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
Again, you have said something without Checking ( Didn't we say this before??). That Aside, the Developers have gotten graphics to Work on Tahoe, Educoavs in November Said "2012+ are Very Smooth" That Kicks out Non-metal Which to Be-fair, Are Very old iMacs, macBookpros, and MacBook Air, But They have replaced it with blur ( not liquid glass, that needs the Metal API). Everything I said is the words of EduCovas, Not something I made up. Try to use my idea of doing research Why not? 🙂
basslik
macrumors 6502a
Same here—same age. I became a Rush fan when my brother took me to a friend’s house in the hood. I remember hearing drums playing along with a stereo in a bedroom (a record player 😃). Kids today have no idea. 😛
After his brother finished playing along to 2112, I met him and was struck by how incredible the drumming was on that album—and that he could actually keep up with it.
Not long after, he convinced me to buy a $25 pawn shop bass. The first song I learned took an entire year: “La Villa Strangiato.” (Whew.) All so we could start a band. No YouTube back then—everything I learned was by ear.
😎
I’ve also seen screenshots with the graphics running. However, no one has actually seen it in action or has any real-world experience with it. From experience, I can tell you that what seems like it should work after thorough testing often turns out to be unusable.
It seems that if the graphics were okay, we would have them in the `oclp-mod` version, but that’s not the case. So far, it doesn’t work on a genuine Mac or on a Hackintosh.
Educovas, and neon Ball both said, getting acceleration working isn't Too hard But patching the small stuff is what takes time. You Clearly don't bother doing the tiniest bit of research. at This Point I'm almost sure you are a troll.
Again, for the one thousand time, OCLP-MOD is a fork of the OCLP project, the 17 year old kid behind it, only made it patch Audio and modern wireless(WIFI). He has no intention of making it patch graphics. I'm saying this because I personally spoke to him. Again Check what ever you type because anyone that has the time to check sources can throw your BS in the Dumpster. have a good day sir and Please consider checking what you say.
After all, you yourselves say that the OCLP mod is just the original OCLP made public. So if the GPU works with OCLP, Laobamac could have released that patch as well. But he didn’t, because the GPU patch isn’t ready. That’s just common sense 😃
My guy the GPU patches are in private GitHub repos that aren't for the public, laobamac forks the public OCLP repo you see on GitHub. That's very different from what you say
GitHub - pyquick/MetallibSupportPkg
Contribute to pyquick/MetallibSupportPkg development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com
What do you think about this?
and this.
github.com
GitHub - hackdoc/metal: Metal Library Patching Utilities
Metal Library Patching Utilities. Contribute to hackdoc/metal development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com
Bigwaff
Contributor
These just forks of already public official repo. Your point?
GitHub - dortania/MetallibSupportPkg: Metal Library Patching Utilities
Metal Library Patching Utilities. Contribute to dortania/MetallibSupportPkg development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com
I did take a look at the first one, it has metallibs for Tahoe builds but the second one I'm not sure honestlyThese just forks of already public official repo. Your point?
GitHub - dortania/MetallibSupportPkg: Metal Library Patching Utilities
Metal Library Patching Utilities. Contribute to dortania/MetallibSupportPkg development by creating an account on GitHub.
5T33Z0
macrumors regular
Well, we knew that already, since the video was created based on information gathered from this forum. So it's a kind of a redundant self-reassurance situation. 😀
5T33Z0
macrumors regular
and this.
GitHub - hackdoc/metal: Metal Library Patching Utilities
Metal Library Patching Utilities. Contribute to hackdoc/metal development by creating an account on GitHub.
This one might be promising. It's contains an open Pull Request for integrating "Primary Support macOS 26.x" into the main repo which has been opened on March 29th.
Can't be tested easily without compiling it on your own, though.
hvds
macrumors 6502a
I compiled it a while ago (August 3rd, see post #532 https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...pported-macs-discussion.2458481/post-34042325). A very well made piece of software.
And ran it, without usable result. I found that the pieces missing during one of the execution phases would require patch developers' inside knowledge - which I don't have.
Last edited:
5T33Z0
macrumors regular
I am talking about this FORK: https://github.com/hackdoc/metal
Not the main repo you are referring to.
The code in the last commit is from MARCH 29th 2026. So unless you can time travel this is not the build you was using in August 2025.
sinbad21
macrumors regular
I tried it, it works. But it's useless. Once you have a metallib.pkg for macOS Tahoe, what can you do with it? Nothing. There's no OCLP patch available.
GitHub - pyquick/MetallibSupportPkg
Contribute to pyquick/MetallibSupportPkg development by creating an account on GitHub.
What do you think about this?
pretty much yeah. I even tried it. It Does have the metallibsupportpkg for Tahoe (eg: 26.4.1-25E253). But without a proper Opencore legacy patcher 3.0.0 it is pretty much useless
5T33Z0
macrumors regular
Yes, I even modified the Opencore legacy patcher source from the macOS next branch, that build from the macOS next branch needs alot of work. It still blocks Tahoe from patching. It needs alot of work. It's best to wait
deeveedee
macrumors 68000
While we're waiting for OCLP 3.0.0, some may want to learn more about the magic behind OCLP. Dortania has provided excellent documentation. Here's a good place to start learning about the patches. The Dortania documentation is an incredible source for those who want to learn more about Macs and hacks.
Yeah Honestly, If we Could get some people learning How to do this we Might be able to help out the remaining Developers. At the End of the day, it's the last intel release of macOS ( basically a final ride). I've been Personally learning how to make OCLP Patch Tahoe ( with the latest Source From The macOS-next Branch) But With my upcoming move I unfortunately Can't help. as much as I wanted
I don’t see the point in installing Tahoe on 3rd or 4th generation computers…
These computers cope perfectly well even with Monterey. OCLP 2.4.1 for Sequoia
works very well and anyone with older hardware should stick with it. You can happily use
macOS Sequoia for another five years . Tahoe doesn’t offer much apart from
a demanding interface that isn’t to everyone’s taste.
The original Mac ended with 10th-generation Intel… Since then, people have successfully
installed macOS even on 14th or 15th-generation processors.
And as you probably know, there’s a huge gap in performance between these processors.
I would see the future of OCLP 3.0 as supporting precisely these most powerful
configurations; not necessarily original Macs.
I reckon that perhaps the OCLP developers would be more motivated if they
were doing something that makes sense rather than wasting time on things that don’t.
Every new version of macOS requires slightly more
system resources. Numerous tests I’ve carried out on the same setups indicate
that performance drops slightly, but it does drop. That’s why installing the latest systems
on the oldest computers isn’t always the right choice.
Below is a 13-year-old Lenovo running macOS Sequoia – it copes quite well
with the HD 4600 graphics thanks to OCLP 2.4.1. It doesn’t seem to be any less useful without the
Tahoe system. It could work just as well on Monterey, but a bit faster. The Tahoe graphical interface
would be too much of a burden, and we might find it uncomfortable to use.
These computers cope perfectly well even with Monterey. OCLP 2.4.1 for Sequoia
works very well and anyone with older hardware should stick with it. You can happily use
macOS Sequoia for another five years . Tahoe doesn’t offer much apart from
a demanding interface that isn’t to everyone’s taste.
The original Mac ended with 10th-generation Intel… Since then, people have successfully
installed macOS even on 14th or 15th-generation processors.
And as you probably know, there’s a huge gap in performance between these processors.
I would see the future of OCLP 3.0 as supporting precisely these most powerful
configurations; not necessarily original Macs.
I reckon that perhaps the OCLP developers would be more motivated if they
were doing something that makes sense rather than wasting time on things that don’t.
Every new version of macOS requires slightly more
system resources. Numerous tests I’ve carried out on the same setups indicate
that performance drops slightly, but it does drop. That’s why installing the latest systems
on the oldest computers isn’t always the right choice.
Below is a 13-year-old Lenovo running macOS Sequoia – it copes quite well
with the HD 4600 graphics thanks to OCLP 2.4.1. It doesn’t seem to be any less useful without the
Tahoe system. It could work just as well on Monterey, but a bit faster. The Tahoe graphical interface
would be too much of a burden, and we might find it uncomfortable to use.
basslik
macrumors 6502a
Agreed. I still do my basic rock solid tracking on Mt. Lion, PT10HD on my other 2010 Mac Pro, and work on my other 2010 Mac Pro with Sequoia for mixing. 😉
While True, Monterey is slowly losing application support. kind of the same a Big Sur. even on my ivy Bridge Pavilion DV6 Hack, I rocked Big Sur until last august when I made the Update to Sequoia 15.5 (24F74) and I have happily used it ever since. ( While I know Hackintosh is not the topic but it proves OCLP is Such a Good Software that brings and breeds new life into these Devices!)
