How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

Started Mar 2, 2014 | Discussions
bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini
2

Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes. It took a lot of searching and some hacking and some serious scares along the way though! And most google searches only lead you to partial solutions or talk that it's impossible. But 2 hours later it works.

I have no clue what Apple fans go on about how MS has no clue compared to Apple when getting UHD running on a regular MAC is so tricky and not directly supported in the OS. Direct support was only for 1920x1080p (which interestingly enough the Dell UP2414Q actually WAS able to scale to fit the screen and run at 60Hz, although it doesn't do simple scaling but interpolation so it's a bit blurry looking from the interpolation). And supposedly there is no way to make it work, even with hacks, if you have already upgraded to Mavericks, which thankfully I had not.

Once you do all the hacking though it appears, at first glance, to work quite well though and perhaps better than Windows although I can't yet say. I don't have much software for the Mac since I basically only use it for tablet development. Although Apple still has 60Hz support locked out for some reason running at UHD so you have to live with either 30Hz and UHD or 60Hz but interpolated by the monitor 1920x1080.

Anyway when I did these steps and used HDMI I got locked into a no signal mode and my HDMI port now seems to be locked out of working with this UHD Dell monitor, although the port still works if I use with other monitors that it recognizes as being different brand. And then I found that using DisplayPort it still works with the Dell even at UHD and I can get in and reset things for this monitor.

Anyway here are the steps:
0. Make sure you have NOT installed Mavericks! AFAIK it only works with OS SUB 10.9, at least so far.

1. use the DisplayPort and not HDMI connector.

2. Go here and follow the http://code.google.com/p/mac-pixel-clock-patch/wiki/Documentation to install the mac-pixel-clock patch to unlock higher pixel clocks.

3. Go here http://www.madrau.com/srx_download/download.html and download and install SwitchResX and select UHD mode for DisplayPort.

4. Go to create custom resolutions in SwitchResX and simple make a new 3840x2160 mode. Exit out of SwitchResX and agree to save changes.

5. Go here http://cocoamanifest.net/articles/2013/01/turn-on-hidpi-retina-mode-on-an-ordinary-mac.html and follow the instructions to turn on HiDPI mode options.

6. Re-boot. You will notice that the HiDPI modes offered by the OS Display preferences are stinking options, there is no 1080P natural scale factor option and the ones they offer make the screen shake and are too lo-res.

7. So go back into SwitchResX and you will now find a 1080P HiDPI option. Select that and then finally you have both UHD AND all the text and icons not being hideously small running even on a MAC Mini or other non-retina MAC (maybe much older models this won't work for, my MAC Mini is only a bit over a year old)

So wow even a non-retina, little old Mac Mini can drive it just fine! It looks AWESOME! Well, so long as you didn't go to Mavericks! Hopefully they will hack Mavericks too. Or even better Apple will just unlock the port as well as make all of these options built-in and obvious and also get 60Hz drivers going too.

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
link to my review of the monitor:
noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,586
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes.

2. Go here and follow the http://code.google.com/p/mac-pixel-clock-patch/wiki/Documentation to install the mac-pixel-clock patch to unlock higher pixel clocks.

Is that modifying the driver such that unlocks higher speeds, ie, patching binary mode or are these speeds somewhere in plain text?

So wow even a non-retina, little old Mac Mini can drive it just fine! It looks AWESOME! Well, so long as you didn't go to Mavericks! Hopefully they will hack Mavericks too. Or even better Apple will just unlock the port as well as make all of these options built-in and obvious and also get 60Hz drivers going too.

The 2013 Mac Pro can drive 4K at 60 Hz, the 2013 rMBPs can drive 4K at 30 Hz (and they have a one year newer Intel graphics than your Mac Mini, assuming it's a 2012 model). I think Apple just put a lid on GPU load to get a smoother graphics and possibly avoid overheating of the GPU inside a laptop.

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes.

2. Go here and follow the http://code.google.com/p/mac-pixel-clock-patch/wiki/Documentation to install the mac-pixel-clock patch to unlock higher pixel clocks.

Is that modifying the driver such that unlocks higher speeds, ie, patching binary mode or are these speeds somewhere in plain text?

It's modifying OS files, binary changes, not just text. It patches two system files. It simply removes the code that puts in a hard cap on how high the pixel clock can go for modes it exposes as driveable, I think. I think he is just essentially adding a goto or jump command to have the code jump over the section where Apple checks for such limits.

Apparently Apple did something in Mavericks to make the code not easily crackable now or something. Maybe it's possible though. I don't know too much about the innards of MACs. I have no idea why they would want to do that since usually companies like high adoption rates for new OS. Maybe they'd rather try to force people into buying new hardware (even though their old HW actually can do it!), yuck. I hate that sort of 'marketing' action. I'm just using my MAC as a development bed for tablet programming, nothing more, so I sure won't be paying for a whole new fancy MAC just for that (unless some app takes off and sells a zillion copies I guess) and I guess that means I won't ever upgrade to Mavericks, at least not any time soon.

So wow even a non-retina, little old Mac Mini can drive it just fine! It looks AWESOME! Well, so long as you didn't go to Mavericks! Hopefully they will hack Mavericks too. Or even better Apple will just unlock the port as well as make all of these options built-in and obvious and also get 60Hz drivers going too.

The 2013 Mac Pro can drive 4K at 60 Hz, the 2013 rMBPs can drive 4K at 30 Hz (and they have a one year newer Intel graphics than your Mac Mini, assuming it's a 2012 model). I think Apple just put a lid on GPU load to get a smoother graphics and possibly avoid overheating of the GPU inside a laptop.

Limiting to 30Hz doesn't deliver smoother graphics and the GPU could still be pushed to try to render more fps anyway though. The output buffer part of the graphics card would have to run twice as fast but usually that is a mild thing compared to what the main GPU does and I'd assume if the chip can drive 60Hz then it was designed to handle it just fine. Perhaps in some of them the chip can't drive 60Hz though?? From what I read it sounds like it probably can though, not sure.

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes.

2. Go here and follow the http://code.google.com/p/mac-pixel-clock-patch/wiki/Documentation to install the mac-pixel-clock patch to unlock higher pixel clocks.

Is that modifying the driver such that unlocks higher speeds, ie, patching binary mode or are these speeds somewhere in plain text?

The real tricky spot I feel is not the binary change to two OS files but the way SwitchResX appears to store the new res that you select into the OS without letting you test to see if it works! So it stored UHD over HDMI into the OS and then it didn't work and then I was stuck! Re-booting just quickly enough brought me to the same no signal over HDMI issue. (it still worked fine over HDMI to other monitors, since it stores the selected res for each monitor type connected to MAC OS separately it seems, although there was no easy option having booted into another display as to where to reset the Dell screen size default, maybe I could have hooked up both at once and then it would have shown the Dell options and I could have changed them from the other monitor?). I'm not very familiar with MACs and maybe there is a way to safe mode boot them as with Windows and then you could fix that that way too. I was able to fix it by using DisplayPort connection next instead and luckily that handled the UHD that had been coded in by SelectX to be used with this particular monitor.

noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,586
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Apparently Apple did something in Mavericks to make the code not easily crackable now or something. Maybe it's possible though. I don't know too much about the innards of MACs. I have no idea why they would want to do that since usually companies like high adoption rates for new OS.

Apple cares zero about how easy or hard it is to do those kind of hacks. People in general don't buy Macs to tinker with them on this level, only a tiny minority will ever even think about that. It's like other product categories, some people are happy to self-assembles stuff (eg, furniture) and others don't want to deal with that. Apple is only targeting the latter half. That doesn't mean that one thing is better than the other, just that there are different kind of people out there and every company is trying to find its audience.

Maybe they'd rather try to force people into buying new hardware (even though their old HW actually can do it!), yuck. I hate that sort of 'marketing' action. I'm just using my MAC as a development bed for tablet programming, nothing more, so I sure won't be paying for a whole new fancy MAC just for that (unless some app takes off and sells a zillion copies I guess) and I guess that means I won't ever upgrade to Mavericks, at least not any time soon.

The 2013 Mac Pro can drive 4K at 60 Hz, the 2013 rMBPs can drive 4K at 30 Hz (and they have a one year newer Intel graphics than your Mac Mini, assuming it's a 2012 model). I think Apple just put a lid on GPU load to get a smoother graphics and possibly avoid overheating of the GPU inside a laptop.

Limiting to 30Hz doesn't deliver smoother graphics and the GPU could still be pushed to try to render more fps anyway though.

You are not thinking about this from the point of view of being conservative of what you promise as a manufacturer. If for some vaguely defined set of tasks, 60 Hz could not be delivered, than you don't offer 60 Hz. This might be infuriating to some but to others not being surprised of certain common enough tasks not rendering at 60 Hz beats having the option to run some tasks at 60 Hz. Some people rather pay more (or just wait longer) than getting a somewhat inconsistent performance. About two years back I created an animated slideshow (as movie file) which ran without any hiccups on my Macbook Pro, but for the presentation it had to be transferred to a fairly new PC laptop. And it could not show the animations, it showed only something like every 20th frame of it. That is the sort of surprise I don't like.

The output buffer part of the graphics card would have to run twice as fast but usually that is a mild thing compared to what the main GPU does and I'd assume if the chip can drive 60Hz then it was designed to handle it just fine. Perhaps in some of them the chip can't drive 60Hz though?? From what I read it sounds like it probably can though, not sure.

I really think limiting the performance of some components because of heat/cooling restraints on laptops is a very reasonable thing to do. Already with sub-4K monitors, the graphics chip can get quite hot on MacBooks with large external monitors. A user should never have to worry about overheating a computer, it's the manufacturers job to design the computer such that this is not possible. I know this is hearsay but I've heard from several people over the years, that PCs do overheat. One colleague even put it as: "Never run anything that uses the CPU at 100% for longer periods on a laptop, it could damage the computer".

Sure, Apple could have just been lazy but given that third parties were able to modify the binary code, it doesn't look as if it would have been much work for Apple to do this.

noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,586
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

bronxbombers4 wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes.

2. Go here and follow the http://code.google.com/p/mac-pixel-clock-patch/wiki/Documentation to install the mac-pixel-clock patch to unlock higher pixel clocks.

Is that modifying the driver such that unlocks higher speeds, ie, patching binary mode or are these speeds somewhere in plain text?

The real tricky spot I feel is not the binary change to two OS files but the way SwitchResX appears to store the new res that you select into the OS without letting you test to see if it works! So it stored UHD over HDMI into the OS and then it didn't work and then I was stuck! Re-booting just quickly enough brought me to the same no signal over HDMI issue. (it still worked fine over HDMI to other monitors, since it stores the selected res for each monitor type connected to MAC OS separately it seems, although there was no easy option having booted into another display as to where to reset the Dell screen size default, maybe I could have hooked up both at once and then it would have shown the Dell options and I could have changed them from the other monitor?). I'm not very familiar with MACs and maybe there is a way to safe mode boot them as with Windows and then you could fix that that way too. I was able to fix it by using DisplayPort connection next instead and luckily that handled the UHD that had been coded in by SelectX to be used with this particular monitor.

It's a bit hidden but the HDMI port of the Mac Mini is officially limited to about 1920 x 1200.

Tom_N Forum Pro • Posts: 15,571
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes. It took a lot of searching and some hacking and some serious scares along the way though! And most google searches only lead you to partial solutions or talk that it's impossible. But 2 hours later it works.

I have no clue what Apple fans go on about how MS has no clue compared to Apple when getting UHD running on a regular MAC is so tricky and not directly supported in the OS.

The Mac Mini is not advertised as supporting UHD resolution on its HDMI port.  All that you can count on is 1920x1200 pixels or 1080p.

The Retina MacBook Pros and iOS devices (iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads) that have Retina screens ARE advertised as supporting high resolution on their internal screens.  People who have used those Macs and iOS devices know that Apple handles backwards compatibility very well.

The latest Retina MacBook Pros and Mac Pros support HDMI connections to UltraHD TVs; the Mac Pro also has the option of driving multiple 4K displays via its Thunderbolt 2 ports.  I do not know if Mac OS X has an option to treat physically small external UHD/4K screens as Retina screens.

But in any case, Apple never advertised that your Mini supported Retina displays, UHD/4K displays, or a combination.  So the difficulty of hacking your Mini has little to do with how well the features work on the models that support them.

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes.

2. Go here and follow the http://code.google.com/p/mac-pixel-clock-patch/wiki/Documentation to install the mac-pixel-clock patch to unlock higher pixel clocks.

Is that modifying the driver such that unlocks higher speeds, ie, patching binary mode or are these speeds somewhere in plain text?

The real tricky spot I feel is not the binary change to two OS files but the way SwitchResX appears to store the new res that you select into the OS without letting you test to see if it works! So it stored UHD over HDMI into the OS and then it didn't work and then I was stuck! Re-booting just quickly enough brought me to the same no signal over HDMI issue. (it still worked fine over HDMI to other monitors, since it stores the selected res for each monitor type connected to MAC OS separately it seems, although there was no easy option having booted into another display as to where to reset the Dell screen size default, maybe I could have hooked up both at once and then it would have shown the Dell options and I could have changed them from the other monitor?). I'm not very familiar with MACs and maybe there is a way to safe mode boot them as with Windows and then you could fix that that way too. I was able to fix it by using DisplayPort connection next instead and luckily that handled the UHD that had been coded in by SelectX to be used with this particular monitor.

It's a bit hidden but the HDMI port of the Mac Mini is officially limited to about 1920 x 1200.

The hack was supposed to allow it to do more, some people say they have it working UHD over HDMI on the MAC Mini. It didn't seem to work for me, at least not connected to this particular UHD monitor.

The DisplayPort port on the MAC Mini is also officially limited to 1920x1200 but this hack allows you to drive it at UHD and it works great (at least with this UHD monitor)!

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

Tom_N wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes. It took a lot of searching and some hacking and some serious scares along the way though! And most google searches only lead you to partial solutions or talk that it's impossible. But 2 hours later it works.

I have no clue what Apple fans go on about how MS has no clue compared to Apple when getting UHD running on a regular MAC is so tricky and not directly supported in the OS.

The Mac Mini is not advertised as supporting UHD resolution on its HDMI port. All that you can count on is 1920x1200 pixels or 1080p.

So I feared. But thankfully that is not the case at all. I have it driving my 24" UHD display as a retina display and it's totally awesome and works perfectly (on DisplayPort where it was also advertised as only going up to 1920x1200).

The Retina MacBook Pros and iOS devices (iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads) that have Retina screens ARE advertised as supporting high resolution on their internal screens. People who have used those Macs and iOS devices know that Apple handles backwards compatibility very well.

The latest Retina MacBook Pros and Mac Pros support HDMI connections to UltraHD TVs; the Mac Pro also has the option of driving multiple 4K displays via its Thunderbolt 2 ports.

yes, but I was trying to get it to work on a regular MAC

you don't need to buy a special new retina windows box to get UHD, your old card and the OS quite possible support it and if not, just pop in a new gfx card and good to go, no need to buy a whole new machine

I do not know if Mac OS X has an option to treat physically small external UHD/4K screens as Retina screens.

The steps I post above to get to HiDPI 1080p provides UHD screens being driven as retina screens.

But in any case, Apple never advertised that your Mini supported Retina displays, UHD/4K displays, or a combination. So the difficulty of hacking your Mini has little to do with how well the features work on the models that support them.

But the point is that with windows boxes are you free to stick whatever you want in them and also that many of the MACs that require all these tricks actually DO support UHD just fine in their HW it's locked away and obscured and I've heard that even people with retina books and new mac pros sometimes need to do at least one of the hack steps to get it to scale nicely, at least with some UHD displays.

Anyway whatever, the main point is not a Windows/Apple war (IMO both stink to some extent and the really good OS and companies were driven out of business years ago sadly), but that it is possible to get many non-retina MACs to drive UHD displays as retinas displays and it's awesome, once you follow the steps it works and it works really well (potentially better than Windows, not sure yet) so I was really surprised and thankful! I feared I would be stuck with 1920x1080 being interpolated by the monitor to UHD since I didn't think the mini supported UHD and AFAIK there is no way to change a graphics card in a MAC, but I'm not and it looks beautiful, it works so great, awesome.

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Apparently Apple did something in Mavericks to make the code not easily crackable now or something. Maybe it's possible though. I don't know too much about the innards of MACs. I have no idea why they would want to do that since usually companies like high adoption rates for new OS.

Apple cares zero about how easy or hard it is to do those kind of hacks. People in general don't buy Macs to tinker with them on this level, only a tiny minority will ever even think about that. It's like other product categories, some people are happy to self-assembles stuff (eg, furniture) and others don't want to deal with that. Apple is only targeting the latter half. That doesn't mean that one thing is better than the other, just that there are different kind of people out there and every company is trying to find its audience.

Perhaps, but the reason it was brought up the way it was is that the guy who did the original hack says that this section of Mavericks code now appears to be signed and it wasn't before so now it's tough to modify since it fails the signature test and the OS seems to reject any changes to these modules if altered now and locks out apparently. (although perhaps they have also signed tons of other stuff and it was done for other reasons)

Tom_N Forum Pro • Posts: 15,571
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

bronxbombers4 wrote:

The DisplayPort port on the MAC Mini is also officially limited to 1920x1200

The DisplayPort / Thunderbolt port is advertised as supporting up to 2560x1600 pixel resolution.

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

Tom_N wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

The DisplayPort port on the MAC Mini is also officially limited to 1920x1200

The DisplayPort / Thunderbolt port is advertised as supporting up to 2560x1600 pixel resolution.

OK, 2560x1600 for DP, but anyway, the truth is that it actually supports 3840x2160 (way above the claims)! PERFECTLY! So long as you unlock it with the hack and it even scales it nicely once you get the retina display hidpi hacks going too. It's beautiful.

So glad it turned out to actually support it! It's fantastic.

noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,586
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

bronxbombers4 wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Apparently Apple did something in Mavericks to make the code not easily crackable now or something. Maybe it's possible though. I don't know too much about the innards of MACs. I have no idea why they would want to do that since usually companies like high adoption rates for new OS.

Apple cares zero about how easy or hard it is to do those kind of hacks. People in general don't buy Macs to tinker with them on this level, only a tiny minority will ever even think about that. It's like other product categories, some people are happy to self-assembles stuff (eg, furniture) and others don't want to deal with that. Apple is only targeting the latter half. That doesn't mean that one thing is better than the other, just that there are different kind of people out there and every company is trying to find its audience.

Perhaps, but the reason it was brought up the way it was is that the guy who did the original hack says that this section of Mavericks code now appears to be signed and it wasn't before so now it's tough to modify since it fails the signature test and the OS seems to reject any changes to these modules if altered now and locks out apparently. (although perhaps they have also signed tons of other stuff and it was done for other reasons)

They keep signing more and more and sandboxing more and more with each OS release for the purpose of making the OS safer. What else would be the purpose of signing code? Do car manufacturers add anti-theft devices to their cars to make it harder for their customers to modify their car remote (eg, to add a proximity based features)? Or do they do it to make the cars harder to steal?

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

Apparently Apple did something in Mavericks to make the code not easily crackable now or something. Maybe it's possible though. I don't know too much about the innards of MACs. I have no idea why they would want to do that since usually companies like high adoption rates for new OS.

Apple cares zero about how easy or hard it is to do those kind of hacks. People in general don't buy Macs to tinker with them on this level, only a tiny minority will ever even think about that. It's like other product categories, some people are happy to self-assembles stuff (eg, furniture) and others don't want to deal with that. Apple is only targeting the latter half. That doesn't mean that one thing is better than the other, just that there are different kind of people out there and every company is trying to find its audience.

Perhaps, but the reason it was brought up the way it was is that the guy who did the original hack says that this section of Mavericks code now appears to be signed and it wasn't before so now it's tough to modify since it fails the signature test and the OS seems to reject any changes to these modules if altered now and locks out apparently. (although perhaps they have also signed tons of other stuff and it was done for other reasons)

They keep signing more and more and sandboxing more and more with each OS release for the purpose of making the OS safer. What else would be the purpose of signing code? Do car manufacturers add anti-theft devices to their cars to make it harder for their customers to modify their car remote (eg, to add a proximity based features)? Or do they do it to make the cars harder to steal?

It depends, plenty of times companies have locked down firmware and so on to prevent mods and push sales of new and future items, but in this case yeah it certainly very well might be simply to make the OS more immune to sneaky malware attacks, that very, very well might be the only reason they did it and this hack may not have even been on their radar (although there is no way to know without looking in detail into exactly what parts they added signing too, if it was just a few sections of code dealing with these modules then it would seem that they were targeting this hack).

Whatever the reason, it is a terrible shame for those wanting to run their MACs at UHD. It's fine to lock up the OS to make it more secure, but they should really simply put in the hack themselves to allow for UHD over DisplayPort as an option or something.

Anyway looks like I will be sticking with pre-Mavericks for a long time.

noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,586
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

bronxbombers4 wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

They keep signing more and more and sandboxing more and more with each OS release for the purpose of making the OS safer. What else would be the purpose of signing code? Do car manufacturers add anti-theft devices to their cars to make it harder for their customers to modify their car remote (eg, to add a proximity based features)? Or do they do it to make the cars harder to steal?

It depends, plenty of times companies have locked down firmware and so on to prevent mods and push sales of new and future items, but in this case yeah it certainly very well might be simply to make the OS more immune to sneaky malware attacks, that very, very well might be the only reason they did it and this hack may not have even been on their radar (although there is no way to know without looking in detail into exactly what parts they added signing too, if it was just a few sections of code dealing with these modules then it would seem that they were targeting this hack).

Whatever the reason, it is a terrible shame for those wanting to run their MACs at UHD. It's fine to lock up the OS to make it more secure, but they should really simply put in the hack themselves to allow for UHD over DisplayPort as an option or something.

The point is that the only rational reason why didn't do so (as it apparently must be pretty simple) that there must be downside to enabling this. How do you think a decision on the maximum display resolution and refresh rate a computer can officially support is made?

lumigraphics Veteran Member • Posts: 3,320
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

So you are complaining that it is difficult to hack the OS to do something that Apple specifically says is not supported. Well, yeah, and? If you fry your logic board, are you going to expect a warranty repair?

OP bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

lumigraphics wrote:

So you are complaining that it is difficult to hack the OS to do something that Apple specifically says is not supported. Well, yeah, and? If you fry your logic board, are you going to expect a warranty repair?

Mostly I was just trying to be helpful and tell people how to do it and save them time trying to track it all down themselves! It works. UHD displays are amazing. Once you get the retina mode working the MAC drives it very well.

It's NOT going to fry the logic board. Even if it did, and it won't, well I'd need to get a new MAC to display UHD anyway if it didn't work on this one.

lumigraphics Veteran Member • Posts: 3,320
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini

bronxbombers4 wrote:

lumigraphics wrote:

So you are complaining that it is difficult to hack the OS to do something that Apple specifically says is not supported. Well, yeah, and? If you fry your logic board, are you going to expect a warranty repair?

Mostly I was just trying to be helpful and tell people how to do it and save them time trying to track it all down themselves! It works. UHD displays are amazing. Once you get the retina mode working the MAC drives it very well.

It's NOT going to fry the logic board. Even if it did, and it won't, well I'd need to get a new MAC to display UHD anyway if it didn't work on this one.

You very well could fry the logic board, running components above rated design. This is kind of reckless advice and I would recommend that mini owners NOT try this. Just a note from a long time Mac tech and former Apple employee.

afterburn Senior Member • Posts: 1,075
Re: How I got UHD (~4k) working on a MAC Mini
2

lumigraphics wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

lumigraphics wrote:

So you are complaining that it is difficult to hack the OS to do something that Apple specifically says is not supported. Well, yeah, and? If you fry your logic board, are you going to expect a warranty repair?

Mostly I was just trying to be helpful and tell people how to do it and save them time trying to track it all down themselves! It works. UHD displays are amazing. Once you get the retina mode working the MAC drives it very well.

It's NOT going to fry the logic board. Even if it did, and it won't, well I'd need to get a new MAC to display UHD anyway if it didn't work on this one.

You very well could fry the logic board, running components above rated design. This is kind of reckless advice and I would recommend that mini owners NOT try this. Just a note from a long time Mac tech and former Apple employee.

Apple has a habit of setting artificial and arbitrary limits on their stuff. My 2012 rMBP cannot drive a UHD display properly, because it does not have Thunderbolt2. At the same time, it has no problem driving 3 27" Thunderbolt Displays at full resolution plus the internal display. It can clearly push enough pixels and should not have any issues with UHD. Yet, it is not allowed by Apple.

Not saying the Mac mini can do the same, but limits should be dictated by the hardware, not by a choice of the software engineers.

-- hide signature --

Gijs from The Netherlands
Nikon D800

 afterburn's gear list:afterburn's gear list
Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads