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 High Sierra (10.13) Unsupported Macs Thread
- Thread starter foxlet
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
It's all normal as far as I can tell. What did you expect to find here?
The layout of the icons isn't like 'System Preferences' on my other mac with High Sierra (not running the unsupported version)
Not a big problem just interested to know if it's normal, thanks anyway.
Last week's SecUpd 2019-006 installed without issue using the non-Recovery method on my mid-2009 Macbook5,2. Status and logs normal.
Mojave got its first SecUpd as well, and it currently only works on APFS systems. Looks like I have a year for that issue to be resolved, or to figure out how to update my HFS+ to APFS and keep my reFind-hybrid-MBR macOS-Linux-Windows multiboot working.
Mojave got its first SecUpd as well, and it currently only works on APFS systems. Looks like I have a year for that issue to be resolved, or to figure out how to update my HFS+ to APFS and keep my reFind-hybrid-MBR macOS-Linux-Windows multiboot working.
Hello
I faced the same error message yesterday evening and back dating the system before the step 7 allowed me to continue and successfully completed the installation of Highsierra on my old Imac.
Big thanks to Dayo for the workaround !!!
The Recovery Method also works. Only note is that this comment ... 'or simply use "softwareupdate -i -a" to install direct from Apple' should be deleted from the instructions and the instructions should be limited to continuing to follow Post 1.
Would have thought it would be apparent that you generally wouldn't want to be issuing a command to install a vanilla system update from Apple on an unsupported machine.
It would be apparent to me, if there are any problems with that method.
You should know what you are doing anyway, don't you? Terminal command or installer, that has to be modified using terminal commands anyway.
So to sum up. There is no real problem with the method described in post 4407? Your comment was about personal taste only, right?
You should know what you are doing anyway, don't you? Terminal command or installer, that has to be modified using terminal commands anyway.
So to sum up. There is no real problem with the method described in post 4407? Your comment was about personal taste only, right?
You are free to use that approach the next time there is a system update and find out what issues, if any, there are with it.
Last edited:
I am running High Sierra on my "unsupported" MacBook Pro mid-2009 5,4.
I am trying to go back to El Capitain and have created a USB installer but after it gets through the initial install and reboots to continue the install, I keep getting this error... "no packages were eligible for install...". Does anyone have/know a fix for this? Thanks very much for any/all help!
I am trying to go back to El Capitain and have created a USB installer but after it gets through the initial install and reboots to continue the install, I keep getting this error... "no packages were eligible for install...". Does anyone have/know a fix for this? Thanks very much for any/all help!
See here:
macOS High Sierra (10.13) Unsupported Macs Thread
Finally managed to reinstall High Sierra using the @dosdude1 patch. For anyone having similar issues, there were two problems in my case: 1. The Patcher could not be created on the USB Stick I had named my USB Drive as "HighSierraBoot" but I noticed that the creation process for the Patcher...
forums.macrumors.com
Ok, I am fed up with some things not working on my unsupported High Sierra install. So, I decided to downgrade. However, when I reboot into recovery mode, the Mac just gives the grey "prohibitory" sign and does not load the recovery partition.
I have tried:
Any other suggestions? This was a surplus computer, so no actual Time Machine backups...
(Yes, I did try the date thing.)
I have tried:
- Restarting with cmd-R to get to the recovery menu, but that gives the prohibitory sign
- Restarting with alt-cmd-R to start internet recovery, but that gives the same prohibitory sign
- Creating a Sierra boot USB and starting with the alt key at power-up. I get to see the external USB, but when I select it, it shows the prohibitory sign again.
- A clean SSD with nothing installed. Booted up with alt and power and still the same story as above
Any other suggestions? This was a surplus computer, so no actual Time Machine backups...
(Yes, I did try the date thing.)
Last edited:
See here:
macOS High Sierra (10.13) Unsupported Macs Thread
Finally managed to reinstall High Sierra using the @dosdude1 patch. For anyone having similar issues, there were two problems in my case: 1. The Patcher could not be created on the USB Stick I had named my USB Drive as "HighSierraBoot" but I noticed that the creation process for the Patcher...
got it! thanks! ?
I installed Security Update 2019-006 and it failed. I am also using a MacBook Pro 5,5. It DID succeed in trashing my restore partition. Is there a solution for this? It took me days to correct the drive layout (I also wanted to move partitions around; I have Snow Leopard and High Sierra, needed to resize, etc), so I am not willing to install this update again without confirmation of the best way to do it. I'd rather risk the "security holes".
EDIT: In reading more of the previous posts... I see the link to some method of installing that update, but it looks way too convoluted for me to bother. Sigh.
Last edited:
I've been thinking about installing an SSD in my late 2008 MacBook Pro (MacBookPro5,1) for some time, but that time is coming nearer as I'm now seeing a FAILING S.M.A.R.T. status on end-to-end checks on my HDD. I'm still nervous about patching my ROM with @dosdude1's APFS ROM Patch, and seeing this video on YouTube bothered me.
I've always understood that flashing the ROM could brick the laptop but this is the first time I've seen a recommendation to not install on a device with an NVIDIA SATA chipset (which mine has). It appears the guy in the video was in consultation with @dosdude1 at the time, which is how he came to his recommendation, but I've not seen it mentioned anywhere on this forum, unless I've missed it. But if it was that critical, I'd expect it to be mentioned in the OP.
So,
1. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the consensus is with regard to installing on my particular laptop?
2. Is it important that the current firmware is the correct version, and how do I confirm that?
Thanks.
I've always understood that flashing the ROM could brick the laptop but this is the first time I've seen a recommendation to not install on a device with an NVIDIA SATA chipset (which mine has). It appears the guy in the video was in consultation with @dosdude1 at the time, which is how he came to his recommendation, but I've not seen it mentioned anywhere on this forum, unless I've missed it. But if it was that critical, I'd expect it to be mentioned in the OP.
So,
1. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the consensus is with regard to installing on my particular laptop?
2. Is it important that the current firmware is the correct version, and how do I confirm that?
Thanks.
On Point 1: I believe the consensus is not to try this if you don't have an Intel Chipset as he said in the video.
On Point 2: This is moot if you have an Nvidia chipset and you brick your machine.
Why exactly do you want to go against all the dire warnings given?
On Point 2: This is moot if you have an Nvidia chipset and you brick your machine.
Why exactly do you want to go against all the dire warnings given?
I don't particularly. It's just that it's the first time I've heard the warning about NVIDIA chipsets. I haven't seen it mentioned on this forum (which I've been following for a long time but may have missed it) and I've not seen it mentioned by @dosdude1 himself - and seeing as it's his patcher, I would have expected to.
I would have thought what would be relevant would be whether he has said anything that goes against what the other guy said and seeing that it is his patcher as you said and given the prominence of what was said, I would have expected him to correct it if it wasn't true.
Thing is though, I only ran across that YT video by chance. This forum is where the main discussion about unsupported macs takes place. There's nothing about NVIDIA chipsets in the OP, nor on @dosdude1's website.
This thread is not about flashing your ROM so it stands to reason that there is nothing about Nvidia Chipsets or any other chipsets in the OP.
I also haven't see anything written about flashing your ROM for APFS support on dosdude1's website. Actually, I haven't see anything from dosdude1 on that subject at all.
The guy clearly explained that dosdude1 does not want to post anything on the subject. I am really struggling to understand what your issue is. If you don't believe the guy, just try it out on your computer and let us all know the outcome.
Flashing Macs with Nvidia chipset is risky because not always the patcher identifies the correct EFI chip. I had my MacBook mid 2009 bricked that way and had to replace it. After that I checked the what type of EFI chip it was and patched it successfully. Pay attention that it takes a long time to flash, sometimes more then half an hour and you can't interrupt the process nor let the computer sleep. It has been discussed in the Mojave and Catalina threads because its more relevant to those versions of macOS. High Sierra doesn't require APFS to be fully functional
Well, firstly, @dosdude1 announced the APFS ROM Patcher on his twitter account about 18months ago. It's also here on his YT channel:
and he also announced it in post 3564 in the High Sierra on unsupported macs thread (https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...unsupported-macs-thread.2048478/post-26102912)
So no, you haven't seen anything from dosdude on the subject.
I don't have an "issue", thank you very much. I was considering installing an SSD and applying the APFS ROM patch - as has been discussed many times on this thread, but clearly you've never seen such discussions. I just find it strange that @dosdude1 hasn't mentioned the same specific warnings as "the guy", whose video I just happened to run across today. I'm not saying I don't believe the guy, but I'd actually prefer to hear it from @dosdude1 himself.