Apple releases Catalina 10.15 GM seed to developers for testing

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    razorpit said:

    blastdoor said:
    As the release date approaches, I'm becoming convinced I just can't install it on any Mac I own. For my home Mac I refuse to let go of some 32 bit games. For my work Mac, there are vitally important apps that are still 32 bit. 

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- will Apple be forced to walk back the decision to kill off 32 bit apps? Probably not, but I bet uptake on Catalina will be much slower than past operating systems. 
    I'm more concerned about Gatekeeper and apps like MakeMKV.
    As long as it’s 64bit, you’ll be able to open it. 
  • Reply 22 of 43
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    razorpit said:

    blastdoor said:
    As the release date approaches, I'm becoming convinced I just can't install it on any Mac I own. For my home Mac I refuse to let go of some 32 bit games. For my work Mac, there are vitally important apps that are still 32 bit. 

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- will Apple be forced to walk back the decision to kill off 32 bit apps? Probably not, but I bet uptake on Catalina will be much slower than past operating systems. 
    I'm more concerned about Gatekeeper and apps like MakeMKV.
    As long as it’s 64bit, you’ll be able to open it. 
    For now. Apple backed off the certificate requirement. What happens when they turn that on? You think they will give a certificate to a developer who develops something like this? I’m worried they won’t.
  • Reply 23 of 43
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,801member
    blastdoor said:
    macxpress said:
    blastdoor said:
    As the release date approaches, I'm becoming convinced I just can't install it on any Mac I own. For my home Mac I refuse to let go of some 32 bit games. For my work Mac, there are vitally important apps that are still 32 bit. 

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- will Apple be forced to walk back the decision to kill off 32 bit apps? Probably not, but I bet uptake on Catalina will be much slower than past operating systems. 
    *sigh* Developers have had 12 YEARS! to get their apps, plug-ins, drivers, etc 64-bit on macOS. It's not Apple's fault developers dragged their feet on this. Any 64-bit issues are solely the developer's fault, not Apple's. Why should Apple continue year after year to offer backwards compatibility? If they don't push forward, developers will just keep dragging their feet or just plain not fixing their shit to bring it to modern standards. 
    But what's the advantage to the customer of moving from 32 bits to 64 bits? How will the 64 bit app be better? 

    In the past, moving forward has had advantages to customers. For example, an x86 native app will be faster than an emulated PPC app. If Aspyr were to make Homeworld Remastered 64 bit instead of 32 bit, what would that get me? I strongly suspect the answer is: NOTHING. 
    The same advantages of going to 64-bit in the first place. Bottomline is Apple isn't going to stick to old technology forever. You should know by now that Apple is always gonna push forward and isn't really interested in continuous backwards compatibility. This is the way its always been and most likely always will be. Yeah it sucks sometimes and makes things incompatible but if you don't push forward you'll get behind. I don't think we want Apple playing catchup with all of its OS's. 
  • Reply 24 of 43
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    razorpit said:
    razorpit said:

    blastdoor said:
    As the release date approaches, I'm becoming convinced I just can't install it on any Mac I own. For my home Mac I refuse to let go of some 32 bit games. For my work Mac, there are vitally important apps that are still 32 bit. 

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- will Apple be forced to walk back the decision to kill off 32 bit apps? Probably not, but I bet uptake on Catalina will be much slower than past operating systems. 
    I'm more concerned about Gatekeeper and apps like MakeMKV.
    As long as it’s 64bit, you’ll be able to open it. 
    For now. Apple backed off the certificate requirement. What happens when they turn that on? You think they will give a certificate to a developer who develops something like this? I’m worried they won’t.

    To quote slide 40 of WWDC 2019 Session 701 Advances in macOS Security: "You can always choose to run any software on your system”.


  • Reply 25 of 43
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,192member
    blastdoor said:
    But what's the advantage to the customer of moving from 32 bits to 64 bits? How will the 64 bit app be better? 
    If 2GB memory wasn't limiting for the 32-bit version, then that won't be an advantage to going 64-bit, but 64-bit apps will still likely run faster by a good margin just by recompiling.

    The 64-bit X64 architecture supports twice as many (16*) general purpose registers as the ancient X86 architecture with only 8, which boosts application speed more or less by a third (sometimes more, sometimes less), just by recompiling, because relatively slow memory fetches and stores are less frequent. Also, if a 32-bit application achieves 64-bit integer precision by manipulating 32-bit quantities, then even greater speed can be obtained by computing natively on 64-bit values with the X64 instruction set. 64-bit applications can also memory-map entire files for improved I/O speed and less system overhead. 64-bit applications might also be more secure, but that's just a conjecture. As a potential down side, if 64-bit precision isn't needed and the code wasn't carefully written to avoid using more precision than needed, then naively recompiling for 64-bits may cause an application to use twice as much memory and slow it down due to slower memory storage/retrieval for the larger values.

    *64-bit ARM supports 31 general purpose registers, which helps it perform more competitively against X64.
    edited October 2019
  • Reply 26 of 43
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member
    blastdoor said:
    macxpress said:
    blastdoor said:
    As the release date approaches, I'm becoming convinced I just can't install it on any Mac I own. For my home Mac I refuse to let go of some 32 bit games. For my work Mac, there are vitally important apps that are still 32 bit. 

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- will Apple be forced to walk back the decision to kill off 32 bit apps? Probably not, but I bet uptake on Catalina will be much slower than past operating systems. 
    *sigh* Developers have had 12 YEARS! to get their apps, plug-ins, drivers, etc 64-bit on macOS. It's not Apple's fault developers dragged their feet on this. Any 64-bit issues are solely the developer's fault, not Apple's. Why should Apple continue year after year to offer backwards compatibility? If they don't push forward, developers will just keep dragging their feet or just plain not fixing their shit to bring it to modern standards. 
    But what's the advantage to the customer of moving from 32 bits to 64 bits? How will the 64 bit app be better? 

    In the past, moving forward has had advantages to customers. For example, an x86 native app will be faster than an emulated PPC app. If Aspyr were to make Homeworld Remastered 64 bit instead of 32 bit, what would that get me? I strongly suspect the answer is: NOTHING. 
    64-bit apps have access to more memory and, in some cases, can use that memory faster because it's accessed in bigger chunks.  So it means that, for games, they could load more content into memory, which should allow for more complex worlds and/or less stutter or lag because things don't have to be loaded from disk as often.  But the reality is that there are tricks used in 32 bit apps to get around those limitations, and so it doesn't make as big a difference as you'd think.  Especially since it's really the GPU which is doing all the big data crunching these days.
    dewme
  • Reply 27 of 43
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    Will GM version Catalina be released with 16" Macbook Pro ? 
    edited October 2019
  • Reply 28 of 43
    mdossmdoss Posts: 40member
    My main concern is that the drivers for my Brother MFC are still 32-bit and have been written only to work with 10.14 and not newer.

    If I upgrade to Catalina, will I lose all access to my printer and scanner? That, is my concern.

    Cheers

  • Reply 29 of 43
    mdossmdoss Posts: 40member
    My main concern is that the drivers for my Brother MFC are still 32-bit and have been written only to work with 10.14 and not newer.

    If I upgrade to Catalina, will I lose all access to my printer and scanner? That, is my concern.

    Cheers

  • Reply 30 of 43
    blastdoor said:
    As the release date approaches, I'm becoming convinced I just can't install it on any Mac I own. For my home Mac I refuse to let go of some 32 bit games. For my work Mac, there are vitally important apps that are still 32 bit. 

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- will Apple be forced to walk back the decision to kill off 32 bit apps? Probably not, but I bet uptake on Catalina will be much slower than past operating systems. 
    Upgrade your so-called work apps and boot an older version from an external drive for older games.  Did you have the same hissy fit when PowerPC was dropped?
  • Reply 31 of 43
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,289member
    blastdoor said:
    macxpress said:
    blastdoor said:
    As the release date approaches, I'm becoming convinced I just can't install it on any Mac I own. For my home Mac I refuse to let go of some 32 bit games. For my work Mac, there are vitally important apps that are still 32 bit. 

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- will Apple be forced to walk back the decision to kill off 32 bit apps? Probably not, but I bet uptake on Catalina will be much slower than past operating systems. 
    *sigh* Developers have had 12 YEARS! to get their apps, plug-ins, drivers, etc 64-bit on macOS. It's not Apple's fault developers dragged their feet on this. Any 64-bit issues are solely the developer's fault, not Apple's. Why should Apple continue year after year to offer backwards compatibility? If they don't push forward, developers will just keep dragging their feet or just plain not fixing their shit to bring it to modern standards. 
    But what's the advantage to the customer of moving from 32 bits to 64 bits? How will the 64 bit app be better? 

    • Ability to use more RAM. 64-bit processors are theoretically capable of referencing 2^64 locations in memory, or over 4 billion times the memory numbers 32-bit processors can reference.  
    • More efficiency. When additional RAM is installed, 32-bit systems usually cannot take advantage of it because of the addressable space limits. But 64-bit systems can, which often results in significant performance boosts. 
    • More virtual memory allocation. The modern applications, especially for games, video and photo editing, desire more RAM. With the 64-bit efficient use and allocation of memory, those applications optimized for the 64-bit OS can take full advantage of the new space. 
    • More security features. 64-bit processing offers additional security protections.

  • Reply 32 of 43

    razorpit said:
    MisterKit said:
    I wonder if a new Mac shipping with Catalina could be rolled back to an earlier version. It’s a little over my head whether the built in security chips would not allow a rollback.
    Were you ever able to do that? I don't think you were, at least in the modern (Intel) era.
    Of course you could. But you needed the original OS.  The mid 2011 iMac shipped with Snow Leopard in May 2011, but after July, they started shipping with Lion.  With copies of the original Snow Leopard disks, you could roll it back.  You could easily roll back any Mac to a prior version, especially with the version right after the original release version and prior to the current.  My 2015 MacBook Pro can run any version from Yosemite forward.  Even when Apple started shipping them with El Capitan, you could still go back to Yosemite, which was its original OS.  So current models with Mojave and soon to be sold with Catalina can be rolled back if you have a copy of Mojave.  But when the new models ship with Catalina as the original OS, then no. 
  • Reply 33 of 43

    mpantone said:
    While I will be keeping a Mojave boot drive around, I reluctantly acquiesced and bought a $180 Windows 10 box so I could run legacy applications like the Harmony Remote utility from Logitech.

    I'm more concerned about the perceived quality of Catalina 10.15 as it currently stands. For the same reason, I have not upgraded my eligible iDevices to iOS 13. Both operating systems sound buggy as hell right now and Apple couldn't pay me to make them my default boot OSes at this time.
    You can run a VM for free of a prior version of OS X without buying a PC. Or boot from an external disc.  Since you’re not running iOS 13, you don’t know what you’re talking about.  13.0 had a few issues, but all resolved with 13.1.2.  All software has bugs and they get resolved. Why do you think 13.1.2 was quick to come out?  Since you’re not running any of the Catalina betas, you don’t know anything. 
  • Reply 34 of 43
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,256member
    cpsro said:
    blastdoor said:
    But what's the advantage to the customer of moving from 32 bits to 64 bits? How will the 64 bit app be better? 

    The 64-bit X64 architecture supports twice as many (16*) general purpose registers as the ancient X86 architecture with only 8, which boosts application speed more or less by a third (sometimes more, sometimes less), just by recompiling, because relatively slow memory fetches and stores are less frequent. 
    Ah right... I had forgotten about that! This is the only genuine advantage of going 64 bits that I have yet to see presented by anybody. Nice job! 

    Everything else I've seen is wrong or misleading. 

    Yet even with this genuine advantage that you've identified, the real world improvement to consumer experience is likely to be imperceptible. If an app were to gain a perceptible advantage of going 64 bit, then the developer would most likely have already made the switch. It's older games and low-resource utilities that remain 32 bit -- things that just won't benefit in any perceptible way from the switch. 

    So I'm still left wondering.... how are Apple's customers made better off by dropping 32 bit app support? I still don't see it. 
    razorpit
  • Reply 35 of 43
    mpantone said:
    The 64-bit only stipulation has been a long time coming. While I will be keeping a Mojave boot drive around, I reluctantly acquiesced and bought a $180 Windows 10 box so I could run legacy applications like the Harmony Remote utility from Logitech.

    I'm more concerned about the perceived quality of Catalina 10.15 as it currently stands. For the same reason, I have not upgraded my eligible iDevices to iOS 13. Both operating systems sound buggy as hell right now and Apple couldn't pay me to make them my default boot OSes at this time.

    While eventually I will upgrade to both operating systems, it might be Q1 2020 before I do so. If anything, I might try to find a spare drive and install Catalina on that before I install it on the built-in SSDs.

    This is the first year in a decade that I haven't installed the new OS within a day or two of release.
    I got this reply for Logitech:

    Cyrus (Logi) 

    Oct 2, 3:39 PM UTC 

    Thank you for writing back to us, the new Harmony Desktop App(64 bit) for Mac OS Catalina will be release on the same day that the Mac OS Catalina is available for public use. It will support our IR remotes such as: Harmony One, 200, 300, 350, 600, 650, 665, 700, 950, Ultimate One and Touch.

    For our hub-based remotes, you may use the Harmony mobile app for Android and iOS mobile devices or the MyHarmony Desktop Software on Windows computer or Mac running 10.14.x or lower to manage your devices and activities.

    Please let me know if you have any additional concerns and I will get back to you as soon as possible.


    Please feel free to respond to this email.

    Thank you,
    Logitech Support

  • Reply 36 of 43
    Sean2eSean2e Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    blastdoor said:
    As the release date approaches, I'm becoming convinced I just can't install it on any Mac I own. For my home Mac I refuse to let go of some 32 bit games. For my work Mac, there are vitally important apps that are still 32 bit. 

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- will Apple be forced to walk back the decision to kill off 32 bit apps? Probably not, but I bet uptake on Catalina will be much slower than past operating systems. 
    Just partition a drive with Mojave on one side for your legacy apps, It won't need to be that big and you're system won't have to work twice as hard.

    If you only needed the 32bit apps at home (aka desktop) I'd highly suggest a cheap Hackintosh build. Its so much easier to get macOS running on a diy pc than it used to be. 

    They won't walk it back,  I'm under the impression the kernel cant run 32bit apps but if its just apple courageously removing 32bit support in a symbolic sense then you can bet someone already has them running native in the Catalina betas.


  • Reply 37 of 43
    Apple have been signalling this move for 12 YEARS. I started investigating alternatives off & on about 18 months ago for MYOB / EyeTV and pulled my finger out about 9 months ago and selected two good replacements. The point is, I gave myself plenty of time to do something about both 32-bit apps, particularly when both application vendors didn't know how to spell customer service let alone practice it . Whilst my own case is more personal than business and obviously some business cases need complex time-consuming remediation strategies for critical applications, 12 YEARS is fair warning.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 38 of 43
    I'm running Catalina on a separate volume. I store media on removable drives which I share via ethernet with a chromebox running libreelc. (zeroconf/nfs)  Catalina has new security protocols and will NOT enable file sharing from these drives. Security!!!!????

    I will keep using Mojave until this situation goes away (if it does.) It looks like apple wants media sharing to be an iTunes/iCloud thing.
  • Reply 39 of 43
    File sharing seems to be locked down except for whatever is in your public folder. My first Mac was a Centris 650. This is very wrong.
  • Reply 40 of 43
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 824member
    I'm running Catalina on a separate volume. I store media on removable drives which I share via ethernet with a chromebox running libreelc. (zeroconf/nfs)  Catalina has new security protocols and will NOT enable file sharing from these drives. Security!!!!????

    I will keep using Mojave until this situation goes away (if it does.) It looks like apple wants media sharing to be an iTunes/iCloud thing.
    File sharing works for me the same as it does for Mojave.  I'm using AFP & SMB from Sharing in System Settings, and NFS, both ways, manually configured in the terminal.  I use NFS via auto mount at /net, and have some local directories shared via NFS.

    There are some security restrictions on the root directory that you have to be aware of.  I'm not sure where/how/what you're trying to share via NFS, that you are having difficulty with.
Sign In or Register to comment.