Level 1

49 points

No Boot Camp on Mojave??? ***?

I don't understand why I must lose productivity on my late 2012 iMac with a 3TB drive. Does Mojave have independent capabilities to use Windows 10 that doesn't require Boot Camp? Will Boot Camp be updated to work with my system? Why was this never included in Apple's broadcast as a limiting factor? Why does Apple claim that Mojave is fine on a late 2012 iMac but the installation fails because of Apple's own Boot Camp?

I'm confused.

iMac, macOS High Sierra (10.13), iMac late 2012

Posted on Sep 24, 2018 3:47 PM

59 replies

Sep 24, 2018 6:15 PM in response to Trav1230

It's fairly asinine that Apple couldn't accommodate this specific configuration. If I were you, I'd stick with High Sierra. I'm running a Mac Pro 5,1 with High Sierra and I've seen too many horror stories today that would directly affect me, most notably the fact that my wireless card would be useless after the "upgrade." Nope, no thanks.

Sep 25, 2018 12:32 AM in response to Trav1230

I feel you so much. I got the late 2012 configuration with highest specs so it can endure the next decade. It still does. At the same time, I use bootcamp for specific windows stuff (Streaming, some games, some windows specific apps) and I need to keep bootcamp for this.

So. Seems like there's not gonna be a Mojave Update for me. Sad. 😟

Oct 6, 2018 12:06 PM in response to Trav1230

Seems odd that 3TB seems to be a magic number,

be it HDD or Fusion, for those trying to install Mojave on such

systems that have a Bootcamp installation are having problems

of some sort or another.

No solution, just an observation.

Oct 11, 2018 1:57 AM in response to woodmeister50

This is very irritating. I have a 3TB 27inch machine which is late 2013 so according to Apple's blurb this should be OK. But, as others have reported, it's only when you work through the update that you are told BootCamp will not be supported. That's very poor. Why not say it upfront? I don't want to lose my Windows partition for just one simulation -FSX.

Like others, when I bought this system I thought i was future proof and indeed Apple advised me to buy it for that reason. It seems it's not.

Disappointing!

dialabrain

Level 10

135,539 points

Oct 11, 2018 2:03 AM in response to jamesfromweybridge

jamesfromweybridge wrote:

Like others, when I bought this system I thought i was future proof and indeed Apple advised me to buy it for that reason.

There's no such thing as "future proof". I seriously doubt anyone from Apple would say such a thing.

Oct 11, 2018 2:20 AM in response to dialabrain

OK. Perhaps my language was a little looser than it should have been. But I recall the conversation clearly - I bought directly from Apple in March 2014 - and I was assured that the system was the best option for someone who wanted a machine which would last as long as possible as new operating systems came out. Four and a half years doesn't seem very long to my bank account!

Oct 11, 2018 4:37 AM in response to dialabrain

Thanks. In fact it was Blurb who alerted me to this. Of course this is the wrong thread but I’m relieved now that I couldn’t upgrade. I’m working on a 250 page book so it would have been a little unfortunate to say the least!

Trav1230 Author

Level 1

49 points

Oct 11, 2018 6:29 AM in response to dialabrain

I know what he meant! We buy high end machines to last a long time. That's somewhat successful, in that my late 2012 iMac has indeed lasted five plus years. If we wanted throwaway Windows machines, there are plenty to choose from. But, what we expect from Apple is a concerted effort to allow modernization. Apple is pretty good about OS updates, overall, so B+ for that. They are NOT good in allowing upgrade paths for the expensive machines, however. My top end 2GB GTX680 graphics card (then) has become obsolete for many applications and games. Yet, there is no way to replace it with new graphics. Even the motherboard designs are deliberately redesigned so that you can't put a new motherboard in an older iMac chassis because the component and case layouts have internal changes. What that means, to me, is that Apple has an obligation to its customers to do their very best to avoid orphaning the machines they made to obsolesce. They failed to do that in this case by screwing their top-end owners. At least they could have used some lubricant by alerting us or explaining the reasons as a courtesy, or by re-examining their decision and modifying Mojave. We all know there will be plenty of patches. There always are. Thanks

dialabrain

Level 10

135,539 points

Oct 11, 2018 7:16 AM in response to jamesfromweybridge

jamesfromweybridge wrote:

Thanks. In fact it was Blurb who alerted me to this. Of course this is the wrong thread but I’m relieved now that I couldn’t upgrade. I’m working on a 250 page book so it would have been a little unfortunate to say the least!

Yes. That would be aggravating.

bill5ter

Level 1

4 points

Oct 15, 2018 9:02 AM in response to Trav1230

I too have the problem that I am unable to install Mojave.

I do NOT have an imac though, mine is a MacbookPro 15 inch (late 2013).

So, this is not only related to imacs and its somehing i am not willing to remove - I work in the IT field and need windows for my job. Thanks Apple.

Oct 18, 2018 3:30 PM in response to Trav1230

I would guess this bug is related to the partition scheme for 3 TB fusion drives. But Apple should fix this soon to avoid loosing user trust. I've postponed my iMac Pro purchase until Apple corrected that for my iMac 27" late 2012 with 3 TB fusion drive.

Oct 18, 2018 3:32 PM in response to Trav1230

I guess that this bug is related to the partitioning scheme for 3 TB fusion drives. But Apple should fix that soon to avoid losing user trust. I've postponed my iMac Pro purchase until Apple corrected that for my iMac 27 "end of 2012 with 3TB Fusion drive.

Oct 23, 2018 9:23 AM in response to dialabrain

The difference is that only on 3 TB Fusion Drives the BOOTCAMP partition is placed between to physical HFS+ partition, which represents one partition on the virtual drive:

/dev/disk0 (internal, physical):

#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER

0: GUID_partition_scheme *121.3 GB disk0

1: EFI EFI 209.7 MB disk0s1

2: Apple_CoreStorage Macintosh HD 121.0 GB disk0s2

3: Apple_Boot Boot OS X 134.2 MB disk0s3

/dev/disk1 (internal, physical):

#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER

0: GUID_partition_scheme *3.0 TB disk1

1: EFI EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1

2: Apple_CoreStorage Macintosh HD 645.2 GB disk1s2

3: Apple_Boot Recovery HD 650.1 MB disk1s3

4: Microsoft Basic Data BOOTCAMP 1.6 TB disk1s4

5: Apple_CoreStorage Macintosh HD 801.4 GB disk1s5

6: Apple_Boot Boot OS X 134.2 MB disk1s6

/dev/disk2 (internal, virtual):

#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER

0: Apple_HFS Macintosh HD +1.6 TB disk2

Logical Volume on disk0s2, disk1s2, ...

XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX <-- hidden due to DSGVO

Unencrypted Fusion Drive

On 2 TB Fusion Drives Bootcamp created only one physical HFS+ partition for the Mac part of the drive. Splitted Mac partitions could be a problem when the Mojave installer tries to convert them to APFS.

But Apple really should overcome this and fix that bug. Disappointing customers, which bought the most expensive iMacs available, is a bad idea. Usually this buyers are opinion leaders, influencing purchase decisions of a lot of people.

Oct 23, 2018 10:43 AM in response to jamesfromweybridge

LOL, my reply was deleted within seconds, most likely because it contained "the H-word" their discussion software filters out because it encourages an alternative build practice that they frown upon. Keep trying to control the masses, guys.

Oct 28, 2018 9:07 PM in response to dialabrain

The reason actually has to do with Windows and the NTFS format it uses. For a boot partition, an NTFS volume must begin and end within the first 2TB of a physical drive. For Macs with 3TB drives (Fusion or not) there’s a lot of partitioning voodoo that has to take place in order for Boot Camp to work as expected. The partition map on the drive actually breaks the macOS volume up into two pieces and shoves the NTFS partition in the middle, This is all accomplished via Apple’s CoreStorage framework. The end result is that the fragments of the macOS volume are logically stitched back together so that you only see one contiguous macOS volume on your desktop, alongside the Boot Camp volume.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time this exact situation has occurred. When the 2012 iMac with any flavor of 3TB drive was first released, OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion also was unable to set up a Boot Camp partition on those machines. I still own one of those machines (3TB Fusion) and I had to wait for at least one—though I think it was two or possibly three—point update before Boot Camp was supported on a 3TB drive.

I’m in the same boat, but given the above past occurrence, I’m being patient to see if Apple is able to support these configurations with a point update to Mojave.

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

No Boot Camp on Mojave??? ***?