Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of this?

If you’re cool using 6+ year old, blurry non-retina software...why do you need to upgrade to Catalina? Just stay on Mojave and you’ll be fine.

Did you really plan on using that 2012 edition of Photoshop until 2035?

There's nothing absurd about it. CS6 has retina support, and I use it too.

It has all the features I need - nothing added in the last 6 years has been worth switching to the subscription model.

What in Catalina is worth upgrading to? I don’t see much.

The SwiftUI development tools (live preview) are only available in Catalina, and iTunes has had a minor rewrite I believe. Otherwise, I think it’s the same.

The 15+ security issues come to mind...

Apple supports the previous version of OSX with security updates for some time.

If the Catalina fixes have already been back-ported to Mojave, please link to the Apple security announcement.

Where are the Mojave fixes for CVE-2019-8745 and CVE-2019-8769 for example? If they're not available, my point stands.

This idea that "6+" years old is particularly old really irks me, because it's not. Most other things in my life that I rely on last longer than that. I also occasionally need to run software that's older than that.

6 years isn't nearly long enough to even consider dropping support on the OS level. Try twice that.

Apple is not looking at 6 year old applications and saying “It’s been long enough, time to drop support for this app”. They are looking at the 30+ year old architecture that is 32-bit x86.

Look, everyone knows how Apple rolls when it comes to operating systems--they kill old APIs, frameworks, and even entire classes of apps on a pretty regular basis.

No mainstream operating system that ran on 68000 processors in the 80's, PowerPC in the 90's and Intel since 2006 is even around today.

Y’all must have forgot how NeXTStep, which later became Mac OS X and now macOS ran on 68000, Sparc and MIPS back in the day.

The same way Apple was running Mac OS X on Intel hardware long before the first Intel Macs were released, there's got to be Arm-based MacBooks or Mac minis running macOS right now.

So it makes sense for Apple to get rid of as much technical debt as they can before making that jump.

And because of Catalyst, which enables iPad apps to be ported to macOS, there will be more apps for the Mac.

Some of the Catalyst apps have some rough edges and not all of the frameworks are available yet, but things look promising: https://9to5mac.com/2019/10/07/macos-catalina-catalyst-apps/.

Finally, Apple has been telling developers since Snow Leopard was released in 2009 about transitioning to 64-bit.

> Look, everyone knows how Apple rolls when it comes to operating systems--they kill old APIs, frameworks, and even entire classes of apps on a pretty regular basis.

Every platform has to balance the developer experience with the user experience. Microsoft, with their incredible backwards compatibility support, has one approach, whereas Apple has a very different one.

There is no right or wrong way.

Who cares? At the end of the day, what matters is people’s stuff that they paid for is broken.

That’s a rather simplistic view of things. The long and the short of it is this; it’s not Apple’s responsibility to to ensure Adobe’s software runs on their platform, it’s Adobe’s and Adobe no longer support CS6.

What is a computer if not a place for software to run on? Is it not part of the producer's responsibility to make sure software runs fine on their platform? The bond goes both ways.

Simply put, no! Certainly not if the developer of the non-functioning software no-longer supports it.

It’s more the 20-year old Carbon API set (parts of which are 30+ years old like QuickDraw) than x86 itself. Apple doesn’t get to drop x86 support from Intel’s silicon (like they did with 32-bit ARM on iOS).

If it continues to work, why not? I have Windows audio apps from the 90s and they still run fine.

How would I stay on Mojave when my laptop breaks? Do you expect people to keep buying old hardware forever?

Why not? What's the alternative, that Apple has to support all of your old software forever in the free software updates that they provide?

Yep, Apple should spend some of that massive pile of cash they have. It's the least they can do.

Run your old apps in a VM.

That can result in anything between "works with some inconvenience" and "does not work at all".

adobe has essentially added nothing in cc that makes it worthwhile to switch over from cs6, and certainly not for rental software. if anything performance has gotten considerably worse with the addition of creative cloud bloatware

I know many, many working artists and illustrators that plan to do exactly that. Artists generally revile Adobe for their move to subscription pricing.

Apple did not break your working software. It still runs on older versions of the OS.

Let's face it you are cheap, you weren't willing to keep up with the Adobe products you purchased and now you want to blame someone, instead of blaming yourself, you've decided it's someone else's fault.

I have pre-CC version of the Adobe products, and I run the an older version of OSX on my Mac Pro. I'm not willing to pay the price for Adobe, but I'm also willing to take responsibility for my cheapness.

> Let's face it you are cheap,

Or, hear me out here, some people can’t afford to buy new Adobe software because it’s ridiculously expensive. They’re not wealthy enough to call themselves cheap.

Again, being angry at an OS vendor because Adobe overprices their software doesn't make sense.

When an OS vendor breaks something that works perfect for me before, I think I have a right to be at least 70% angry at them.

I can still run programs from the XP era on my Windows PC.

You can just stay on Mojave. You don't have to update.

Or you can treat both as part of the same engine of unrestrained, destructive capitalism that destroys people's livelihoods when they no longer align with business interests.

Apple can spend some of that massive cash reserve it has actually acting like a grown-up platform holder with responsibilities to its users.

Calling someone cheap is not helpful in discussions like this, and really undermine your arguments.