macOS Tahoe 26 on Unsupported Macs Discussion

[Pri-est]

I’ll just leave this here...

Spoiler: MBP14,3

 

[Bigwaff]

I’ll just leave this here...

In next screenshot include OCLP application about window showing version and settings window with host model selected. Thanks.

 

[Portiere]

Tahoe 26.6 on Asus H110T.
Intel Core i5 6500 Intel hd 530(graphics).
Patches only for audio (no HDMI no audio out, i use an usb device) no WIFI (no card) Bluetooth Sitecom usb CN516.

 

[hackintosh_user]

Hello everyone, I've decided to share some of my thoughts about Tahoe
Developers keep leaving the project, and since June 30, 2025(and of course after closing donating), After showing screenshots with working graphics on some devices, we haven't heard or seen any further information about the development, except for the information that it has slowed down, ok
or maybe I missed something, although I've been following the topic closely. Its very long post so sorry))))

Yes, I know development is still ongoing, and every post asking "WHERE IS TAHOE?" or "WHY IS THERE NO SUPPORT?" puts additional pressure on the developers. However, I think there is a good idea worth considering: creating some kind of beta version of the patcher with working patches for a few supported devices so that people who really want Tahoe can at least get their hands on something.
I know every Tahoe update tends to break patches, but compatible system versions could simply be listed. After all, older Tahoe builds can still be downloaded from the Internet Archive. Some people will immediately say that this makes no sense because those versions would no longer receive security updates. On the other hand, I think people who specifically want Tahoe would understand and accept that tradeoff.
Releasing an early beta with the existing patch work would also be beneficial because other developers and enthusiasts could contribute improvements. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that there are no enthusiasts interested in helping refine the existing work or joining development efforts.

I understand that this is a controversial suggestion and that some people may see it as pressure. You are completely free to say, "If you want Tahoe so badly, make the patches yourself." However, I am simply suggesting that the developers release the work they already have for the system versions that currently function.

Of course, there should be no complaints from users because any early beta release would clearly be labeled as "use at your own risk," with a disclaimer stating that the developers are not responsible for any issues that may occur to the system or device.
At the very least, even an early beta with partial functionality would help calm many people's concerns regarding Intel Macs reaching the end of the road with the final Tahoe release. Additionally, making beta patches available could allow other enthusiasts to join development and contribute.
It has already been a year since Tahoe was released. This is not a post saying "COME ON, GIVE US THE PATCHES FASTER." It is simply a suggestion to release early patches—perhaps as a "developer beta" rather than something intended for everyday users. Of course, many regular users would still try to install Tahoe, but if they break their systems, they would know that what they installed was experimental software used entirely at their own risk and not intended to be stable.
I sincerely apologize if any part of this post comes across as pressure. I am very grateful to the developers for their work. This comment is simply a suggestion that I believe has probably been considered already. If it hasn't, perhaps it is worth discussing. If it has, I would be interested in hearing why it is considered a bad idea. I am simply curious whether I am the only one who has these thoughts about the current situation.

I Say ditto to this. But this kind of has some issues:

• You'd be throwing out Macs Older than 2012 Since educovas said non-metal still needs work
• Also T2 Macs will be thrown out Since T2 Chip support doesn't work yet.
• You'd Have users asking "Why is my Mac not on the list????"
• Possibly T1 Macs Still need work so 2016 & 2017 Macs with T1 may be not listed.

In the end you'd end up with like Macs From 2012-2015 and most people have these, but some people have a non-metal Mac (2011 and older), or Some Have a T1 Mac or T2 Mac so a lot of people still end up "where is Tahoe Support?? ETA?" But I personally don't think it's a bad Idea Just maybe if the Patches are ready or Most of the lets say metal Supported Macs Patches Are Ready. Hopefully we see something like this soon..

 

[hackintosh_user]

I’ll just leave this here...

Spoiler: MBP14,3

View attachment 2637228

Since this is a 2017 Mac, Does the T1 Chip work? and I noticed you also have graphics acceleration working.. Could you Provide a Screenshot with the OCLP application Version please?

 

[funnymacuser]

I Say ditto to this. But this kind of has some issues:

• You'd be throwing out Macs Older than 2012 Since educovas said non-metal still needs work
• Also T2 Macs will be thrown out Since T2 Chip support doesn't work yet.
• You'd Have users asking "Why is my Mac not on the list????"
• Possibly T1 Macs Still need work so 2016 & 2017 Macs with T1 may be not listed.

In the end you'd end up with like Macs From 2012-2015 and most people have these, but some people have a non-metal Mac (2011 and older), or Some Have a T1 Mac or T2 Mac so a lot of people still end up "where is Tahoe Support?? ETA?" But I personally don't think it's a bad Idea Just maybe if the Patches are ready or Most of the lets say metal Supported Macs Patches Are Ready. Hopefully we see something like this soon..

I think in principle even if they release 2012-2015 or even T1 chips, others will talk on the forums "lol why do they have patches and we don't" because previously released on affordable non-Metal models, etc. but even with Sequoia, if I'm not mistaken, T2 has not yet been fully researched and made,And also for people with T2 should understand how important this chip is in their Mac and why development with it is more difficult or almost impossible, and for non-Metal I think it's the end of Sequoia because Tahoe has a new interface and people should understand that old architectures from 15 years ago are unlikely to be very well managed by the MacOS Tahoe, I think it's logical for 2012 and newer models to allow Tahoe because they have metal and it's better to switch to developing these models because these machines are still good and usable and work normally, still the priority is better 2012 and newer than older ones, still something is better than nothing at all

 

[hackintosh_user]

I think in principle even if they release 2012-2015 or even T1 chips, others will talk on the forums "lol why do they have patches and we don't" because previously released on affordable non-Metal models, etc. but even with Sequoia, if I'm not mistaken, T2 has not yet been fully researched and made,And also for people with T2 should understand how important this chip is in their Mac and why development with it is more difficult or almost impossible, and for non-Metal I think it's the end of Sequoia because Tahoe has a new interface and people should understand that old architectures from 15 years ago are unlikely to be very well managed by the MacOS Tahoe, I think it's logical for 2012 and newer models to allow Tahoe because they have metal and it's better to switch to developing these models because these machines are still good and usable and work normally, still the priority is better 2012 and newer than older ones, still something is better than nothing at all

True.. but at the end of the day, it's unpaid developers so they aren't forced to do opencore legacy patcher.. so cut them some slack and let them work it out on their pace

 

[imacker2011]

No need to rush things, but I'd really appreciate if the final version of OCLP 3 supported 2011 iMacs in case they have an upgraded Metal GPU, such as Nvidia Kepler. There is a large thread about this upgrade in this forum and I'd reckon there are many users who did it. With upgraded CPU and RAM, these machines are no less capable than many 2012+ machines and I assume most of them can handle Liquid Glass well, if patched correctly.

 

[hackintosh_user]

No need to rush things, but I'd really appreciate if the final version of OCLP 3 supported 2011 iMacs in case they have an upgraded Metal GPU, such as Nvidia Kepler. There is a large thread about this upgrade in this forum and I'd reckon there are many users who did it. With upgraded CPU and RAM, these machines are no less capable than many 2012+ machines and I assume most of them can handle Liquid Glass well, if patched correctly.

I absolutely agree, but non metal Macs Won't support liquid glass, but replaced with blue from old skylight Mojave 10.14.6 ( said educoavs)

 

[funnymacuser]

I absolutely agree, but non metal Macs Won't support liquid glass, but replaced with blue from old skylight Mojave 10.14.6 ( said educoavs)

I think replacing the glass with blur will take a really more time and may also add bugs that will need to be fixed, this is in fact a restructuring of the entire all UI Tahoe as well as other programs that also use liquid Glass

 

[imacker2011]

I absolutely agree, but non metal Macs Won't support liquid glass, but replaced with blue from old skylight Mojave 10.14.6 ( said educoavs)

I think replacing the glass with blur will take a really more time and may also add bugs that will need to be fixed, this is in fact a restructuring of the entire all UI Tahoe as well as other programs that also use liquid Glass

That is why I meant only those iMacs updated to a Metal-supporting GPU. Non-metal Macs might be excluded. After all, even if the UI works, there remain a lot of broken things (such as Photos, Maps, GarageBand, Apple TV...). And most of these machines are built on really old architectures such as Penryn and older...probably too old to cope with Tahoe anyway.

 

[hackintosh_user]

That is why I meant only those iMacs updated to a Metal-supporting GPU. Non-metal Macs might be excluded. After all, even if the UI works, there remain a lot of broken things (such as Photos, Maps, GarageBand, Apple TV...). And most of these machines are built on really old architectures such as Penryn and older...probably too old to cope with Tahoe anyway.

Well, Mac Pros can be upgraded to an AMD GPU with metal easily.. but MacBook pros and iMacs aren't as easy..

 

[imacker2011]

Well, Mac Pros can be upgraded to an AMD GPU with metal easily.. but MacBook pros and iMacs aren't as easy..

Yeah, MacPro's should definitely also be supported, if possible. The thread I mentioned about iMac updates is approaching 1000 pages, so there are definitely a lot of users still out there. I wouldn't say it's the easiest ting on earth to update but if you have ever tinkered with PCs it is entirely doable. Both AMD or NVIDIA Kepler cards are possible.

Not sure about non-metal MBPs. Don't know if possible at all and/or feasible, given the old mobile CPUs.

 

[hackintosh_user]

Yeah, MacPro's should definitely also be supported, if possible. The thread I mentioned about iMac updates is approaching 1000 pages, so there are definitely a lot of users still out there. I wouldn't say it's the easiest ting on earth to update but if you have ever tinkered with PCs it is entirely doable. Both AMD or NVIDIA Kepler cards are possible.

Not sure about non-metal MBPs. Don't know if possible at all and/or feasible, given the old mobile CPUs.

correct me if im wrong but I think MBP's GPUs/CPU's are soldered into the Board I don't think it's like a traditional socket CPU/GPU,

 

[hackintosh_user]

I think replacing the glass with blur will take a really more time and may also add bugs that will need to be fixed, this is in fact a restructuring of the entire all UI Tahoe as well as other programs that also use liquid Glass

Not to Mention that it will generally be slower than Sequoia...

 

[LuckyOldMan]

Not ashamed to admit that I tried

What won't one do when one can't think of anything else to say on the thread topic?

Hackintosh excursions, while still not relevant to the thread topic, don't offer anything new either, because that topic has already been beaten to death.

So, out of sheer desperation, one turns to the equally unrelated topic of macOS 27, knowing full well that it won't work for unsupported Macs anyway.

The pages have to be filled somehow, even if ultimately only with trivialities.

By the way: have I already mentioned what I did last summer? 😂

 

[deeveedee]

@LuckyOldMan Good day to you, too, sunshine! 🤣

This one's just for you

Spoiler

 

[LuckyOldMan]

This one's just for you

Oh – thank you so much – that's so kind of you. 😍

I'd really missed it, as it's been at least a week (or even longer?) since you posted that well-known picture (how did I even manage to wait so long?).

And so that you don't feel too lonely, here's a picture of my top-of-the-line Hackintosh just for you, but really only as an exception, so please don't tell anyone I made it, because ... as we all know:
the thread topic is about "Tahoe on unsupported Macs", not about Hackintoshes. 😉



@All
To stay true to the thread topic, here's my iMac 18.3 @ Tahoe 26.5.1

 

[hackintosh_user]

Hello everyone I hope everyone is having a good evening/day.I have a question
How can I get Opencore legacy patcher's auto patcher ( patcher that works during the final part of installation) on ivy bridge 2012 MacBook pro? Because ever since it started needing the MetallibsupportPkg, the auto patcher never works. I have tried putting the PKG where the autopkgassets.pkg but it doesn't patch. How can I get it to patch?

 

[TimothyR734]

Hello everyone I hope everyone is having a good evening/day.I have a question
How can I get Opencore legacy patcher's auto patcher ( patcher that works during the final part of installation) on ivy bridge 2012 MacBook pro? Because ever since it started needing the MetallibsupportPkg, the auto patcher never works. I have tried putting the PKG where the autopkgassets.pkg but it doesn't patch. How can I get it to patch?

Are you on macOS Tahoe or Sequoia? if you have a GitHub account you could type MetallibsupportPkg in the search bar and could download and install it! As I am on Sequoia and it detects that I need the MetallibsupportPkg and it downloads and installs it automatically while downloading a Sequioa update

 

[hackintosh_user]

Are you on macOS Tahoe or Sequoia? if you have a GitHub account you could type MetallibsupportPkg in the search bar and could download and install it! As I am on Sequoia and it detects that I need the MetallibsupportPkg and it downloads and installs it automatically while downloading a Sequioa update

You didn't Understand what I ment, OpenCore Legacy patcher has a Special Auto patcher that works near the end part of the installation it will patch stuff like graphics, Wifi, For you so the setup process isn't as slow Nor laggy. with macOS Sequoia for metal 3802 GPUS need metallibsupportpkg, Since the Patcher has no way to download it when it is installing the OS, it skips patching the GPU and ends up with a really slow Setup assistant. I'm asking if someone has found a way to make it work?

 

[Bigwaff]

Since the Patcher has no way to download it when it is installing the OS, it skips patching the GPU and ends up with a really slow Setup assistant. I'm asking if someone has found a way to make it work?

Are you asking when WiFi isn’t patched yet? Wired Ethernet networking.

 

[hackintosh_user]

Are you asking when WiFi isn’t patched yet? Wired Ethernet networking.

I tried that, and it Still doesn't Download the metallibsupportpkg, and then patch the Graphics. so im asking if it's possible to Put the pkg inside the folder where the autoassetspkg.pkg is and it will patch?

 

[deeveedee]

I haven't tried it myself (don't have a system that needs MetalLibSupportPkg), so forgive what may be naive suggestion: If you do the following, does this work?

• manually download the desired MetalLibSupportPkg
• remove the existing pkg: sudo rm -rf "/Library/Application Support/Dortania/MetallibSupportPkg"
• install the new package: double click the downloaded pkg which would install it in /Library/Application Support/Dortania/MetallibSupportPkg
• Run OCLP without a network connection

 

[hackintosh_user]

I haven't tried it myself (don't have a system that needs MetalLibSupportPkg), so forgive what may be naive suggestion: If you do the following, does this work?

• manually download the desired MetalLibSupportPkg
• remove the existing pkg: sudo rm -rf "/Library/Application Support/Dortania/MetallibSupportPkg"
• install the new package: double click the downloaded pkg which would install it in /Library/Application Support/Dortania/MetallibSupportPkg
• Run OCLP without a network connection

This itself works, but I'm asking about during the install part ( during the %x completd part after the 29 mins remaining part. This is when OCLP's auto patcher kicks in (autoassetspkg.pkg) on macOS Sonoma and older, this works perfectly since older than Sequoia does not require MetallibsupportPkg. The image attached is the part I mean, this is when the auto patcher will kick in. But even if it completed, it won't have the Metallib so thus, no acceleration.