MP 1,1-5,1 Manually Configured OpenCore on the Mac Pro

[Jazzzny]

Does this mean to say the OCLP dials home?

Yes, it does. This is done to determine where resources should be invested, i.e. putting more work into fixing issues with MacPro5,1 rather than MacPro3,1 in order to maximize usability.

 

[MacNB2]

Yes but it’s optional.

EDIT: See here:

OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/PRIVACY.md at main · dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher

Experience macOS just like before. Contribute to dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[Dayo]

Yes, it does.

Yes but it’s optional.

Thanks. I don't use it as yet but mulling setting Ventura up.
Good to know I can switch this setting off if I do go ahead.
Will probably also block the connection just to be sure.

We can now return to regular programming!

 

[joevt]

Yes, it does. This is done to determine where resources should be invested, i.e. putting more work into fixing issues with MacPro5,1 rather than MacPro3,1 in order to maximize usability.

That might be a little bit backward. Maybe it doesn't get used as much on a certain system because they didn't put enough work into making it as usable as it is on other systems.

 

[cdf]

Proposed changes based on recent input:

Manually Configured OpenCore on the Mac Pro

In this guide, you'll learn how to use OpenCore to install, run and update macOS Catalina, Big Sur and Monterey on the 2009–2012 Mac Pro, ending up with a clean unaltered operating system just like on a supported Mac.

The approach described in this guide is for setting up and configuring OpenCore manually in a manner that aims to promote an understanding of the resulting configuration. There are other ways of setting up and configuring OpenCore on the Mac Pro that were developed after the approach described in this guide and that draw on this guide to a large extent varying extents. A popular example is OCLP (OpenCore Legacy Patcher), which sets up and configures OpenCore automatically on the Mac Pro as well as on a wide range of other legacy Macs. For support with OCLP, please use their recommended support channel.

Neutral and to the point. I like it. Still open to suggestions, though.

 

[Bmju]

Can I chime in again....? Similarly to it being wrong to ascribe too much input from OCLP to this guide, and that draw on this guide to a large extent makes it sound as if the basis of OCLP is to bundle up and automate what you can do manually from this guide (at least, it does to me) - which I'm sure is far from what anybody would want to claim!? Even if OCLP's basic approach comes from here in the first place (does it? I honestly don't know), nevertheless, they have done tons of research to continue to support multiple features on multiple Macs. And, in fact, on looking at 'their' config, I always assumed they must come from a 'hackintosh' background, different from this thread, because they include so many OC-related kexts, etc., which aren't needed when just making the minor tweaks needed to support a nearly-supported Mac, as you do here.

EDIT: So, as a specific suggestion, possibly just omit the words quoted above?

 

[cdf]

Can I chime in again....?

That's the idea 😉

and that draw on this guide to a large extent makes it sound as if the basis of OCLP is to bundle up and automate what you can do manually from this guide (at least, it does to me) - which I'm sure is far from what anybody would want to claim!?

That's definitely not what I want to claim. I'll remove or reword the quoted passage if it's giving the wrong impression.

Even if OCLP's basic approach comes from here in the first place (does it? I honestly don't know), nevertheless, they have done tons of research to continue to support multiple features on multiple Macs. And, in fact, on looking at 'their' config, I always assumed they must come from a 'hackintosh' background, different from this thread, because they include so many OC-related kexts, etc., which aren't needed when just making the minor tweaks needed to support a nearly-supported Mac, as you do here.

I could be wrong, but I think the OCLP approach at the very beginning was to use automatic mode, which is the usual approach for hacks. Remember our offline "scalpel-vs-hammer" discussions? Some of that content is mentioned here:

MacBook 5,1 requires a firmware upgrade to proceed · Issue #97 · dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher

Done with 0.0.18. Is the problem related to the non-APFS native support ?

github.com

Elements from post #1 did make their way into OCLP, particularly the minimal spoofing strategy. In fact, in 2021, khronokernel had this to say:

we're currently leaning towards cdf's method as there's been more successes with this

Here's the complete discussion:

Allow non-generated, orginal machine ids? · Issue #51 · dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher

I was playing around with trying to get non-macserial-generated ids (i.e. my machine's orginal ids) when booting through OpenCore. (And latterly pestering the OC developers with some issues, and on...

github.com

Therefore, we have to be very careful not to rewrite history and erase the role this thread played just to play it safe!

 

[Dayo]

Similarly to it being wrong to ascribe too much input from OCLP to this guide, and that draw on this guide to a large extent makes it sound as if the basis of OCLP is to bundle up and automate what you can do manually from this guide (at least, it does to me) - which I'm sure is far from what anybody would want to claim!?

EDIT: So, as a specific suggestion, possibly just omit the words quoted above?

Hmm. The statement is a generic statement about other methods of configuring OpenCore and is not OCLP specific. I suppose the follow on A popular example ... could lead to the conclusion you reached.

Having said that, it might be best to drop the and that draw on this guide to a large extent indeed to avoid putting anyone's back up ... even though the claim is in fact accurate.

Edit:
Perhaps and that draw on this guide to varying extents?

 

[prefuse07]

Open question to the group: Who is (are?) the owner(s?) of OpenCore?

Is there any way we can petition for a name change, so as to separate OC and OCLP ?

It looks like OCLP will remain as it is, but couldn't we theoretically petition for a name change for OC then?


I think that would be the best way to really avoid any confusion going forward...

Then the thread title could be "New Name on the Mac Pro (formerly OpenCore)" or better yet, just make mention of the "formerly known as" part within the intro on page 1...

In the business world > companies do it all the time. Why can't we do it with this?

 

[cdf]

Perhaps and that draw on this guide to varying extents?

That’s good. Like you said, the statement is not specific to OCLP. Teck’s OC plistlib generator, for example, uses the same configuration as described in post #1.

 

[Bmju]

That's the idea 😉


That's definitely not what I want to claim. I'll remove or reword the quoted passage if it's giving the wrong impression.


I could be wrong, but I think the OCLP approach at the very beginning was to use automatic mode, which is the usual approach for hacks. Remember our offline "scalpel-vs-hammer" discussions? Some of that content is mentioned here:

MacBook 5,1 requires a firmware upgrade to proceed · Issue #97 · dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher

Done with 0.0.18. Is the problem related to the non-APFS native support ?

github.com

Elements from post #1 did make their way into OCLP, particularly the minimal spoofing strategy. In fact, in 2021, khronokernel had this to say:



Here's the complete discussion:

Allow non-generated, orginal machine ids? · Issue #51 · dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher

I was playing around with trying to get non-macserial-generated ids (i.e. my machine's orginal ids) when booting through OpenCore. (And latterly pestering the OC developers with some issues, and on...

github.com

Therefore, we have to be very careful not to rewrite history and erase the role this thread played just to play it safe!

Well of course I remember those discussions. My sense continues to be that that there has been _some_ fruitful interchange, in both directions. And, certainly, that this guide was first. So you certainly get priority, and I would agree that one (anyone, but yourself not least, of course!) wouldn't want to lose that important historical fact; equally, no one wants to downplay the fact that both approaches have (at times) helped each other - arguably, in smaller rather than bigger ways, and arguably (in both cases?) since, rather than at, their respective times of creation. Maybe @Dayo's revised wording hits the spot, here.

 

[Dayo]

Neutral and to the point. I like it. Still open to suggestions, though.

Always best. Only Grammar Police note from me is that OCLP should typically have "the" in front of it when referred to in certain places.

Is there any way we can petition for a name change, so as to separate OC and OCLP ?

If I was the developer of the OCLP, I would immediately change it's name to match whatever OpenCore is called. In other words, there is no need for either of them to change the name once understood that the OCLP is a tool for setting OpenCore up and not an alternative to OpenCore.

If OpenCore becomes ClosedCore, then a tool for setting it up that also patches stuff is perfectly fine to change to be called the "CCLP".

 

[Bmju]

Open question to the group: Who is (are?) the owner(s?) of OpenCore?

Is there any way we can petition for a name change, so as to separate OC and OCLP ?

It looks like OCLP will remain as it is, but couldn't we theoretically petition for a name change for OC then?


I think that would be the best way to really avoid any confusion going forward...

Then the thread title could be "New Name on the Mac Pro (formerly OpenCore)" or better yet, just make mention of the "formerly known as" part within the intro on page 1...

In the business world > companies do it all the time. Why can't we do it with this?

OC has been around for longer than OCLP, or than this thread. Equally, the OC and OCLP developers are close - even though they are, in the main, not the same people. The name-change boat has sailed, and even if it hadn't, it certainly shouldn't be expected that OC themselves, of all the groups involved here (the ones who created the basis for all of this), should be the ones to change. IMO.

 

[cdf]

Open question to the group: Who is (are?) the owner(s?) of OpenCore?

It’s a collective effort led by computer science researchers vit9696 and mhaeuser.

Is there any way we can petition for a name change, so as to separate OC and OCLP ?

It looks like OCLP will remain as it is, but couldn't we theoretically petition for a name change for OC then?

Haha! OC has to stay as OC. No question.

 

[Dayo]

OC plistlib generator, for example, uses the same configuration

So does MyBootMgr to a large extent (at least to start with).
It was just decided to change a few things after concluding there is little difference between purist and fanatic!

 

[Macschrauber]

Maybe we see this here is the diy OpenCore variant for the Mac Pro 5,1

OCLP, MyBootMgr, MartinLo, and the ones I do not listed are somewhere assistants or pre configured for OC, where OCLP is the multiassistant for various kinds of Macs.

 

[Bmju]

Neutral and to the point. I like it. Still open to suggestions, though.

Always best.

Not convinced it's always best, or even always possible. I know this isn't politics, but I suspect that what counts as non-biased (neutral) depends on the writer, and the reader - always. Nothing wrong with trying to ensure we're as little misunderstood as possible, though!

 

[cdf]

Always best. Only Grammar Police note from me is that OCLP should typically have "the" in front of it when referred to in certain places.

As a native English speaker, I find that “the” in front of an acronym sounds wrong. For example, we always say “NASA” rather than “the NASA”, but we always say “the National Aeronautics and Space Administration”. I’m very curious because you’ve clearly demonstrated a mastery of English with your written words (here and elsewhere), so there must be a reason.

Edit: Now I’m really confused. We always say “the CIA” rather than “CIA”… Still, “the OCLP” sounds wrong.

 

[cdf]

Maybe we see this here is the diy OpenCore variant for the Mac Pro 5,1

OCLP, MyBootMgr, MartinLo, and the ones I do not listed are somewhere assistants or pre configured for OC, where OCLP is the multiassistant for various kinds of Macs.

So “DIY OpenCore on the Mac Pro” as a title? I suppose that could work, too. Still leaning towards “Manually Configured…”, though.

 

[olivier92]

Hi, I have Monterey 12.6.1 installed with OC 0.8. and config version 02 of MartinLo's. I keep having a problem with a FF800 sound card connected by firewire. The only time it has worked correctly has been when installing the OS from scratch, then when shutting down and restarting if I use it as a sound device in any program, a feedback sound is produced in all the outputs, other times it plays jumpy and with glitter. However with a firewire hard drive or even a firewire connected RME UFX everything works fine. Also comment that it is not a problem with the sound card, since if I connect it to a Macbook Pro with an official installation of Monterey it works perfectly. Any help or comments on this topic?
I don't know if I should create a post just for this, if you think it's relevant I'll make a new post.
Greetings.
Thank you

Hi, did you find a solution for your FF800 issue? I have the same problem...
Thank you

 

[Dayo]

I find that “the” in front of an acronym sounds wrong. For example, we always say “NASA” rather than “the NASA”

You don't use articles for acronyms such as NASA, UNESCO, NATO indeed. These acronyms act as names in their own right. Intialisms, where you say each letter, are different and such should have an article.

The UN ... the BBC ... the CIA ... the FBI ... the USSR ... the OCLP

 

[Bmju]

So clearly there are some acronyms which take 'the', and others which don't. And possibly (probably) there are some where it is not well defined which of these is correct (normal; standard)? 'The OCLP' sounds wrong to me too.

+1 for 'Manually configured' over 'DIY'.

 

[Bmju]

You don't use articles for acronyms such as NASA, UNESCO, NATO indeed. These acronyms act as names in their own right. Intialisms, where you say each letter, are different and such should have an article.

The UN ... the BBC ... the CIA ... the FBI ... the USSR ... the OCLP

The HTML...

 

[Dayo]

'The OCLP' sounds wrong to me too.

I would have been most surprised if it didn't!

Go with what you prefer @cdf. What I gave is a general rule of thumb and there are always nuances and exceptions.

You will note I wrote "in certain places" and not "everywhere it appears".
If you go back to my draft, I am sure there was at least one instance where it was not used due to the local context.
Seems I removed this line in an edit

Not a biggie all said and done.

 

[paalb]

+1 for 'Manually configured'.