I am not a Mac person so I am curious why Apple provides a whole new OS every year or so rather than providing updates to the existing OS much as Microsoft does on a continual basis for Windows 10. Is each new mac OS so much different than the one previous one to it that it requires a whole new version rather than applying updates?
Mark
Well DxOs idea is to offer support on PhotoLab for the same three macOS versions which Apple do support with bug, feature and security updates.
This time Apple is dragging its feet a little on the Big Sur release which causes DxOs PL4 to support only two versions of macOS - until Big Sur is out - the it will be a 3 version support again.
I do understand all of you which run older yet high performance Macs which stil have life in them. At the same time I also understand DxO point of view as it takes time, effort and money to support legacy systems. And their call is is to support the same OS as Apple do.
Give or take a few weeks time.
No, I don’t think the macOS versions are any different from Windows updates. There are no revolutions, at least not for end users, and installation is little different from any other update: doesn’t require reinstallation for example.
More hype and marketing than anything I’d say. I can’t even think of anything since Mavericks that has made me want to upgrade. Dark mode in Mojave is nice, but otherwise I’m mostly dragged along by software requirements.
Grab yourself a label printer and then decide what you want to put on the label. Microsoft have moved to offering frequent updates too. They just went the opposite way with naming, choosing to call them all Windows 10. Apple chooses a new name each year. That’s the only real difference at the surface.
However, Apple choose to move forward with technology and that often means dropping support for older technology. This sometimes comes as a surprise (like the floppy drive) but these days technology is only dropped after plenty of warning. 32-bit support removal was signposted years in advance, both to developers and users. I could argue that MS should have ditched it by now too, but MS’s “thing” is to steadfastly cling to their heritage.
And yes, part of that clinginess is down to the Enterprise customers who are nefariously reluctant to modernise and Microsoft lets them get away with it. It’s a business model, sure.
Please explain. I mean, as explained above, Microsoft has a captive market too. Is this a bad thing? Is it even real? The reason many more people switch from Windows to Mac and not the other way is because they like what they see.
If what you are suggesting is correct, and Apple could have applied their updates to an existing OS rather than release them in a new OS then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Does Apple charge anything for new OS’s? Its strange that older Macs are not updatable to accommodate the latest operating systems. On the PC side there are just a bunch of components and everyone of them can be upgraded individually, al least on the desk top versions, to bring even a very old PC up to modern specs. Individually none of the PC components are very expensive.
Mark.
I wouldn’t call it a new OS, just like I wouldn’t call FreeBSD 12.0 a new OS. It’s just another in a long line of updates of the same OS: they’re still all called macOS, just with the additional name Apple to their versions: 10.12 = Sierra, 10.13 = High Sierra, etc. Not unlike Ubuntu also names their releases.
Completely free. They make money on the hardware to run it.
There’s no money for Apple in that. They do support older hardware, just not to the extent of Windows. (Or Linux or *BSD in the open source world.) For example, 10.15 will run on some hardware from 2012 when 10.8 Mountain Lion was the latest, so they’re supporting 8 year old hardware with 7 OS upgrades. (10.14 is no better except for some 2010 Mac Pro support I think.)
The choices available for new Apple hardware has changed over the past few years though, with their move to machines without upgradeable RAM or storage in all but the iMac Pro and Mac Pro starting at USD $5K and $6K respectively. Nothing for me, and PL5 is the only software I run that’s likely to require 10.15. Even C1 looks to be extending their macOS support, which surprises me somewhat, but they must get the same kind of feedback from users regarding macOS versions.
OK, obviously I am guessing at the precise reason, but as so many people are happy to paint the picture of the “walled garden” and “captive audience” I think it’s fair to assume it is driven by want.
While you may be correct, it is statistically insignificant and gives a false impression of the relative popularity of MacOS. When comparing Windows with MacOS, Windows has around an 89% market share compared to a 9% market share for MacOS. The percentage of Windows users who switch from PCs to Macs is so tiny that they are just statistical outliers.
Mark
Is that total market share including Enterprise users most of whom do not get a choice?
what are you trying to say here? that it is entirely correct that DxO abandon its users who do not keep up with the latest computers, and thereby OSes? as has been pointed out, OS releases are coming faster than they used to do, and thereby your thinking is that app updates should have a shorter life? i cannot only suppose that your POV comes from working in the software industry rather than being a PHOTOGRAPHER, which is who i thought this app was being created for. Which means we are never going to agree, because you obviously think that companies who create an application, and slowly gather supporters who then become customers, then are entitled to force their users into discarding otherwise perfectly good machines in order to keep to the latest OS. I, on the other hand, think that if i choose to support a company, that they then have a duty of sorts to keep the software working, and if they can better it incrementally than that is all the better, BUT they also have a duty to keep that software working for as long as possible on computers … a bit like companies who are, by law, to keep spares for their devices for a certain number of years (which to my thinking should be 10+ years, and probably closer to 15.20), rather than force them to upgrade and throw away their old machines years before they should.
That’s all the computer’s in the world using those operating systems. And some of those Enterprise users who don’t get a choice are using Macs, not PCs
Mark
Not a darn thing. 
Mark
No gregor, your posts still deserver a like symbol, it’s just that you can’t like your own posts…
Below a copy screen of your post with the like button:
And I can’t also not like my own posts…
I believe you have touched on the number one reason why Windows is more “popular” than macOS.
Most people are introduced to it in schools, colleges, the workplace and think that there isn’t any other way to use a computer.
I once had a client, whose computers I looked after. They ran Windows and he thought he was satisfied with what he had, even though it usually required me to pop in and maintain them, sometimes as often as once a week.
Then, one day, he had the misfortune to have both the motherboards fail on his main two computers. At that time, I showed him how much more secure and easy to use and maintain my Mac computers were and he decided to replace the Windows machines with iMacs.
After a few weeks, he started to complain that he wasn’t as “comfortable” with macOS as he was with Windows as he was having to do things differently. I pointed out that he was actually doing less to get the same work done and, after a few more weeks, he told me he would never consider going back to Windows.
Of course, that meant I made a lot less money from him because he no longer needed me to maintain the computers as often 
A few years ago, I read a Gartner report that stated a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for Mac vs Win - in an enterprise environment. Still, most business software comes for Win (or Linux server) platforms.
Be it as it may, the decision to support a platform or version is the offerer’s and we (buyers) can complain or move on - or do both 
Most business software is ***** as well.
I had our work IT support claim it was difficult to support Macs in the company (there are a few) because “they don’t work very well with the back end stuff.” I politely pointed out that all of the back end stuff was set up explicitly to support only Windows computers. I mean… if IBM can make it work, anyone can.
Are you a software developer or experienced in IT system support? I ask because I did both for 35 years before retiring a few years ago.
Mark
Yes and yes.
And I mentioned the IBM example because I worked there too, though unfortunately long before they allowed Macs into the organisation (and to be fair, before I was a convert to Macs anyway).
You look old enough to know of the original “war” between Bill Gates and his ex-friend and ex- company partner.
He made it impossible to sell software for IBM chipset’s which wassn’t aproved by him.
So he pushed out every free enteprise.
Mozilla was souly made to f…k that dodgy explorer of windows and take there precious data of browsing of us users by offering a free one which was not after your user data.
Nothing new in this world.
Slightly off topic, but on the subject of support for old stuff…
How often does the lens / body database get updated? As new camera gear gets more expensive, I’ve found bargains in second-hand gear. Lenses maybe 10 years old or more, but still capable of great results. But, no DXO modules (yes, they have been suggested).
That’s enough from me - as you were 
To keep it slightly on topic, I’ve got a copy of DXO optics 7 which works quite nicely on my backup Mac running Mountain Lion (10.8)
