# OSX - Previous Versions on new hardware



## colony nofi (Oct 31, 2019)

I'm wondering if anyone can point towards an information resource on loading a previous version of OSX onto new apple hardware.
I've seen little bits here and there about using 10.14 on imac pro's bought today that come with 10.15 - and that makes some sense.
However, I'm wondering specifically about 10.14 on new mac Pro's which are due immenently. (A birdy whispered something about the next week...)

This effects loads of composers. Was just speaking to another who is REALLY struggling with his current mac pro trashcan and needs to upgrade to get through an incredible workload over the next 3 months. He's tossing up imac pro over the mac pro... wants the mac pro, but understandably can't work with 10.15, and doesn't have time to wait for all his audio software to work with 10.15 

Any help appreciated.


----------



## Saxer (Oct 31, 2019)

The current iMac was released in Mojave times and that‘s probably the reason you can still load 10.14
As far as I know no Mac can load an OS older than the release date of that model. So I don‘t think the new MacPro will load anything than Catalina.


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 31, 2019)

How to Downgrade from MacOS Catalina to Mojave | Digital Trends


Having issues with MacOS Catalina? Don't like Apple's new build for Macs? This guide shows you how to downgrade from MacOS Catalina to Mojave in six steps.




www.digitaltrends.com


----------



## Saxer (Oct 31, 2019)

gsilbers said:


> How to Downgrade from MacOS Catalina to Mojave | Digital Trends
> 
> 
> Having issues with MacOS Catalina? Don't like Apple's new build for Macs? This guide shows you how to downgrade from MacOS Catalina to Mojave in six steps.
> ...


Works only if the Mac hardware accepts installing Mojave. I doubt the coming MacPro will do.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 31, 2019)

How to install older versions of macOS or OS X


Need to install an old version of macOS on your Mac so you can downgrade or run more than one version? Here's what you need to do.




www.macworld.co.uk


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 31, 2019)

That being said, even if you can, its not garaunteed to work with Mojave unless Apple says it will. Its entirely possible that the new MacPro will have some drivers that are required by the new MacPro which are only included in Catalina. Have to wait and see until the MacPro starts shipping, as I suspect a fair number of people will be wanting to go back to Mojave in the short term.


----------



## jcrosby (Nov 1, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> That being said, even if you can, its not garaunteed to work with Mojave unless Apple says it will. Its entirely possible that the new MacPro will have some drivers that are required by the new MacPro which are only included in Catalina. Have to wait and see until the MacPro starts shipping, as I suspect a fair number of people will be wanting to go back to Mojave in the short term.



Apple only shows the Mac Pro being supported under Catalina in the links below:






Use the Mac operating system that came with your Mac, or a compatible newer version


If you try to use an incompatible macOS, your Mac might not finish starting up, or it might behave unexpectedly.



support.apple.com










macOS Catalina is compatible with these computers


You can install macOS Catalina on any of these Mac models. This list will be updated as other compatible models become available.



support.apple.com




(Bottom of the page you'll see 2019 Mac Pro. If you visit the Mojave page it's not listed there...)


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 1, 2019)

I don’t expect they will ever officially list it as supported but we won’t know for sure until they start shipping and people actually try it. Might work or might not. Me personally, if I were thinking about a new Mac Pro I would wait until either Catalina totally checks out no problems or it can be confirmed that mojave can run fine on it despite Apple not including it on the list of supported OS.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 2, 2019)

Not sure why there would be any doubt expressed on this thread. Apple always announces their new hardware to have the latest Mac OS , since they always want people to use the latest, but it’s always been ok to go back a few Mac OS version if they wipe the main hd clean. Which is something not many people do anyways and it’s not something Apple want to promote.


----------



## jcrosby (Nov 2, 2019)

gsilbers said:


> Not sure why there would be any doubt expressed on this thread. Apple always announces their new hardware to have the latest Mac OS , since they always want people to use the latest, but it’s always been ok to go back a few Mac OS version if they wipe the main hd clean. Which is something not many people do anyways and it’s not something Apple want to promote.



That's often not true though. If a machine with completely new architecture and hardware is released after a previous OS, the previous OS will have no drivers and will not allow you to install a previous OS. (2018 MacBook Pro would not only block a Sierra installation, you couldn't even install anything lower than 10.13.6; and the version of 10.13.6 that shipped with the machine was actually not the run of the mill version of 10.13, it actually was a build specifically for the 2018 MacBook Pro. See below about bricked 2018 MBP's when some people tried to wipe and clean install below.)

With this machine there's a lot of new architecture Mojave almost certainly won't have drivers for; new Xeon architecture with more cores, the need for supporting a new chipset, MPX support, etc. Considering Apple shoved Catalina out the door in a less-than-ready state I doubt they did anything to bake in support for new machines into Mojave's final release.

The T2 also makes this additionally cumbersome. Some models would brick if you wiped the drive without backing it up. I don't fully understand why, but it has to do with bridgeOS, (the OS that runs the T2.) Basically if your previous install has an out of date version of bridgeOS it's another potential risk, resulting in either having to have Apple or an ASP restore the machine, or you having to do some arm twisting to get ahold of the software used to restore bridgeOS. Apple may have addressed this by now, but I wouldn't assume it's 100 percent resolved...

True, as others pointed out above no one knows anything until it's available. But you can make a pretty safe educated guess that a machine with hardware too new for Mojave to support will require Catalina as a minimum OS.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 2, 2019)

jcrosby said:


> That's often not true though. If a machine with completely new architecture and hardware is released after a previous OS, the previous OS will have no drivers and will not allow you to install a previous OS. (2018 MacBook Pro would not only block a Sierra installation, you couldn't even install anything lower than 10.13.6; and the version of 10.13.6 that shipped with the machine was actually not the run of the mill version of 10.13, it actually was a build specifically for the 2018 MacBook Pro. See below about bricked 2018 MBP's when some people tried to wipe and clean install below.)
> 
> With this machine there's a lot of new architecture Mojave almost certainly won't have drivers for; new Xeon architecture with more cores, the need for supporting a new chipset, MPX support, etc. Considering Apple shoved Catalina out the door in a less-than-ready state I doubt they did anything to bake in support for new machines into Mojave's final release.
> 
> ...



some poeple think mojave works, 








Mojave 10.14.6 is ready for the new Mac Pro – what has changed in the update


This evening’s update to what will almost certainly be the last version of Mojave, apart from security updates in the future, brings some very interesting changes. First and foremost, it brin…




eclecticlight.co




unless something major changed, but until its release itll be hard to confirm one way or the other.


----------



## robgb (Nov 2, 2019)

Saxer said:


> Works only if the Mac hardware accepts installing Mojave. I doubt the coming MacPro will do.


My question: why on earth would anyone actually buy the new MacPro? It's like $6000. I am a Mac user and even I'm not that crazy. I think I'd either build an amazing Hackintosh or buy a couple of iMacs and network them before I'd spend the kind of money Apple wants for the Pro.


----------



## jcrosby (Nov 2, 2019)

gsilbers said:


> some poeple think mojave works,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting read. This really would be a first if Apple did this... Either way time will tell. Cheers.


----------



## jcrosby (Nov 2, 2019)

robgb said:


> My question: why on earth would anyone actually buy the new MacPro? It's like $6000. I am a Mac user and even I'm not that crazy. I think I'd either build an amazing Hackintosh or buy a couple of iMacs and network them before I'd spend the kind of money Apple wants for the Pro.



I built one this spring. Although it took a little research it was very well wort it. Everything works as it should, preview, sleep, shutdown, DRM; not to mention all software and hardware works flawlessly; and it's incredibly stable. I ran the _NewLogicBenchmark_ and could get it to max out all cores in Logic, I topped out at about 20 tracks more than the 9900k iMac, (155.) Not a single crash... Other than the fugly gigabyte post screen you'd think it's a mac... Anyway, very much worth considering as an option.

I even just backed the perfect hackintosh case so it'll look like one  If you're seriously considering going this route the case below is a match made in heaven...






Indiegogo campaign below if interested...

*EDIT*: Indigogo links not working, it can be accessed via their page below.

https://www.dunecase.com/


----------



## colony nofi (Nov 3, 2019)

robgb said:


> My question: why on earth would anyone actually buy the new MacPro? It's like $6000. I am a Mac user and even I'm not that crazy. I think I'd either build an amazing Hackintosh or buy a couple of iMacs and network them before I'd spend the kind of money Apple wants for the Pro.


Thanks for all the info and guidance here folks - its great.

Interesting to see it asked as to why someone would buy this machine. The question is already loaded (as in, who would be stupid enough to spend that amount of cash) - and also feels judgemental / not in the spirit of this kind of conversation.

A Hackintosh may not be suitable for everyone.
Lets looks at say a TV animation recording in the studio next door to me. There you have a studio with freelancers, employees, and others all trying to AVOID technical work. A Hackintosh immediately becomes a risk. Maybe not a big risk, but lets look at that risk in the middle of a recording session. Lets say someone accidentally causes an update to break the machine, and the session grinds to a hault, (or worse, can't even start). Is the risk worth it when clients are paying :
4 voice talent recording at once plus 4 production company staff (a director, directors assistant, producer, producers assistant) plus the sound engineer, their assistant, plus a studio producer. Work out the cost per hour of the session (not just the room, which is modest compared to the talent) and things stuffing up just don't cut it. Indeed, even with trusted hardware there needs to be backups at the ready.

Or say mixing the music + sound of a new opera at a major concert venue. Here you might only get 2 hours per day to run the theatre space to create your mix (and the cost of that time is $2k+ per hour) and if you're not ready to run a section the next day, the entire rehearsal schedule is thrown out because your hardware stuffed up. And what if you are overseas....

Or you are a composer working on a feature, delivering (like we did just two days ago) a FIX to an entire mix which was stuffed up by another part of the chain. The DCP was already in progress in another city 1000km away - and we just needed to find a solution. If we couldn't because hardware was down - then the cinema preview that night doesn't go ahead. Media get annoyed / bad press etc etc etc.

For me personally - anything I can do to lower the likely hood of a technical problem is also great creatively. As much as I have technical experience, I really don't want to be concentrating on that side of things if I am creating. If I can have a machine that will swallow everything that I can throw at it, while knowing I can also organise an exact replacement quickly if something horrid should happen - this is great for me. I just haven't got the time to try and provide a technical pipeline to allow that for my work... figuring out what I need, building it, testing it, making sure I have a same day turn around for getting up and running should a problem occur. With the mac pro's I've used in the past, I have that - and expect it going into the future.

I prefer OSX. I'm thinking about a HP workstation (perhaps 75% of the cost) instead - but unsure how that will fee l / how long it will take me to become unaware of windows while working. The tech being completely transparent is key to me. I'm going to look at a more standard 9900k based machine as well. I'm not against it - but where I am I'm not sure I could get away with not having 2 just in case one dies and I cant get spare parts / up and running within a few hours.) That is very important to me. It doesn't mean it will be to others, but there are plenty of others I know who would say the same thing.

I would have an imac pro but I need a different monitor setup for vision reasons. I prefer not to work with sample-slaves (having been down the route of having 4 at once in the past - again, its diminishing returns for the amount of time it takes to set things up when you want to change workflows / getting assistants up to speed on learning the systems / setups etc!).

Anyway. Off the original topic, but since I see things like this questioned often, I thought it worth pointing out that differing perspectives apply. One is not better than the other. It is however important for us to recognise that our own views, circumstances, ways of working, etc are most likely completely different to others.

Onwards I say.


----------



## colony nofi (Nov 3, 2019)

Now having said all that, the inner geek in me loves Mr Sebastian's crazy builds... and if he ever follows thru to hakintosh this build (as he indicates is the reason for the build in the first place) then I'll watch. And think about it maybe as a proof of concept with one of the lower core count Epyc based AMD machines.


----------



## jcrosby (Nov 3, 2019)

colony nofi said:


> Thanks for all the info and guidance here folks - its great.
> 
> A Hackintosh may not be suitable for everyone.
> Lets looks at say a TV animation recording in the studio next door to me. There you have a studio with freelancers, employees, and others all trying to AVOID technical work. A Hackintosh immediately becomes a risk.
> ...



You're assuming someone suggesting building one would suggest a production facility or venue do the same though. I'd never recommend that and doubt the person you replied to would either. To me it reads as them speaking in the context of the solo freelance composer/producer who runs their own home-based studio.

The same rules that apply to hackintosh apply to a real mac. You don't update anything before a session or during an ongoing project. Through 5 MacBooks, 2 Mac Pros and a Mini Server slave I've always lived by that common sense approach. Blindly jumping in to a new OS even on a mac isn't wise because any new OS isn't without bugs. Not to mention I stay two OS's behind on average; be it a mac or a hack.

As far as reliability --- Considering Apple is apparently ok breaking software compatibility as of Catalina I'd at least consider asking yourself how trustworthy Apple's judgement has been as of late. Catalina shows us that even if you run a legitimate mac, your stability and reliability are at the bottom of their priority list.

MacOS also can, and has broken legitimate macs. Security Update 2018-002 broke audio on my 2018 MacBook Pro. The machine ran flawlessly for 3 months, immediately after installing the update and restarting, the machine suddenly had a case of the now famous "speaker crackling" issue. After eventually rolling back the machine to the previous version the problem miraculously disappeared.

When installing a newer security update this june the same issue showed up, only not only was the "crackling" back, the glitching blew out the left speaker. Despite this issue being software in nature for this particular model, it's still unresolved since Apple broke it last fall.

So personally, mac or hack macOS updates can be a risk either way. Auto-update has been disabled on my machines for years, the same practice I adhere to on my hackintosh.

I'll end with my perception of of the situation as a mac user.. Although surely different from some I'd hope however it's at least a little food for thought, regardless of the route someone chooses.

I personally don't see a hackintosh as any more risky than installing macOS on and older/unsupported mac. And considering the experience I've had with my MacBook I don't see the level of risk being any worse. Moreso frankly, as on the MacBook the issue actually damaged the physical hardware.

Apple has also been making users jump through hoops more and more the past few years. In terms of workarounds required just to move to Mojave on a 4,1 or 5,1 I personally don't see it being all that different than a running hackintosh. The main difference being that I'm not dependent on Apple for service, and don't worry about the machine being EOL'd even though an older machine may technically be completely capable.

However as I've said before, building one certainly isn't for everyone. It also goes without saying that there are scenarios in which case they wouldn't be ideal, if make sense at all, such as a facility. 

Whatever route anyone goes I'd peersonally suggest people become religious about cloning their machines before any update; mac or hack...


----------

