macOS Tahoe 26 on Unsupported Macs Discussion

[houser]

Yeah but sadly as much as you will try to keep it strictly Dortania it will find a way to be in the convo sadly.

Maybe if we or whoever moderates these threads allow that.
I for one will be gone 😉

 

[5T33Z0]

Leaving aside the fact that this thread is about macOS Tahoe 26 on Unsupported Macs & Mirone's website also points to Hackintosh users as the main target group: the WiFi patch also doesn't work on my Hackintosh MP7.1 aka Asus Z170 Deluxe & i7-7700K either: same error message.

View attachment 2647202
It seems some adjustments are necessary (-amfipassbeta is implemented) to enable the WiFi function, but these aren't really apparent to me.

Unsupported Mac or not – using OpenCore as a 3rd-party bootloader on a real Mac literally turns it into a Hackintosh. Both your Mac and any Wintel system are using the same method: a custom bootloader to inject settings, kexts, and patches into macOS.

As for the WiFi patcher, it definitely does more than just adding -amfipassbeta. It’s adding the required kexts to the EFI, modifying your config.plist, and applying the actual modern or legacy root patches.

I haven’t run Wifi Patcher Pro on my iMac yet because I can't install Tahoe on it since it requires GPU patches. But I have used it on an AMD laptop with success.

I don’t know exactly what the 'EFI Folder Validation' entails since the source code isn't provided, but t.b.h., it’s better that the patcher fails to apply than to force it and end up with an uncertain outcome or a bricked install. The repo als provides steps to revert failed patching attempts via Terminal in Recovery Mode.

 

[5T33Z0]

This OCLP fork is pretty fake because it says in one of the releases "add macOS 27 constants" which any 5 IQ person would know that macOS 27 is Strictly Apple Silicon only. But assuming it's just Forked from the official OCLP repo yeah maybe up to Sequoia.. But Just use the official dortania OCLP.

I think it's based on one of the OCLP-Mod forks due to the mention of "delete SimpleHac Download" which works similar to OpCore simplify for wintel systems, iirc. Anyway: I would say, don't use it.

 

[hackintosh_user]

I think it's based on one of the OCLP-Mod forks due to the mention of "delete SimpleHac Download" which works similar to OpCore simplify for wintel systems, iirc. Anyway: I would say, don't use it.

Pretty much any OCLP fork that wasn't made by Dortaina is a 50/50 gamble in my opinion.

 

[houser]

Pretty much any OCLP fork that wasn't made by Dortania is a 50/50 gamble in my opinion.

In this day and age that number is also rather optimistic 😉

 

[deeveedee]

This is a strange discussion. The "good, working" forks ARE Dortania with added Tahoe constants that are plainly visible and reviewable in open source. I get being loyal to Dortania and wanting to defend them. And I get why Dortania would be mad at others for cloning their work and then taking credit for it. For those who use the forks, nothing said here is going to disuade them. That said, I've tested the forks, but won't be using them.

EDIT: Note that regardless of how you feel about using OCLP forks, we need to be careful about using these solutions. There is at least one copycat "Open Core Legacy Patcher" website that is not what it appears.

 

[LuckyOldMan]

As for the WiFi patcher, it definitely does more than just adding -amfipassbeta. It’s adding the required kexts to the EFI, modifying your config.plist, and applying the actual modern or legacy root patches.

I didn't even get that far, because the error message appeared beforehand.

What puzzles me is that this happens with both the iMac 18.3, which is supported by both the CPU and GPU, and the Hackintosh MP7.1 using Asus Z170 Deluxe & RX580.
The Wi-Fi card is recognized on both devices, but then I get an EFI folder validation error (whatever is behind this message).

Beside: I have removed Tahoe as my daily work OS from my iMac 18.3 and am using Sequoia instead.

 

[deeveedee]

@LuckyOldMan You could ask for help here at InsanelyMac.

 

[andrejtom]

Hi,
Does anyone have an iMac 19,2 on which they managed to get the audio working in macOS Tahoe?
I've been struggling with this for a long time without success. I have AppleALC running, but if I apply the Post-Install Root patch in OCLP 3.0.0, it won't boot up after restarting.

 

[izzy0242mr]

After testing countless hours by using forks of OCLP and official OCLP 2.5.0 nightly (which I have managed to download prior to being removed).

Can you share a link to OCLP 2.5.0 nightly? I'd like to experiment with it on some (admittedly older) Macs and see how things go.

I found a "3.0.0" nightly OCLP download from December 2025 but I don't actually know if that's truly newer than what you have (I assume it might be but just am not sure).

And can you specify what specifically worked for you? You said you tested a bunch of things, but you didn't say what thing or combination of things actually worked.

 

[hackintosh_user]

Can you share a link to OCLP 2.5.0 nightly? I'd like to experiment with it on some (admittedly older) Macs and see how things go.

I found a "3.0.0" nightly OCLP download from December 2025 but I don't actually know if that's truly newer than what you have (I assume it might be but just am not sure).

And can you specify what specifically worked for you? You said you tested a bunch of things, but you didn't say what thing or combination of things actually worked.

the OCLP 2.5.0 nightly (well at least on Github) Artifact Expires after 90 days. And It was build on March 19th ( you do the math on this one). I can send you a copy I have of it (march 19th copy). And the 3.0.0 is truly from december but if you are looking for the one with actual patches you will have to wait for the developers to release the work publicly. Also this 2.5.0 Adresses the Modern Wireless patch so if your Card is old it won't benefit from this nightly.

 

[hackintosh_user]

I get being loyal to Dortania and wanting to defend them. And I get why Dortania would be mad at others for cloning their work and then taking credit for it.

Actually if anything the OCLP forks is what lead the developers to work on private branches (a big example is OCLP-MOD which took Edu's wifi patch with zero credit by the way). Man I miss when back in Sequoia development for OCLP 2.0.0 you could just pop into GitHub and see the work live. It was a nice time..

 

[houser]

Actually if anything the OCLP forks is what lead the developers to work on private branches (a big example is OCLP-MOD which stole Edu's wifi patch with zero credit by the way). Man I miss when back in Sequoia development for OCLP 2.0.0 you could just pop into GitHub and see the work live. It was a nice time..

Excellent points and discussing stolen code here as if nothing happened is a bad idea for more reasons than one
and why the world is in some ways how it is today (working on getting banned so I do not have to read the posts about AI slop and using stolen code anymore) ... and so spoke a consequentialist 😉

 

[deeveedee]

@hackintosh_user The working OCLP forks for Wi-Fi and Audio were not "stolen" from Edu. If we're going to make accusations, let's get our facts straight. The root tahoe-patchset is from OCLP Dev crystall1nedev. I don't disagree that the patches were forked without proper authorization from the OCLP Devs, but there's no need to spread false information to over dramatize the situation.

EDIT: I do agree that the unauthorzed forks are probably what drove the OCLP Devs underground with their development (that and losing a few key contributors). I, too, am saddened by this and miss the days of being able to follow their progress in github.

 

[funnymacuser]

@hackintosh_user The working OCLP forks for Wi-Fi and Audio were not "stolen" from Edu. If we're going to make accusations, let's get our facts straight. The root tahoe-patchset is from OCLP Dev crystall1nedev. I don't disagree that the patches were forked without proper authorization from the OCLP Devs, but there's no need to spread false information to over dramatize the situation.

EDIT: I do agree that the unauthorzed forks are probably what drove the OCLP Devs underground with their development (that and losing a few key contributors). I, too, am saddened by this and miss the days of being able to follow their progress in github.

I didn't know at all the patch set crystall1nedev, what exactly can he do or is there nothing there??

 

[deeveedee]

@funnymacuser crystall1nedev is one of the remaining active OCLP Devs. Review this thread to see their comments.

 

[houser]

the patches were forked without proper authorization from the OCLP Devs, but there's no need to spread false information to over dramatize the situation.

"forked without proper authorization" is here a bit like saying your wallet was removed from your pocket by someone without proper authorisation. No need to mince words unnecessarily either in this case I would think.

Below is the very simple license text from the OCLP git for reference and most of the forks are probably still not in compliance with it, so call it what you will. The nicest way to phrase it would IMHO be deeply unethical behaviour that should see no support.
Ah well. AI has soon forked all the code on the planet without proper authorization regardless, if not already.
The singularity is near.

Spoiler: Copyright (c) 2020-2025 Dhinak G, Mykola Grymalyuk, and individual contributors.

Copyright (c) 2020-2025 Dhinak G, Mykola Grymalyuk, and individual contributors.

All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by Dortania and OpenCore Legacy Patcher contributors.
4. Neither the name of OpenCore Legacy Patcher, nor the names of Dortania, Dhinak G, or Mykola Grymalyuk may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY DHINAK G AND MYKOLA GRYMALYUK "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL DHINAK G NOR MYKOLA GRYMALYUK BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

 

[hackintosh_user]

@hackintosh_user The working OCLP forks for Wi-Fi and Audio were not "stolen" from Edu. If we're going to make accusations, let's get our facts straight. The root tahoe-patchset is from OCLP Dev crystall1nedev. I don't disagree that the patches were forked without proper authorization from the OCLP Devs, but there's no need to spread false information to over dramatize the situation.

EDIT: I do agree that the unauthorzed forks are probably what drove the OCLP Devs underground with their development (that and losing a few key contributors). I, too, am saddened by this and miss the days of being able to follow their progress in github.

Agree with you here, but you can go into the discord non help discussion and go back through the messages and see crystall1nedev say it her self. If I can find it I will link it here.


EDIT: here are the messages from the Discord.

 

[deeveedee]

crystall1nedev created the public tahoe-patchset fork with Edu's patches (apparently at Edu's request, which I did not know). I'm fairly certain that those who forked crystall1nedev's public repo don't even know who Edu is.

Whatever. The patches were made public by crystall1nedev, others forked those public patches with credit to Dortania. No one 'stole' the patches from Edu no matter what was said on Discord.

 

[hackintosh_user]

Fair enough, at the end of the day, the project's code is open to the public. but I do wish that we could see the project's progress on tahoe support but hey, as we now come up on a year of 2.4.1, we can only really hope for the best and hope they release it any time soon. thanks devs! as for my other message that says OCLP Mod stole the patch, I edited it to "took" (which is what the dev crystall1nedev said)

 

[meowdude]

@hackintosh_user The working OCLP forks for Wi-Fi and Audio were not "stolen" from Edu. If we're going to make accusations, let's get our facts straight. The root tahoe-patchset is from OCLP Dev crystall1nedev. I don't disagree that the patches were forked without proper authorization from the OCLP Devs, but there's no need to spread false information to over dramatize the situation.

EDIT: I do agree that the unauthorzed forks are probably what drove the OCLP Devs underground with their development (that and losing a few key contributors). I, too, am saddened by this and miss the days of being able to follow their progress in github.

I don't really agree with that as a reasoning behind going underground. It is open source software and a massive part of the user base is aware of, and calls out, people that fork and steal credit. But it begs the question: when you release open source software, to what extent should credit mean anything to you? Obviously at least a little, but practically speaking we are all aware of who is behind this and who deserves credit.

I am not sure why it is underground, I don't think it has anything to do with the forks, if anything maybe it is to stop speculation and stupid questions that are based on public github activity. Maybe it is to finally get the benefits of closed source, even if just for a limited amount of time.

This also partially applies to whoever said "forked without proper authorization" – as far as I know, that makes zero sense in the context of open source software. At this point, now that it is underground, then that could be valid. But the only things being forked are open source and publicly available for... whatever.

Definitely correct me if I'm wrong! And this isn't to say that Dortania et al isn't entitled to credit – just that open sourcing things surely reduces things that you are entitled to wrt your work.

 

[deeveedee]

@meowdude Call it whatever you like... authorization, attribution, asking permission... just don't call it stolen. If you read closely enough, we're in violent agreement.

 

[hackintosh_user]

I am not sure why it is underground, I don't think it has anything to do with the forks, if anything maybe it is to stop speculation and stupid questions that are based on public github activity. Maybe it is to finally get the benefits of closed source, even if just for a limited amount of time.

This, and the harassment the developers were getting from people asking about ETAs, release the code etc.. it overall is just a sad time for OpenCore legacy patcher.

 

[ADGrant]

I understood that Tahoe is the only one so far and the first system after all the years that very changes its base with new update because I have no explanation why OCLp patches break with new update as the developers told us, especially if we talk about the graphics, Apple still needs to idealise its liquid Glass but I think that after 26.5-26.6 in macOS 26 they will clearly not do this because they will switch to idealise macOS 27 Golden Gate, But what they can do in Tahoe is further cleaning of the code for old intel, it is not clear why, and I hope they will not have this idea because they have already done a VERY GOOD job as we have already seen 😇

Tahoe supports a very limited set of Intel Macs all of which have a T2 coprocessor. There is probably a lot of dead code still in Tahoe that was there to support conventional Intel Macs.

 

[hackintosh_user]

Tahoe supports a very limited set of Intel Macs all of which have a T2 coprocessor. There is probably a lot of dead code still in Tahoe that was there to support conventional Intel Macs.

The thing is We don't even know what's happening no developer posted what's new with progress, we used to get from time to time from educovas but he sadly left. We only know they are still working on it, aside from that nothing, 0%