so it would take way more than fudging with drivers and the bootloader to get that to work on a system with an Intel CPU. (Well, it could be run with a full emulation solution — there is a QEMU project messing with emulated Apple Silicon VMs, for instance — but that's never going to perform great.)
Last edited:
We have a saying: “If you don't know what it's about, it's about money.” It is well known that many programmers have left the OCLP team. And it's no surprise, because everyone needs to earn a living . And the effort put into OCLP is probably enormous. The alternative OCLP-mod project Laobamac has also been suspended... Or, as they say, I have other projects on my mind .
Unfortunately, money is like oil in a working machine; when it runs out, the machine jams and refuses to work .
My suggestion is to commercialize the OCLP app; it could cost $5 or $10... All in all, a small price to pay for giving old Mac models a second life ) I don't know how many potential OCLP users there are, but perhaps... tens of thousands... And that already adds up to a considerable amount for development.
Unfortunately, money is like oil in a working machine; when it runs out, the machine jams and refuses to work .
My suggestion is to commercialize the OCLP app; it could cost $5 or $10... All in all, a small price to pay for giving old Mac models a second life ) I don't know how many potential OCLP users there are, but perhaps... tens of thousands... And that already adds up to a considerable amount for development.
I think you're right, but at this point it's probably not worth doing much more than polishing off the current list of work items. Intel MacOS is on borrowed time already and the barrier to entry for Mac hardware is about as low as it has ever been so putting a lot more effort into OCLP is most likely not worth it. I would say it would be better to help support linux development for Apple hardware if for no other reason than to make it slightly more likely that Apple will align its efforts with its users interests rather than just chasing monetization through subscriptions.
I don't know if the barrier to entry for macOS is higher or lower. But Intel PC owners can enter for free. And if they can turn their latest workstation into something more powerful than the new MacPro for free, it's worth considering. We are in a good position in that we have a choice between macOS, Windows, and Linux, and we can calmly wait and see what happens.
loby
macrumors 68020
"Probably" was said because if I was too direct, I get wasted arguments from others in responses (writing: where are you getting that information or it is just your opinion - give me support links etc.).
I don't want to waste my time reading nonsense threads to look for good and informative thread entries like yours.
Thanks for the info. about "the other projects'. Will be interesting to watch and see what happens next.