I love DxO PhotoLab, but find the operating system support too short. The renewal of OS at Apple is too frequent (every year), also the support of “old” OS by DxO is too short. Other software development companies have understood this well (Topaz Labs, Serif, etc.) and offer very long support. The very good Affinity suite for example supports Mac OSX 10.9 Mavericks → 11.0 Big Sur. They have understood everything, and take a lot of market share from Adobe, which does like Apple: planned obsolescence. So I support these developers but boycott the others… DxO must take this path, if not more support…
Mojave 10.14 being a transition OS between 32 and 64bits model, it would be interesting to take this system as a basis for long support …
It would indeed be nice to see continued support for Mojave for a year or two. However, the M1-platform does obviously present promising opportunities for future Photolab versions.
I’ve voted for this request…considering the following cases of support:
Ability to install and use new versions (of DPL) on older versions of operating systems.
I find that item #1 is here already, at least with OpticsPro and PhotoLab, also the other way 'round (older versions of OP and DPL on newer OS versions)
Provision of security or camera body updates for older versions of software
It would be nice that updates be provided for the latest 3 versions of DPL.
Provision of support by real persons at DxO’s discretion.
I agree with the M1 opportunities. But one does not prevent the other. Besides, photo software doesn’t need enormous power, like 3D or video. Especially since it is only the Prime or Deep prime function that requires computing power and therefore exporting it can be important that it takes a little time … at least for me.
Thanks for your votes !
I am up-to-date with hardware and software but I do agree that the renewal pace is too fast for little quality and stability. If Apple would take more time 18-24 months to polish things it would be better.
So for DxO, if the company is growing nicely, hopefully all the users will benefit of such services.
Of course customers need to learn again to be patient.
It is a double-edged sword. I understand that the 32-bit-to-64-bit transition can be an issue for some users, as some software won’t be updated, but by the same token it is extra work for the vendor to support two architectures. Also with the new processor architecture that’s three.
Apple telegraphed the 64-bit transition years ahead of it actually happening. If there are vendors that can not (or choose not to) make the transition in that timeframe, then they are the ones who should be asked to change their ways. Users were made aware for an entire year and developers much longer.
It’s also a reason to, wherever possible, not get tied down to particular software.
All software (incl. operating system software) is particular, which means that we’d have to be ready to jump ship at any given moment…if the providers go on hyperventilating new banana products.
It is not a story of 32 or 64bits, but rather of stability of this system which is in a stabilized version of High Sierra , which was itself a finalized version of Sierra . Apple does not take the time to finalize its systems, it is the user who makes beta tester. Also that in one is good it marks its time .
We have to be dependent on an OS or software, because mastering them requires an investment of time. We can’t stop changing platform and software, or we just have to do that.
Serif and Topaz manage to make their application compatible with 8 generation of OS (and they succeeded) why DxO cannot do that. For me, it is a resonable period of support, which any serious and subservient company of its customers should impose.
macOS Catalina was a bit of a dumpster fire in terms of stability, but I still managed to get by on it for a year and am now on Big Sur which is far more stable. Mojave was probably the most stable of all in recent years. It’s a tradeoff — you have to deal with software incompatibilities and I have to deal with OS issues. There’s no silver bullet here.
As for support of old OSes by vendors, I think you will find the distance back that is supported is directly proportional to the staff size of the vendor. That is a guess, but based on observation of smaller companies whose software I use. Usually they bring the minimum requirement forward when they introduce a new feature and cannot make it work on an earlier OS, or it is far too much work.
Also, not only can you lose out on new software versions by staying on an old OS, you can equally lose out on old “stable” software by going to a new OS. Like I said… tradeoffs.
If you want stable, stick to PL3 on High Sierra. As long as your OS doesn’t get hacked, you’ll have zero problems.
I don’t think there is a difference in size and number of developers between Topaz, Serif, or DxO, or at the margin. It is rather a will and a choice of commercial policy of the company. This has a cost for sure, but there is a return on investment, since many users are concerned (for example many are those who used the CS6 suite without a subscription, who have migrated to the Affinity suite).
After seeing if DxO takes this path, it would be desirable, and justify it, I think. You just have to look at the number of people who have left Adobe because of its trade policy. Companies like Serif saw the opportunity. Modeled on its commercial policy on large companies (Apple, Adobe, …), is in any case not viable for small structures, they must differentiate themselves otherwise, it is a way of differentiating and being appreciated by these customers and retain them !
For my part I am under Mojave 10.14 (does not count passed to Catalina which as you say and a problematic OS) with DxO PhotoLab 4 and everything works perfectly. Many like me will wait a while before making the transition to Big Sur or + and Apple’s new ARM architecture. Also, if DxO does not take this into consideration in future updates, the company will lose the support of many who will no longer update and stay under the latest version of PhotoLab compatible, or maybe they will take off to others.
What may well be an important factor is the realization by governments that there is a need to force electronics firms to cut down on the waste created by the current policies of many firms. This will spread to computing products as they use enormous amounts of resources in manufacturing and create a lot of hazardous waste when dumped. The result will be an “aging” computer population which if software firms ignore they are likely to suffer as a result as in doing so they will be supporting the wasteful policies of the producing firms and will be faced with an ever growing number of potential buyers unable to use their products. There will be a need to program to achieve results, no matter what the product, using processing resources as effectively as possible rather than expecting users of the programs to increase their processing power to use their products.
macOS Big Sur is compatible with most 2013 model Macs and later. macOS Catalina is still supported by Apple and supports 2012 models and later. The waste is created by people wanting new shiny.
This is not only about software. I’ve even had to ‘downgrade’ my new Mac mini 2020 from Catalina to Mojave or I’d have lost the use of most of my audio hardware, some of which can’t be easily replaced. Quite frankly, I’m fed up with this rat race, advance warning or not.
One factor in any buying decisions should be vendor support. Check for a track record of keeping software updated. Printer and scanner makers are notorious for not bothering to provide updated drivers, but some are much better than others.
Please, DXO, don’t abandon us that have been supporting you for so long, just because we all can’t afford new computers! I CAN get along with the old programs, but would seriously miss any new improvements that you will make to your amazing software, even if it would save me some money!
I also made this request over a year ago at Topaz Labs. I spoke with a Technical Support Engineer. And he confirmed to me to take this into consideration, and that I would soon have a good surprise for the old machines and OS, and indeed their update improves the speed of execution on the “old configuration”, to note that they haven’t optimized their software for the M1 Macs yet. No need yet since Rosetta 2 does the job.
So this commercial policy is possible and is even a growth factor for software development companies. You just have to follow the right path and not neglect your loyal customers.
Now it’s up to you to see … But know that this is a fundamental movement and that many will not follow, either for ecological or economic questions … the votes for this post confirm it …
I agree! I have also contacted Topaz and hopefully DXO will follow suit; a LOT of us older folk cannot afford to upgrade to a new machine every couple of years, and I’ve been using all of DXO’s products since before it became PL, and would hate to be “locked out” of the new innovations. DXO is wonderful software, and hopefully they wont want to abandon their “old (in both senses of the word!)” customers, who have been supporting them over all the years!
There seems to be a sadistic element to your joy in punishing users who don’t buy the latest and update to the latest (not upgrade, but update, I haven’t seen a genuine upgrade for a long time). Many of us here believe in stepping with a lighter footprint ecologically and are indeed running computers which cannot go past 1. High Sierre and/or 2. Mojave. There’s been no significant improvement to OS X since about El Capitan 10.11. I’ve updated for two reasons: recent graphic card support like the Radeon VII (which I have running with full hardware acceleration, despite Apple deliberately crippling the Radeon VII with the default kext) and for Photolab.
As Photolab is cross-platform, most of the underlying frameworks Photolab uses are not OS version or Xcode dependent. DxO choosing not to continue to support older versions of OS X is mainly a result of the developers refusing to run an older version of OS X and Xcode for testing (Apple deliberately makes this difficult).
Inconveniencing the users to please young developers is a very poor commercial strategy. Someone at DxO seems to be persuaded that Photolab is a tool for the young and hip. From what I can see the hardcore photographer community skews to middle-age and older, and the Photolab core users even more than typical. These exact people are those who buy €300 RAW development suites. Alienating DxO core users and evangelists/advocates would be unwise. Making it impossible to upgrade without buying all new computers would qualify.
The first bit of software from DxO which I have not bought it the update to the Nik Collection, largely because Nik 4 is less compatible (dropping C1 support, just for the fun of it) and generally more fragile. This is a bad precedent. I sincerely hope that Photolab 5 will offer Mojave support as otherwise Photolab 4 will be the last DxO product I will purchase in a long time.
Dismissive latest-greatest bandwagon Apple clackers will not make up for the lost sales by abandoning active versions of OS X. DxO is forewarned, as you might say.
, which was itself a finalized version of Sierra 
. Apple does not take the time to finalize its systems, it is the user who makes beta tester. Also that in one is good it marks its time 
.