Hackintosh in the future

[Sebseb82]

That could be said a little differently: "If you want to continue updating MacOS, buy a Mac." (I'll probably be using Mojave for the rest of my life. I've picked it over Catalina, Big Sur and Monterey for my own reasons.)

why MojAVE??

 

[wstrohm]

why MojAVE??

Ha, you got me started; you'll be sorry.

1. Mojave is the last Mac OS to support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.
2. Mojave is the last Mac OS to allow use of the "old" HFS+ file system, which I prefer to APFS for a number of reasons.
3. Mojave has a 6.3 GByte storage footprint, compared to Catalina, which is 8 GB+, Big Sur, which is 12 GB+, etc.
4. Mojave allows Carbon Copy Cloner to make complete, bootable copies of both data and system files. Because later MacOS versions, which use APFS, separate the System file as "Read-only," and now require "signed" OS files, that is no longer possible.
5. Due to item 2. above, Mojave is the last MacOS to allow efficient use of my (rather expensive) Samsung 970 Pro 1 TB Nvme SSDs, which choke on APFS. They boot under Mojave in 19 seconds; under Big Sur in 59 seconds (if I wanted a complete TRIM).

Other reasons escape me, at the moment.

 

[UtterDisbelief]

Ha, you got me started; you'll be sorry.

1. Mojave is the last Mac OS to support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.
2. Mojave is the last Mac OS to allow use of the "old" HFS+ file system, which I prefer to APFS for a number of reasons.
3. Mojave has a 6.3 GByte storage footprint, compared to Catalina, which is 8 GB+, Big Sur, which is 12 GB+, etc.
4. Mojave allows Carbon Copy Cloner to make complete, bootable copies of both data and system files. Because later MacOS versions, which use APFS, separate the System file as "Read-only," and now require "signed" OS files, that is no longer possible.
5. Due to item 2. above, Mojave is the last MacOS to allow efficient use of my (rather expensive) Samsung 970 Pro 1 TB Nvme SSDs, which choke on APFS. They boot under Mojave in 19 seconds; under Big Sur in 59 seconds (if I wanted a complete TRIM).

Other reasons escape me, at the moment.

How about ...

It may be the last macOS to support 32-bit apps, but it *does* feature the new version App Store?
It allows "themes" - Light, Dark, Auto etc. Some apps allow you to change colours even further.

 

[wstrohm]

How about ...

It may be the last macOS to support 32-bit apps, but it *does* feature the new version App Store?
It allows "themes" - Light, Dark, Auto etc. Some apps allow you to change colours even further.

Hey, there's someone else in this choir! Thanks, UD!

 

[antieatingactivist]

How about ...

It may be the last macOS to support 32-bit apps, but it *does* feature the new version App Store?
It allows "themes" - Light, Dark, Auto etc. Some apps allow you to change colours even further.

I can't even imagine not having dark mode at this point. I don't know how I went so long without it.

 

[greenfrog5]

Does anybody have any idea how much longer Hackintoshing will be possible? If I was to buy the newest compatible hardware today, for how long would I (likely) be able to keep it updated to the latest Mac OS?

 

[Feartech]

only way is to probably speak to Apple themselves

Does anybody have any idea how much longer Hackintoshing will be possible? If I was to buy the newest compatible hardware today, for how long would I (likely) be able to keep it updated to the latest Mac OS?

 

[trs96]

Does anybody have any idea how much longer Hackintoshing will be possible?

The only thing we can say for sure is that any new build today won't run macOS as long as your Sandy Bridge system from 2011 has. Our best guess is three to four years but Apple may not even give Intel systems that much more support. It seems the M chip Mac Pro is taking longer than expected as it's been pushed back till 2023 now by most estimates I've read. https://wccftech.com/mac-pro-and-imac-pro-with-apple-silicon-not-expected-until-2023/?

So that might give us an extra year. On the positive side anything you build today will definitely have Windows 11 and Linux support till 2030 or later so at least you can keep using the hardware after macOS support is dropped.

 

[Nodarkthings]

Does anybody have any idea how much longer Hackintoshing will be possible? If I was to buy the newest compatible hardware today, for how long would I (likely) be able to keep it updated to the latest Mac OS?

FWIW: I still run G4 and G5 Macs with clearly outdated security systems, so the potential risks are really hypothetical, in the end... As long as you're happy with what you can do with your machine, you can keep it for years. Most of us don't need the ultimate version of anything, so it's just a matter of being reasonable. ;-)
And if one wants to get the state of the art of the moment, well, buy a Mac and change it every 3 years... — Actually, a friend of mine does that: he has a subscription where he gets a new model every year, it costs a lot but he's happy like that.

 

[Jamesbond007]

Ha, you got me started; you'll be sorry.

1. Mojave is the last Mac OS to support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.
2. Mojave is the last Mac OS to allow use of the "old" HFS+ file system, which I prefer to APFS for a number of reasons.
3. Mojave has a 6.3 GByte storage footprint, compared to Catalina, which is 8 GB+, Big Sur, which is 12 GB+, etc.
4. Mojave allows Carbon Copy Cloner to make complete, bootable copies of both data and system files. Because later MacOS versions, which use APFS, separate the System file as "Read-only," and now require "signed" OS files, that is no longer possible.
5. Due to item 2. above, Mojave is the last MacOS to allow efficient use of my (rather expensive) Samsung 970 Pro 1 TB Nvme SSDs, which choke on APFS. They boot under Mojave in 19 seconds; under Big Sur in 59 seconds (if I wanted a complete TRIM).

Other reasons escape me, at the moment.

I also see no point in running the "latest and greatest" MacOS, and by the look of Ventura I am skipping it as well. I have already skipped Big Sur and probably Monterey also.

I am currently running MacOS Sierra / High Sierra / Mojave / Catalina on my system, and my primary reason for sticking with Sierra and High Sierra is that VMware Fusion 11 (11.0.3 on Sierra 10.12.6 and 11.5.3 on High Sierra 10.13.6) work very well for me. If I want to switch to Mojave as my main OS I can also use Fusion 11.5.7.

Big Sur and Monterey require Fusion 12, which due to inadequacies in Apple's hypervisor framework, has serious performance problems when using nested virtualization (VM inside VM). Apple has not been interested in fixing this problem, nor do I think it will due to the Apple Silicon transition. I find that unacceptable as I need this feature. Fusion 11 uses VMware's own framework which has no such problems.

Of course, I hate the fact that there are no more standalone updates for Big Sur and Monterey. And I am certainly not going to get an Apple Silicon Mac until there is a way to run my Intel Windows virtual machines with acceptable performance. So staying with Sierra / High Sierra / Mojave I am for the foreseeable future.

By the way, if you so hate APFS, I believe I can assume you are running Mojave from a HFS partition on your Samsung SSD?