MacBook Pro 16" and Mojave

Buying a totally new model computer is always something of a gamble. This I know from my own experience as well as being on the ASC site daily. And buying a new model computer very shortly after a new operating system ships is at least three times the gamble. And it has always been thus. A new model often uses brand new hardware that requires drivers not found in the previous operating system. Apple long ago made the decision not to go backwards.

Lots of people have asked the same question you are asking. If someone had found a way to do it you've be able to find it posted online. It ain't there. You can't do it.

macbookpro16 wrote:

Anyway I also don't understand why, since they must have been testing this machine with Mojave and not only Catalina. And unlike all the other fun games they play with costumers having to buy multiple dongles to make standard connections work - which makes sense financially for Apple - I don't see how making it impossible to downgrade until Catalina is more than just a Beta version - lets be honest. And also literally all of the major players in the music industry tell you not to get Catalina because it is not compatible with any of the software and plugins used in music.

It really makes my mind wonder as to how they can call this a pro computer for making music when they don't make sure to align with all of the pro users that will need pro software from, universal audio, reason etc etc.

There were multiple developers' releases of Catalina.

But in the end, this is what Apple does. I've never heard of any case where an earlier public version of OSX/MacOS was supported for a machine that came out after the next major OS revision. I'm sure there are hardware drivers needed for this machine that simply aren't included in any public version of Mojave. Whether or not there may have been testing on a developers' version of Mojave doesn't really change how they would handle the public release.

It is interesting how Apple (and probably the other computer manufacturers) have turned buying a new computer from a joyous exciting event to a terrifying, gut wrenching process. I feel this guys pain. I have several macs that all run a certain piece of software (design shop) that my brand new computer can not run.

My new computer that I just spend several grand on can not be used for 90% of the work that I bought it for. Hey, but the new finder windows look great! Makes it all worth it. Great job Apple! Very user centric.

Jessek wrote:

It is interesting how Apple (and probably the other computer manufacturers) have turned buying a new computer from a joyous exciting event to a terrifying, gut wrenching process. I feel this guys pain. I have several macs that all run a certain piece of software (design shop) that my brand new computer can not run.

My new computer that I just spend several grand on can not be used for 90% of the work that I bought it for. Hey, but the new finder windows look great! Makes it all worth it. Great job Apple! Very user centric.

Apple hasn't done anything that they haven't done since OS X came out, and probably before that. If you really have any complaint, it should be aimed at the developers of the software for not making the version you need.

Yea that is my point. Every new computer I get I cringe as I find out what app or function is no longer supported because Apple deemed it not worthy. Not new but definitely a pattern. This time it was access to any 32 bit application.

They can blame it on the developers, but ultimately it is the user that looses.

For me, it wasn't some small time developer. Adobe, because they have no credible competitor, decided to release a new version of the CC software that is not supported on older macs. Their new CC software will not save back to a format that the old software can read and vice versa. So I am stuck with a MacBook Pro that I will not be able to use for 90% of my work unless I upgrade the rest of my computers (20K).

Yea Adobe shares the responsibility but who looses? Adobe certainly doesn't. Apple certainly doesn't. In fact, in the long run they will win as I will end up forking over thousands of dollars to replace a perfectly operational machine.

Not good for me and not good for the environment.

Jessek wrote:

Yea that is my point. Every new computer I get I cringe as I find out what app or function is no longer supported because Apple deemed it not worthy. Not new but definitely a pattern. This time it was access to any 32 bit application.

They can blame it on the developers, but ultimately it is the user that looses.

For me, it wasn't some small time developer. Adobe, because they have no credible competitor, decided to release a new version of the CC software that is not supported on older macs. Their new CC software will not save back to a format that the old software can read and vice versa. So I am stuck with a MacBook Pro that I will not be able to use for 90% of my work unless I upgrade the rest of my computers (20K).

Yea Adobe shares the responsibility but who looses? Adobe certainly doesn't. Apple certainly doesn't. In fact, in the long run they will win as I will end up forking over thousands of dollars to replace a perfectly operational machine.

Not good for me and not good for the environment.

There are a lot of used Apple computers in good working order. If compatibility with older processes is what one needs, there's plenty of used equipment that can do that. I bought my mid-2012 MBP back in 2015 (brand new) and it's been working well for 4-1/2 years. If I wanted to keep 32-bit compatibility, I could have opted to do that.

As someone who has worked in the electronics industry, the phrase that drives most developers crazy is "backwards compatibility". There certainly was no backwards compatibility when Apple switched from PowerPC to X86. 32-bit compatibility was just one more thing that needed to be debugged over and over again.