Maybe they will provide security updates for a little bit longer (like I believe they did with OS X Leopard), but Tahoe was only officially supported on a very limited number of Intel Macs. In Apple's eyes, this tiny number might not matter that much.
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
basslik
macrumors 6502a
In the end, (REGARDLESS)
“We all had a good ride, so just be patient and wait for the roller coaster to come to a full stop.”
“We all had a good ride, so just be patient and wait for the roller coaster to come to a full stop.”
Yes it's certainly possible that OCLP support for Tahoe could be released after macOS 27 at least for non-T2 Macs. The last non-T2 27" iMac was the 2019 and it might run ok on that. I am not so sure about an iMac with a Keplar card though. Those are over a decade old at this point.
We already had a discussion about legacy metal cards in this thread and have even seen prototypes of graphics acceleration. As of late 2025, the devs were stating that legacy metal is running pretty well on Tahoe (see e.g. #978, #1000, #1007), requiring only comparatively minor bugfixing (2 bugs remaining, I think). This is why I stay optimistic about it being eventually supported in OCLP 3.
Last edited:
deeveedee
macrumors 68000
New activity in OCLP Repo
Yup. first commits of the year on to the main branch today. There were several of them.
Yes. It does. And if the developers are seriously interested in it, they should either say: "we don't feel like it anymore" or "100% something is coming". Because, at some point, even M-Chip models are no longer compatible with the latest system. So the game would start all over again.
And if the developers already fail completely on the T2, they don't even need to try their luck on an M-chip and just communicate it directly.
The developers don't work for us and have no obligation to communicate a road map to anyone. I don't think open source developers should spread misinformation (as the Darktable team did when communicating their reason for dropping support for Intel Macs) but they don't have to say anything at all. However, OCLP is an open source project with a public GitHub repo. The repo had its first commits merged to the main branch yesterday which suggests progress has slowed down considerably.
No one has stated an interest in supporting something like OCLP for Macs based on Apple Silicon and there is no reason to expect that to happen. OCLP is based on work done by the hackingtosh community, after macOS 26 there will be no more macOS versions that can be run non-Apple hardware.
Sh3ldon
macrumors regular
Even if OCLP for Tahoe never sees the light of day, I think a thank you to the developers who have allowed thousands of people to extend the life of their hardware is due.
deeveedee
macrumors 68000
Speculations based on observations of public developer activity are just that - speculations. I could speculate that the devs have increased their use of private repositories after unauthorized releases of their code hijacked the OCLP effort. But that, too, would be speculation.
Last edited:
Well that is the point of open source, anyone can fork the code at any time. If that isn't an acceptable outcome then moving to a close sourced model is of course an option.
BTW if the 175 contributions you referred to were from Dhinak G he is now up to 181 in March. Perhaps those private repos are part of whatever work he does to pay the bills?
Last edited:
This isn’t a problem with the T2 chip, but rather with support for older graphics cards. Tahoe officially runs on Intel machines with a T2 chip as well as on computers without a T2 chip – that is, on Hackintoshes, with the help of OpenCore, of course. There is therefore no logical reason why the T2 chip should prevent older Macs from running Tahoe. If we prepare an installer with the latest version of OC and the appropriate drivers, they will work, but without graphics. So they won’t work properly, but not because of the T2 chip.
The good news is that the OCLP-mod project via Laobamac is continuing now version 3.1.7 :
github.com
The good news is that the OCLP-mod project via Laobamac is continuing now version 3.1.7 :
Releases · laobamac/OCLP-Mod
A mod version for OCLP,with more interesting features. - laobamac/OCLP-Mod
github.com
Take a look at https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/issues/1167 - T2 Challenge.This isn’t a problem with the T2 chip, but rather with support for older graphics cards. Tahoe officially runs on Intel machines with a T2 chip as well as on computers without a T2 chip – that is, on Hackintoshes, with the help of OpenCore, of course. There is therefore no logical reason why the T2 chip should prevent older Macs from running Tahoe. If we prepare an installer with the latest version of OC and the appropriate drivers, they will work, but without graphics. So they won’t work properly, but not because of the T2 chip.
The good news is that the OCLP-mod project via Laobamac is continuing now version 3.1.7 :
Releases · laobamac/OCLP-Mod
A mod version for OCLP,with more interesting features. - laobamac/OCLP-Mod
OCLP doesn't support any T2 Macs for any version of MacOS. There is one T2 Mac (2018 MBA) that doesn't support Sequoia. OCLP cannot be used to install Sequoia on that Mac.
This is problem with board ID on Tahoe only . https://github.com/p8bpg9zrw7-colla...OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher---that-s-why/issues/1 . I think that change mac definition for example to MacPro7,1 and change board ID may help.
It’s a security chip, it is designed to be hard/impossible to patch.
So likely gonna be stuck with Sonoma. That is actually illegal for Apple to do.
It's more than that. It's a full co-processor derived from the iPhone 7's processor running its own operating system which itself is derived from iOS. It controls the SSD and its encryption, speakers, webcam and most importantly the boot process.
Not impossible to compromise, but clearly much more challenging than anything OCLP has done before.
Not sure why you think that is illegal. You can switch to Linux: https://t2linux.org/
I know. The latest ibridgeOS, is not supported either by checkm8. Maybe they finally managed to patch the unpatchable security exploit.
Yes, most people don't want their computer or smartphone to be hacked
dhinakg
macrumors member
macOS works without a T2, sure, but does the Mac work without the T2? That's the main issue.
The problem with OCLP and the T2 is that we are stuck in a weird state where we have the T2, but we can't use it (out of the box, at least). Because they dropped these models, there are no longer things like Secure Boot manifests for these machines. That leaves pretending to not have a T2, which has its own problems, as a significant chunk of hardware on the Mac is handled by the T2. That leaves us having to walk a fine line between claiming we have a T2 to some parts of the OS while pretending we don't to other parts of the OS. This is more complicated than just not having (or at least saying we don't have) a T2 at all.
We have made some progress on this front, but it has been extremely unstable. My test machine would kernel panic on sleep when booting a supported OS through OpenCore. Other times, it would stall for 5 minutes, boot to the OS, spend another few minutes validating my password, and then not let me in - only fixable by booting a supported OS outside of OC. If that wasn't enough, I managed to soft-brick my test machine to the point where it refused to boot anything, supported or unsupported, OC or not, even after an NVRAM reset. I eventually had to wipe and DFU restore it.
So T2 support is really a completely different beast compared to anything else.
EDIT: latter half of my post was invisible in dark mode
Last edited: