eSaF Posted Thursday at 05:22 PM Share Posted Thursday at 05:22 PM 41 minutes ago, Slice said: For my experience it is impossible whatever SMBIOS you choose. I agree that, is also my finding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miliuco Posted Thursday at 09:48 PM Share Posted Thursday at 09:48 PM @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. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSaF Posted Thursday at 10:26 PM Share Posted Thursday at 10:26 PM 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. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1111 Posted Friday at 01:07 AM Share Posted Friday at 01:07 AM 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 😀 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockDown Posted Friday at 02:20 AM Share Posted Friday at 02:20 AM 1 hour ago, chris1111 said: Update free 😀 ☝️means you're not getting update 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme™ Posted Friday at 08:19 AM Share Posted Friday at 08:19 AM MacPro7.1: SecureBootModel=Disable + RestrictEvents without boot args 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1111 Posted Friday at 11:18 AM Share Posted Friday at 11:18 AM 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 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slice Posted Friday at 04:07 PM Share Posted Friday at 04:07 PM May be RestrictEvents already has this boot-args by default? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miliuco Posted Friday at 07:54 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:54 PM @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. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeveedee Posted Saturday at 02:00 PM Share Posted Saturday at 02:00 PM (edited) 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cankiulascmnfye Posted Saturday at 03:52 PM Share Posted Saturday at 03:52 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1111 Posted Saturday at 07:49 PM Share Posted Saturday at 07:49 PM 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 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anto65 Posted Saturday at 08:30 PM Share Posted Saturday at 08:30 PM (edited) 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 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miliuco Posted Saturday at 09:34 PM Share Posted Saturday at 09:34 PM 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1111 Posted Saturday at 09:56 PM Share Posted Saturday at 09:56 PM (edited) 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miliuco Posted Saturday at 11:07 PM Share Posted Saturday at 11:07 PM @chris1111 So far I was thinking that SMBIOS with security chip T2 make the difference. SMBIOS without T2 can get updates notification without RestrictEvents. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockDown Posted Sunday at 02:49 AM Share Posted Sunday at 02:49 AM still no fix for bluetoothfixup that breaks incremental update? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme™ Posted Sunday at 07:03 AM Share Posted Sunday at 07:03 AM (edited) 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™ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miliuco Posted Sunday at 10:33 AM Share Posted Sunday at 10:33 AM @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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardcorehenry Posted Sunday at 11:23 AM Share Posted Sunday at 11:23 AM (edited) sbvmm can also be under NVRAM>Add>4D1FDA02-38C7-4A6A-9CC6-4BCCA8B30102... Spoiler Edited Sunday at 02:11 PM by hardcorehenry 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strangeron Posted Sunday at 08:10 PM Share Posted Sunday at 08:10 PM 15.01 HD 4000 with OCLP @chris1111 Thanks for Wifi Adapter v18 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeveedee Posted 21 hours ago Share Posted 21 hours ago (edited) 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 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XanthraX Posted 16 hours ago Share Posted 16 hours ago (edited) 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSaF Posted 14 hours ago Share Posted 14 hours ago @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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miliuco Posted 12 hours ago Share Posted 12 hours ago 8 hours ago, deeveedee said: See this. Looks like it's not an easy fix. And this, newer but not different fix. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts