oh dear oh dear, only emotional and no factual arguments. Apples are compared to pears and cannot share your views in any way. Would like to work through the points one by one, but too much text and it is late, I want to go to bed 
1 Like
since this is the first time i have joined the DxO forum, i had not expected much interaction … but this forum is a lively one, isn’t it? which is great! having read most of the comments in emails as they are written, and having just recovered from my first pro studio shoot since lockdown, and the following 3 days of 12 hour retouching, i have been a bit too tired to get back into the conversation … but i have woken up enough to get involved again! thanks to all for your answers, as different as they are … first thing, i still do not expect apps to have a few years life unless i continually update my OS to keep up with the latest and greatest, i expect software writers to have to put the effort in to keep their systems live on as many Ones as possible, and i do not jest here! i take this attitude since i now find that software companies are becoming ENTITLED, in their own minds, to be well-paid, some might say over-paid, for being in the right job at the right time … but from my aged perspective, as a near-retirement, formerly analogue, studio photographer, who joined the computer and internet world back in 1981, when dial-up internet was still THE thing … i have found that i have now invested nearly 3 decades on computers, their software packages, and the need to feed the machine constantly … so much so, that i have been getting more and more annoyed at how the great cyber dream i had hoped for, and expected, has not come to materialise, but rather that it just seems to have become the new cash machine … and the demands are growing ver more, and we, the customers, get ever less … so my original comment was born out of frustration that those companies like DxO, who jumped into the photography app software writing, were not truly wanting to make photography better, but seemed more concerned with emulating Adobe’s CEO desire for more, more, and more money … wrong may that be … i had seriously hoped that there was a desire to pluck the unhappy former users of Adobe products and offer them something that did as much but for a great deal less … why would they do that? well, just as Adobe had been the good guy when Quark was strutting its stuff and generally making their locked in customers pay far over the odds, and then got stuffed when everyone that thought had been locked in, then abruptly left, i had wished that the same would now happen to Adobe … but they seemed to have suckered quite a lot of users, and so maybe my idealised model was never going to materialise … but i hoped … and personally i do not think that using old Macs (for i am a user of a mid-2010 Mac Pro, and 17" mac Book Pro, so in fact i believe that OSX 10.13.6 is the latest OS i can install) should mean that my software should not keep being updated for a good time … which means over 10 years … i have to disappear for now to a zoomed meeting!!! so will cut short my answer, i am only just beginning … bt my initial statement stands and i am still a bit upset at the failure of DxO to, yes, have to work harder … you are after all just getting your company started up, imho, and you should be putting in the extra effort … i now earn less, due to the digitisation of photography, than i did 40 years ago, but spend about x2 or x3 keeping up with software e4tc etc etc ad museum … thank you for now, back later
2 Likes
Alec, I think you should calm down a bit.
I never understand this position: the hardware continues to work, Apple is not stopping you from running or even installing the old MacOS versions and DxO still lets you install and run old PL versions.
You choose to continue using the old machines and you are free in this choice. And there are very good reasons to do this. If these reasons outweigh the benefits of using new equipment, based on your assessment, then what is there to complain?
PL4 can still be installed on my 8 years old MBP. Would I want to run it on this hardware? That’s where I have to make my assessment based on my own needs and values. I’m not going to blame anyone because my decision doesn’t align with their business strategy.
2 Likes
thank you for your support, and a good reminder that the whole annual process of updating OSes and application software has become a twisted way for companies to suggest that their updates are REALLY worth paying for, and is necessary …
it is often misleading nonsense! for if, like myself, you have been buying into this for many decades, then the biggest lie is the one that requires software to repeatedly call in to their base to ensure that users have paid their dues, but then starts to get in the way of doing the job that the software is there to do, slowing down the computer with all the unnecessary processes which happen in the background … where is the progress? for whom? and where is this going? automatic AI “corrections”? i just want a bloody good piece of software to do for me what photographic labs used to do in the past, not to control me, make me just another paycheck for the software writers, nor to effect my photographs … i can a time in the future when you will be ablke to recognise images by the apps that were used in their making, rather than by the photographers who took them … a sad future for a great art form
1 Like
That’s a bit low 
Big Sur should already be out in a normal life… Of course you are right and precision is important. Unfortunately this year things do not turn out as every year and I am sure PL is already (being) tested for Big Sur’s release.
———
Every year when a new release is out there are unhappy people. Some especially register on the forum just to complain. It is kind of tiring.
Too bad all this negativity and frustration is not used to produce something better like helping others and teaching your best skills at photography here or maybe at something else (cooking ?) on a different forum…
1 Like
i am not complaining bcaue i have nothing else to do, i am complaining because i see that far too many things are broken, or rather, allowed to break when quite unnecessary updates are produced … and after 3+ decades of putting ujp with this i have started to vocalise my anger and annoyance, sinec it is not done for the users benefit as much as it is done for the bank account of software writers, and it has to be reined in … and i should add that if DxO promised their software would work on the last 3 OSes, then that is what it should do … why are you even fighting that? are you a photographer? if tou are then your POV makes little sense to me
1 Like
The only piece of software for which I consider new versions critical is DxO Photolab. Hence this year DxO is trying to push me to throw out 3 x 2011 MBP (one is used by my wife now). Next year they will be pushing me to throw away 2 x MacPro 5,1 12 processor machines, one of which has a Radeon VII and the other which has a Radeon RX580. I.e. they are perfectly contemporary devices.
Those of you who are so keen to have the latest version of everything and rejig your machines annually to accommodate Apple while marring the planet should really consider if you have your priorities straight.
Someone at DxO sees matters clearly and well (or we wouldn’t have this great software). Somewhere along the line said leader has been pushed by his developers into pulling support earlier for OS. Three OS versions was more than reasonable when OS updates were bi-annual. Now even three versions is very short.
DxO promised three OS versions. I do expect them to at least keep their promises.
1 Like
I think the core of this long thread is Apple,mac, has shorten there free updating on there products. I have a 9 year old desktop on win 10.
It’s updated and up to date.
V4 works only my videocard is stoneage. But 's stable.
It’s Apple to blame that they before hardware eol 5-10years? there OS not updating any more or renaming them as new OS (causing this issue) , not DxO in this case.
I understand your anger about this forced investment but Apple is late with bigsur relase not DxO. Right? And Apple is to blame that your product stops updating OS version’s.
And say dxo granted your wish and Siera is compatible with v4. Three OS’s right?
Then bigsur released by Apple and DxO v4.1 is not running on your Siera any more… Still three OS’s.
No support because it’s three back. (How Do you feel about that? it’s strickt and fair. as in 3 OS support.)
DxO choose to be clear and choose three including the still not released new OS of Apple to be ready for the near future.
Nobody wins in this case. (Apple maybe if you buy new)
At leased you can wait and run v3.3 which is running on your (old) systems.
And even choose to edit on v3. And load this in v4 (the one who can handle v4) for your deepprime export or just use v3.3 for prime.
That’s my opinion in this matter. Fully nonrestricted by DxOstaf.
Peter
(edited for some nuances and clear text.)
2 Likes
Alec, did you consider using the patcher here http://dosdude1.com/software.html to get your MacBook updated? May be worth trying on a second partition/external drive.
1 Like
Yup, DxO -and us trying to help to clarify the matter- are totally the wrong targets. Anyway.
so, since Apple are still using 10.15, that means they are still supporting 10.14 and 10.13 … DxO aren’t … and anyway, when the hell did the “what Apple does we will do” POV start? Apple used to be a company who appeared to value the user and give them the very best experience they could … those times are long gone … there are far too many incidences where what Apple does is only good for Apple (and i am not going to start listing them here unless you really have no idea what i am talking about), and many software companies are now taking umbridge with their arrogance, and joining together to try and get Apple to become less predatory … and while your comment that “Change is a fact of life in software and operating systems.” there has to also be a degree of respect for users, who cannot be expected to update everything continually all the time, and in effect to keep shelling out for a system that now really seems baised towards screwing the users for everything they can get … something i have witnessed in my over 30 years of using computers as getting worse and worse
2 Likes
Christian, thank you for your suggestion. Suggesting it’s better for me to run my MacBooks with an OS which has deliberately been built to be incompatible with my MacBooks Pros would be a strange position to take for the “Apple is always right” brigade (not sure if you are part of the Apple believers/faithful).
I did consider it as when I upgraded from El Capitan earlier this year (for Photolab 3 on my MBP, for latest FCPX on my tower), I decided I wanted all of my computers on the same OS for which I’d settled on 10.14. I didn’t proceed with this as Apple deliberately designed Mojave to hard fail on computers with Radeon HD 6670M/6770M. To use the Hackintosh version would mean making sure that the dedicated graphic card never turned on. I do use gfxCardStatus to control when I use the 6770M (as little as possible, it’s one of the first parts to fail as the cooling in the MBP 11 family in inadequate to run that hot card safely). Occasionally the dedicated card is needed (to run an external monitor, to run certain graphics applications).
Returning to Photolab: Photolab is expensive, it’s a one-time purchase and it mostly appeals to well-heeled gentlemen who have been around the block with Apple and Adobe and are looking to make a large one-time expense to run Photolab over a long period of time, mostly on their existing hardware. Many of us are not in the least interested in the trouble and busywork involved in OS upgrades (hardware or not, I try to jump three to four generations). We recognise Apple’s security kabuku for what it is and protect our computers by using only up-to-date and secure web browsers (that excludes Chrome of course) and turning off all other networking, keeping firewalls up and restricting physical access to our computers. We don’t install or use borderline malware like Zoom.
It’s extremely short-sighted of DxO to listen to their younger developers who just don’t want to develop anything with back compatibility (they’d cut Photolab off to the latest OS only if they could as it would make their lives easier) at all. This is how young developers are: they hate “old” tech. Or more accurately, they just want to have new tools and new toys and hate to code any back-compatibility.
DxO is cutting off and annoying many in its core market by ever-shortening the number of OS versions they support. First it was four, then it was three and now it’s two. At the same time, Apple’s OS become more restrictive, more intrusive and less flexible with every year. The long term goal is to remove third party applications from the ecosystem completely with almost everything being sold through Apple’s own store. This is not an OS, this is tech totalitarianism.
DxO wake up: your business is supporting us your customers, not Apple’s forced upgrade program. Cutting off 10.13 High Sierra and all 2011 MBP for Photolab 4 was a mistake. It’s easily rectified, even if DeepPrime will be disabled on 10.13. What matters to me is cross-compatibility of the files. If I can only use FastNR and PrimeNR on my MBP, that’s no problem.
For the future, DxO, keep in mind when you cut off 10.14 Mojave you will be cutting off anyone still using a 4,1/5,1 Mac Pro tower. There’s lots more of us as well. Personally I’m not sure I’ll ever upgrade past 10.14. I don’t like the direction Catalina is going. I may finally make that move to Linux while keeping a virtual OS with my old Mac programs available and a Mac Pro or two running Mojave. Then again, hackers may disable enough of the busyware, spyware and nannyware in Catalina/Big Sur/successor that I’ll buy an “obsolete” Mac Pro 2019 in 2026 and upgrade then directly to 10.17.
If DxO wants to enjoy the revenue from my purchases and upgrades (DxO have extracted about €500 from me now) and photographers like me, they will have to keep supporting 10.14.6 for at least a few years. Cutting off your core market to pose as software hipsters is among the least savvy business decisions I’ve seen in a very long time.
3 Likes
not a very good reply imho, you decided to become a software company, and part of that is that OSes keep being updated and hardware is also updated … and in my experience of buying and using software, most keeps going for many iterations of OS, ex/ Capture One still works from 10.7 iirc … you are either to be taken seriously or not, and only working with the last 2 or 3 versions of OS is not a professional action imho … ironically, the Nikon software that DxO is derived from used to be about 3 OSes LATE, you had to stall on updates or you found that their latest would no longer work … i am quite fed up with your rather entitled POV, i seriously hope that someone in the company has a bad feeling about this and decides to backtrack … but from your reply i can see that this is not in your mind set … farewell, to yet another company who wanted to take over the world but then discovered it required hard work, sometimes with little recompense, to achieve their desires … you will eventually understand that not everyone can always run the latest OS, nor even want to with the number of cockups Apple has been making recently, nor have the latest hardware, and yet, for some reason thay do want to use the very best tht their software suppliers can code … 
1 Like
“for each version of PL we have to extensively test it in 3 different environment.” that is the job you chose, why can you not accept that making software run on a number of OSes is part of your work?
I wouldn’t call a Mac introduced in 2010 contemporary, although it may still work very well. That’s already a very long lifetime in computers world. That being said, your GPUs may be reused in 2018 or later Macs as eGPUs.
Anyone here using a 10 year old phone? 8 years old? How about 6? How’s that working out when it comes to new software? Or in fact, any third party software.
That’s sort of the point: many of these machines work very well, so there’s no compelling reason to replace them.
Apple obviously wants to sell us new hardware, but I would expect software vendors to be more interested in supporting as many OS versions as feasible. Exposure X6 supports 10.11 El Capitan and later, Affinity Photo supports 10.9 Mavericks and on, so there’s two that support 3 and 5 versions more than PL. I understand that there may be new apis in macOS for DxO to use, but if my choice is having to buy new hardware for PL5 and sticking with PL4 and software with less restrictive OS requirements, guess which one I’ll choose?
By the time Exposure and Affinity drop Mojave support (which will be all of 3 years old next year, so still fairly contemporary I’d say), I may no longer have any desire for PL-whatever.
2 Likes
Sony Xperia Z3 Compact here, released September 2014. Works fine. Starting to contemplate a refresh around 2025. 
1 Like
I’m sure the phone meets all your needs, but I’ll bet there’s lots of modern apps that either will not work on it or will not work well on it because it’s too slow. And it all comes down to your requirements. I doubt you’re downloading 4K movies to it. So it really comes back to the original question about reasonable support of new software on old hardware with a legacy operating system.
I know that the current version of some software titles out there do support older Mac operating systems. If I understood it correctly, some functionality in PhotoLab 4, probably for DeepPRIME, uses features that was not available in Hgh Sierra and earlier OS’s.
I will not pretend to know whether DXO is being reasonable about this or not. However, they must have thought about the impact it would have on their current and future user base and decided to drop support of High Sierra anyway. I’m sure that decision was not made lightly.
Part of the issue is that Apple seems to update their operating systems to a whole new version every year or so. On the PC side, Windows 10 has been around for around 5 years, and will continue to be around for at least few years longer. It definitely limits the number of legacy operating systems that have to be supported.
Mark
1 Like
An earlier reply pretty much says that anything older than current - 3 is dropped as a matter of routine, and that fits with what we’ve seen: PL2 dropped 10.11 El Capitan support, PL3 dropped 10.12 Sierra support, and PL4 dropped 10.13 High Sierra support. So we can probably expect PL5 for drop 10.14 Mojave support unless Apple slows the rate of its releases. (Which, well, they have with Big Sur, but that still didn’t stop DxO from dropping High Sierra in PL4.)
Otherwise, yes, I’ve seen (somewhere, although it wasn’t the initial justification in this thread) the explanation that PL4 uses an api not available in High Sierra, but that’s just the cost of supporting older versions: sometimes you have to do more work.
DxO’s call how much they’re willing/able to do of course, but dropping a 3 year old OS version is a bit aggressive IMO.
1 Like