Best option for running a single critical 32 bit program in modern macs?

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am unfortunately tied to Mojave at the moment so that I can continue to run FlexColor on my work computer, which I need to run my X5 scanner. My Mac Pro 2013 is getting long in the tooth and having troubles with the current versions of Lightroom, and it is very slow with more modern video codecs like h.265. I plan to move to an Apple Silicon mac as soon as a practical replacement is announced (for me that would likely be a "high end" mini, Macbook pro 16 with graphics processing or some sort of less expensive Mac Pro update). Once I do so, what is the best way to keep flex color running? I could obviously keep the Mac Pro and run it from there, but I would prefer not to have a separate scanning station and computer. I would rather not have the space taken up and the clutter.

Is it just virtualization software? I have not run one before, but it seems a bit baroque to me to install an entire operating system to run a 50mb software program. Any ideas what is the best to run? My first thought was Mojave, but perhaps better to run High Sierra or even an earlier operating system? Can I go back further than the computer? It seems like it might make sense to go back to an earlier, smaller and less resource intensive system, since FlexColor has not really been updated since 2006 or 2007...

Is there any other less intensive way to do this? Unfortunately FlexColor is not being updated, and there are no alternative programs that can run the scanner. I guess the workflow would be to do all the scans and adjustments, and then export them to a connected hard drive, to then be further worked on the modern system in lightroom and photoshop cc.

Of the virtualization software, are there any that standout in terms of ease of use, price and performance?

 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Well, the high-end Mini is there, I run a 16 GB M1, and it works well and is fast. Memory management needs a bit of tweaking still, but there are weekly updates of Big Sur. 

Initial monitor problems have been solved. If you want to be safe, get a 2019/20 Mac Mini Intel and put in 64 GB of RAM. They should be quite cheap now by users upgrading to M1 and selling their old machine off.

Warning! Macs are intelligent! My 2010 MacPro died from a broken heart and neglect two weeks after I got the mini  

[zeitz]

Do you have a Windows version of the FlexColor software?  Do you have access to a Windows XP license?  You can download the VMWare Fusion free version (I think it is called Player); install Windows XP and see it the system recognizes the scanner and runs the 32 bit software.  I do have VMWare Fusion with Windows XP,  Windows 7 and Windows 10 running on my Mac Mini with Catalina.  But several years ago I tried to get my Minolta 5400 scanner to work, but I couldn't get the system to recognized the scanner.  The software for that scanner did seem to install.

I also run Parallels, which is not free.  The default protocol between the macOS and Windows is ethernet.  In Parallels there is a way to allow direct communications over WiFi.  I don't know whether any of this applies to a scanner.  SCSI connection? 

[zeitz]

I always forget something.  VMWare Fusion and Parallels only run on Intel Macs; they do not run on M1 Macs.

[John McMaster]

Not available for M1 as yet, but I run Mojave in a VMware Fusion VM for 32 bit apps (2013 Pro on Big Sur with 128GB RAM).  I think Snow Leopard (10.6.x) is optimum if going a long way back, but 10.7 is the oldest shown as available for install.

john

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

 what is the best way to keep flex color running?

https://www.codeweavers.com/blog/jwhite/2020/11/18/okay-im-on-the-bandwagon-apple-silicon-is-officially-cool

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cool, I will try CrossOver first, as that would be ideal...a lightweight program. They have flexcolor listed, but compatibility is unknown. I will see if I can see how to figure it out.

Thanks for the head's up about Parallels not working on Apple Silicon...that is a problem.

Jaap, I know the new M1 Mini is powerful, but I am interested to see if they produce a replacement for the "high end" configuration. If not, I will consider an M1 mini. The price is certainly amazing. I am using the higher end intel config right now, which I bought shortly before the M1 was announced, unfortunately. But, it certainly does run Lightroom better than my Mac Pro 2013 does right now, which is interesting. The Mac Pro still beats it on Resolve, but I think that is because Resolve is better with core and video utilization, and frankly, Adobe just broke Lightroom for the 2013 Mac Pro...

[zeitz]

There are very few Windows programs that run with CrossOver.  I hope yours works.  The fact that it is listed is a good sign.  At least the CrossOver trial is free.

I am waiting for the new small MacPro which is often discussed before I buy an M1 MacMini.

Any 2018 or later MacMini generally will outperform a 2013 MacPro.  If you use an eGPU with a real graphics card (not gamer card) on an Intel MacMini, it will definitely outperform a 2013 MacPro with the ancient FirePro graphics.

[Bobitybob]

If you have a windows version of the software you could get a Thin Client https://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/index.shtml.  

These are available from ebay cheaply and come from call centres and run windows XP or windows 7.  I use one for my Pakon Scanner software as having tried parallels, virtual box etc it never worked properly and kept losing the USB connection.  Now works perfect and I use Microsoft Remote Desktop (free from the Mac App store) to access it via my home network, just give it a fixed IP address in your router before you configure the connection.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Bobitybob

[Stuart Richardson]

The only problem I can see with windows versions is that I am going to have to go through gymnastics to connect it. It uses firewire 400, so right now I have a 400 to 800 adapter connected to a 800 to Thunderbolt 2 adapter and into a Thunderbolt 2 dock. I have also successfully used it with a 400 to 800 to thunderbolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3, and it still works on my Macbook Pro 2017 with Mojave. But I am not sure if that many adapters would still work in the windows environment.

In any case, I guess the first test would be to download CrossOver on my Mac Mini, which is on Catalina. If it can do that, then maybe it will be fine. The program is so ancient that I am guessing it is not that complicated to run...but of course, I could be wrong.

[Stuart Richardson]

Ok, so I tried FlexColor in CrossOver, and the good news is that with my first try it will install and open, and I can even open a 3F file and adjust the levels. I have not tried scanning or connecting the scanner, as it is at work, and my only non-Mojave computer is at home. The bad news is that it has been crashing randomly and rather quickly. So unless I try a different way of doing things (a different bottle? I used Windows 7, but honestly, I know nothing about all this and just chose it because it was default), it does not seem feasible at this point. I guess I might just have to keep the Mac Pro around connect it to the same monitor. It seems "native" computers and operating systems are the most practical way of doing this.

If anyone can get FlexColor working on CrossOver, please let me know. I will keep trying. That said, the windows version looks terrible...awful aliased fonts, pixelated previews etc. I would prefer to just run the Mac version if I could.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[zeitz]

34 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

It seems "native" computers and operating systems are the most practical way of doing this.

Your statement is a wise one.  And keeping an old Mac running with an old OS just for FlexColor may be the best way to go.

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, zeitz said:

Your statement is a wise one.  And keeping an old Mac running with an old OS just for FlexColor may be the best way to go.

It probably will be...it is just very frustrating that that is required, just to run a 50mb program. I know nothing about computer programing, so I am sure there are good reasons for this, but I find it hard to understand why modern operating systems will not run software even just a few years out of date. It seems to be a fundamental flaw in the way we are building our technology. As a former historian, I can only think of how terribly we are setting ourselves up to record our history. If I literally cannot open the software that is used by a huge number of museums to archive their photographs within a few years of its release, how are future generations going to access our history and primary source documents?

[Bobitybob]

Keeping one of your older Mac's to run your scanner is probably the most cost effective and easiest ways to deal with the problem; looking at the system requirements for Flexcolor, it doesn't need a very powerful machine to run it and unless you are going to sell them on then it's not going to cost anything.

Rather than connect both computers to your monitor you could set up the scanner Mac to use Screen Sharing and it could the be kept close to the scanner and out of you way if you are tight for space.

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks Bob. I have never heard of that. I will look into it. I will say, however, that I have an Eizo with two inputs, so it should not be too bad to share the monitor. Will have to see how to manage the keyboard and mouse etc.

[Bobitybob]

Although called Screen Sharing, it's a network connection to the other mac and includes keyboard, mouse clipboard etc https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/mac-help/mh14066/mac

Edited February 18, 2021 by Bobitybob

[jrethorst]

On 2/15/2021 at 3:59 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

Any ideas what is the best to run? My first thought was Mojave, but perhaps better to run High Sierra or even an earlier operating system?

FWIW, I have Mojave on one computer and High Sierra on another. I like Mojave better.

John R.

[adan]

On 2/17/2021 at 10:05 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I know nothing about computer programing, so I am sure there are good reasons for this, but I find it hard to understand why modern operating systems will not run software even just a few years out of date. It seems to be a fundamental flaw in the way we are building our technology. As a former historian, I can only think of how terribly we are setting ourselves up to record our history.

As a former historian, I'm sure you must have run across this concept at some point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[marchyman]

I used to develop software.   Not once in my career going back to the 1970s was obsolescence planned.  Instead, code was constantly being modified to get the most advantage out of the latest hardware.   That was the cause of most incompatibilities.  Some portion of code would be re-written to take advantage of some new hardware feature that made the code much faster.  Or smaller.  Other code was added to do things we couldn't do in older systems.  But the new code wouldn't work on older hardware.  Updated code couldn't replace old code, it had to live side-by-side.  And that meant more code had to be added to check what hardware was being used to select the proper code.  Eventually the code would get too big to fit on the older hardware.

An other choice  was to freeze the older code.   Users of old hardware could run the old code.   They didn't get any new features. Or bug fixes.  We couldn't afford to hire the people to keep the older code maintained given that we were getting no revenue from it.

That is one point of view.  I'm sure there are others.  I mostly run the latest OS versions to get security fixes.  New features are rarely enough to get me to switch on their own.

[Stuart Richardson]

I think this is a slightly different issue than planned obsolescence. It is not backwards compatibility...it is forward compatibility. This can certainly be an issue in history as well (lack of ability to translate things in dead languages etc), but I think for the most part until the computer age, we retained the ability to maintain, fix and use older technology, even if it became obsolete. Cameras are a good example. We are still using Leica IIIs. When they become difficult to repair, it is not because we cannot make the parts, it is because it is not economical to do so. With digital informational technology, the challenges are different. We can effortlessly replicate data and transfer it to new storage all the time. But it seems that the other side to that is that data is generally tied to the most current platforms if users want to make use of it in the contemporary world, but the makers of those platforms have no incentive preserve the older information. It is like going to a library where every book is under lock and key. In any case, I am just worried about what happens to things further down the line. We are not even 40 years into ubiquitous computing, and while a government, museum or university archive might have a plan on how to manage their data, the general public is totally unprepared. Not being able to use FlexColor is obviously not the end of the Earth, but think about how much we learned by reading correspondence from previous generations. How is that going to work 150 years from now with MySpace? Friendster? AOL IM etc etc.