Killing 32 bit support is going to cost me about $600 per year, because I still have a pre-CC copy of Photoshop, In Design, and so on. I am absolutely furious at Apple for this.
You’re stuck on a 6+ year old piece of software because Adobe moved to a higher priced cloud-based model...maybe you should be mad at Adobe...6 years ago...not Apple?
All organizations have limited resources. Each hour spent supporting 32 bit is an hour that could’ve been spent on more important things.
Last I checked just as this guy is nursing his old ass pre CC adobe software along nothing is stopping them from continuing with an older OS X.
Just the other day my brother told me he met a really talented graphics designer that still primarily uses some 25 year old sign design software. Never heard of it before, and don't remember the name.
We balk at having to pay monthly for software we bought over 10 years ago and even today we'd not miss any new features offered. Great artists (I'm not one of them) can produce great visuals. Limitation can be better for creativity than no restrictions for some anyway.
Are you really arguing that Windows is compatibility with the Super Nintendo because you can run an emulator?
Apple used to about things that "just work", now they're about things that "don't work anymore".
So “yesterday” doesn’t count as “recently”?
The point remains: this will still bite people.
Apple broke my working software. Emphasis on the working part. Upgrading even with one time payment software would still mean hundreds of dollars forked out because Apple broke it. If it wasn't broken I wouldn't upgrade.
If you’re cool using 6+ year old, blurry non-retina software...why do you need to upgrade to Catalina? Just stay on Mojave and you’ll be fine.
Did you really plan on using that 2012 edition of Photoshop until 2035?
It has all the features I need - nothing added in the last 6 years has been worth switching to the subscription model.
Where are the Mojave fixes for CVE-2019-8745 and CVE-2019-8769 for example? If they're not available, my point stands.
6 years isn't nearly long enough to even consider dropping support on the OS level. Try twice that.
No mainstream operating system that ran on 68000 processors in the 80's, PowerPC in the 90's and Intel since 2006 is even around today.
Y’all must have forgot how NeXTStep, which later became Mac OS X and now macOS ran on 68000, Sparc and MIPS back in the day.
The same way Apple was running Mac OS X on Intel hardware long before the first Intel Macs were released, there's got to be Arm-based MacBooks or Mac minis running macOS right now.
So it makes sense for Apple to get rid of as much technical debt as they can before making that jump.
And because of Catalyst, which enables iPad apps to be ported to macOS, there will be more apps for the Mac.
Some of the Catalyst apps have some rough edges and not all of the frameworks are available yet, but things look promising: https://9to5mac.com/2019/10/07/macos-catalina-catalyst-apps/.
Finally, Apple has been telling developers since Snow Leopard was released in 2009 about transitioning to 64-bit.
Every platform has to balance the developer experience with the user experience. Microsoft, with their incredible backwards compatibility support, has one approach, whereas Apple has a very different one.
There is no right or wrong way.
Let's face it you are cheap, you weren't willing to keep up with the Adobe products you purchased and now you want to blame someone, instead of blaming yourself, you've decided it's someone else's fault.
I have pre-CC version of the Adobe products, and I run the an older version of OSX on my Mac Pro. I'm not willing to pay the price for Adobe, but I'm also willing to take responsibility for my cheapness.
Or, hear me out here, some people can’t afford to buy new Adobe software because it’s ridiculously expensive. They’re not wealthy enough to call themselves cheap.
Apple can spend some of that massive cash reserve it has actually acting like a grown-up platform holder with responsibilities to its users.
I can still run programs from the XP era on my Windows PC.
I just want Word 5.1 back. Is that too much to ask?
Adobe's cloud pricing model is abhorrent to me, and Apple forcing the hand of everyone that didn't want to jump on board with it is also shitty.
But I've had a long time to come to grips with my hatred for Adobe. Apple has only recently started making choices that carry serious negative consequences for me.
I feel the same way about their dropping of OpenGL, for what it's worth.
Yes. I've been involved with the Mac user group community for many years; this is the kind of logic I've heard many times.
Snow Leopard for life! The OS and the hardware it ran on, still run that Adobe release now just as well as they did then.
I'm not sure the treadmill has resulted in things feeling importantly different for standard tools over the last 10 - 15 years.
I'd love to do Snow Leopard instead but tracking down old software that's compatible has proven difficult. I'm convinced it's out there—iffy backwards compatibility means there shouldn't necessarily be fewer compatible apps, just different ones—it's just tracking them down in 2019 that's a problem. Mavericks is my compromise.
Because Snow Leopard is full of unpatched security holes. [0] Including RCEs.
[0] https://wyzguyscybersecurity.com/apple-patched-safari-and-os...
To your point, there are plenty newer MacOS versions that might still suit ones taste, still run 32 bit apps, and still get patched.
There are plenty alternatives to surfing Safari. Heck, you can even get modern Firefox compiled for Power Macintosh G3, G4, or G5 (not for Lion 10.7 or newer, which dropped Power Mac support): https://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/
iCab (at icab.de) is another labor of love, though release notes look like 2018.
Sites like Low End Mac help find things that can live on (example 2015 article, though incomplete and dated): https://lowendmac.com/2015/what-is-the-best-browser-for-os-x...
> To your point, there are plenty newer MacOS versions that might still suit ones taste, still run 32 bit apps, and still get patched.
Where "plenty" equals "two", sure. Apple releases security patches for the last three Mac releases. So, High Sierra has one year left, and Mojave has two years.
It's the same logic.
Edit: I’m pretty sure my 10.13(!) received a security update last month. There will be security updates for 10.14 at least till next years macOS flavor.
(After that time the apps will still run like they always did, but you may choose to keep that machine offline for security reasons).
I tend to think that's a pretty reasonable value for your money.
pixelmator and affinity designer jumped into the market at the right time (a few years ago) to capture adobe refugees like me for my (mostly modest) visual design needs.
in any case, you can stay on mojave to run creative suite for now, and perhaps via a VM in the future. catalina doesn't seem to have any killer features (other than maybe sidecar) that make it a must-have upgrade (and apparently enough bugs to make it a should-wait upgrade).
I could not justify a CC subscription for how infrequent I need to edit images (every other month).
Also, the non-Adobe Mac graphics software market is pretty robust, with Acorn, Pixelmator, Polarr Photo Editor, CorelDraw, etc.
I've been an Acorn user for years; has all of the important features of Photoshop in a much more accessible interface for a fraction of the price. Just checked—it's on sale for $14.99: https://flyingmeat.com/acorn/
”you are granted a limited, non- transferable, non-exclusive license:
[…]
iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using macOS Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.”
It's inefficient. You should get a good if its marginal cost is below its value to you. If Photoshop is worth 550 to you, the marginal cost of a copy is neglible and Adobe charges 600 €, you don't buy it and the market just threw away 550 €.
That is partially justified in that the business somehow has to finance the actual development and other fixed costs, and we don't have a much better mechanism for that yet. But preventing someone from using software because they can't afford someone's profits is just pure waste.
Do they not deserve to keep using software they have already paid for, at great expense to them? Are they not worth “appeasing” because they’re not ~fortunate~ lucky enough in life, as you were?
Adobe has taken away this option. All power to them, but if you paid for a license, you have a right to keep using that software. Apple is the one here breaking software people have paid for.
No, Apple is releasing brand-new software (MacOS Catalina) for free. If you can't, or don't want to run it, then don't.
It honestly sounds like you think you are entitled to it for some reason.
Everyone is happy that Debian Unstable offers brand-new software in a rolling release, but their up-to-date LTS offering is also highly sought after.
I get that Windows (for example) backward compatibility is even longer. That's great but involves trade-offs I don't think operating systems should be expected to make.