Install/update with OC VMM flag enabled, run everyday with it disabled if every single CPU clock count.
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.
MP 1,1-5,1 Obsolete, Use OpenCore instead | What you need to do to make Catalina work with MacPro5,1
- Thread starter tsialex
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
- Status
Hey folks, I've been following along with all the developments in this thread and I wanted to add amazing effort from folks and thank you for sharing your hard work.
I had a simple question and perhaps it's been asked already (sorry, if so). Do you think the VMWare method could be used on VirtualBox, too? VirtualBox also provides RawDisk access. Has anyone tried?
Not sure I want to spend £70+ just for this use case.
I had a simple question and perhaps it's been asked already (sorry, if so). Do you think the VMWare method could be used on VirtualBox, too? VirtualBox also provides RawDisk access. Has anyone tried?
Not sure I want to spend £70+ just for this use case.
I never used VirtualBox raw disk access, don't know if it works. Go for OpenCore with just VMM flag spoofing, it's easier to install/manage and works fine with updates too.
OpenCore on the Mac Pro
Thanks, Alex. I'm going to try the OC/VMM flag approach on a +HFS RAID 0 array. Thanks for the tip 👍
EDIT: I ran into a problem tonight, I couldn't mount the newly created EFI volume on step 3. I assume this is because of the RAID 0 setup. I'll try a different approach on the weekend. Thanks for all the help so far anyway ✌️
Last edited:
I eventually gave in and installed Catalina on my MP4,1 (flashed 5,1), using dosdude1’s patcher as this was easier than fiddling with OpenCore (had some issues with it during a previous test), and was recommended on barefeats’ site.
However I now have recurring crashes, not everyday but definitely more than once a week. I could live with it but there is always a risk of data corruption... crash logs always indicate a kernel panic of some core macOS process, not an application crash with a full stack log.
I wonder whether:
- this is just an indication of Catalina’s lack of stability;
- a side effect of the dosdude1 patch;
- a side effect of using Lilu.kext with Innie and WhateEverGreen kexts?
Any idea? Mojave was comparatively rock solid on my MP.
However I now have recurring crashes, not everyday but definitely more than once a week. I could live with it but there is always a risk of data corruption... crash logs always indicate a kernel panic of some core macOS process, not an application crash with a full stack log.
I wonder whether:
- this is just an indication of Catalina’s lack of stability;
- a side effect of the dosdude1 patch;
- a side effect of using Lilu.kext with Innie and WhateEverGreen kexts?
Any idea? Mojave was comparatively rock solid on my MP.
Last edited:
The advice here is to go for an unpatched installation, and there are several ways to do this. You've already mentioned OpenCore, but if this isn't for you, you can always opt for the foolproof approach of using a supported Mac to install and update your system.
I have been using Innie, NightShiftUnlocker, and WhateverGreen with an unpatched installation of Catalina, and have not experienced any issues.
After a few more kernel panics (3 in one hour last evening!), I reseated all the PCIe cards and moved my main data 2,5" SATA SSD from an OWC Accelsior S card back to the ODD bay. I recently had occasional disk disconnections with the card (it worked fine for about a year before that) so maybe there's something wrong with it (or the PCIe slot is getting loose???).
Anyway, no KPs since (touch wood), so maybe Catalina wasn't at fault... I'll light one more candle to get a bit more life out of my good old MP and keep saving for the next one
Last edited:
I've been looking at trying to install Catalina on my flashed 4,1 (dual Nehalem cpu) currently running Mojave, and tsialex's comment that OpenCore is the way to go got me searching the forum on further info on this. I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics on if it's safe to try on my system yet.
It sounds like 5,1's with Westmere are safe because of enabling the VMM Spoof, so Catalina runs in a hypervisor mode (some speed slow down, but otherwise native). But my 4,1's Nehalem cpu doesn't have the VMM feature required to enable the VMM Spoof, correct? So from what I've read, it requires spoofing the SMBIOS, making it look like a different machine, which is inherently riskier..?
I guess big question is "Is OpenCore stable enough to be recommended for a 4,1? Or is it still iffy and might brick?"
It sounds like 5,1's with Westmere are safe because of enabling the VMM Spoof, so Catalina runs in a hypervisor mode (some speed slow down, but otherwise native). But my 4,1's Nehalem cpu doesn't have the VMM feature required to enable the VMM Spoof, correct? So from what I've read, it requires spoofing the SMBIOS, making it look like a different machine, which is inherently riskier..?
I guess big question is "Is OpenCore stable enough to be recommended for a 4,1? Or is it still iffy and might brick?"
Not sure if this is the right thread, but I was trying to install Catalina on my macpro5,1(updated 4,1) using the "install on a supported mac first" method, and I got the prohibitory mark when trying to boot.
Here's the story: I downloaded a full copy from the developer SUCatalog using the installinstallmacos.py script, and installed on an SSD, attached to my iMac14,2. The update went well but, but,weirdly, I found out that my mac was enrolled to receive developer updates although I am not enrolled to the developer program.
I then moved the SSD to my macpro and the mac refused to boot: I was getting the prohibitory mark after selecting it. I had to install back the GT120 to find this out, as with my MSI Radeon Vega56 I couldn't see anything, of course.
As a side note: I decided to try to update the OS on the SSD, since the iMac was suggesting to update to 10.15.3 Beta2; update completed and now bootrom on the iMac is 141.0.0.0, and there is also a new default font.
Any idea of why the MacPro reports the prohibitory sign ? Is it because of this developer enrollment ?
Or maybe because a bootrom update was triggered and this was obviously not compatible with the MacPro?
Here's the story: I downloaded a full copy from the developer SUCatalog using the installinstallmacos.py script, and installed on an SSD, attached to my iMac14,2. The update went well but, but,weirdly, I found out that my mac was enrolled to receive developer updates although I am not enrolled to the developer program.
I then moved the SSD to my macpro and the mac refused to boot: I was getting the prohibitory mark after selecting it. I had to install back the GT120 to find this out, as with my MSI Radeon Vega56 I couldn't see anything, of course.
As a side note: I decided to try to update the OS on the SSD, since the iMac was suggesting to update to 10.15.3 Beta2; update completed and now bootrom on the iMac is 141.0.0.0, and there is also a new default font.
Any idea of why the MacPro reports the prohibitory sign ? Is it because of this developer enrollment ?
Or maybe because a bootrom update was triggered and this was obviously not compatible with the MacPro?
Missing no-compat-check? Read the 1st post.
[automerge]1579609231[/automerge]
OpenCore with just VMM spoofing is very safe and we didn't found adverse effects, but SMBIOS spoofing can cause all sort of trouble even if you know what you are doing.
Since you have unsupported processors, it's better to use dosdude patcher or install with a supported Mac. Remember, 10.14.3 is the last macOS version that works correctly with Nehalem Xeons, after that you start to have trouble. Start to think in upgrading your tray to Westmere Xeons.
Last edited:
Yesterday I placed an order for a 5700 graphics card online, took out the cMP5.1 SSD, connected it to a macbook through a transfer device, and smoothly upgraded to Catalina.
I upgraded directly from High Sierra to Catalina. Today I got the 5700 graphics card, and then I was pleasantly surprised that I forgot to order the power cable of the macpro to connect to the graphics card ...
I don't seem to see the same case as me (High Sierra-> Catalina, & 5700 graphics card), I am very worried whether this will cause problems.
Wish me luck
(This translation is done by Google)
I upgraded directly from High Sierra to Catalina. Today I got the 5700 graphics card, and then I was pleasantly surprised that I forgot to order the power cable of the macpro to connect to the graphics card ...
I don't seem to see the same case as me (High Sierra-> Catalina, & 5700 graphics card), I am very worried whether this will cause problems.
Wish me luck
(This translation is done by Google)
Thank you for response @tsialex, but it doesn't seem so. I booted onto recovery and the switch is there(see below). I then also booted into verbose mode and it says: "This Mac is not compatible with this version of MacOS". Any idea?
I tried to mount the EFI volume to no avail D: I am using an nvme accelsior drive and I formatted one drive to be APFS already but I don’t see the EFI volume on /Volumes/ any ideas?
Bash:
beto @ Volumes : sudo diskutil mount /dev/disk4s1
Volume OS on /dev/disk4s1 mounted
beto @ Volumes : ls
BOOTCAMP Data Library OS OSX Preboot
beto @ Volumes : diskutil apfs list
APFS Containers (2 found)
|
+-- Container disk4 40AEE3E4-8309-4AED-8E33-957803250897
| ====================================================
| APFS Container Reference: disk4
| Size (Capacity Ceiling): 239742791680 B (239.7 GB)
| Minimum Size: 154542080 B (154.5 MB)
| Capacity In Use By Volumes: 137601024 B (137.6 MB) (0.1% used)
| Capacity Not Allocated: 239605190656 B (239.6 GB) (99.9% free)
| |
| +-< Physical Store disk2s2 2A26076B-5077-4B5E-8522-CAF74B8AF189
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | APFS Physical Store Disk: disk2s2
| | Size: 239742791680 B (239.7 GB)
| |
| +-> Volume disk4s1 94FE12FB-64F7-4D5B-A3B4-E75798E32586
| ---------------------------------------------------
| APFS Volume Disk (Role): disk4s1 (No specific role)
| Name: OS (Case-insensitive)
| Mount Point: /Volumes/OS
| Capacity Consumed: 851968 B (852.0 KB)
| FileVault: No
|
+-- Container disk8 DD312EC5-35E4-4AF7-BA23-8C32C45C5D55
====================================================
APFS Container Reference: disk8
Size (Capacity Ceiling): 255850758144 B (255.9 GB)
Minimum Size: 233878282240 B (233.9 GB)
Capacity In Use By Volumes: 226518892544 B (226.5 GB) (88.5% used)
Capacity Not Allocated: 29331865600 B (29.3 GB) (11.5% free)
|
+-< Physical Store disk6s2 A3A05FD0-521C-4005-BF1B-8B9A5D318614
| -----------------------------------------------------------
| APFS Physical Store Disk: disk6s2
| Size: 255850758144 B (255.9 GB)
|
+-> Volume disk8s1 E71C87D8-C865-3B62-AA27-4A4BAAE9A334
| ---------------------------------------------------
| APFS Volume Disk (Role): disk8s1 (No specific role)
| Name: OSX (Case-insensitive)
| Mount Point: /
| Capacity Consumed: 225841332224 B (225.8 GB)
| Decryption Progress: 41.0% (Unlocked)
|
+-> Volume disk8s2 1606C192-D51A-432F-B9C3-99563D59A84B
| ---------------------------------------------------
| APFS Volume Disk (Role): disk8s2 (Preboot)
| Name: Preboot (Case-insensitive)
| Mount Point: Not Mounted
| Capacity Consumed: 23810048 B (23.8 MB)
| FileVault: No
|
+-> Volume disk8s3 4ED82D51-34E2-483F-8FBC-BB14CEE0AD2F
| ---------------------------------------------------
| APFS Volume Disk (Role): disk8s3 (Recovery)
| Name: Recovery (Case-insensitive)
| Mount Point: Not Mounted
| Capacity Consumed: 514867200 B (514.9 MB)
| FileVault: No
|
+-> Volume disk8s4 4F27C38B-78C5-4AE0-84CF-BFCDFD836073
---------------------------------------------------
APFS Volume Disk (Role): disk8s4 (VM)
Name: VM (Case-insensitive)
Mount Point: /private/var/vm
Capacity Consumed: 20480 B (20.5 KB)
FileVault: No
This sounds interesting for OTA update:
forums.macrumors.com
macOS 10.15 Catalina on Unsupported Macs
Meanwhile from the @Pinarek Catalina OTA dist method, I have slightly improved my earlier automated script, this time I applied the @ASentientBot's tip to put "return true" after the function function InstallationCheck(prefix) { return true; var boardIds = of course I already tested...
forums.macrumors.com
Is this only for the patcher?This sounds interesting for OTA update:
macOS 10.15 Catalina on Unsupported Macs
Meanwhile from the @Pinarek Catalina OTA dist method, I have slightly improved my earlier automated script, this time I applied the @ASentientBot's tip to put "return true" after the function function InstallationCheck(prefix) { return true; var boardIds = of course I already tested...
I've hit a bump and am not sure what to do - I installed 10.15 Catalina on my 5,1 Pro using the VMWare technique and its been running fine. I have re-used the VM to patch through to 10.15.2.
Today I decided to update to 10.15.3 but when I try to fire up the VM I am getting a "processor exception/crash" from VMWare.
I have tried recreating the raw disk and even re-creating the VM from scratch so far same issue every time.
Suggestions pls?
Today I decided to update to 10.15.3 but when I try to fire up the VM I am getting a "processor exception/crash" from VMWare.
I have tried recreating the raw disk and even re-creating the VM from scratch so far same issue every time.
Suggestions pls?
It looks like it is common to the cMP. I have tried upgrading through OC and I got multiple crashes. Do you have dual CPU tray? Has somebody installed 10.15.3 on Dual (or single) CPU's?
I have upgraded my cMP single hex to 10.15.3, using the scripts published in the unsupported macs thread (not using OpenCore or VMware).
I had a number of crashes recently but realised I had a bad RAM module. Still, I had at least one crash since I removed the bad module, and it indeed was reported as a CPU exception. So that would not be hardware but software-related?
- Status