Ridiculous that Canon still has not released OSX Sierra compatible EOS software
- Thread starter MiamiC70
- Start date
The problem is Apple's Sierra, not Canon's and also occurs with Leica M especially when you wish use RAW images in "Photos". You then have 2 possibilities : either use JPEG in the camera, or if you are still using RAW, try the "modify" icon (right upper corner on your Mac screen), and the image will change from large pixels to the normal image.
Upvote
0
This is why I don't use a mac. Usually the last ones to get updated or poor functional support for new releases.
Upvote
0
Apple's macOS Sierra 10.12.1 update lists the following:
"Addresses a “Filter Failed” error when printing to some Canon printers."
I've been able to print camera raw images correctly from the Photos app since the update. I hope this info helps.
"Addresses a “Filter Failed” error when printing to some Canon printers."
I've been able to print camera raw images correctly from the Photos app since the update. I hope this info helps.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
So Apple makes software which is specifically intended as an operating system, ie software intended to be used as a base system on which other software will run, but Apple thinks it's fine to update its operating system in a way which breaks the software which other people have written to run on its operating system ...? If what you say is true, ie backwards compatibility isn't something which concerns Apple, I don't know why users or developers should bother with Apple's products.
Upvote
0
jd7 said:
Yeah, Apple just releases new OS versions by surprise, never telling anyone in advance or making early versions available to developers. That's why all the good software is only for Windows, because Microsoft never does that.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled reality.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Not sure if there has been some miscommunication here, but my view is an OS maker should be a lot more concerned about backwards compatibility than simply throwing developers pre-release/early versions and saying here you go, now go away and re-write your code to make it work ... until we decide to change our OS again next time. I would call that a very arrogant attitude for an OS maker to take.
To try to be clear:
I do not know what Apple's attitude is - I was simply responding to a comment which suggested Apple is largely happy to ignore issues of backwards compatibility and leave it to developers to do whatever is required to update their code - or leaving users without the ability to use software if it doesn't get updated in time for some reason. If that's their attitude, it would make me want to avoid their products.
Of course from time to time there are going to be essentially unavoidable problems. You're dealing with complex code, and no doubt there are times when there is a strong need to change code in an OS (security, changing hardware, to enable genuinely important new functionality, whatever) notwithstanding it causes compatibility problems. However, to me there is a world of difference between occasional problems which at a practical level really cannot be avoided, and an OS maker taking the view that backwards compatibility isn't something it's going to worry about too much.
I did not and do not suggest Microsoft/Windows isn't open to criticism. I do use Windows, but there are plenty of things I'd change about it if I could. In fact, Windows 10's insistence that it is going to restart my computer at some time it chooses so it can finish installing updates has been enough to make me seriously consider the jump to Mac. I work odd and unpredictable hours (often enough I'm on call 24 hours per day), and if I urgently need my computer at some particular time, I cannot afford to find it's busy restarting to install some update (as much as I understand the importance of keeping the system up to date from a security point of view), or even that it has restarted and closed various pieces of software I had open and ready to go. I think I've worked out how to stop Windows from doing that now, so for the moment I'll persist. Anyway, returning to the topic, whatever criticisms might be made of Microsoft/Windows, I would say that as a user (I'm certainly not a developer) I have never gotten the impression Microsoft didn't take backwards compatibility pretty seriously (but yes, of course, I have come across compatibility problems at times, particularly with very old software).
Upvote
0
jd7 said:
Also to be clear, I don't speak for Apple, rather this is based on observation.
Progress dictates that old software will not always be supported. This is true with Windows as well as MacOS. Microsoft's model has always been wide compatibility - they support practically limitless hardware configurations, and extend backwards compatibility through several numbered releases. Apple supports a highly limited set of hardware configurations, and prioritizes its current version.
Any time users update software, especially operating systems, they risk breaking things. If you have specific software which you absolutely require, early adoption isn't wise. Personally, I am running Sierra with no problems, but for my serious computing needs I use a 7 year old OS (Windows 7). Also, FWIW, there is software I own which happily runs on Windows 7 and does not run on Windows 8 (or 10, likely); backwards compatibility is not guaranteed.
Upvote
0
The issue that software providers have with operating systems is that the final software often is substantially different than the early beta software, so why bother when it will break as soon as the final version is out. This applies to Mac and Windows, and apps for various mobile devices.
Its wasting money to spend resources trying to hit a moving target.
Its wasting money to spend resources trying to hit a moving target.
Upvote
0
Hi JD.
Not to mention the last time windows shut down on me it was the "anniversary" update, it was down in excess of 20 mins with that bloody annoying hamster wheel thing going round and saying 20% complete for ages before jumping to done? With me waiting to send an important email!
I did find that knocking the clock back an hour works to delay the install.
Cheers, Graham.
Not to mention the last time windows shut down on me it was the "anniversary" update, it was down in excess of 20 mins with that bloody annoying hamster wheel thing going round and saying 20% complete for ages before jumping to done? With me waiting to send an important email!
I did find that knocking the clock back an hour works to delay the install.
Cheers, Graham.
jd7 said:
Upvote
0
Apple is certainly concerned with backward compatibility, at least in some cases. For example, consider that when they switched to Intel processors with OS 10.4, they released the PowerPC emulator, Rosetta, and supported it through 10.6.
But they're also progressive, sometimes ruthlessly so. Abandoning floppy drives, for example. And more recently, Aperture.
But they're also progressive, sometimes ruthlessly so. Abandoning floppy drives, for example. And more recently, Aperture.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I remember reading the book "Joel on Software" (mostly a collection of his blog) back in 2005 and recall an interesting piece on how Microsoft went out of their way, even modifying windows behavior for other's program bugs to maintain backwards compatibility. The Simcity story is just one pretty amazing example.
[quote author=Joel Spolsky]
The most impressive things to read on Raymond's weblog are the stories of the incredible efforts the Windows team has made over the years to support backwards compatibility:
[quote author=Raymond Chen]
Look at the scenario from the customer's standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn't work at all. You're going to tell your friends, "Don't upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it's not compatible with program Z." Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn't work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You're going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)
[/quote]
I first heard about this from one of the developers of the hit game SimCity, who told me that there was a critical bug in his application: it used memory right after freeing it, a major no-no that happened to work OK on DOS but would not work under Windows where memory that is freed is likely to be snatched up by another running application right away. The testers on the Windows team were going through various popular applications, testing them to make sure they worked OK, but SimCity kept crashing. They reported this to the Windows developers, who disassembled SimCity, stepped through it in a debugger, found the bug, and added special code that checked if SimCity was running, and if it did, ran the memory allocator in a special mode in which you could still use memory after freeing it.
This was not an unusual case. The Windows testing team is huge and one of their most important responsibilities is guaranteeing that everyone can safely upgrade their operating system, no matter what applications they have installed, and those applications will continue to run, even if those applications do bad things or use undocumented functions or rely on buggy behavior that happens to be buggy in Windows n but is no longer buggy in Windows n+1. In fact if you poke around in the AppCompatibility section of your registry you'll see a whole list of applications that Windows treats specially, emulating various old bugs and quirky behaviors so they'll continue to work. Raymond Chen writes, "I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95."
[/quote]
Upvote
0
Valvebounce said:
That update was frustrating. We have 7 pc's running windows 10, and each time they received that update, it was misery. Our two main computers hung, my wife's would not startup at all. I switched to a backup hard drive thinking I would go in and fix it, but it suddenly restarted and has been fine since.
I did not like it changing all my settings either, I've spent hours restoring settings. I still have one pc to go.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
I think everyone except Microsoft believes forcing updates is a total fail. With some effort you can take control, however: the key is to open the management tool and stop the WindowsUpdate service, then set it to manual. The burden is then on you to choose a time shortly after each patch-Tuesday to re-enable the service and run updates.
http://www.thewindowsclub.com/turn-off-windows-update-in-windows-10
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I have Windows 10 64 bits installed at home, and still use an 18 years old PSP 5 beta for quick & dirty jobs. That's from the days Apple switched Mac hardware the first time.
Apple just doesn't have the backward compatibility track record that MS has.
Upvote
0
Does anyone have an idea of when we can expect EOS Utility to be fully compatible with Mac OSX Sierra?
Even a rough estimate would be appreciated.
Even a rough estimate would be appreciated.
Upvote
0
aa_angus said:
I suspect that Apple will be releasing a fix along with Canon. Making the software work with different OS from Apple means any updates might break on the older versions. It gets complicated.
Ask Canon for a estimate.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
