Esko Products and Apple Catalina Support

[PDL]

Please check here before you do what all of us would want to do.
https://www.esko.com/en/company/news/2019/macos-catalina-support

 

[OffsetStorefront]

So, future versions of MacOS release in betas, partly, so developers can prepare updates to their software ahead of time so that it continues to remain functional when the public release date comes. Is Esko's development cycle just too slow to complete that work by the time the beta is over?

 

[StillWaiting]

Wow. November of 2019. That will definitely be a record for Esko. They are usually about 9 months behind.

 

[PDL]

So, future versions of MacOS release in betas, partly, so developers can prepare updates to their software ahead of time so that it continues to remain functional when the public release date comes. Is Esko's development cycle just too slow to complete that work by the time the beta is over?

I refer you to abc's from Enfocus reply to the release of PitStop and Catalina support on another thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" You see Apple have a habit of making last minute changes, even after they have issued their so called 'Golden Master!'.
So you know what they say, once bitten, twice shy.

So with PitStop we have a rule that we only test on the 'official' release, that means the one our customers get to install.
Takes a little bit longer as we have to wait before we start testing, and we do quite a bit of testing. But we can then sleep soundly at night.

It's not far off, should be out before the end of the month. Beta version has been out on test for a while now.

I know it's a bit frustrating having to wait, but it's better than the alternative...."

https://printplanet.com/forum/prepr...y-word-on-that-pitstop-pro-catalina-installer

 

[abc]

I received quite a few emails and customers in response to that post. Most of them were incredulous that anybody would be in a hurry to upgrade a production machine to a new OS, especially one with as many changes as Catalina.
I can understand that it's frustrating if you have bought a new Macintosh, and it comes with Catalina pre-installed, but honestly is there any real driver to upgrade to it?

 

[prepressdork]

For many people I would guess security but in a business setting, I would think the computers would be protected behind some sort of industrial firewall.

pd

 

[Puch]

Another driver to unneeded updates is Adobe. I remember we were forced to update past El Capitan to use InDesign 14 or higher. Some companies getting fed up with all that, though. Eg. babelColor's developer states that their next releases will not be compatible with future versions of MacOS, if Apple drops support of OpenGL in favor their Metal renderer.

http://www.babelcolor.com/os_x_compatibility.htm

 

[Dov Isaacs]

Another driver to unneeded updates is Adobe. I remember we were forced to update past El Capitan to use InDesign 14 or higher. Some companies getting fed up with all that, though. Eg. babelColor's developer states that their next releases will not be compatible with future versions of MacOS, if Apple drops support of OpenGL in favor their Metal renderer.

http://www.babelcolor.com/os_x_compatibility.htm

Since you brought up Adobe …

I'll repeat what I've said numerous times in many threads on this and other forums. There is vey little that either Adobe or any other vendor can do with regards to this update / upgrade issue.

If you buy a new computer, especially a Mac, you are pretty much forced to use the latest (I won't say the ‘G’ word) version of the operating system to get the hardware support required.

And in terms of operating systems, Apple (and now, increasingly Microsoft) have little if any regard for compatibility of existing application versions with the newest operating system versions and the development tools and software libraries provided for same. It isn't a matter of just new features being added, but rather of existing features being changed or “deprecated.” Thus, you will find that very often existing application versions do not work with new OS versions and that new application versions cannot be (fully) compatible with older OS versions. The more sophisticated and complex the application is, the more of a problem this becomes. Thus, when Adobe (or any other software developer) issues a new version of an application, there is a practical limit as to how many OS versions back such new application version can or will support. There is absolutely nothing we can do about this.

Whether you or I like this, you have a choice:

• You can stay with existing hardware and not update the OS version in which case you can continue to use the existing application software version.
• You can update either your hardware or your OS version in which case you may have compatibility issues with the existing application software versions.

In any case, it is exceptionally imprudent to update to a latest OS version on production systems without testing application compatibility and if necessary licensing updated application version that works with the particular OS version

- Dov

 

[OffsetStorefront]

I received quite a few emails and customers in response to that post. Most of them were incredulous that anybody would be in a hurry to upgrade a production machine to a new OS, especially one with as many changes as Catalina.
I can understand that it's frustrating if you have bought a new Macintosh, and it comes with Catalina pre-installed, but honestly is there any real driver to upgrade to it?

My main role in our shop is IT so when I see an update, I'm thinking about the defect repair and security enhancements that come with it rather than any of the new features it might bring. Most people in this industry chant "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" but what most people don't realize about software and operating systems is that there are likely serious things that are currently broken, but the good guys haven't noticed yet.

And when I say "serious" things, I mean security issues. When MacOS High Sierra was released late 2017, someone noticed that anybody could log in as the "root" account (which has the power to do anything unchecked) if they just left the password field blank. So basically it was wide open for anybody to use. An update a week or two later fixed that. The "NotPetya" worm that same year that cost shipping giant Merck $650 million in damages didn't work on Windows 10 machines with "Credential Guard" turned on, which had been available for 2 years at the time. Many more less-known issues that also have security implications are fixed, introduced, and secretly persist update-to-update. Waiting to update leaves you vulnerable to those security issues which are only going to become more well known over time to the guys writing the ransomeware scripts.

With that reality staring me in the face, the best thing I can do for my company security-wise is run every update available as soon as possible. I am indeed forced to slow down that cadence when vital 3rd-party software lacks compatibility with publicly-released versions and the only thing I can do about that is pressure the vendors to update and support the newest versions.

It's also a little worrying to me that the only thing keeping a prepress employee from dutifully accepting an automatically-prompted OS upgrade on launch day, thus removing that machine's ability to use said vital 3rd-party software and requiring a time-intensive rollback...is noticing a vendor email that says "Wait!". Your insight into why PitStop testing isn't done until the public release is made (because Apple has in the past made last-minute changes no one had time to test) is understandable to a degree, but with that philosophy PitStop will always be incompatible with a new release instead of sometimes incompatible, the (hopefully few?) times Apple behaves badly with last-minute changes. But I'm also not privy to the ways PitStop can fail when parts aren't working right (hidden software errors that make it to print can be catastrophic too) so I can't say for sure that "my way" is the right way. Just thankful for the openness in reasoning why and glad the wait isn't too long in the grand scheme of things =)

 

[Puch]

It's also a little worrying to me that the only thing keeping a prepress employee from dutifully accepting an automatically-prompted OS upgrade on launch day, thus removing that machine's ability to use said vital 3rd-party software and requiring a time-intensive rollback...is noticing a vendor email that says "Wait!".

Well, I respect Enfocus to dutifully testing their systems against the new versions of every OS. Because that communicates (at least for me) that we're in the same boat. We both would like to produce something which can be sold for profit.

On the other hand, let's think about what drives Apple to release a new OS each and every year. It's not about emerging security threats, it's not about new functionality. It's about pushing the desktop OS closer and closer to the phone OS, eventually merging them together, saving a lot of internal resources (money).

If you're a Mac user, and really worry about the mentioned threats, why not use some serious firewall (UTM) solution, which will handle those threats accordingly? That's a no-brainer even for a 5 person shop.

 

[zevrix]

With that reality staring me in the face, the best thing I can do for my company security-wise is run every update available as soon as possible.

This sure is a sound policy for minor "dot" updates within the same macOS version (10.14.2, 10.14.3 etc.) When it comes to major upgrades such as Mojave > Catalina, you only risk to run into various problems if you're in hurry to upgrade.

 

[zevrix]

a little worrying to me that the only thing keeping a prepress employee from dutifully accepting an automatically-prompted OS upgrade on launch day, thus removing that machine's ability to use said vital 3rd-party software and requiring a time-intensive rollback...is noticing a vendor email that says "Wait!".

Frankly, I don't think that prepress employees should perform any kind of major upgrades just because they saw a notification. It should be either done by IT - or by approval of IT people. As to vital 3rd-party software, I believe that its compatibility with major system (or Adobe) upgrades must be explicitly verified first - not automatically assumed.

 

[OffsetStorefront]

Well, I respect Enfocus to dutifully testing their systems against the new versions of every OS. Because that communicates (at least for me) that we're in the same boat. We both would like to produce something which can be sold for profit.

On the other hand, let's think about what drives Apple to release a new OS each and every year. It's not about emerging security threats, it's not about new functionality. It's about pushing the desktop OS closer and closer to the phone OS, eventually merging them together, saving a lot of internal resources (money).

If you're a Mac user, and really worry about the mentioned threats, why not use some serious firewall (UTM) solution, which will handle those threats accordingly? That's a no-brainer even for a 5 person shop.

Yeah, Apple probably has that as a goal in mind, sure. But sometimes under-the-hood changes to improve performance and security are so drastic that a new major OS version is warranted. For example, High Sierra also brought a completely new file system - Apple used to use one called HFS+ which lacked now-basic modern features (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFS_Plus#Criticisms) but with High Sierra, converted the entire file system to a new proprietary one (classic Apple move) called APFS which addressed many of those problems.

And on the firewall suggestion - there are lots of ways a ransomware virus can get into your network despite a firewall, especially in our industry where we're taking in foreign art files left and right from every which source. While a vital layer of defence, once one gets in, a virus' ability to laterally move (jump from computer to computer) can be made or broken by the individual state each computer is in.

This sure is a sound policy for minor "dot" updates within the same macOS version (10.14.2, 10.14.3 etc.) When it comes to major upgrades such as Mojave > Catalina, you only risk to run into various problems if you're in hurry to upgrade.

Frankly, I don't think that prepress employees should perform any kind of major upgrades just because they saw a notification. It should be either done by IT - or by approval of IT people. As to vital 3rd-party software, I believe that its compatibility with major system (or Adobe) upgrades must be explicitly verified first - not automatically assumed.

I absolutely agree with you, but I'd think realistically speaking most shops probably don't have their Macs set up in a way that would allow IT to prevent a user-initiated OS upgrade. I know our shop doesn't.

 

[schenkadere]

I'm sticking with Mojave for a while. We still have two 32 bit programs we use regularly.

 

[schenkadere]

I'm surprised this topic hasn't had more response.

I'm upgrading to Deskpack 18.1 at the moment. Seems like they actually added a new type of semi interactive trapping.

 

[Bears Fan]

Kodak Prinergy and Pandora fully support Mac OS 11 and 10.15. No other workflow platform can render packaging files faster then Prinergy.