OpenCore Legacy Patcher – Use new macOS versions on old hardware
dortania.github.io
dortania.github.io
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!
0: https://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=200512110741388...
1: https://lowendmac.com/2007/unsupported-os-x-10-5-leopard-ins...
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.
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.
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.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-secu...
> "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".
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.
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,
If there is anything Apple has enough resources of, it is money
I have a PC from 1998 that still works using linux. That mac pro also runs happily with linux :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
At some point in time it is just not profitable anymore to provide further FEATURE updates for free anymore.
"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!
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
PS - the mid-2012 is now a backup, so is still useful.
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.
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).
Faced with having to do this with a MBP 2009