OpenCore Legacy Patcher – Use new macOS versions on old hardware(dortania.github.io)
dortania.github.io
OpenCore Legacy Patcher – Use new macOS versions on old hardware
https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/
85 comments
Supporting old hardware costs money because you need to write more tests. Of course there aren't technical limitations for any but the lowest specced Macs.
Things have changed the past few years but for a while upgrades to CPU performance weren't that meaningful between generations. A CPU that's over ten years old will still perform fine for light desktop use, because that's honestly all you need in most cases. All you need is a RAM upgrade and an SSD!
There are some specific Mac downsides for using older models (the insufficient cooling solution in some laptop models, for example) that will impact long term usability, but the hardware still has a ways to go.
With how much performance you can get out of an older laptop that cost a third of a Mac from the same era by installing an OS like Linux, it's a shame that Apple is abandoning these devices. The same is true for many smartphones; all the modern advancements are nice to haves, very different from the turbulent smartphone era around the late 00s.
Apple needs to sell hardware to make the money needed to fund development but they exclusively focus on very expensive high-end devices, which naturally have a very long life span if it weren't for the software. I wouldn't be surprised if the higher end M1 Macs still be perfectly usable around the time when the 2k38 bug will wreak havoc across the world.
Things have changed the past few years but for a while upgrades to CPU performance weren't that meaningful between generations. A CPU that's over ten years old will still perform fine for light desktop use, because that's honestly all you need in most cases. All you need is a RAM upgrade and an SSD!
There are some specific Mac downsides for using older models (the insufficient cooling solution in some laptop models, for example) that will impact long term usability, but the hardware still has a ways to go.
With how much performance you can get out of an older laptop that cost a third of a Mac from the same era by installing an OS like Linux, it's a shame that Apple is abandoning these devices. The same is true for many smartphones; all the modern advancements are nice to haves, very different from the turbulent smartphone era around the late 00s.
Apple needs to sell hardware to make the money needed to fund development but they exclusively focus on very expensive high-end devices, which naturally have a very long life span if it weren't for the software. I wouldn't be surprised if the higher end M1 Macs still be perfectly usable around the time when the 2k38 bug will wreak havoc across the world.
>Supporting old hardware costs money because you need to write more tests.
Not supporting old hardware has major costs too: ewaste pollution. But of course those costs are 'externalized' and not borne by Apple, but by everyone else.
Not supporting old hardware has major costs too: ewaste pollution. But of course those costs are 'externalized' and not borne by Apple, but by everyone else.
For what it's worth, Apple supports old hardware for extremely long times. Even after Treble or whatever it was called, Android smartphones have way less support. macOS Ventura is supported on machines that are six years old. macOS Big Sur, which is the oldest supported macOS, runs on machines that are ten years old. And OCLP pushes that even further.
In contrast, just look at how ridiculously short many component drivers in the Windows area are maintained. Yes you can run modern Windows, but good luck getting security fixes for all the third party component drivers. In contrast,
In contrast, just look at how ridiculously short many component drivers in the Windows area are maintained. Yes you can run modern Windows, but good luck getting security fixes for all the third party component drivers. In contrast,
Please don't act like six years is a long time to offer support. I have a 17-year-old Mac that runs the Windows 10 latest patch set just fine, and makes for a fine space heater at the same time.
The difference is, once again, Apple by supporting the drivers and fixing bugs. Good luck getting patches should, say, the no-name Bluetooth chipset in your Windows laptop have some sort of security issue.
You do understand that the old HW doesn't suddenly stop working when it's unsupported by the new OS.
True, but it means you don't get security updates, because Apple doesn't provide full security updates except on the newest OS:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-secu...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-secu...
This is not true. I've just got a security update (12.6.5) for a nine year old hardware. Newest is macOS (13) is not supported on this hardware
The source article says:
> "Because of dependency on architecture and system changes to any current version of macOS (for example, macOS 13)," the document reads, "not all known security issues are addressed in previous versions (for example, macOS 12)."
> In other words, while Apple will provide security-related updates for older versions of its operating systems, only the most recent upgrades will receive updates for every security problem Apple knows about.
Which doesn't contradict what you're saying.
Admittedly, the parent phrased it poorly, saying "but it means you don't get security updates" when they really meant "but it means you don't get security updates for all problems".
> "Because of dependency on architecture and system changes to any current version of macOS (for example, macOS 13)," the document reads, "not all known security issues are addressed in previous versions (for example, macOS 12)."
> In other words, while Apple will provide security-related updates for older versions of its operating systems, only the most recent upgrades will receive updates for every security problem Apple knows about.
Which doesn't contradict what you're saying.
Admittedly, the parent phrased it poorly, saying "but it means you don't get security updates" when they really meant "but it means you don't get security updates for all problems".
The problem I've encountered with several older Apple and Android devices is that the hardware works just fine, and the older version of the OS also works well enough, but more and more apps begin to require a newer version of the OS.
When I can't install, upgrade, or use these apps by normal means, the usefulness of the otherwise-fine device dwindles.
For the apps I've experienced this with, I don't even think they truly need the newer version of the OS. I imagine the developers just wanted to reduce testing and customer support overhead in most cases.
For any app functionality that may actually require a newer OS version, I'd probably be just fine if that functionality were disabled/unavailable on older devices, especially if it let me use the rest of the app.
When I can't install, upgrade, or use these apps by normal means, the usefulness of the otherwise-fine device dwindles.
For the apps I've experienced this with, I don't even think they truly need the newer version of the OS. I imagine the developers just wanted to reduce testing and customer support overhead in most cases.
For any app functionality that may actually require a newer OS version, I'd probably be just fine if that functionality were disabled/unavailable on older devices, especially if it let me use the rest of the app.
Sure but many people will upgrade when their laptop stops getting updated for a few versions, which they would not have done had their hardware still been supported with up-to-date software.
You do understand that there's an arbitrary cut-off caused by this that leads to things like perfectly usable devices no longer receiving browser updates? Effectively, they do stop working for anybody who does anything with the internet.
> Not supporting old hardware has major costs too: ewaste pollution.
I would not be at all shocked to find that, by volume, Android devices that vendors have refused to support with software updates over the years take up far more space in landfills.
I would not be at all shocked to find that, by volume, Android devices that vendors have refused to support with software updates over the years take up far more space in landfills.
Indeed. But two wrongs don't make a right.
What does that have to do with anything?
> Supporting old hardware costs money because you need to write more tests.
If there is anything Apple has enough resources of, it is money
If there is anything Apple has enough resources of, it is money
A bit of a circular argument. They have money because they don't spend it on unprofitable activities like supporting decade old hardware.
They've been doing this for a while. MacOS Tiger included "Built-in FireWire ports" as a system requirement which led to some weird things like the 2000 366MHz iBook and the 1999 B&W 300MHz PowerMac G3 being supported but not the 2000 350MHz iMac G3.
The frustrating part was that the requirement was only checked by the installer, so you could put the drive in a supported machine[0] to install, then swap it back and it would run fine. I think there was a similar thing with a processor speed check on Leopard[1]. There were also third-party workarounds if you didn't have access to a supported Mac. I had a friend who always had the latest and greatest, so I borrowed his machines to upgrade my last-year's-models.
0: https://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=200512110741388...
1: https://lowendmac.com/2007/unsupported-os-x-10-5-leopard-ins...
0: https://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=200512110741388...
1: https://lowendmac.com/2007/unsupported-os-x-10-5-leopard-ins...
This should be illegal, my 2010 mac pro only got support for like 5 years. Especially when it's just a matter of flipping a bit in the bios..
I have a PC from 1998 that still works using linux. That mac pro also runs happily with linux :)
I have a PC from 1998 that still works using linux. That mac pro also runs happily with linux :)
Got a few old iMacs here (10 years+) and they run with newer Mac OS versions, but they don't run well. Upgrading iMacs is a pain as well and since the ones I got have only 4G Ram it kind of hurts using them this way.
I was given the task to get a "modern", "minimal" System up on it for non technical users. Windows 7 ran ok on them, old Mac OS ran great Win 10 crashed/had audio bugs, FreeBSD somehow ended in a bppt loop and now I got a system running kde plasma on it and I have to hope that my client will find this acceptable as well. I would, but that's just me.
I was given the task to get a "modern", "minimal" System up on it for non technical users. Windows 7 ran ok on them, old Mac OS ran great Win 10 crashed/had audio bugs, FreeBSD somehow ended in a bppt loop and now I got a system running kde plasma on it and I have to hope that my client will find this acceptable as well. I would, but that's just me.
> The fact that simply patching the O.S. can be enough to make it work on older hardware is a testament on how Apple could make it work on it too, if they wanted, and without much effort.
Don't fall for it. It's the same OS whether it has a cute new name or not. The only reasons to upgrade are a desire to use specific new features, to fix bugs that specifically affect you, patching pressing security issues that specifically affect you, and/or lack of restraint. For 99.9% of users, it is the last reason and only that reason. The real reason behind Apple's fast and furious upgrade schedule is to attract developers, i.e. to break software so that users will be forced to purchase the same software again and again.
Don't fall for it. It's the same OS whether it has a cute new name or not. The only reasons to upgrade are a desire to use specific new features, to fix bugs that specifically affect you, patching pressing security issues that specifically affect you, and/or lack of restraint. For 99.9% of users, it is the last reason and only that reason. The real reason behind Apple's fast and furious upgrade schedule is to attract developers, i.e. to break software so that users will be forced to purchase the same software again and again.
In other unrelated, surprising news, the hurr durr Apple bad crowd suddenly stopped complaining about how the new OS is slowing down their computer and draining the battery.
Catalina was the last supported OS for my 2012 MBA, and the following Big Sur upgrade worked well with OCLP because it only had to patch in WiFi support during the boot process.
After that, macOS Monterey also dropped support for my Ivy Bridge GPU, and OCLP had to rely on persistent patches to my system volume to enable 3D acceleration again. These root patches caused some weird issues with 3D acceleration in certain apps, and driver-related regressions introducted by some later Catalina patches took longer to be fixed in OCLP than in the still supported Catalina release.
I think macOS Ventura is the end of the road for macOS on my Mac. The OS now relies on AVX2 binaries, and the OCLP devs made some magic hacks to circumvent that requirement. Still, the OS now feels unreliable, and while I did not see hard crashes or errors, subtile breakage only disappeared, when I rebooted the system every few hours. The macOS 13.3 update also broke my GPU driver again for a few weeks, and I finally gave up on it.
This old Mac now runs Ubuntu LTS without any issues. The battery life is at least equal, it boots faster, and the OS does not immdiately use half of my 8 GiB RAM for itself. There is also less swapping, and while not perfect, it feels more reliable than Ventura or Monterey.
While I was not happy with these issues on macOS, it was still amazing to see how this group of volunteers enabled newer macOS releases on my device. macOS on Intel is dying, but if you have a pre-T2 Mac, you might be surprised by how well Linux might work on it.
After that, macOS Monterey also dropped support for my Ivy Bridge GPU, and OCLP had to rely on persistent patches to my system volume to enable 3D acceleration again. These root patches caused some weird issues with 3D acceleration in certain apps, and driver-related regressions introducted by some later Catalina patches took longer to be fixed in OCLP than in the still supported Catalina release.
I think macOS Ventura is the end of the road for macOS on my Mac. The OS now relies on AVX2 binaries, and the OCLP devs made some magic hacks to circumvent that requirement. Still, the OS now feels unreliable, and while I did not see hard crashes or errors, subtile breakage only disappeared, when I rebooted the system every few hours. The macOS 13.3 update also broke my GPU driver again for a few weeks, and I finally gave up on it.
This old Mac now runs Ubuntu LTS without any issues. The battery life is at least equal, it boots faster, and the OS does not immdiately use half of my 8 GiB RAM for itself. There is also less swapping, and while not perfect, it feels more reliable than Ventura or Monterey.
While I was not happy with these issues on macOS, it was still amazing to see how this group of volunteers enabled newer macOS releases on my device. macOS on Intel is dying, but if you have a pre-T2 Mac, you might be surprised by how well Linux might work on it.
Does the T2 break Linux somehow?
https://wiki.t2linux.org/state/
Before these T2 chips, Intel Macs were very close to regular PC hardware. That's why I suspected better Linux support on those older models. The list of still open issues on that wiki seems to confirm this.
Before these T2 chips, Intel Macs were very close to regular PC hardware. That's why I suspected better Linux support on those older models. The list of still open issues on that wiki seems to confirm this.
IIRC T2 changed Macs from largely being IBM PC/EFI compatible to being closer to the architecture they now use on their ARM processors.
It deviates from the standard PC architecture, so generic drivers won't work anymore.
Since those machines were otherwise rather boring from a hardware perspective (rather expensive x86 machines that didn't even have the latest hardware) there wasn't much incentive to write those drivers so development is rather slow.
Yes. The T2 is in charge of a lot, keyboard/trackpad input on laptops, the SSD, etc. To get keyboard/trackpad input working you need a custom kernel as drivers still aren't in the mainline kernel.
Yeah, it looks like your MBA is on the fringes of reliable support: https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/MODELS.ht...
I have an 11-inch 2012 MBA, and I run Catalina on it (officially).
It still works fine. I use it to run Zoom, test out low-end Web stuff, and various apps and utilities that I want to work back there.
One day, it will go belly-up. It will have had a long, productive life.
But ... come on ... I have an eleven-year-old computer that is still getting OS updates from Apple.
Not too shabby.
It still works fine. I use it to run Zoom, test out low-end Web stuff, and various apps and utilities that I want to work back there.
One day, it will go belly-up. It will have had a long, productive life.
But ... come on ... I have an eleven-year-old computer that is still getting OS updates from Apple.
Not too shabby.
I have a 2015 iMac, that I spec'ed up as a custom build from Apple, so annoying they don't reconize the power of these machines still and cut support.
I have an 4ghz i7, 32gb ram and a Radeon 395x graphics card, but support is cut.
The machine still runs beautifully on Monterey, so I am hesitant to use the OpenCore legacy patcher, but may have to one day if apps i use drop support.
I love my iMac, but in future, I think i shall need to got he Mac Mini + Monitor route, Mac minis are reasonably cheap and i wouldn't feel so annoyed ditching my machine when it still works well.
I have an 4ghz i7, 32gb ram and a Radeon 395x graphics card, but support is cut.
The machine still runs beautifully on Monterey, so I am hesitant to use the OpenCore legacy patcher, but may have to one day if apps i use drop support.
I love my iMac, but in future, I think i shall need to got he Mac Mini + Monitor route, Mac minis are reasonably cheap and i wouldn't feel so annoyed ditching my machine when it still works well.
I have a 2015 iMac too and it runs fine with opencore legacy patcher on Ventura. I don’t complain that Apple did drip support for this machine in their newest os, but I complain that so much of their software comes only with the latest os. I had to update because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to use my HomeKit setup and the shared photo library on this device.
That's exactly my step, beautiful iMac, however I'm stuck with some GPU issues #108 how did you managed to get it to work?
I mean, you have an 8-year old computer. What did you realistically expect would happen here? For Apple to support your computer until the end of time even if you’re the only person using that model? In the tech world, 8 years is already practically a lifetime.
At a certain point, it’s no longer profitable for a company to continue supporting old systems. And that rarely has to do with power and almost entirely due to it being 8-year old devices with practically no remaining user base.
At a certain point, it’s no longer profitable for a company to continue supporting old systems. And that rarely has to do with power and almost entirely due to it being 8-year old devices with practically no remaining user base.
It's a computer I paid over £3,000 for, that got cut off 7 years after release for no valid reason as a customer.
Yes I understand what you are saying, but there is no need for it, Operating systems didn't require suddenly more powerful computers, years ago it made sense because the machine just couldn't handle it, but today my machine handles everything just fine and is higher spec than machines Apple has determined can run it.
You make it sound like it's some crazy high cost for Apple to do this, yet this small open source project seems to be able to do it and for them it would be much more difficult.
In terms of Apple's support, it's been awful, they provided one set of bootcamp drivers for the graphics card a year after release and even that was out of date when it was released, therefore I have to get the gfx card drivers from a third party.
Yes I understand what you are saying, but there is no need for it, Operating systems didn't require suddenly more powerful computers, years ago it made sense because the machine just couldn't handle it, but today my machine handles everything just fine and is higher spec than machines Apple has determined can run it.
You make it sound like it's some crazy high cost for Apple to do this, yet this small open source project seems to be able to do it and for them it would be much more difficult.
In terms of Apple's support, it's been awful, they provided one set of bootcamp drivers for the graphics card a year after release and even that was out of date when it was released, therefore I have to get the gfx card drivers from a third party.
> You make it sound like it's some crazy high cost for Apple to do this, yet this small open source project seems to be able to do it and for them it would be much more difficult.
Hacks are in no way shape or form equivalent to official support. Both in functionality (this thread is full of people talking about small issues popping up more and more frequently, especially in the latest OS versions which actually have specific requirements like AVX2) and in terms of actual support. The level of work required from a community project is magnitudes smaller than from the company.
> It's a computer I paid over £3,000 for, that got cut off 7 years after release for no valid reason as a customer.
> Yes I understand what you are saying, but there is no need for it, Operating systems didn't require suddenly more powerful computers, years ago it made sense because the machine just couldn't handle it, but today my machine handles everything just fine and is higher spec than machines Apple has determined can run it.
You say you understand, but I already said it has nothing to do with power and explained why. Bringing it and the cost of the machine up again isn’t going to change this. At its core, it’s a cost benefit analysis. Each system supported adds tests, customer support, etc. Direct, actual costs to the company. At a certain point, the number of users using a specific system does not justify those costs. Apple looked at that analysis and decided that the costs are no longer justified. 8 years later seems like an entirely reasonable amount of time for that.
Hacks are in no way shape or form equivalent to official support. Both in functionality (this thread is full of people talking about small issues popping up more and more frequently, especially in the latest OS versions which actually have specific requirements like AVX2) and in terms of actual support. The level of work required from a community project is magnitudes smaller than from the company.
> It's a computer I paid over £3,000 for, that got cut off 7 years after release for no valid reason as a customer.
> Yes I understand what you are saying, but there is no need for it, Operating systems didn't require suddenly more powerful computers, years ago it made sense because the machine just couldn't handle it, but today my machine handles everything just fine and is higher spec than machines Apple has determined can run it.
You say you understand, but I already said it has nothing to do with power and explained why. Bringing it and the cost of the machine up again isn’t going to change this. At its core, it’s a cost benefit analysis. Each system supported adds tests, customer support, etc. Direct, actual costs to the company. At a certain point, the number of users using a specific system does not justify those costs. Apple looked at that analysis and decided that the costs are no longer justified. 8 years later seems like an entirely reasonable amount of time for that.
I disagree. It's six years after they stopped selling it.
Apple do this on purpose to make people buy new machines, it wouldn't be expensive for them too provide a small amount of support, if they are not willing to do that they shouldn't be making such machines. 6 years is not a long time.
Apple do this on purpose to make people buy new machines, it wouldn't be expensive for them too provide a small amount of support, if they are not willing to do that they shouldn't be making such machines. 6 years is not a long time.
Windows 11 dropped support for 7th generation and earlier. Your 2015 iMac, having a Broadwell/5th or Skylake/6th generation processor, would have also not been compatible. To have hardware compatibility, you'd have to have gone all the way up to a 2019 iMac with Coffee Lake.
That shows that this is hardly an Apple problem, and hardly a problem of "Apple forcing you to buy new hardware". Entire companies come and go in those 8 years. Do you expect every company you ever buy products from to support them forever? That's an absurd ask.
That shows that this is hardly an Apple problem, and hardly a problem of "Apple forcing you to buy new hardware". Entire companies come and go in those 8 years. Do you expect every company you ever buy products from to support them forever? That's an absurd ask.
Yeah, I understand, it's just annoying to me that most of the things we have now in our culture that we rely on are so replaceable and need to be replaced fairly regularly, it feels like it's no longer the case as you get older, you can be more settled in life as you have bought and have all you need, that's not the case because you have to replace it fairly regularly.
Also I suppose, i'm sit here using my iMac now and it runs everything without a glitch, as good as when it was new, likely better because of the updates to the software, so it's just disappointing to see that it could go to waste. I usually like to wait until things break before replacing them, so already debating replacing a perfectly functional machine hurts a little. Hopefully I will get a few more years out of it.
I guess a big shame is not being able to plug a Mac Mini into the display, but that is on me, I knew that was the case when I bought it.
p.s Windows 11 support was the TPM chip? I believe that is relatively easy to get around? Could be wrong here, but I think it was mostly a move from MS to make people update to a highly level of security, but again it's not really needed.
Also I suppose, i'm sit here using my iMac now and it runs everything without a glitch, as good as when it was new, likely better because of the updates to the software, so it's just disappointing to see that it could go to waste. I usually like to wait until things break before replacing them, so already debating replacing a perfectly functional machine hurts a little. Hopefully I will get a few more years out of it.
I guess a big shame is not being able to plug a Mac Mini into the display, but that is on me, I knew that was the case when I bought it.
p.s Windows 11 support was the TPM chip? I believe that is relatively easy to get around? Could be wrong here, but I think it was mostly a move from MS to make people update to a highly level of security, but again it's not really needed.
Yes, and it was utter bullshit that Microsoft pulled this and I'm still infuriated that the entire world just shrugged and went "at least Windows 10 still works" or even "well, you can't expect your device to be supported forever". I have 15 year old computers that STILL FUCKING WORK PERFECTLY but they're arbitrarily not supported by W11 anymore. I guess Microsoft never heard of e-waste. Fuck Microsoft. Fuck Apple.
Here's a thought. Your iMac from 2015 employs an Intel processor. The writing has been on the wall for any Intel based Mac since the introduction of the M series. I was frankly amazed that they supported Monterey on as many models (yours included) as they did. I can foresee only the Mac Pro being supported in macOS 14, with support for Intel disappearing in macOS 15.
Edit: PowerPC support was droped after 3 releases - Tiger (10.4) being the first to support Intel, Lion (10.7) dropped support. Granted, that was over a 6 year period. 68K to PowerPC felt quicker...
Edit: PowerPC support was droped after 3 releases - Tiger (10.4) being the first to support Intel, Lion (10.7) dropped support. Granted, that was over a 6 year period. 68K to PowerPC felt quicker...
To add to this point, there are also less developers available who are willing and passionate about developing the next balcony, band aid and workaround for the half dead horse.
That’s a career dead-end.
Each and every developer wants to work on the new stuff.
At some point in time it is just not profitable anymore to provide further FEATURE updates for free anymore.
At some point in time it is just not profitable anymore to provide further FEATURE updates for free anymore.
>It's a computer I paid over £3,000 for, that got cut off 7 years after release
"after release" isn't even the metric we should be using. Rather we should measure starting from when the machine is _no longer sold_. Take the "Mac Pro 2013" (aka Trash Can Mac). It was introduced in 2013 but for sale by Apple until December 2019. macOS 13 Ventura, released October 2022, dropped support for it. That's only 3 years of support!
"after release" isn't even the metric we should be using. Rather we should measure starting from when the machine is _no longer sold_. Take the "Mac Pro 2013" (aka Trash Can Mac). It was introduced in 2013 but for sale by Apple until December 2019. macOS 13 Ventura, released October 2022, dropped support for it. That's only 3 years of support!
What do competitors offer?
Whatever Microsoft offers. Or occasionally Linux. Which are usually considerably better than the support lengths Apple offers. For example Windows 7 was supported for over 10 years, 8/8.1 for over 10 years. They also don't tend to sell the same model for literally years.
Linux is a totally different story. “Linux” doesn’t support anything. It’s a kernel and doesn’t remove things out of tree so comparability is rarely removed so you could build things. But user space / distros and binary drivers can be a different beast (DKMS helps). Anyway. Linux is choose your own adventure and not comparable.
For Windows you’re not comparing the same thing. Apple ships a new major OS release on a yearly cadence compared with Microsoft’s 7 years. Some people might prefer Microsoft’s approach. People buying into the Apple ecosystem understand Apple takes a different approach. Also Microsoft isn’t your one stop shop for support. While Windows may be supported for 7 years, i doubt your OEM is supporting your firmware for that long. Apple ties firmware to operating system so that is easier to understand.
For Windows you’re not comparing the same thing. Apple ships a new major OS release on a yearly cadence compared with Microsoft’s 7 years. Some people might prefer Microsoft’s approach. People buying into the Apple ecosystem understand Apple takes a different approach. Also Microsoft isn’t your one stop shop for support. While Windows may be supported for 7 years, i doubt your OEM is supporting your firmware for that long. Apple ties firmware to operating system so that is easier to understand.
Is firmware what people care about or is it running up to date and secure software? Windows and Linux distros offer that. MacOS doesn't.
> I mean, you have an 8-year old computer. What did you realistically expect would happen here?
I’m an avid Mac user, but the short lifespan of Macs is an anomaly in the world of computers.
I use my old MacBook Pros as Windows and Linux machines now. They’re plenty fast and, honestly, feel much faster with Windows than they did with macOS.
I can understand why Apple deprecates old hardware, but cutting expensive machines after only 7-8 years is really disappointing. There are a lot of these machines in great condition out there.
My parents and in-laws all got burned by Apple’s early deprecation. When you’re not a hardcore daily computer user, these machines can easily last over a decade and do just fine for web browsing and other common tasks.
I’m an avid Mac user, but the short lifespan of Macs is an anomaly in the world of computers.
I use my old MacBook Pros as Windows and Linux machines now. They’re plenty fast and, honestly, feel much faster with Windows than they did with macOS.
I can understand why Apple deprecates old hardware, but cutting expensive machines after only 7-8 years is really disappointing. There are a lot of these machines in great condition out there.
My parents and in-laws all got burned by Apple’s early deprecation. When you’re not a hardcore daily computer user, these machines can easily last over a decade and do just fine for web browsing and other common tasks.
I think the majority of people here understands the commercial considerations Apple makes.
But you asked what would you expect. At least don’t block me to update. Tell me it’s not officially supported. But let me install whatever OS I want, at my own risk.
The problem is not even the OS. It’s the whole ecosystem of apps that require a certain OS version.
I’m stuck on 10.13 with my iMac from 2012. The hardware serves me well, it does exactly what I need it to do. I’m just stuck on an old OS.
I’m gonna try OpenCore legacy patcher for sure.
But you asked what would you expect. At least don’t block me to update. Tell me it’s not officially supported. But let me install whatever OS I want, at my own risk.
The problem is not even the OS. It’s the whole ecosystem of apps that require a certain OS version.
I’m stuck on 10.13 with my iMac from 2012. The hardware serves me well, it does exactly what I need it to do. I’m just stuck on an old OS.
I’m gonna try OpenCore legacy patcher for sure.
My main PC is 10 years old now and still works fine with the latest Ubuntu. I'm sure I'd have no trouble running Windows on it either.
>In the tech world, 8 years is already practically a lifetime.
I feel like that was the case in the 90s and earlier, but now? An 8 year old computer is quite capable of doing the kinds of basic browsing that most non-geek users do. But without the newest macOS, they are open to security vulnerabilities.
I feel like that was the case in the 90s and earlier, but now? An 8 year old computer is quite capable of doing the kinds of basic browsing that most non-geek users do. But without the newest macOS, they are open to security vulnerabilities.
Yeah, exactly and the problem becomes that apps update and require a newer OS than you were able to run, happened to a lot of Discord users in the last week or so, when Discord upped the requirements of the app, but the app itself barely changed. So people have to pay up for an expensive new machine that doesn't do anything really that different to what they had before, just to be back at square one.
Seems like apple themselves had a good solution to this with one model of the iMac that supported use as an secondary monitor. Imagine if every laptop / iMac supported use as a secondary monitor.
Yeah, to be honest, I would be happy if I could buy another product such as the mini and then plug it into the display, but sadly not supported, there are some third party ways of doing this, but I am not sure they are so great.
I actually use my iMac with my windows laptop for work, by plugging in a video capture device via USB and going via HDMI to the laptop, it works okay, but i'm not sure i'd want to run a shiny new Mac this way.
I actually use my iMac with my windows laptop for work, by plugging in a video capture device via USB and going via HDMI to the laptop, it works okay, but i'm not sure i'd want to run a shiny new Mac this way.
I have a 2015 27" i5 iMac and I use OCLP to run Ventura on it.
Everything is fine - apart from some very occasional graphics glitches (transparency effects and so on). A bigger issue is every time there is an official OS update, Bluetooth breaks. I have to plug in a keyboard and mouse, get OCLP to repatch the OS and reboot.
Everything is fine - apart from some very occasional graphics glitches (transparency effects and so on). A bigger issue is every time there is an official OS update, Bluetooth breaks. I have to plug in a keyboard and mouse, get OCLP to repatch the OS and reboot.
I know this has been posted before, but I just managed to use this on my daughter's inherited MacBook air from 2014, and was able to get MacOS Ventura working seamlessly on it. This was important for me because the previous version of MacOS she was stuck on didn't allow the use of shared iCloud storage, so I couldn't sync her Photos library with the Optimize Storage option and free up disk space (it "only" has a 120GB hard drive). Once I'd updated I was able to do that and lengthen the life of her laptop by quite a bit - it's getting on for ten years old now.
How well does it perform? I have a MacBook Air 2013 that I run Arch on but I miss all the apple ecosystem stuff. I can’t imagine it runs as well as Linux which runs great.
It's pretty seamless. There are occasional small lags when starting apps, and the fans do spin up when playing Minecraft Java edition and there are lots of creatures nearby (we also had to kill off a bunch to stop it lagging really badly when there were something like 200 creatures of a type that follow you about), but it feels like it's got a good few years in it yet. Apple apps like Photos and Mail etc feel pretty responsive. For reference the Air has a 1.4GHz Dul-Core Intel Core i5, 4GB of 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM and Intel HD Graphics 5000 1536MB. I've got an M1 Max Macbook Pro with 64GB of memory, so it's up against some tough competition!
Works pretty well for me on a 2012 Mac mini. It’s maxed out though with i7 and 16GB. I don’t feel performances are worst than with the latest official macOS version.
I'm typing this from a 2011 iMac (3.4ghz, 4-core i7, 8GB RAM, AMD 6700 series GPU) on which I've just installed Mac OS Ventura using OpenCore. It's working great. Performance is not distinguishable from the performance of the same system on High Sierra, so far. The process was also pretty easy, it walked me through every step. Just highlights how absurd it is that these systems aren't still supported.
Does your iMac have an SSD? Mine doesn't, and I'm wondering if that would cause more issues.
It has one, which I installed aftermarket, but I think you'd be fine with an HDD once things got going.
I possess a 2016 13-inch MacBook Pro, which I handed down to my son for his use. Regrettably, he is unable to participate in the shared photo library, as it is exclusively supported by the Ventura version of Photos. The laptop presently operates on Monterey, its final supported version. Consequently, we plan to upgrade later today with the assistance of OpenCore.
This is a fantastic project that will allow us to maintain the use of shared features in macOS across all our family's devices, regardless of the age of the machines and Apple support for them.
This is a fantastic project that will allow us to maintain the use of shared features in macOS across all our family's devices, regardless of the age of the machines and Apple support for them.
Awesome! This keeps macs out the trash and people with less means to buy their first mac.
Someone buying their first Mac is probably not aware of OCLP. Depending on the hardware, OCLP might not provide a stable or a good experience. Better to buy a newer and still supported Windows PC.
It's usually someone you know that does this for you. I've put 10.14 on some 27" iMacs from 2009 that have been rock solid for those I gave them too.
this almost fell like a twilight zone episode.
if in the 90s you've told me that pocket computers would have the os locked by company G and a rag-tag team of 14yr olds would work on forums to extract binary blobs and manually patch syscalls addresses so the old drivers work on newer phones, just so you can install the later version of a still closed OS... and that the practice would eventually move to the computers of the competing company...
i would have laughed but not in a funny haha way, like you do on most good twilight zone episodes.
sad times we live in.
if in the 90s you've told me that pocket computers would have the os locked by company G and a rag-tag team of 14yr olds would work on forums to extract binary blobs and manually patch syscalls addresses so the old drivers work on newer phones, just so you can install the later version of a still closed OS... and that the practice would eventually move to the computers of the competing company...
i would have laughed but not in a funny haha way, like you do on most good twilight zone episodes.
sad times we live in.
I highly appreciate the effort that goes into this!
The only pity is that I need VMware Fusion and it seems to be broken in the patched Ventura with no fix in sight. Stuck on Catalina for now on my 2012 rMBP.
The only pity is that I need VMware Fusion and it seems to be broken in the patched Ventura with no fix in sight. Stuck on Catalina for now on my 2012 rMBP.
Datapoint: I upgraded a min-2012 MacBook Pro to Monterey using this approach and it performs reasonably well for basic use. I also swapped the hdd for an ssd and maxed the memory to 16gb.
I did the same (upgrade from Catalina) and had no problems. I only bought an Apple Silicon MacBook because the mid-2012's hinge got too loose to keep the display upright. Yes, the new computer is significantly faster, but I could have lived with the older one. So, three cheers for OCLP!
PS - the mid-2012 is now a backup, so is still useful.
PS - the mid-2012 is now a backup, so is still useful.
Did you reinstall OS, or it works as upgrade?
I upgraded from Catalina to Big Sur (without formatting), and then used Onyx to clear all the caches on my Mac. It works perfectly.
Mac mini 2012, 16gb ram, 512 ssd.
https://www.titanium-software.fr/en/index.html
https://www.titanium-software.fr/en/index.html
> Did you reinstall OS, or it works as upgrade?
I reinstalled thr os from clean when I swapped-out the storage, so unfortunately I can't comment on the upgrade path.
The machine periodically prompts me to upgrade to Ventura - which I keep declining as Monterrey is fine for my purposes[1] at the moment - so it's obviously happy to do an upgrade.
[1] Running Visual Studio for Mac to build .net apps for MacOS
I reinstalled thr os from clean when I swapped-out the storage, so unfortunately I can't comment on the upgrade path.
The machine periodically prompts me to upgrade to Ventura - which I keep declining as Monterrey is fine for my purposes[1] at the moment - so it's obviously happy to do an upgrade.
[1] Running Visual Studio for Mac to build .net apps for MacOS
Given that it's possible for this tool to work, doesn't that mean Apple's choice to not officially allow the installation of new operating systems on these old computers had zero technical merit? What reason other than greed did Apple have for making that decision then? And how does "we're arbitrarily restricting what your old but still functional computer can do, so that you'll throw it away and buy a new one" square with caring about the environment?
Because Engineeering is about trade offs from a business level, not just about technical ones. The support costs with older systems go up because the number of users decreases because you have to keep spare parts around for those old machines. That’s what Apple support is. If it’s not a supported model, they’re not going to do any hardware repairs for you period. Tying software and hardware that way isn’t a terrible decision to make from Apple’s perspective. Customer’s also have to pick - do I want to continue in the ecosystem or so I get out. Apple doesn’t want users getting disgruntled because their QA is no longer testing software running on older hardware.
Also Apple doesn’t deprecate things by dropping support suddenly. That wouldn’t be great UX. They wait for that to happen naturally over time and, when the number of users is sufficiently small enough past some point AND they want to make a technical break, they start stopping to support a model.
I think it’s valuable to compare alternatives. Apple supports their software and hardware much much better than any competitor AFAIK. For example, iPhones have a guaranteed support level of five years iirc and often it can go even older despite engineers on the ground wanting to deprecate things faster because of the maintenance costs (eg dropping 32-bit macOS support went on longer than line engineers were happy with). Competitors? Google does 3 years of upgrades on their flagship phones and laptops and 5 years of security updates if I recall correctly.
That’s why I’d say the framing is wrong. If anything Apple is a leader in figuring out how to provide the best support I’m the industry by vertically integrating everything (other SW vendors often can have one of forks for every product which makes it quicker to launch something but economically limits how long those support operations can last. Google tried several architectural efforts to stabilize this situation for Android but as I said they still haven’t managed this for their own hardware - they maybe solved it at the OS level but firmware still has security flaws so if a vendor (often the chip vendor, not the oem) stops making updates (they do frequently and definitely don’t go out of their way to unify their software stack - they want planned obsolescence more than OEMs), you’re SOL. Apple is a tad bit better insulated from this since they have a stronger negotiating hand with partners / have vertically integrated a lot of components in house which lowers support costs / complexity. Still, they’re not fully immune to it because those pressures are multifaceted and complex.
So to answer your question, sure it’s not strict technical merit write now but that’s too myopic. It’s a signaling mechanism to customers that “we are not doing any work to validate software we write works on old machines”. Lots of things to criticize Apple about, but best in class support in the commercial space doesn’t feel like the best place. I could be wrong though.
Also Apple doesn’t deprecate things by dropping support suddenly. That wouldn’t be great UX. They wait for that to happen naturally over time and, when the number of users is sufficiently small enough past some point AND they want to make a technical break, they start stopping to support a model.
I think it’s valuable to compare alternatives. Apple supports their software and hardware much much better than any competitor AFAIK. For example, iPhones have a guaranteed support level of five years iirc and often it can go even older despite engineers on the ground wanting to deprecate things faster because of the maintenance costs (eg dropping 32-bit macOS support went on longer than line engineers were happy with). Competitors? Google does 3 years of upgrades on their flagship phones and laptops and 5 years of security updates if I recall correctly.
That’s why I’d say the framing is wrong. If anything Apple is a leader in figuring out how to provide the best support I’m the industry by vertically integrating everything (other SW vendors often can have one of forks for every product which makes it quicker to launch something but economically limits how long those support operations can last. Google tried several architectural efforts to stabilize this situation for Android but as I said they still haven’t managed this for their own hardware - they maybe solved it at the OS level but firmware still has security flaws so if a vendor (often the chip vendor, not the oem) stops making updates (they do frequently and definitely don’t go out of their way to unify their software stack - they want planned obsolescence more than OEMs), you’re SOL. Apple is a tad bit better insulated from this since they have a stronger negotiating hand with partners / have vertically integrated a lot of components in house which lowers support costs / complexity. Still, they’re not fully immune to it because those pressures are multifaceted and complex.
So to answer your question, sure it’s not strict technical merit write now but that’s too myopic. It’s a signaling mechanism to customers that “we are not doing any work to validate software we write works on old machines”. Lots of things to criticize Apple about, but best in class support in the commercial space doesn’t feel like the best place. I could be wrong though.
I've recently upgraded MBP mid-2012 to Monterey and it works really well. Except for the permission to use Automation/Microphone/Webcam in TCC. The app installation process doesn't add itself to the TCC database so I have to add it manually via SQLite cli. However, I wasn't able to add permission for Google Chrome to use Microphone and Webcam despite the same process works for Skype/Zoom and other applications.
I have 3 high-specced trashcans (Mac Pro 2013 with 12/24 cores and 32Gb RAM) that we were using as build agents at work and they were decommissioned after Ventura dropped support.
Frankly, they struggle in desktop use with Monterey so I was considering just installing Linux on them and using them as servers (but they're not great as always-on machines for home since the power usage never drops below 130W even when completely idle).
Frankly, they struggle in desktop use with Monterey so I was considering just installing Linux on them and using them as servers (but they're not great as always-on machines for home since the power usage never drops below 130W even when completely idle).
My 2012 Air is still my main computer. Started regressing around 2018. Was slow for a while until I patched it with Monterey. Ventura is running even better. Still tough for dev (especially iOS dev)..but it's certainly salvageable. Hoping to buy a new pro within next year
This is amazing! however for my iMac there are still some issues like the GPU Acceleration in Public Beta, see current issue #108. Hopefully someone will finish this issue, I have no ideia how to code this GPU issue.
This is fantastic! I am thrilled this initiative exists. Just yesterday I was on my MacBook Pro 13 from 2013 when it hit me. My laptop was 10 years old and running no different as it did back then.
Happily using Ventura on 2015 MacBook Air, just need a battery replacement & this is good as new with upgraded 1TB Samsung 970 PRO SSD as well
Has anyone figured out how to move a system previously using dosdude1's patcher to OpenCore without having to reinstall?
Faced with having to do this with a MBP 2009
Faced with having to do this with a MBP 2009
Which in my book reads as an artificial way to cut support for otherwise perfectly working machines. Forcing people to upgrade, buy more hardware, and discard the older one, even when they wouldn't otherwise have needed to do it (like when it isn't really crawling and too slow for your needs). Doesn't matter the years, if your 10-12 years old computer still works fine for you, and the needed changes for them are just a couple of driver adjustments, I don't buy the justification for not doing so.
This doesn't feel like "well the gap between how our new software and old hardware work is so big that it isn't even remotely practical to keep them together any more". But more like "well we toggled a boolean and now your're out".
So long for reducing the amount of e-waste in our polluted world!