[Release] macOS Sequoia 15.0

[eSaF]

41 minutes ago, Slice said:

For my experience it is impossible whatever SMBIOS you choose.

I agree that, is also my finding.

[miliuco]

@Slice

Yes, I can confirm that. iMac19,1 with SecureBootModel=x86legacy without RestrictEvents. If I change to any other SMBIOS (iMac20,x, iMacPro1,1 or MacPro7,1) then I do need RestrictEvents and the boot arg.

[eSaF]

32 minutes ago, miliuco said:

@Slice

Yes, I can confirm that. iMac19,1 with SecureBootModel=x86legacy without RestrictEvents. If I change to any other SMBIOS (iMac20,x, iMacPro1,1 or MacPro7,1) then I do need RestrictEvents and the boot arg.

Thanks Bro for the clarification.

That explains when I forgot to insert that boot-arg, I could not boot my 20,1 Mac Model although I had the kext in the folder.

 

The two definitely go together for some models as you stated.

[chris1111]

3 hours ago, miliuco said:

@Slice

Yes, I can confirm that. iMac19,1 with SecureBootModel=x86legacy without RestrictEvents. If I change to any other SMBIOS (iMac20,x, iMacPro1,1 or MacPro7,1) then I do need RestrictEvents and the boot arg.

I am using iMac19,1 on my main PC SecureBootModel=Disable + RestrictEvents without boot args

Update free 😀

[LockDown]

1 hour ago, chris1111 said:

Update free 😀

☝️means you're not getting update 

[Extreme™]

MacPro7.1:

 

SecureBootModel=Disable + RestrictEvents without boot args

[chris1111]

8 hours ago, LockDown said:

☝️means you're not getting update 

Update free in french = Mise à jour gratuite

So Yes I am getting update with this setup

[Slice]

May be RestrictEvents already has this boot-args by default?

[miliuco]

@Slice

I thank that @lorys89 fork of RestrictEvents does have the boot arg but official version does not.

 

@Extreme™

You are destroying my theory, MP7,1 has a T2 chip and should not be notified of updates 😭

Hackintosh is a complex world.

[deeveedee]

I'm following this discussion with interest.  I think it would be beneficial for everyone if those reporting clarify the version of RestrictEvents.kext, since as @miliuco said, there was an "unofficial" fork that included revpatch=sbvmm by default.

 

EDIT: @Extreme™ is this still the RestrictEvents.kext variant that you are using?

Edited Saturday at 02:32 PM by deeveedee

[cankiulascmnfye]

I have this 3 TB Western Digital HDD (WD30ZRCX) which I use for data storage. Eversince macOS Ventura, it takes like 30 minutes until it pops up in the FInder and is accessible. It's formatted in ExFAT and there are no issues with it. It works fine in Windows and according to Crystal Disk Info, it's health is "good". I have a Z490 mainboard. I also have an additional 2TB Seagate HDD in the system formatted in APFS and it just works fine when booting macOS, so I don't thinks it's relatated to missing SATA controller kexts. Anyone had similar issues?

[chris1111]

I am using iMac19,1 on my main PC SecureBootModel=Disable + RestrictEvents.kext without boot args

RestrictEvents.kext V-1.1.5 compile from source origin Acidenthera by me

I never have any issue to update macOS on this PC like this way

 

[Anto65]

RestrictEvents should not be needed with iMac19.1 at least in my case, I always received update notifications... SBM Disabled for sure 🤷

Edited Saturday at 08:39 PM by Anto65

[miliuco]

1 hour ago, Anto65 said:

RestrictEvents should not be needed with iMac19.1 at least in my case, I always received update notifications... SBM Disabled

 

It happens to me like you. But I don't need SBM=Disabled, it also works fine with SBM=x86legacy.

 

 

[chris1111]

1 hour ago, Anto65 said:

RestrictEvents should not be needed with iMac19.1 at least in my case, I always received update notifications... SBM Disabled for sure 🤷

So the kext are not need in my case, iMac19.1 do the job 

It would be interesting to know all the smbios that are capable

Edited Saturday at 10:02 PM by chris1111

[miliuco]

@chris1111

So far I was thinking that SMBIOS with security chip T2 make the difference. SMBIOS without T2 can get updates notification without RestrictEvents.

[LockDown]

still no fix for bluetoothfixup that breaks incremental update?

[Extreme™]

17 hours ago, deeveedee said:

I'm following this discussion with interest.  I think it would be beneficial for everyone if those reporting clarify the version of RestrictEvents.kext, since as @miliuco said, there was an "unofficial" fork that included revpatch=sbvmm by default.

 

EDIT: @Extreme™ is this still the RestrictEvents.kext variant that you are using?

 

Hello,

 

RestrictEvents 1.1.5 from Dortania here:

 

https://dortania.github.io/builds/?product=RestrictEvents&viewall=true

 

A little video from my Sequoia beta 7

 

https://odysee.com/Untitled:0bc?r=Gdgb3ZTGusE6Zv8FScHnUe2xZ4qFQ7ca

Edited Sunday at 07:04 AM by Extreme™

[miliuco]

@deeveedee

RestrictEvents 1.1.5 "official" doesn't include the boot arg, it must be explicitly added, as you already know.

So, if @Extreme™ gets updates notification with MacPro7,1, this RestrictEvents but no boot arg, then there is something I don't understand.

Maybe the rule is not as simple as T2 -> boot arg needed, no T2 -> boot arg not needed.

 

[hardcorehenry]

 

sbvmm can also be under NVRAM>Add>4D1FDA02-38C7-4A6A-9CC6-4BCCA8B30102...

Spoiler

 

 

Edited Sunday at 02:11 PM by hardcorehenry

[strangeron]

15.01

HD 4000 with OCLP

@chris1111 Thanks for Wifi Adapter v18

[deeveedee]

On 10/19/2024 at 10:49 PM, LockDown said:

still no fix for bluetoothfixup that breaks incremental update?

See this.  Looks like it's not an easy fix.

Edited 21 hours ago by deeveedee

[XanthraX]

I hope I understood well. I think the full updates are much useful than the incremental updates, even it is a 'cost' of temporary download. The incremental update replaces only the new versions of the system files, but the full update replaces all system files, being almost like a clean install, but without affecting the user folder. The time is almost the same, it differs only downloading 12G instead of 4-5 G. Then is the same, creating of the new recovery partition, then replacing main system files, then checking and sometimes repairing the drive FS and the permissions. I think the price of downloading a bigger ammount is not that big. Who has a Hackintosh with only 250G on one drive?

Edited 16 hours ago by XanthraX

[eSaF]

@XanthraX - Your post has a lot of merit as I tend to opt for a clean install from time to time.

I tend to clean install to get rid of any redundant files left behind from uninstalled programs or such over a time period.

 

Most users prefer incremental updates over full updates purely because of the time factor.

Possibly not realizing the benefits of a clean pristine install. I adopted the regime of a clean install many versions ago with Chameleon as the Boot Loader running Snow Leopard.

 

So in conclusion, I whole heartedly agree that a clean install has greater benefits than an incremental one.

Whereas the time factor is the only mitigating argument, but I dare say many would argue it is not necessary to clean install if the system is running trouble free.

[miliuco]

8 hours ago, deeveedee said:

See this.  Looks like it's not an easy fix.

 

And this, newer but not different fix.