The latest KDK is 26.2, the latest for Sequoia is 15.6. I already have 15.6. Which one did you get? It shouldn't be downloading a 26 one for Sequoia.
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.
macOS 15 Sequoia on Unsupported Macs Thread
- Thread starter flagers
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
15.7.3. from 15.7.2 OCLP downloads KDK's during the repatch process after an update, then says the old one is still the latest. I do it all OTA, not USB.
The method doesn't matter. If there is a newer KDK when the install process re-applies patches, it will be downloaded. The USB just automates the process, so you don't have to do the steps manually.
I think it would be nice if we continue to differentiate here between dev and public betas/rc and release versions. FWIW. But maybe I am missing something. I obviously do not mind anyone testing or discussing any version to their heart's content but it is always nice to know the state of what is being tested and I for one do not use betas anymore unless it fixes something important with OCLP in an attempt to stay sane in an ever changing world
Last edited:
That's the same with me, I don't do Beta anymore either, unless it's just a basic app, but never the OS, or anything else critical.I think it would be nice if we continue to differentiate here between dev and public betas/rc and release versions. FWIW.
But maybe I am missing something. I for one do not use betas anymore unless necessary with OCLP in an attempt to stay sane in an ever changing world
I think the key word is "differentiate." Totally agree. No reason to avoid testing and reporting Betas if you like doing that as long as we're clear about the tested version when posting results. Simply posting the BuildVersion (which is found in About This Mac after clicking on the macOS version or when executing sw_vers in terminal) with posted results should be sufficient.
Agreed generally, but as we know an RC can have a buildversion that then is the same when it becomes the release, so the beta and RC denominations can still be useful at times.
I am also pretty sure we can count on Apple to inadvertently still throw a spanner or two into the Sequoia OCLP machinery so some caution when upgrading is still always a good idea IMHO.
Last edited:
I agree with your points. I've discovered that RCs are a lot better bet than betas. They run more smoothly, seeming to be "better optimized" as discussed recently, see this post from @rbart on the watchOS 11 Betas thread. So while I'm still not installing pure betas on unsupported Macs, I'm cool with RCsAgreed generally, but as we know an RC can have a buildversion that then is the same when it becomes the release, so the beta and RC denominations can still be useful at times. Ah well, hairsplitting a tad maybe, but there it is
and I am also pretty sure we can count on Apple to inadvertently still throw a spanner or two into the Sequoia OCLP machinery so some caution when upgrading is still always a good idea IMHO.
To that end I've updated the rMBP10,1 2012 from 15.7.2 to 15.7.3 RC1, OCLP 2.4.1. No issues upgrading, and no issues found while live testing.
15.7.3 RC1 installed, I don't know if it depends on Cloudflare or the update, but now its bot verification works. I still have the problem with some site favicons that make Safari crash.
Splitting a hair that doesn't exist. If the RC becomes the Release, where's the confusion?
Since you ask, there is no "confusion" as I see it and that is not a very charitable reading of what I wrote I must say as I was merely stating a simple fact about clarity of denominations here, though Apples nomenclature these days since 14.xx or so is rather to "declare" a build an RC and there is no longer a GM at all.
Ah well, I am an old person so probably weary by being tainted by the Apple development of yesteryear, when I depended on their development and they used to break stuff pretty badly with RC:s much of the time and I agree with @rehkram that Apple RC:s are generally pretty trustworthy these days, so it can certainly make sense to update early to an RC. As an example of that there is still some dev progress with Sequoia, I unexpectedly noticed that the Aerial wallpapers suddenly started working on 2010 and 2012 MBP:s with 15.7.2 so there is that
Last edited:
I had a strange issue with 15.7.2 for a while until I restarted. It seems like after the initial update, I had random sluggishness, and beach balling. Even though the system was usable, it did have the unusual amount of lag. I did get rid of the additional APFS volume that I had Monterey on, so no longer dual booting, e.g. spotlight having to reindex between versions.
After the restart, things came back somewhat slow, but then it sorted itself out, and seems to be back to normal. It's been running a couple days now. Since Sequoia is in security mode now, is there any reason to keep installing updates, or is it pretty safe to freeze the system to keep it stable? Does enough change per point release now, to make actively updating to each update worth it? What I'm looking for at this point is to leave the OS alone, and just update any apps that have updates.
After the restart, things came back somewhat slow, but then it sorted itself out, and seems to be back to normal. It's been running a couple days now. Since Sequoia is in security mode now, is there any reason to keep installing updates, or is it pretty safe to freeze the system to keep it stable? Does enough change per point release now, to make actively updating to each update worth it? What I'm looking for at this point is to leave the OS alone, and just update any apps that have updates.
FYI: OTA to 24G407 done using 2.4.1. No issues. No interventions necessary.
So these days, how do you guys know before updating what build you are about to update to?
I assume we have to use the terminal to know what we are updating to now?
It seems to me that Apple has changed how they name the updates in the GUI software update and they don't appear to name RC:s anymore at all there? It used to say beta1,rc1, rc2 etc. right?
Code:
Softwareupdate --listSettings for dev betas in GUI does not.
You need to switch on beta updates channel in system settings GUI if that is what you want, then use same command to see build and denomination.
Last edited:
I first update a supported Mac mini to get the build number. Then I check the build number on BetaWiki. Sometimes it hasn't been recorded yet on BetaWiki, so second line of attack to determining what I've got is web searching on build number. I usually get a hit, often several. There are various forums, including this one, where the builds get documented.
I think it's safe to assume that actual beta build numbers contain more than 6 characters. I also assume that RCs and public releases are 6 characters. So web searching again comes into play to decide whether it's an RC or a public release. That's basically how I roll.
I am a fan of terminal, but it had not occurred to me to go looking for a command to do this! So thanks for the tip there.
You're welcome.
This is what it looks like on my MBA running 15.7.2 with no beta updates.
Code:
% softwareupdate --list
Software Update Tool
Finding available software
Software Update found the following new or updated software:
* Label: macOS Tahoe 26.1-25B78
Title: macOS Tahoe 26.1, Version: 26.1, Size: 16865292KiB, Recommended: YES, Action: restart... and with dev beta updates enabled in GUI .
Does not say anything about rc anymore but it does name betas when they are available.
Perhaps we are to assume that if it is not named a beta but is only available via beta updates, it is, or is the equivalent of an RC and it is just the build number that will tell us if it is a new one? A little unclear but time will tell and at least we can know what build we are installing.
Code:
% softwareupdate --list
Software Update Tool
Finding available software
Software Update found the following new or updated software:
* Label: macOS Sequoia 15.7.3-24G407
Title: macOS Sequoia 15.7.3, Version: 15.7.3, Size: 15255212KiB, Recommended: YES, Action: restart
Last edited:
Today, I took the risk and updated my other machines to 15.7.2 final (all were on OCLP 2.4.1 already):
iMac 2011 27", i7 2600, 1TB SSD, 24GB RAM, K2100m
iMac 2011 21,5", i7 2600s, 1TB SSD, 20GB RAM, K2100m
MBP 2015, 13", i5, 8GB RAM, 256MB stock SSD
Because of my bad experience with USB booting the installer, this time, I started it from the existing mac OS installations. Used the same USB stick, however, than the last time. Everything went well and the results seem to be smoothly working machines. Closely monitoring the installation processes, I noticed the installer proceeds differently than when USB booted. I have the impression that more is done within the existing macOS GUI. The "mac OS installer" entry in OC appeared only with the first reboot, afterwards "Macintosh HD" was the only availably option in the picker. The dreaded black screen in the end did not count down from something like 58 min (or so) but only 8 mins.
I would hence suggest, if one already has a working installation, to start the update from within it. Positive side effect: The same USB stick can be used for different machines.
Last edited:
Does anyone know what problems Mr. Macintosh was referencing in his latest Tahoe, and OCLP update video? He mentioned there was numerous reports of problems with Safari 26.1 and OCLP. I have it installed on this iMac 17,1 with Sequoia 15.7.2, and have not seen any issues. (when I've used it). Are most of the problems related to non metal, and non AVX2 capable macs? Those are the main ones I'm aware of.
I've seen people report Safari issues, but they have been mainly on older Macs, or with an NVIDIA card, and none of the issues I've seen reported, affect me. That's why I was curious if there were some I wasn't aware of that would make him recommend against installing Safari updates.
I already have Safari 26.1 on macOS Sequoia. It works with no issues. I would say that I wouldn't recommend it to those who haven't updated already, unless they're fine with a few problems.
Thanks for the feedback @BloxUnskilleden.
As far as today's post, I just discovered I hadn't installed Onyx on my system like I usually do. i typically run it from time to time to help clean things up. Should I run it on this system after running Monterey, then upgrading to Sonoma, and then finally Sequoia to clean things up?
As far as today's post, I just discovered I hadn't installed Onyx on my system like I usually do. i typically run it from time to time to help clean things up. Should I run it on this system after running Monterey, then upgrading to Sonoma, and then finally Sequoia to clean things up?
I’ve had no problems running Onyx in fact it got rid of the grey screen we used you get before the desktop background loads in . Using safari 26.1 or betas I’ve found OSXDaily website crashes it every time (mind you I only went there from a google link) I’d say it does about 80% of things without issue . (Could be plugin issues mind you.)