Lightroom perpetual licence and MacOS Catalina

[rob_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been wondering about compatibility when the new 64-bit only Catalina is released.  Just received a blog post from the Lightroom Queen in which she explains that LR6.14 is 64-bit but the activation program is not.  Meaning: it will continue to work on an existing installation but not if re-installed on a machine running Catalina, as it will not be possible to activate the licence successfully.

Would appreciate any other insights, if any arise.

[Dave in Wales]

23 hours ago, rob_w said:

I have been wondering about compatibility when the new 64-bit only Catalina is released.  Just received a blog post from the Lightroom Queen in which she explains that LR6.14 is 64-bit but the activation program is not.  Meaning: it will continue to work on an existing installation but not if re-installed on a machine running Catalina, as it will not be possible to activate the licence successfully.

Would appreciate any other insights, if any arise.

I'm in the same boat.

Is the situation the same if one is running LR6.14 and one updates the MacOS to Catalina?

Or does this only apply to LR6.14 being re-installed on a Mac already running Catalina?

Clear as mud....I know 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rob_w]

BTW if you are a Mac user check other software for Catalina compatibility - printers and scanners for example.  It seems my SpyderPro4 software won’t work. A search of the Colorvision support pages shows no sign of an update. 

@Dave, I think it is only when an installation requires licence code activation, as I read the advice from Victoria Brampton.  Eg when you buy a new machine and want to install your software. 

[Chuck Albertson]

Laura Shoe has a blog post on this: https://laurashoe.com/2019/08/13/mac-users-of-lightroom-6-and-earlier-versions-dont-install-mac-os-catalina/

[Bart D]

I've asked support. This is their answer:

Please note first:
The Spyder4 software was not officially compatible with macOS High Sierra 10.13 but works on most configurations. So also on macOS Mojave 10.14 the Spyder4 software is not officially compatible but works on most configurations too.

As you are currently on 10.13 High Sierra and if the Spyder4ELITE software is working on your system - apart from the Apple message about 64-bit, you can use the Spyder4ELITE on your system.
And properly you can also use the Spyder4ELITE if you upgrade to 10.14 Mojave on this computer.

The 64-Bit message is related to the next macOS 10.15 Catalina that will be released this autumn.

As there will be no 64-Bit software for the Spyder4ELITE, you will be not able to run on a 10.15 Catalina system.
Please keep in mind that the Spyder4ELITE was released in the beginning of 2012.
Thank you for understanding.

So, If you want to upgrade to 10.15, you will need to buy another solution for calibrating your screen.
Datacolor has the current spiderX that is already using 64 bit software or a spider5 that will get an update anytime now.

Or look for another supplier.
Since I have no intention whatsoever to upgrade to 10.15 before end of summer 2020 anyway, I still have some time to decide.
I haven't seen anything worthwhile, for me, in the last 3 or 4 upgrades anyway.

 

18 hours ago, rob_w said:

BTW if you are a Mac user check other software for Catalina compatibility - printers and scanners for example.  It seems my SpyderPro4 software won’t work. A search of the Colorvision support pages shows no sign of an update. 

@Dave, I think it is only when an installation requires licence code activation, as I read the advice from Victoria Brampton.  Eg when you buy a new machine and want to install your software. 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Bart D

[Bobitybob]

I'm using the Catalina Beta and LR 6.14 and it works fine, at least I've not encountered any problems so far.  

In fact it's better than 10.14 as the annoying nag screen about updating the software no longer appears.  Not sure why, perhaps it just ignores the old Adobe Application Manager which was 32bit, unlike the LR itself which is 64bit.

As I'm running LR on a system which is upgraded as part of the Beta process I can't comment on what would happen if you install on a new system, other than that I think the current version of Adobe Application Manager is 64bit.  Not sure if you can download it or update the current version without having to download the trial version of the cloud versions, and if you do whether it would then let you install LR 6.14.

Regards

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does the Catalina install offer to delete obsolete software?

[Bobitybob]

Not as such.  

If I recall it shows apps that will not run via a circle with a line through it superimposed on top of the icon.  I only had one app which I hardly used so I deleted it.

Regards

[marchyman]

Yup.  I found a 4 or 5 apps that I hadn't used in a long time that had the circle and slash through the app icon after loading the Catalina Beta.  The only one that was even close to being a current app was Epson scan.   Since I prefer Vuescan over Epson scan that wasn't an issue.  I'm not even sure I had the latest version of Epson Scan installed.

Much more of an issue is my Wacom tablet.  The driver does not work on Catalina.  Wacom is working on an update that was hopefully going to be available in early August.  I'm still waiting.  I miss editing with my tablet.

I needed Catalina to test some software... if you don't need it I'd suggest waiting for the official release.

 

[zeitz]

Can someone explain to me what is so hard about modifying a driver from 32 bit to 64 bit?  Drivers are normally written in C and they must call certain OS support functions directly.  Isn't it as simple as replacing the support function calls and recompiling?  And why do companies wait until one month before a new OS comes out before updating a driver?  Do they think the OS developers will change their minds?  (If Vuescan can be 64 bit, why can't big companies like Epson and Canon get on with it.)  Apple announced well over a year ago that 32 bit support would be dropped; and companies who care about their software have been writing 64 bit drivers for years.  I truly don't understand why the update issue exists at all other than forcing customers to buy new hardware that requires unique drivers.

[rob_w]

5 hours ago, zeitz said:

Can someone explain to me what is so hard about modifying a driver from 32 bit to 64 bit?

Not much.  Your general description is quite correct.  I use Pure Music for my audio system and they are preparing a 64 bit version for Catalina.  Their developers say it amounts to changing one byte of code.

Companies like Adobe and Colorvision (SpyderPro) are greedy and completely lack integrity.  The Spyder4 is my third Spyder.  They are implying it is obsolete which, of course, it is not.  My copy is less than 5 years old.  My LR 6.14 is less than 4 years old.  My Epson scanner is less than 4 years old.  All of these devices will be forced into obsolescence and the manufacturers are overjoyed when they should be ashamed.

[zeitz]

Rob, I'm surprised you didn't put Apple at the top of the list of greedy companies.  Here, from MacWorld UK, is the office reason 32 bit apps are not going to be supported:

Apple has a webpag dedicated to explaining its reasons to stop support for 32-bit apps on the Mac. Essentially, Apple believes these legacy apps won’t offer a good user experience because they slow down your Mac.

And here is the full article if interested:

https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac-software/wont-work-catalina-3698142/

I ran a System Report on my computer; I'm surprised by the number of apps on my computer that are 32 bit.  I course I don't know what many of them are.  But I'm not getting the 32 bit warning screen.  We'll see what happens when I install Catalina so I can use Sidekick.

[marchyman]

17 hours ago, zeitz said:

Can someone explain to me what is so hard about modifying a driver from 32 bit to 64 bit?

It depends upon the specific driver.  The process can be as simple as re-compiling the code.  On the other hand the driver may have been initially designed many years ago and still use APIs that have long been deprecated.    It is the changing interface to system libraries -- the API -- that causes most of the headaches, not the 32-bit to 64-bit change. Say the driver makes use of a function "foo" contained in a system library.   Function "foo" has been replaced with function "bar" in the current (64-bit) version of the library with slightly different semantics.  The driver author must change his code to account for the new semantics.   That often leads to cascading changes.

Making the changes and testing the result takes time.   Using the old "time is money" aphorism a business may decide it is not worth spending the money -- especially if the code in question is only needed by a no-longer-produced product.   There's no return unless you count the good-will of your old customers, something many companies don't seem to care about.

 

[pico]

2 hours ago, marchyman said:

That often leads to cascading changes.

Well put. Cascading consequences are a worst case.

[rob_w]

On 8/17/2019 at 1:35 PM, zeitz said:

Rob, I'm surprised you didn't put Apple at the top of the list of greedy companies.

On the face of it perhaps one should.  OTOH I have two old Macbook Pros, one 11 years old (upgraded by me to SSD years ago) and one 8 years old.  Both still work fine.  So I have not personally come across any examples of Apple not honouring the implied commitment to its customers or trying to shaft me.  Moving to 64-bit is a perfectly reasonable continued development of their products, for many reasons.

That said, I will probably trigger a rainshower of responses from people who DO feel Apple shafted them.

Look, I recognise commercial realities as well as the next person does.  To sell me a device or a software licence with, say, an 8 or 10 year life expectancy and then make it obsolete in 4 years is just dishonest.

Edited August 19, 2019 by rob_w

[Alberti]

On 8/16/2019 at 6:07 PM, Bobitybob said:

I'm using the Catalina Beta and LR 6.14 and it works fine, at least I've not encountered any problems so far.  

In fact it's better than 10.14 as the annoying nag screen about updating the software no longer appears.  Not sure why, perhaps it just ignores the old Adobe Application Manager which was 32bit, unlike the LR itself which is 64bit.

As I'm running LR on a system which is upgraded as part of the Beta process I can't comment on what would happen if you install on a new system, other than that I think the current version of Adobe Application Manager is 64bit.  Not sure if you can download it or update the current version without having to download the trial version of the cloud versions, and if you do whether it would then let you install LR 6.14.

Regards

Any news of Capture One? It also has a 64 bits core application as the software page says, - V 10.2.1.39. But the Catalina Warning System wants me to get worried about C1 too.

[Didn't get a message afaik when starting LR 6.14].

 

[Bobitybob]

I’ve only tried the Fuji flavoured version of C1 not the full one and that worked ok as far as I recall.  As I didn’t want to have two different processing apps and I liked LR better I deleted it.  I now use LR for my Fuji GFX 50R images after conversion in Adobe DNG Converter which also works fine.

[Stuart Richardson]

On 8/17/2019 at 12:35 PM, zeitz said:

Rob, I'm surprised you didn't put Apple at the top of the list of greedy companies.  Here, from MacWorld UK, is the office reason 32 bit apps are not going to be supported:

Apple has a webpag dedicated to explaining its reasons to stop support for 32-bit apps on the Mac. Essentially, Apple believes these legacy apps won’t offer a good user experience because they slow down your Mac.

 

You know what really gives me a bad user experience? Not being able to use my company's 25,000 dollar scanner on a current OS because Apple decides to remove support for something which they have supported concurrently with 64 bit for ages. I wish they would just allow some sort of terminal command or other trick to allow people who really need 32 bit support to keep it. Now I am in the position that I either need to stay with my Mac Pro 2013 and Mojave forever, or eventually buy another older machine to use as a scanning station. I blame Hasselblad for this as well, but it is a frustrating situation to be in. 

[frame-it]

got my 2019 fully loaded macbook pro, manufactured in august 2019...my lightroom 6.14 refuses to install..OS mojave 10.4.6

capture one pro 12xxxx is fine with full hardware acceleration.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

You know what really gives me a bad user experience? Not being able to use my company's 25,000 dollar scanner on a current OS because Apple decides to remove support for something which they have supported concurrently with 64 bit for ages. I wish they would just allow some sort of terminal command or other trick to allow people who really need 32 bit support to keep it. Now I am in the position that I either need to stay with my Mac Pro 2013 and Mojave forever, or eventually buy another older machine to use as a scanning station. I blame Hasselblad for this as well, but it is a frustrating situation to be in. 

And if you use it as a dual-boot, Mojave for your scanner and whatever the future brings for the rest? Mac allows multiple OS, with a choice which one to load.