Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

thejadedmonkey

macrumors G3
May 28, 2005
9,240
3,499
Pennsylvania
Catalina has broken the Caffeine app which I use to keep my display awake indefinitely or set period of time. Now despite it being activated the display goes to sleep in the limits set in system preferences. This is annoying as I like to use Caffeine as a quick toggle instead of meddling with system preferences every time.
I heard it's been broken for a while. I use an app, Amphetamine, that works on Mojave. It might work on Catalina too?
 

Glenny2lappies

macrumors 6502a
Sep 29, 2006
578
420
Brighton, UK
On the whole Catalina works well.

On the whole the 16 MBP works well.

The bugs and issues with monitors especially really annoy. Just like if you've bought a new car and the clutch judders when cold. And no, Subaru will do sod all about it.
 

revmacian

macrumors 68000
Oct 20, 2018
1,745
1,468
USA
Agree - the issue is not with the hardware, but with the software that is installed on the hardware for it to function - the solution to this problem was to return the machines and get machines that we knew would work, as they have been tried and tested elsewhere in the business and functioned as expected.
That's fair, I'll agree to that. Apple should allow users to downgrade to at least the previous full version of the operating system if that would resolve an issue. It seems that this ability would have allowed some folks to avoid issues.
 

xnsys

macrumors 6502
Aug 20, 2018
255
440
Indeed - and we wouldn't have had our hand forced to return these machines if we could have done...

We upgraded about 8x that were not due to the be hardware refreshed from 10.14.6 to 10.15.2 (waited until the .2 release), and they instantly experienced the issues of freezing, crashing, popping audio with YouTube and generally being sluggish - so when the 16" started to do this we knew exactly what the cause of the problem is.

I have personally spent a few hours trying to replicate the issue, and also the cannot find problem with connecting to servers - confirmed it to be software and killing the sharingd service does rectify the cannot find the server problem, but still if you sleep a machine and it has a network drive attached, it will sometimes crash - I haven't found a cure for that issue yet - although someone on this forum has said upgrading and recompiling a later version of SAMBA has worked for them - so that would appear to be what apple needs to do...easy fix I would have thought?
 
  • Like
Reactions: revmacian

revmacian

macrumors 68000
Oct 20, 2018
1,745
1,468
USA
I have personally spent a few hours trying to replicate the issue, and also the cannot find problem with connecting to servers - confirmed it to be software and killing the sharingd service does rectify the cannot find the server problem, but still if you sleep a machine and it has a network drive attached, it will sometimes crash - I haven't found a cure for that issue yet - although someone on this forum has said upgrading and recompiling a later version of SAMBA has worked for them - so that would appear to be what apple needs to do...easy fix I would have thought?
It could be an easy fix. On the other hand, changing something in SAMBA could have consequences with other apps and/or libraries that would require recompiling those as well - I wonder how many other things in macOS use SMB networking protocols.
 

Zmmyt

macrumors 68000
Jan 6, 2005
1,750
836
It broke all my Valve games, but that’s down to Valve. Can’t believe they haven’t made their old school games 64Bit.

Otherwise it runs much better than Mojave on my 2018 MBA. Very happy.
 

xnsys

macrumors 6502
Aug 20, 2018
255
440
I can't personally see anything else using SMB apart from the finder for file sharing to servers - it would be bad practice to use SMB to link back to the local host for accessing files - which would mean that a machine would have open file shares and a security risk if disabled.

Printing is managed by CUPS, so no SMB there - advertising file servers is over bonjour or mDNS broadcast...

I haven't tested yet, but was going to switch the AFP on the server on and see if that caused any crashing...but by the time I've done that I would expect that a fix would be out...I hope :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: revmacian

revmacian

macrumors 68000
Oct 20, 2018
1,745
1,468
USA
It broke all my Valve games, but that’s down to Valve. Can’t believe they haven’t made their old school games 64Bit.

Otherwise it runs much better than Mojave on my 2018 MBA. Very happy.
I would like to make a clarification here, I'm not picking on anyone but am attempting to show how a possible misunderstand could start.

Your statement began with:
"It broke all my Valve games..." That, in itself, might be enough for someone to stop right there and say "See? I told you Catalina was bad!" without reading the rest of the sentence. Believe it or not, some people only read just enough to support their cause and then blow that small part out of proportion.

So, by "It", the first word of your reply, you are referring to Valve and not to Apple or Catalina. At least that is how I am understanding your reply. Forgive me if I am in error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saturn007

kingtj

macrumors 68030
Oct 23, 2003
2,606
749
Brunswick, MD
I'm just going to add that this is stlll a pretty fair Catalina criticism, even if it's a problem you can argue is Valve's to correct.

The root cause of all these broken OS X game titles is the fact Apple chose to dump 32-bit application support in Catalina.

That doesn't make Catalina "bad" in the sense something in it is defective or not working as Apple intended.

But for many of us, it means the upgrade from Mojave broke a lot of software in our collections -- and it's unlikely the developers will ever go to all the effort to rewrite all of it as 64-bit native code. Many of these programs barely made them enough profit to be worth the effort to code and release them initially, much less putting in effort to revise them for people who already paid for them before.


I would like to make a clarification here, I'm not picking on anyone but am attempting to show how a possible misunderstand could start.

Your statement began with:
"It broke all my Valve games..." That, in itself, might be enough for someone to stop right there and say "See? I told you Catalina was bad!" without reading the rest of the sentence. Believe it or not, some people only read just enough to support their cause and then blow that small part out of proportion.

So, by "It", the first word of your reply, you are referring to Valve and not to Apple or Catalina. At least that is how I am understanding your reply. Forgive me if I am in error.
 

revmacian

macrumors 68000
Oct 20, 2018
1,745
1,468
USA
I'm just going to add that this is stlll a pretty fair Catalina criticism
Nope, not fair at all.. this is NOT Apple's fault nor is it Catalina's fault.. you/we/the world had plenty of time to prepare for this. Place the blame where it belongs; users and third-party developers. Apple warned everyone , what.. a year ago?


I'm just going to add that this is stlll a pretty fair Catalina criticism, even if it's a problem you can argue is Valve's to correct.

The root cause of all these broken OS X game titles is the fact Apple chose to dump 32-bit application support in Catalina.
Nope, the root cause of these current 32-bit problems is third-party developers.. Apple is not at fault here.


But for many of us, it means the upgrade from Mojave broke a lot of software in our collections -- and it's unlikely the developers will ever go to all the effort to rewrite all of it as 64-bit native code. Many of these programs barely made them enough profit to be worth the effort to code and release them initially, much less putting in effort to revise them for people who already paid for them before.
There's your problem right there.. third-party developers.. they also had a year to prepare. Take it up with them. Ask them why they refused to get their head in the game and support their customers. Are they loyal to their customer base or not? If they're only in it for the money then we shouldn't have been supporting their greed anyway. I'm sorry to sound so abrasive toward developers, but if they're going to expect our loyalty then we should expect theirs in return, correct? Loyalty is a two-way street.

This whole 32-bit problem cannot, at any level, be blamed on Apple. To continue to do so is nothing more than pure denial.
 

kingtj

macrumors 68030
Oct 23, 2003
2,606
749
Brunswick, MD
Do you code software yourself? Because if you haven't ever written any code, I'm not sure you're qualified to make the statements you're making here....

I'm not a software developer but a long time ago, I used to write my own computer bulletin board system software (and sold a few copies of it). I also took some programming courses over the years. So I don't know nearly as much as the people who do it every day, but I know some.

Especially in the case of the game developers out there? You only had a few companies specializing in the niche business of writing native Mac OS X game titles. Aspyr, Feral, MacPlay.... groups like that. And generally, they'd pay out a lot of money to license the rights to an existing PC Windows game that they thought would sell well enough for Mac. Then, they had to pore through all the code and figure out how to re-do it so it would work on a Mac. That's a pretty big undertaking, and explains why the Mac versions of so many popular games took many months to come out after the Windows editions did.

After months and months of work, they could finally sell a product to start recouping their losses. But remember that only about 8% to 10% of computer users even had a Mac ... and only a fraction of them wanted to play games on it. So sales of these titles were always in the low numbers. Then, they still had to release bug fix patches for them in most cases.

Now, Apple comes along and says, "Too bad, so sad! We have zero interest in ensuring all your hard work can still run on our latest OS. Just rewrite the whole thing again or it's useless with everything we release going forward!" When it was Apple going from classic Mac OS to OS X for the first time, they made the effort to put a whole Classic Mac OS emulator inside OS X to ensure backwards compatibility. So why couldn't they have done something similar here for the 32-bit apps?

I mean, over on Windows? I can still run the same applications made for Windows 95 on a new Windows 10 machine. They have properties you can set for the app shortcut to tell Windows it needs to run it backwards compatible as if it was on Windows 95/98 or XP or Vista....

This behavior from Apple just drives developers away from the platform and over to Windows, where your hard work still runs on their operating system for decades!


There's your problem right there.. third-party developers.. they also had a year to prepare. Take it up with them. Ask them why they refused to get their head in the game and support their customers. Are they loyal to their customer base or not? If they're only in it for the money then we shouldn't have been supporting their greed anyway. I'm sorry to sound so abrasive toward developers, but if they're going to expect our loyalty then we should expect theirs in return, correct? Loyalty is a two-way street.

This whole 32-bit problem cannot, at any level, be blamed on Apple. To continue to do so is nothing more than pure denial.
 
Last edited:

revmacian

macrumors 68000
Oct 20, 2018
1,745
1,468
USA
Do you code software yourself? Because if you haven't ever written any code, I'm not sure you're qualified to make the statements you're making here....

I'm not a software developer but a long time ago, I used to write my own computer bulletin board system software (and sold a few copies of it). I also took some programming courses over the years. So I don't know nearly as much as the people who do it every day, but I know some.

Especially in the case of the game developers out there? You only had a few companies specializing in the niche business of writing native Mac OS X game titles. Aspyr, Feral, MacPlay.... groups like that. And generally, they'd pay out a lot of money to license the rights to an existing PC Windows game that they thought would sell well enough for Mac. Then, they had to pore through all the code and figure out how to re-do it so it would work on a Mac. That's a pretty big undertaking, and explains why the Mac versions of so many popular games took many months to come out after the Windows editions did.

After months and months of work, they could finally sell a product to start recouping their losses. But remember that only about 8% to 10% of computer users even had a Mac ... and only a fraction of them wanted to play games on it. So sales of these titles were always in the low numbers. Then, they still had to release bug fix patches for them in most cases.

Now, Apple comes along and says, "Too bad, so sad! We have zero interest in ensuring all your hard work can still run on our latest OS. Just rewrite the whole thing again or it's useless with everything we release going forward!" When it was Apple going from classic Mac OS to OS X for the first time, they made the effort to put a whole Classic Mac OS emulator inside OS X to ensure backwards compatibility. So why couldn't they have done something similar here for the 32-bit apps?

I mean, over on Windows? I can still run the same applications made for Windows 95 on a new Windows 10 machine. They have properties you can set for the app shortcut to tell Windows it needs to run it backwards compatible as if it was on Windows 95/98 or XP or Vista....

This behavior from Apple just drives developers away from the platform and over to Windows, where your hard work still runs on their operating system for decades!
Yes, I have been writing my own software since just before moving to GNU/Linux in 2001 - mostly in Pyton/pyGTK and I'm currently learning Swift. I didn't exactly like the code changes from Python 2 to Python 3 but I wanted it bad enough to learn how to update things. And I coded in Visual Basic prior to leaving Microsoft Windows.

Apple gave us all a year to prepare for the move from 32-bit to 64-bit. Now, had Apple only given the world a month, then I would have been all over Apple like white on rice.

If you want something bad enough you'll find a way. Otherwise you'll find an excuse.
 
Last edited:

fisherking

macrumors G4
Jul 16, 2010
11,252
5,563
ny somewhere
Do you code software yourself? Because if you haven't ever written any code, I'm not sure you're qualified to make the statements you're making here....

I'm not a software developer but a long time ago, I used to write my own computer bulletin board system software (and sold a few copies of it). I also took some programming courses over the years. So I don't know nearly as much as the people who do it every day, but I know some.

Especially in the case of the game developers out there? You only had a few companies specializing in the niche business of writing native Mac OS X game titles. Aspyr, Feral, MacPlay.... groups like that. And generally, they'd pay out a lot of money to license the rights to an existing PC Windows game that they thought would sell well enough for Mac. Then, they had to pore through all the code and figure out how to re-do it so it would work on a Mac. That's a pretty big undertaking, and explains why the Mac versions of so many popular games took many months to come out after the Windows editions did.

After months and months of work, they could finally sell a product to start recouping their losses. But remember that only about 8% to 10% of computer users even had a Mac ... and only a fraction of them wanted to play games on it. So sales of these titles were always in the low numbers. Then, they still had to release bug fix patches for them in most cases.

Now, Apple comes along and says, "Too bad, so sad! We have zero interest in ensuring all your hard work can still run on our latest OS. Just rewrite the whole thing again or it's useless with everything we release going forward!" When it was Apple going from classic Mac OS to OS X for the first time, they made the effort to put a whole Classic Mac OS emulator inside OS X to ensure backwards compatibility. So why couldn't they have done something similar here for the 32-bit apps?

I mean, over on Windows? I can still run the same applications made for Windows 95 on a new Windows 10 machine. They have properties you can set for the app shortcut to tell Windows it needs to run it backwards compatible as if it was on Windows 95/98 or XP or Vista....

This behavior from Apple just drives developers away from the platform and over to Windows, where your hard work still runs on their operating system for decades!

apple, like all tech companies, moves the tech forward. that's all that's happened here, and... we adapt (or whine on internet forums). just as we don't run classic mac apps (i'm talking about the mac user base in general), or CS4 on mojave, for example, etc etc etc.

tech, like life, moves forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ploki and revmacian
And how is this user using the os? Do they connect to network drives? Do they put it to sleep or shut it down.

There are so many contributing factors, but one thing reading these forums, everybody who has issues connects to network volumes and uses sleep.

Yes not everybody will be experiencing this issue, and there will be lots of happy users that don’t use machines this way that won’t see the bugs.

Doesn’t mean that they are not there, and doesn’t mean that everybody experiencing issues is reporting it...

At the end of the day, the issues can be evidenced and replicated, so should be an easy fix one would have thought. Just got to play the waiting game for a patch.
[automerge]1579704451[/automerge]
Plus you have to consider the number of "bad" reports that this OS is getting compared to previous - seems to be a lot more, or maybe it's my imagination?
Well said!

And yes, this version of the Mac OS has been getting more reports of issues than any I have seen. And that goes way, way back!
 

kingtj

macrumors 68030
Oct 23, 2003
2,606
749
Brunswick, MD
Yes, I have been writing my own software since just before moving to GNU/Linux in 2001 - mostly in Pyton/pyGTK and I'm currently learning Swift. I didn't exactly like the code changes from Python 2 to Python 3 but I wanted it bad enough to learn how to update things. And I coded in Visual Basic prior to leaving Microsoft Windows.

Apple gave us all a year to prepare for the move from 32-bit to 64-bit. Now, had Apple only given the world a month, then I would have been all over Apple like white on rice.

If you want something bad enough you'll find a way. Otherwise you'll find an excuse.

Ok, but that's kind of my point. These developers don't "want it bad enough" to burn all the time and effort to keep older software going. Why would they? They've probably sold every copy they were ever going to sell, except maybe a few copies at big discounts. The only people this hurts are the paid customers who still enjoy using the older programs.

It's great that Apple gave people 1 year to make the changes. But my point would stand even if they gave them 5 years to do it. The problem is that Apple just decided to tear out 32-bit support completely - when it could have easily made that an option at installation time to leave in or not. (Then, those who didn't need the backwards compatibility could get whatever performance advantages it's supposed to have by not keeping the 32-bit code in there and any disk space it saved on the installation. But everyone else could have a new OS X that still runs their older programs they want to use.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saturn007

fisherking

macrumors G4
Jul 16, 2010
11,252
5,563
ny somewhere
Ok, but that's kind of my point. These developers don't "want it bad enough" to burn all the time and effort to keep older software going. Why would they? They've probably sold every copy they were ever going to sell, except maybe a few copies at big discounts. The only people this hurts are the paid customers who still enjoy using the older programs.

It's great that Apple gave people 1 year to make the changes. But my point would stand even if they gave them 5 years to do it. The problem is that Apple just decided to tear out 32-bit support completely - when it could have easily made that an option at installation time to leave in or not. (Then, those who didn't need the backwards compatibility could get whatever performance advantages it's supposed to have by not keeping the 32-bit code in there and any disk space it saved on the installation. But everyone else could have a new OS X that still runs their older programs they want to use.)

that's not how it works; plus, does this sound like apple? to keep older tech, and offer the enduser the option to install that... or not?

catalina is a clean 64bit system, and developers need to move to that, or fall behind. same as the move to intel, or any new mac os that no longer works with older apps; the developers need to keep up, or we find other apps that do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ploki and revmacian

kingtj

macrumors 68030
Oct 23, 2003
2,606
749
Brunswick, MD
Like I pointed out before ... Apple HAS done this in the past. OS X held onto classic MacOS support with a whole emulator they wrote, to ensure that transition went smoother for people.

And Apple even includes "Boot Camp" so you can boot into Windows.

When they did things like getting rid of Carbon and forcing developers to rewrite for the Cocoa framework, they caused a big disruption too ... but despite it screwing over even big companies like Adobe, they eventually got it done.

Problem is though ... this change had a huge impact on game software, which was the market with the least OS X representation to begin with. If you don't care about running games natively in OS X, it's easy to see how the move to 64-bit didn't seem to amount to much. But IMO, it signals the end of video games on a Mac except for the "casual" stuff like chess or checkers, and things primarily aimed at iOS devices with OS X cross-compatibility.



that's not how it works; plus, does this sound like apple? to keep older tech, and offer the enduser the option to install that... or not?

catalina is a clean 64bit system, and developers need to move to that, or fall behind. same as the move to intel, or any new mac os that no longer works with older apps; the developers need to keep up, or we find other apps that do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saturn007

revmacian

macrumors 68000
Oct 20, 2018
1,745
1,468
USA
Ok, but that's kind of my point. These developers don't "want it bad enough" to burn all the time and effort to keep older software going.
And there is root of the problem.. don't blame Apple for that. We can't live in 32-bit land forever, especially when 64-bit offers what it does. There are drawbacks to keeping compatibility with older code - unnecessary bloat, maintenance of older code, etc.

We could continue this discussion but it would be a waste of time. If you want to live in the past and hold a grudge, then that is your business. I suppose you could learn to code your own apps and then this would no longer be a problem. I learned to code just because of something very similar to this (old apps no longer available). Focus all of the negative energy into something positive, learn to code and update all of those 32-bit apps yourself. Yes, I know, that's a lot of work.. holding a grudge is easier. Which one do you want more?

Have a nice day.
 

Glenny2lappies

macrumors 6502a
Sep 29, 2006
578
420
Brighton, UK
Struth...

Nope, not fair at all.. this is NOT Apple's fault nor is it Catalina's fault.. you/we/the world had plenty of time to prepare for this. Place the blame where it belongs; users and third-party developers. Apple warned everyone , what.. a year ago?

Nope, the root cause of these current 32-bit problems is third-party developers.. Apple is not at fault here.

There's your problem right there.. third-party developers.. they also had a year to prepare. Take it up with them. Ask them why they refused to get their head in the game and support their customers. Are they loyal to their customer base or not? If they're only in it for the money then we shouldn't have been supporting their greed anyway. I'm sorry to sound so abrasive toward developers, but if they're going to expect our loyalty then we should expect theirs in return, correct? Loyalty is a two-way street.

This whole 32-bit problem cannot, at any level, be blamed on Apple. To continue to do so is nothing more than pure denial.

Many applications can run on for years with no input from the developers. Until Apple chooses to break everything.

You "blaming" 3rd party developers is glib at best, completely unreasonable in reality. Much like certain global politics these days.

I would have NEVER updated to Catalina unless I was FORCED by Apple -- I have a 16" machine which won't run previous versions.

Your strategy implies that I should never even upgrade my hardware.
 

Ploki

macrumors 601
Jan 21, 2008
4,324
1,560
Struth...



Many applications can run on for years with no input from the developers. Until Apple chooses to break everything.

You "blaming" 3rd party developers is glib at best, completely unreasonable in reality. Much like certain global politics these days.

I would have NEVER updated to Catalina unless I was FORCED by Apple -- I have a 16" machine which won't run previous versions.

Your strategy implies that I should never even upgrade my hardware.

why not argue in favour of powerPC support while you're at it?
why upgrade hardware at all if you plan to bug it down with backward compatibility for third of a century old tech. give me a break.
why not support 16-bit?
 
You "blaming" 3rd party developers is glib at best, completely unreasonable in reality. Much like certain global politics these days.

I would have NEVER updated to Catalina unless I was FORCED by Apple -- I have a 16" machine which won't run previous versions.

Your strategy implies that I should never even upgrade my hardware.

The thing is, Apple provided ADVANCED warnings quite a while ago about the dropping of support for 32 bit applications in Catalina. So if a developer wanted their app to keep running under Catalina, and it was 32 bit, it was their responsibility to upgrade the app to 64 bit.

Myself, when I was getting prepared for Catalina (WAY before it was released), I knew of two beloved 32 bit apps that would not be supported under Catalina: Quicken 2007, and a calculator entitled Magic Number Machine. With Quicken 2007, Intuit took care of that issue a LONG, LONG time ago by releasing newer versions of Quicken. I have Quicken 2017, and it works fine. As for Magic Number Machine, it has not been upgraded, so I was certainly prepared for its' demise. All my other third party apps were already 64 bit, and thus no issues.
 

Ploki

macrumors 601
Jan 21, 2008
4,324
1,560
I mean, over on Windows? I can still run the same applications made for Windows 95 on a new Windows 10 machine. They have properties you can set for the app shortcut to tell Windows it needs to run it backwards compatible as if it was on Windows 95/98 or XP or Vista....

This behavior from Apple just drives developers away from the platform and over to Windows, where your hard work still runs on their operating system for decades!

lol no. this never worked well on windows. i had issues with w98 apps on windows XP. most of them wouldn't run.

also, it wont drive developers away because tighter security means less piracy.
 

profdraper

macrumors 6502
Jan 14, 2017
391
290
Brisbane, Australia
There has been quite some discussion about Catalina & the new MP7,1 over on that forum. My impression to date has been that the hardware is excellent, but Catalina is just dreadful. Have posted again here:

With all due respect: there is nothing more annoying & unhelpful than the casual chime-in that 'it works here ...'. Seems to be a plague on blogs.

Clearly, installs can vary greatly depending on specific use assumptions & one should always try to present a little empathy for those who may be having serious issues and are understandably upset (& with such a high purchase cost for a self-proclaimed 'pro' computer').

eg, if I were using Apple-only apps, perhaps could be smoother sailing, who knows. But I very much agree with those who unhappy with Catalina. Its a complete dog. Case use here (just for example):
exact same software and usage (expect for Logic & FCPX of course) on Window 10 Pro on a Dell T7910 workstation; exact same installs for a Mac Pro 5,1 running Mojave.

  • DAWs: Nuendo, Wavelab, Studio One, Ableton Live, Logic Pro. + many audio plugins and virtual instruments including Universal Audio, Sound Toys, Steinberg Absolute 4, Native Instruments Komplete Ultimate, etc.
  • NLEs: DaVinci Resolve Studio 16, FinalCutPro, ditto re. plugins including industry standards Neat Video OFX, Neat Video FCPX, FilmConvert Pro, etc.
  • Productivity apps including MS Office, Acrobat Pro, Chronosync, Carbon Copy Cloner, Handbreak, etc.
  • Driver & CPs for RME UFX+, Decklink MiniMonitor 4k, SoftRAID, etc.
Suffice it to say - in my context and studio - there are many unresolved issues here in relation to the awful Catalina. *None* of that is present with the same installs in Win104W 1909 or Mojave.

Without picking though all of that, there have also been enormous issues with security more broadly. That includes (of course) disabling security and allowing external boot from the BIOS ... excuse me, ahem, UEFI. abeit needing special command and another wired keyboard .. (give me F2 to the BIOS anyday).

Past that, then there are many install issues that require Security & Privacy CP intervention. And that is inconsistent, sometimes clear, sometimes poor OS handling of multiple, confusing screens; sometimes nothing at all to warn. Eg, Logic Pro would not run some (expensive) AU plugins; turns out one had to manually dig around Security & Privacy, then the Authorization [sic] tab to allow ... a week goes by ...

The silly 'notarization' behaviour where the installer will not run (no explanation), but then you right-click, & you choose 'don't open' or 'open' ... go figure ... who in Apple thought that was useful?

Speaking of installs, many apps had to be dumped or at least required expensive update costs (this is not a 32 bit issue). Needless to say, these apps run perfectly on latest Windows & Mojave.

File permissions, what a drag. On and on and on. Suffice it to say, when I migrated across hundreds of project files to a new RAID 4 volume on the MP7,1, some apps like Nuendo would not load saying 'read only' or later not be able to save, again citing 'read only'. This is despite all dirs being set as admin RW & user RW ... the only eventual fix was to set all dirs to Everyone RW (security anyone?) ... another week goes by. Ditto numerous file permissions problems with Carbon Copy Cloner, particularly in booting from another volume & attempting to restore.

Yes, I fully agree with the Catlina complaints, is dreadful, and all in the name of placebo 'security' which is meant to reassure by all those bazillions of password requests and 'are you sure' prompts ... please ... this is 'pro'?. Mostly just very annoying & time consuming. From what I've experienced - and has been the case in many earlier, difficult MacOS rollouts - the silver lining will be firmware and OS software updates over (say) this next quarter in particular, and then we 'should' be more fully leverage our investment in the MP7,1.
 

revmacian

macrumors 68000
Oct 20, 2018
1,745
1,468
USA
Struth...



Many applications can run on for years with no input from the developers. Until Apple chooses to break everything.

You "blaming" 3rd party developers is glib at best, completely unreasonable in reality. Much like certain global politics these days.

I would have NEVER updated to Catalina unless I was FORCED by Apple -- I have a 16" machine which won't run previous versions.

Your strategy implies that I should never even upgrade my hardware.
You can make whatever justifications fit into your agenda. Meanwhile.. time and tech moves on. No one is forcing you to buy Apple products.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.