Was Catalina deliberately designed to be a precursor to Big Sur?

[TiggrToo]

This suddenly dawned on me (forgive me, I'm old and slow!): Catalina phased out support for 32 bit apps which many folk were furious about.

However, was the real reason because Apple knew that Rosetta 2 on Big Sur Arm based devices was not going to handle 32 bit, so they used Catalina to "soften the blow" (at least as it pertains to timing)?

This way when Big Sur comes into play they don't have a million and one upset folks complaining about the loss of 32 bit dulling the big transition.

Apple don't do things in a vacuum, and this kinda makes sense to me.

 

[cmaier]

In a way. there were lots of reasons to dump 32-bit - they’ve been deprecating it for a long time. But knowing they were going to make the transition to Arm was one important reason.

 

[saudor]

meanwhile windows 10 can run office 97. Heck 32 bit versions of windows 10 can run 16 bit apps.

But naw dude. It's for stability they say. it's speed! they say.

yet we get the utter garbage that is Catalina. Same with ios11.

 

[Luna Murasaki]

meanwhile windows 10 can run office 97. Heck 32 bit versions of windows 10 can run 16 bit apps.

But naw dude. It's for stability they say. it's speed! they say.

yet we get the utter garbage that is Catalina. Same with ios11.

Yes, Windows can run older programs. Microsoft supports old, obsolete technologies way longer than Apple does. It's why I can actually run older Windows games on my Windows machine instead of only games released in the last few years. But it's also why the vast majority of my recently-updated desktop applications are still 32-bit and still otherwise using old stuff - because their authors know they never have to upgrade and learn new things. It's why the experience with using those apps is inferior to macOS, why Windows has to take a hit in performance and disk space to be able to support the 32-bit apps, and a big reason why Windows is so much less secure.

Both approaches have their pluses and minuses. I plan to get a Windows machine for PC games and leave the rest to macOS.

 

[cmaier]

meanwhile windows 10 can run office 97. Heck 32 bit versions of windows 10 can run 16 bit apps.

But naw dude. It's for stability they say. it's speed! they say.

yet we get the utter garbage that is Catalina. Same with ios11.

Meanwhile windows 10 has three different places where settings are stored, using three different user interfaces, because backward compatibility is holding it back.

 

[thadoggfather]

Dropping 32-bit support DEFINITELY feels precursory

Being the previous macOS version before 11 is precursory, too

 

[saudor]

Meanwhile windows 10 has three different places where settings are stored, using three different user interfaces, because backward compatibility is holding it back.

same with macOS though

/Library/Preferences
~/Library/Preferences

And then there's the two application supports
And the group containers

backwards compatibility is a great thing for enterprise users. You can run older software and still be up to date with security. with macOS, you're out of luck within 2 years. Of course, windows has its own annoying aspects (but you can control alot of this through shutup10) but compatibility wise - it's great. It's nice not being forced to buy a new machine just to stay on top of updates. Even for consumers - my HTPC is from 2007 and for that purpose, the Q6600 CPU in that is more than enough. Yet it stays up to date.

Personally I use macOS even on my PC hardware through a Hackintosh because it has better support for HiDPI displays, terminal, etc but my apps/games do run better in windows.

 

[tranceking26]

This is a good theory, I think you could be onto something here!

 

[chabig]

Was Catalina deliberately designed to be a precursor to Big Sur?

Yes, as Mojave was the precursor to Catalina, and before that... I’m sure Apple’s software roadmap goes both forward and backward several revisions. Apple knows what’s coming after Catalina, and probably several versions after that. Every one rests on previously laid groundwork.

 

[cmaier]

same with macOS though

/Library/Preferences
~/Library/Preferences

And then there's the two application supports
And the group containers

I'm talking about OS preferences. And you can get all the ones you're really intended to get at in one place - system preferences.

 

[TiggrToo]

I'm talking about OS preferences. And you can get all the ones you're really intended to get at in one place - system preferences.

Unlike Windows were you get tripped up with annoyances such as 32 bit and 64 bit ODBC drivers, two registries and the oh so wonderfully named SysWow64 folder (for 32 bit files).

I have zero confidence in MS getting round to dealing with this any time soon given that Visual Studio is still 32 bits...

 

[bluecoast]

Yes absolutely.

Apple didn’t want to support 32-bit apps on ARM / Rosetta 2.

Also, I think that they were deliberately taking a hit with Catalina and including things that they knew would be unpopular/potentially buggy so as to smooth things out in that release and to prepare the way for Big Sur.

Basically, so that Big Sur wasn't too big a change (and it’s already a massive change of course) so that it didn’t (hopefully...) have a buggy reputation ie like Catalina does.

 

[edubfromktown]

Unlike Windows were you get tripped up with annoyances such as 32 bit and 64 bit ODBC drivers, two registries and the oh so wonderfully named SysWow64 folder (for 32 bit files).

I have zero confidence in MS getting round to dealing with this any time soon given that Visual Studio is still 32 bits...

Yes... then there is the MS patching "sickness" that keeps getting worse (due in part to all of the legacy cruft they have to continue supporting).

The big positive has been remaining gainfully employed for decades troubleshooting Windows user and enterprise train wrecks. AD and Exchange ones were some of the most mind bending (and required ninja registry pruning skills haha). I cut my teeth on the initial release back in early 2000: Exchange 5 / NT 4 (nightmares of epic proportions) and finally threw in the towel supporting all of that sort of thing when Exchange 2013 was in its "prime" (level of market penetration).

 

[polee]

On Catalina, my notebook is warm quite a lot of the time. Hope that Big Sur solves this issue. I have a MacBook Pro 2020, 1.4 GhZ.

 

[Bazza1]

These days, I'm pretty much convinced that Apple does what Apple does without any forward thought whatsoever - preferring to simply offer 'Squirrel!' moments every couple of months (until it breaks something else and requires another patch - sorry, 'upgrade'), with the intention to move everything to a cross-platform version iOS eventually - rather than demonstrate they have a direction towards a better MacOS, included software (some of which - like Mail and iWork - is looking pretty 'legacy' these days) and a better user experience.

Apple has long relied on its most rabid Macolytes to defend bad design, design or implementation - preferring to only really react once issues make the greater Media. Their own Support channels are awash in this. Their 'innovation' has become largely reactive rather than proactive.

Meanwhile, one might reasonably think that when Apple moved to the different file system - a pretty significant leap - that might have justified the next full number OS version. It did not. Or when Apple moves to Silicone (and another significant leap that will change the functionality of tons of software), that's when to do the full number OS upgrade. But it doesn't appear it will.
Instead OS 11 will include a rethink of some icons, some pretty effects and even more linkage to iOS - 'Squirrel! moments all, and barely a point update. Pretty sad.

Was Catalina an intended precursor to Big Sur? It was certainly an (arguably dodgy) patch to Mojave.