In the end, there will always be someone “left out” when decisions are made to not to support some older versions of operating systems but financially and resource wise, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Was setting it at 10.13.6 wrong? Only to those that were the one left out. Is it a right decision? ?? No one ever said life or corporate decisions are fair.
1 Like
what is totally wrong, and there can be little to deny it, is that a software company that produces updates that rely on OSes that are only a couple of years old is being mean-spirited, unhelpful, and potentially able to decide in a few years time that it will only support the very latest OS on the very latest hardware, because that will enable it to be the best software in the world and the most exclusive… how anyone can think this is acceptable and the way forward for software companies is beyond me … look into the future, see what YOU will be doing in 10, 20, 30 years time, whether YOU will be able to afford the latest and the greatest, see if your other software will be able to work on the newest OS, and then tell me with a straight face that this POV is a good thing … oh, and btw, Nikon, who DxO bought this software from, when they were unable to see the point in having a dedicated team work on it (the idiots!!!) were one of those companies who held me back from updating to the latest OS because their app would not work!!! i am really hoping that the future for software companies who will be seen as caring and helpful, will be to have software tht runs on a number of OSes, and will not suddenly be sacrificed to the whims of a company like Apple who have never really cared much about their users unless they keep spending money … and after 3 decades of buying computers i am totally fed up with being led by these ever-worsening attitudes …
1 Like
While we need a rocket to fly to the moon, we can still use many versions of DxO’s products on a current version of macOS.
Just for the fun of it, I reinstalled DxO OP version 8 up to PL version 4. They all run on macOS Mojave. But again, flying to the moon necessitates a rocket, rocket fuel and a launch platform (and more) 
I upgrade my Macs every 5 to 7 years, which costs me less than 2$ a day. Making the step always hurts a bit but the pain goes away without pain killers…
Pain starts when you buy a new camera. New cameras need new software, new software might ask for a new computer, buying a new computer hurts. Welcome to capitalism!
4 Likes
i keep all my software updated to the latest version which costs me about £2+k per year, so you are doing unbelievably well on that $3500-5000 every 5-7 years if you are including your hardware too … maybe you only use a few paid apps … as i mentioned at the beginning of this thread, i have been backing every photographic alternative to Adobe Ps since the perpetual payment regimen was introduced, in order to help alternatives grow and potentially replace Adobe’s rip-off with something that is not all about trapping users and then ripping them off … and keeping the new versions working for as many OSes as possible comes under that remit
1 Like
Hello, I agree that more and more powerful machines are needed for the applications. However, it would be a mistake for DxO in future releases not to support 10.14 or 10.15 long enough as many will wait 3 or 4 years or more before switching to the new APPLE architecture. I am currently with a 2012 Mac Mini i7 2.6 16GB RAM and SSD and although a 4th generation processor is recommended, this latest 3rd generation and more powerful than a high end 2014 Mac Mini.
Do not go into the headlong rush of APPLE, but rather take the example of SERIF, which ensures the compatibility of its applications from 10.9 to 10.15. Many amateurs do not need a dazzling treatment, whether the machine takes 5 minutes for an export or 30 seconds does not bother them. Other developers go back, I recently contacted Topaz for one of their applications, they confirmed to me that the update of their applications would take into account older machines, because many photographers are in my case and use slightly older machines, and are not affected by slower processing, only the result is important. They realized that they had lost customers, who preferred to jump off the train. The period is changing and many mainly for ecological reasons but also economic are making this choice.
4 Likes
the last purchase from Adobe ws CS6 Premium, which included pretty much all of Adobe’s apps, that upgrade from CS5, iirc, was about £700 … and as you say, was part of their 2 yearly update process … what bugged me about the introduction of CC was the assumption that i would be happy having to pay repeatedly, rather than when i chose to … was the niggling feeling that Adobe would not have to bother to try to improve the apps, because of their locked-in customers, who afaik would be unable to use their own images, should they ever find themselves unable to keep their payments up, and whose price might become untenable once Adobe had decided they were not going to keep prices down in order to draw more users into their fold … all these, and more, made me want to 1/ keep as far away from permenant payment systems for software purchases (the hardware is already expensive enough as it is, let alone the internet costs, etc), 2/ to hope that this model of permanent payment would not be taken up by other companies, in the hope that the future would not be a never-ending series of Direct Debits for numerous pieces of software, and that the situation would lead in a whjole batch of alternative software writers would enter the photographic arena and also keep Adobe from doing what Quark had done before it (which was to believe they had the entire graphic world using their digital platform and start charging insane prices annually) … and i have been spending MORE on buying/supporting the alternatives to Adobe, like DxO, than it would have cost me to jump on to the CC merry-go-round, it is the long term costs i have been concerned about … and i have been astonished at just how many people have not understood what was in the preocess of happening and deciding to try and effect the worrying outcome by action … stupid me, very few of us, maybe in the 1000’s, maybe even 10,000 were concerned enough to shout about the issues … but millions seemed to not care a jot …
1 Like
Now that is an interesting point.
I also would be happy if DxO could support the last macOS for Intel processors as long as technically possible for a smooth Intel farewell.
Soon Big Sur will come, I wonder if it will be great for Mac-Intel and I wonder how long Apple will give us meaningful updates for Mac-Intel. 2 years ? 5 years ? More ?
…usually, Apple provides updates for the latest three macOS releases. The oldest of the three will get security updates at least. On the other hand, you can keep an old Mac as long as you like and stay on the OS release that suits you best.
1 Like
@StevenL was not rude or arrogant. A little too enthusiastic in supporting company policy maybe, given the tone of the original post. However, the bulk of his replies clearly show a desire to help, which doesn’t fit with rudeness or arrogance. ‘Emails’ are notoriously bad for conveying motivation.
I’m defending him because attacking the individual rather than the business model you don’t like is counter-productive, and will demoralise those we want to be motivated to support us. So your attacks indirectly impact me.
As for attacking a small company with limited resources, back from the brink of oblivion, because you don’t like the way an entire industry behaves, it is not going to solve anything. We are not dealing with a mega-corporation here. The business case for legacy support has to be totally compelling for such a small organisation (it rarely is), otherwise they would be guilty of poor management as they go out of business. At that point we would bemoan how they threw away such a great opportunity and we are left with no choice but to change software. The debate is, does a legacy support approach make a compelling case for DxO?
Having said all that, it is true that the rule of three (back versions of OS) becomes less appropriate as the velocity of change increases. Hence, the inevitable rise of SAAS and subscriptions. The new world order.
4 Likes
True, but there is a difference between not giving support and the decision to turn off the ability to run the software, be it by simply flipping a switch or by using OS resources that do not exist in earlier OS releases.
1 Like
A lot of people would look very poorly on a company that sells software and says “good luck running it on versions less than x.” Which is what they’d have to do. If they had time to test it then it would be supported.
But this is 2020 so we KNOW there will be people who buy it and attempt to run it on old OS levels and then complain and tie up support. No amount of “buyer beware” up front will stop that. By making a line in the sand, DxO are saving themselves headaches and time.
And what would you do if DxO allowed you to buy and run PL4 on 10.13 only for you to discover that everything works except for Export? You could find that out with a trial, but we’ve seen on these forums that sometimes people don’t put the cart before the horse and buy on their initial perceptions… which leads to… see above.
3 Likes
I am not a software developer but would it be possible that there there is an “automatic” check of the OS before the software is downloaded? If the OS is not supported you get a message that DPL will not work/not supported.
1 Like
What is difficult to understand is that Apple blocks the upgrade for some computers arbitrarily. For example, I have a Mac Mini i7 2.6 from 2012, there is no reason that it cannot accept Big Sur. Since a 2014 Mac Mini is less powerful, and it can upgrade to Big Sur.
Regarding DXO, I also understand the disarray of some regarding the unsupported 10.13, since it is this system that introduced METAL 2 and APFS, the main innovations. MOJAVE, has not had any structural API reforms and works with the same, only the dark mode has been added. As for CATALINA, it improves the dark mode and also integrates an additional level of system security with two separate partitions for it. Also, DXO’s choice not to support 10.13, may also seem abitrative because there is nothing discriminating in supporting this version which uses the same low level technology as the following OS. Also, Dxo is losing clients for its update, because people who do not want to change their configuration because just one of their application does not work will content with PhotoLab 3, when it would have surely done the update.
1 Like
Actually, no there isn’t. A decision to support is a decision to use a particular architecture, which will lead to using OS resources that do not exist in earlier OS releases. That is the very definition of support.
I don’t think it would change anything in my argument, but that is straightforward to do.
I apologise if this comes across as “belittling” as that is not my intent. We are arguing points of technicality. If I keep restating my points it is because people keep picking issues with them which I would like to address. Like anyone here I am prone to sometimes “go off” a little but I try to keep things civil.
While it may seem arbitrary, I’d guess there is some (possibly small) technology change that occurred in the 2014 model and Apple decided they didn’t want to support the prior technology.
1 i am not a programmer nor have knowledge how a hardware is that different that it is crashing a OS.
2 i don’t criticise Mac owners but because mac’s are often more expensive then other brands due there looks the buyers are a certain kind of users.
Ict-ers, architecs, photographers, managers.
My main thing i don’t grasp in this thread is why is no one ask about why the OS of mac’s is that fragile that new hardware, that they develop thereselfs isn’t it? ,can’t run by older OS. And that new OS isn’t possible on older hardware.
It’s a delibared push to force buying new.
Ok Windows was years a blob of errors but the latest win 10 is quite stable. It steals alot of personal data but hence almost any software is doing that these day’s.
I can buy new hardware and run my same OS as i did before. My pc i own today was a win8.0 (dreadfull) free update to win8.1 and win10.x A 2011 hardware run’s the same OS as a 2020 i9 or rysen 8 hardware.
Is the application writer to blame for this problem of OS versions what’s the subject is in this thread?
Same level as snowchaine’s which almost never fit on your next carwheels, or roofreck’s which alway’s needs to be bought again when your car changes.
I would say it’s a economical system. I can’t be blaming the chainmanufactorer that my new car has different specified wheels and that it doesn’t fit anymore.
For upgrading application’s it’s more otherway around, the new chains arn’t possible to fit on your older car. And you can’t upgrade your wheels to get them fit properly.
I think i am just glad i don’t use a mac. I think i would smack my old mac through the windshield of Apples CEO’s expensive car. And then ask him if he like’s pissing me off. 
just kidding but he is the real cause of this thread.
1 Like
Sorry I did not realise you were arbiter of decorum and expertise on this forum. You can be rest assured I won’t bother responding any further.
Just one final comment… you are talking down to me as you accuse me of doing to others. #ThreadUnfollwed
Let us come back to the topic of this thread.
The decision whether a software should run on a certain operating system or not is entirely with the company selling the software.
DxO has decided to make DPL run on Mac and Win, but not on Linux, Android or iOS. DxO has also decided to live with differences between Mac and Win versions of DPL, use whatever tool they use to develop DPL and so on.
Our decision as users of DPL is simply to upgrade or not.
No-one forces me to buy an upgrade, a new camera or bike. I buy because I a) need something, b) want something or c) believe I want something. All we have to do is ask ourselves, which kind of decision we take and accept the consequences.
What I mean:
- if I’m happy with what I got, why change?
- if I’m unhappy with what I’ve got, why not change?
Either way, the consequences of taking action or not taking action are mine.
1 Like
Guys, I would recommend to relax a little bit. I think we can agree that we are all adults and everyone can make his/her own decisicions on upgrading or not. We are all smart enough to handle complex cameras, complex computers etc… So it should not be a problem for any of us to make that easy and simple decisiion and live with the consequences. The world will not go under whatever the person decides.
1 Like
Coming back to the original question: This user decided to stay with an ancient version of CS. This is the root cause of the issue, not an unsupported machine. I recommend to run MacOS 10.13 and CS6 in a virtual machine and update the host to 10.15. Problem solved.