Your Mac have non-metal GPU, Even when the patches become available, your GPU won't display "liquid glass." As of now, even Metal doesn't work on Tahoe on some devices. You'll be dealing with broken graphics and most likely no internet. I don't think it's a good idea to install Tahoe on your Mac, because you won't get anything out of it except a system that is completely unusable, Get acquainted with it https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/issues/1167
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
In my project, no one has tested on a MacBook Pro this old yet. The oldest that were tested by other members are 2012 MacBook Pros. And 2011 Mac mini - and right now, with non-Metal GPUs it boots to Tahoe, but without graphics yet due to buggy patchset logic - I mean during root patching when it starts patching the GPU Metallibs downloading is restarting endlessly and I’m trying to fix that one. If you want to contribute to Dortania's OCLP, you need to reach khronkernel in Discord. However, if you want to contribute to my project instead - tell me and I can add you.
You're right - Tahoe on non-Metal GPU is going to be pain. But with internet, on my project you will be able to get internet, but the patching logic itself has bugs at the moment.
Thank you, I would appreciate that. Though, I might not do much because all my edits are based off dortania's OCLP branch macos-next.
I have posted about it on discord, but I haven't received an email from discord about it yet.
I know. I just wanted to see if there was a update that wasn't in that issue.
And sadly the dortaina OCLP Where the actual patches are for all systems are in Private GitHub repos which no one but the developers can access sadly. And with Tahoe coming up on a year now we can only Hope for a release.
That is weird, I mean, I know about dortania's internal resources.dmg, I've seen it referenced in the source code, I thought it was old. Because the ones I thought where running it where PatcherSupportPkg and Payloads.dmg. But, it makes sense because they need to respect the fact that Apple make the binaries and then can't just post them on github without permission. (But aren't they are doing that in PatcherSupportPkg…?)
firelighter487
macrumors 6502
i mean i don't care up to a point. my daily laptop, my 2014 MBP, doesn't have a T2 and will run tahoe fine if only patches existed for it. i'm getting frustrated that T2 is the big thing that's holding it back while i'm unaffected by it.
Realistically speaking we don't know what's stopping the team from releasing OCLP 3.0.0 Root patches. Aside from the T2 being their hardest challenge we know Nothing.
Mystere65
macrumors regular
OCLP 2.5.0 was even cancelled, and that unfortunately says a lot... the Team in my opinion abandoned the project.
While we don't know if the project was truly abandoned but from the looks of it yeah It literally looks like they left it, no commits, no release since a year, even a progress update we haven't gotten in a while.. but one thing concrete is the project isn't dead unless they say it themselves.
basslik
macrumors 6502a
My 5,1 is for some reason on 15.7.8 seems to be a little snappier. Then again, I only use it for Pro Tools.
Last edited:
No. I have confidence in them, the team is going through a tough time. The main co-authors are now working at Apple, and the rest of the team are going though live's challenges. And here's something: if they abandoned the project, how do you explain the fact that Mr Macintosh says they are working I think it was 2.5.2, a bug fix that will come before Tahoe support. And, they even went back and released an issue on macOS Golden Gate: https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/issues/1183
It even says: "We'd like to address a major elephant in the room: macOS Tahoe 26 support in OpenCore Legacy Patcher.
It comes as no surprise that the team has shrunk in the time since its announcement at WWDC25. Apple created many roadblocks with Tahoe's under-the-hood changes that have resulted in internal delays, even from just one beta to another. Team members needed to step down for their health, others found their way towards a very small fruit-related company in Cupertino, and the rest have had their own lives to tend to while progress slowly marches forward.
We're still working on Tahoe. We cannot provide ETAs as before, but we can say that we're hoping to see the light at the end of this tunnel. Giving Intel Macs one last send-off, even if it's a bit late, is something the team likes to use to motivate themselves in pushing forward. We ask for some more patience while we continue to work towards this."
See? This is from the developers own mouths. You can't argue with that. Is it is unfortunate that they haven't released it? yes. But they are still working on it. That is the important part. In fact, you could instead switch the blame to Apple for changing Tahoe so much.
basslik
macrumors 6502a
No confidence in them?
They built the confidence on progress to this point.
Hold on a little longer, with confidence. 😛
A commit has been made to the OCLP Repo for the first time in nearly 4 months. (6 days away from 4 months).
hvds
macrumors 6502a
Yes, updating the copyright information for the main branch (2.5.0), maybe in preparation for release of that version, i.e. for Sequoia and earlier.
Yup hopefully we see something soon
What do you mean? I said that I had confidence in them.
basslik
macrumors 6502a
Mystere65
macrumors regular
It's not about confidence, considering that Golden Gate is about to be released, it seems like a waste of energy to me, just to advance one version on a few more modern Intel machines.
Agreed. If I were friends with the OCLP devs (and I do think many of us here feel we are after all these years 😉
I would tell them to not waste any more time on Tahoe and go surf instead and no longer cater to nerds like us who like to waffle about running the latest fruit OS on a 15 year old Intel laptop. This dev cycle is legendary already as-is 😉
When push comes to shove Sequoia is truly working great on legacy Macs (but not as well as Ubuntu) and in my opinion the only advantage with Tahoe on legacy Macs for most people would simply be another year of sec updates and the small fruit-related company can in my opinion no longer be trusted to provide anything else than that.
I recall one of the OCLP devs writing that Tahoe adds processes that strain legacy Mac usage considerably and is probably not worth it for older Macs. I am writing this on a native MBA 16" T2 that has constant running fans on Tahoe unless I throttle the Turbo Boost and this was recently the most powerful laptop in the world according to the advertising at the time 😉
I did have hopes that there might be extended support for the last version of Intel Macs but that is also unrealistic by the look of things and anyone who wants to stay on the fruit-related bandwagon or does development needs to buy a modern Mac at some point anyway. We all know it and especially the fruit-related company itself knows it.
Myself, I am preparing for extended Linux use sooner or later and yes, that is also a political decision in part.
To each their own.
Last edited:
I think the project is worth continuing. We may not be massive fans of Tahoe or Golden Gates' new features, but continuing work on OCLP is vital to giving old Macs (and the Hackintoshes, but that's a separate thread) a future.
Everyone knows that macOS Tahoe and most of the new software doesn't actually require specific hardware features or Apple Silicon as they can make it run on the last Intel Macs from 2019 and 2020 - for example, the 2018 Macs have exactly the same T2 chip and Intel AVX instructions, but their support was dropped, arbitrarily, it looks like.
It's also important from a security perspective - people running very old versions of macOS are vulnerable to various exploits that won't be receiving patches.
Everyone knows that macOS Tahoe and most of the new software doesn't actually require specific hardware features or Apple Silicon as they can make it run on the last Intel Macs from 2019 and 2020 - for example, the 2018 Macs have exactly the same T2 chip and Intel AVX instructions, but their support was dropped, arbitrarily, it looks like.
It's also important from a security perspective - people running very old versions of macOS are vulnerable to various exploits that won't be receiving patches.
Last edited:
deeveedee
macrumors 68000
Thanks to the wonderful folks at Acidanthera and Dortania who continue to maintain Open Core, macOS Tahoe is working perfectly for me on all of my hacks - from "unsupported" 8th gen Intel to "supported" 10th gen Intel.
For those who can run macOS Tahoe on Intel and who are disappointed with their Intel-Tahoe experience (or just don't like Apple any more for whatever reason), I'd suggest that you don't waste any more time here. Your negativity isn't helping anyone.
I still remain optimistic in an OCLP solution for Tahoe. If you don't need XCode (which now requires Tahoe for the latest updates), you'll continue to receive Sequoia updates from Apple and won't need to upgrade from Sequoia to Tahoe for another year and a half. By then, we should have an OCLP solution for Tahoe.
For those who can run macOS Tahoe on Intel and who are disappointed with their Intel-Tahoe experience (or just don't like Apple any more for whatever reason), I'd suggest that you don't waste any more time here. Your negativity isn't helping anyone.
I still remain optimistic in an OCLP solution for Tahoe. If you don't need XCode (which now requires Tahoe for the latest updates), you'll continue to receive Sequoia updates from Apple and won't need to upgrade from Sequoia to Tahoe for another year and a half. By then, we should have an OCLP solution for Tahoe.