I sincerely appreciate that you explain the issue in depth. Thanks a lot!
That raises two questions for me:
(1) How about users who select the options to automatically export and import sidecars ? Would this not work much better since sidecars are stored next to pictures ? (I would imagine the partition number does not play any role here) Am I naive if I say that could be a work around to use PL2 with Catalina (more) safely ?
(2) More generally (and outside of the Catalina upgrade context), I am a bit concerned that this dependency on partition numbers could do bad tricks to users who are using external hard drives ? (there is no guarantee that the mounting point will always be the same, so it seems a risk to me).
Using both the database and the sidecar files helps prevent issues as long as only one of the two gets disturbed. If you only use one version of DPL, sidecars will help. I often have several versions of DPL in parallel as well as older OpticsPro versions. In this case, I have to watch compatibility of sidecars. Sidecars from older versions can be read by never versions but the other way around is not always possible. New features can write things into a sidecar that an older version cannot understand.
When a volume is created, it gets a unique id that will never change. It stays the same no matter if you rename the volume or eject and remount the drive or volume respectively.
I think he/she isn’t really blaming you for the issue, but the lack of proper communication. This should have been done via email as well. Not everyone is checking the forum
So, in case I do a clean installation of Catalina (wiping Mojave), I shouldn’t face this?
A clean install will obviously start fresh, but then it depends what you do with your data. If you transfer the data from your old install to the new one, and you reuse the PhotoLab database, you will get into the same trouble as if you upgraded. But starting fresh on PhotoLab will clean out the issue, yes.
(1) How about users who select the options to automatically export and import sidecars ? Would this not work much better since sidecars are stored next to pictures ?
This will mitigate the issue, as you will still see your corrections. However, the database will still be in a bad state, and will have to be reconciled at some point (that’s the part we’re still working on). You will still see duplicates of images if you do a Search in PhotoLab, and you will have to fix projects as they are only in the database, and not sidecars.
(2) More generally (and outside of the Catalina upgrade context), I am a bit concerned that this dependency on partition numbers could do bad tricks to users who are using external hard drives ?
There’s no need to be worried about this. We have been using this for years in OpticsPro/PhotoLab, and in all cases, it just works (well, except when Apple does weird stuff with your partition, of course ). In case of external hard drives, they also have a unique identifier, and it changes only when reformatting the drive, so this will work whatever the mount point or mounting order.
Which version of PL 2 was released on Oct 16th? 126.96.36.199?
Yes. DPL 188.8.131.52. I got it on the 14th of October though. See here: DxO PhotoLab 2.3.2 build 44 (Mac)
Thanks! So 184.108.40.206 is working “flawlessly” with Catalina?
To be more precise: I got 220.127.116.11, but have not tested it on Catalina - the post where I mention 18.104.22.168 refers to mojave.
I am using 22.214.171.124 with Catalina without any issues.
Well I am using 126.96.36.199 with Catalina and I have issues. The main one as already stated before is the inability to change the % zoom at the top of the page. A fundamental requirement… Strange yours works and other don’t!
Thank you, actually I had not tried that function before, you are correct, mine does not work either, any other non working functions that you know of? I have just purchased the software and perhaps there are other things that I am not aware of, I guess that I have just been enamored with smart lighting and ClearView.
I know exactly what you mean. I am a newbie having purchased the DXO and NIK software about 4 weeks ago now. I simply haven’t had the time to check it over fully but was seriously impressed enough to purchase the software with the intent of moving away from Adobe. My annoyance has been with the change over to Catalina and whilst I do accept (blood pressure is now normal ) that much of this can be laid at the feet of Apple I just feel DXO could and should have done more to forewarn their customers that they should not move to Catalina just yet. The lack of communication is disappointing. Some idea regarding potential timescales for sorting out the mess that Apple have created would be appreciated by all I suspect.
Upgrading an operating system WITHOUT checking beforehand if every piece of software works is in general not a good idea and not smart. In addition wherever you check/read the advice is always that do not upgrade for the first 6 month or even longer so that everything gets stable.
This was one of my first lessons 20 years ago and I have never fallen into this trap again. If you want to try - no problem, but then use another partition or another computer for testing purposes.
The only real problem is of course the situation that your computer breaks down and you need to buy a new one. If that happens now you have of course Catalina preinstalled and you can not move back to Mojave.
I can fully understand every software developer that they do not adjust their software during beta of the OS. There will be way too many changes along the way. It is much more cost-effective to wait for the release of the final OS and then start working.
When I installed Catalina all the software that I used reportedly had no issues. I just purchased Nik Collection, Photolab Essential and upgraded to Elite a few days ago. Only then did I find out that it did not work with Catalina. My involvement with DXO was after my install of Catalina which had no problems with my existing software at the time.
After 2 weeks I had to realize additional problems with Catalina that:
are no longer recognized
3 D printer (USB) was no longer visible
Grapic tablet functionless
Milling cutter control defective
I’ve been using Macs for about 20 years, but I haven’t had such a bad immature upgrade yet.
So I decided to downgrade to a Mojave and then read in the existing Mojave backups again.
I had made backups to an external hard drive every month so far.
The downgrade was an absolute horror trip!!!
Reformat the hard disk, as the Catalina participation is not suitable.
Mac with internet recovery on delivery state
reset and net installed
The computer can no longer be started.
- A start with a bootable stick (Mojave) was also no longer possible
Repeat the whole process again.
all programs (approx. 50) copied back individually from the backup folder.
All registry keys re-entered
email and server newly set up etc.
I guess I need about 2 - 3 days for action.
I think I’ll stay with Mojave for the next 1-2 years
That is what I do too. On the computer which I need for work I have upgraded to High Sierra only a few months ago. Result: Everything works just fine, no problems at all, right from the beginning. Why should I be a Beta-tester for Apple if I do not have to.
Whenever Apple moves on the next OS - the one after Catalina - I will upgrade to Mojave.
Catalina is a major step forward.
Away from legacy. Towards clean 64 bit and user integrity.
Apple have warned about this for many years and it’s not a surprise for anyone that this is not an update. It’s pretty much a new world.
I’m keeping 10.13 on a couple of macs as they are production units.
10.14 runs on another and 10.15 on my personal.
Yes I had to throw a couple apps away as they haven’t been updated in many years but those were not any important ones anyway.
I updated a few others but otherwise I’m pretty safe.
If you are on a T2 chip enabled Mac, be careful about upgrading for fun as the options to downgrade is not a simple task.
Can I just ask what an OpticsPro EA member is please
EA stands for Early Access
Meaningless to me but thanks for letting me know
I was wondering if you were part of the DXO team… Not to worry…