Big Sur

[rdw1963]

Just got my PC back and they installed Big Sur today, when do you think they will have updates so I can reinstall HX edit on my PC?  Should I reinstall the previous software before big sur

[Optimist]

You’re running a MacOS on a PC? How’s that? :-)

 

Apart from that, on the same day Big Sur came out, I got an email from Line6 NOT to install it yet.

Admittedly, they should have sent this mail a few days before the Big Sur release.

I would reinstall Catalina if possible … Line6 didn’t say when they’ll be ready with Big Sur (like A LOT of other companies).

[datacommando]

39 minutes ago, Optimist said:

I got an email from Line6 NOT to install it yet.

Hi,

 

Same here, and not just Line 6, but I had the same recommendation from AKAI Pro, Native Instruments, IK Multimedia, Eventide and a few more. 
 

The internet is alive with stories about problems with Big Sur and has someone pointed out, why is it so big. It s causing installation problems with 128GB SSD, there are reports of USB issues plus a huge screw up of the Gatekeeper. 
 

Avoid it like “COVID 19” 

 

 

[silverhead]

2 hours ago, Optimist said:

… Line6 didn’t say when they’ll be ready with Big Sur (like A LOT of other companies).

 I think Line 6 and all the other companies are and were ready for Big Sur, except that it seems Big Sur is broken. It’s up to Apple to fix it and Line 6 can’t say when that will be.

[datacommando]

28 minutes ago, silverhead said:

 I think Line 6 and all the other companies are and were ready for Big Sur, except that it seems Big Sur is broken. It’s up to Apple to fix it and Line 6 can’t say when that will be.

Hi,

It appears that some users “Think Different”, as in this thread.

 

 

[silverhead]

I think the point is that it’s Apple’s problem, whether the OS itself or their servers. Neither Line 6 nor other affected manufacturers can fix it.

[datacommando]

1 hour ago, silverhead said:

I think the point is that it’s Apple’s problem, whether the OS itself or their servers. Neither Line 6 nor other affected manufacturers can fix it.

 

 

Well, I'm going to be giving it a Big "No Sir" for a long time.

[Drybonz]

Big Sur is not "broken".  I've been using it since it was made available to the public.  It does sound like some people had problems installing on older Macs from what I understand, which is definitely a problem.  That being said... this problem has absolutely nothing to do with the Line 6 software compatibility problems.  This is 100% a Line6 failure to update their software problem.  These things are entirely unrelated.

[aaronlyon]

FWIW, I installed Big Sur on Saturday, and am using Helix Native in Logic Pro with no problems. 
 

[Drybonz]

37 minutes ago, aaronlyon said:

FWIW, I installed Big Sur on Saturday, and am using Helix Native in Logic Pro with no problems. 
 

 

Any luck with Helix Edit?  It's running with a good bit of lag for me and a couple other people around here.

[datacommando]

3 minutes ago, Drybonz said:

 

Any luck with Helix Edit?  It's running with a good bit of lag for me and a couple other people around here.

 Nothing to do with this then - purely a Line 6 issue?
 

[rdw1963]

When I Dropped off my Mac mini, they said $100 to install new operating system, and $150 to install new OS and do updates, I didn't want all the updates so I chose the $100 option, when I went to pick it up they said they did all the updates to the new Big Sur, I didn't think anything about it until I tried to reinstall HX edit. should I take it back and make them put Catalina back on it since that is what I paid for or do you think they will have the update in the next few weeks?

[DunedinDragon]

22 hours ago, Drybonz said:

Big Sur is not "broken".  I've been using it since it was made available to the public.  It does sound like some people had problems installing on older Macs from what I understand, which is definitely a problem.  That being said... this problem has absolutely nothing to do with the Line 6 software compatibility problems.  This is 100% a Line6 failure to update their software problem.  These things are entirely unrelated.

The fact that YOUR mac is working fine isn't any indicator at all that the Big Sur release isn't without some significant problems.  In the world of operating systems it's up to the manufacturer to thoroughly test their OS to determine if it works with third party software or what it's limitations are as well as what the base requirements are for the Mac to be able to run it correctly and efficiently.  This is done during the different phases of bench testing, unit testing, performance testing, integration testing, capacity testing and so forth...LONG before it's released as a BETA to the public.  It's very clear from all the press and responses on the internet there are significant issues with this release.  If manufacturers are alerted about things that will no longer be supported on the OS, they can fix it.  If they don't do thorough enough testing to even determine such things that falls into Apples domain to fix.

Product testing, especially when it comes to core software such as operating systems, is not something that doesn't have multiple decades of history and procedures about how to do it right, so there's really no excuse for not doing it correctly if you care about your installed base of users.

[surfsup1955]

Big Sur is a huge update, so we all expected issues.  Regarding Helix and MacOS compatibility issues, this is the first time the OS refused to allow a forced install.  Wasn't expecting that!?   

[Drybonz]

1 hour ago, DunedinDragon said:

In the world of operating systems it's up to the manufacturer to thoroughly test their OS to determine if it works with third party software or what it's limitations are as well as what the base requirements are for the Mac to be able to run it correctly and efficiently. 

 

So, you think that Microsoft and Apple, etc... are going through all the many thousands and thousands of pieces of third party software to test them and make sure they are compatible each time they issue updates to their operating systems?  I just want to make sure I understand what you are suggesting.

[gunpointmetal]

You'd think the last 15 or so years of Apple OS's would have shown people that Apple does not really give a crap if their updates leave software or peripherals non-functional. 

[DunedinDragon]

55 minutes ago, Drybonz said:

 

So, you think that Microsoft and Apple, etc... are going through all the many thousands and thousands of pieces of third party software to test them and make sure they are compatible each time they issue updates to their operating systems?  I just want to make sure I understand what you are suggesting.

I personally know for a fact the Microsoft does, as did IBM in it's mainframe heydays as well as Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) in it's releases of new PDP-11 updates.  It's all a part of being in the operating systems business, and your business is dependent on not breaking the things that depend on your operating system.  For the most part this is done through partnership agreements and early BETA testing (long before there are "open" Beta releases).  I can't speak to how Apple does it.  But I can speak to how Microsoft does it and there are far more employees in testing and QA than there are in development on any given product (roughly about 3 to 1).  As far as IBM and DEC I was working on products that ran on those systems and was tasked specifically with BETA testing their operating system updates with our products.  Those products sometimes were off-the-shelf commercial products and some were in-house specialized company programs.

In spite of all of this, anyone can have a bad release.  But because you have a bad release doesn't relieve you from your responsibility to fix it if you're in the operating systems business.  To be honest given the general responses of people to the Mac OS releases I often wonder if Apple still sees itself as a small specialty operating system since they really don't play in the bigger business market where Fortune 500 companies are betting their business operations on an operating system.  And that causes them to be less diligent in their approach to testing.

[Drybonz]

Ok... so, neither Microsoft or Apple or any operating system developer is testing the many thousands of individual pieces of software that are out there on their OS updates.  To think that they could or would do that is absurd.  The way it works, in general, is they release betas to the developers before it hits the public, and software developers, like Line6 have an opportunity to get their software ready to be compatible with the new OS.  Some developers take advantage of this, and some, like Line6 do not.

 

There are certainly and frequently problems with all sorts of new OS versions, but that is not what we are talking about when we have a discussion about third party software compatibility.  You are not talking about the same thing.

[HonestOpinion]

20 hours ago, Drybonz said:

Ok... so, neither Microsoft or Apple or any operating system developer is testing the many thousands of individual pieces of software that are out there on their OS updates.  To think that they could or would do that is absurd.  The way it works, in general, is they release betas to the developers before it hits the public, and software developers, like Line6 have an opportunity to get their software ready to be compatible with the new OS.  Some developers take advantage of this, and some, like Line6 do not.

 

There are certainly and frequently problems with all sorts of new OS versions, but that is not what we are talking about when we have a discussion about third party software compatibility.  You are not talking about the same thing.

 

I would think OS developers do at least some cursory testing with some of the more popular or mission critical applications, hardware, or peripherals when they roll out a new OS version.  No way they can test everything though and no reason to assume HX devices were included in whatever they did test. For the most part I agree, it is upon the shoulders of application/firmware developers to as you say take advantage of early access to the new version of the OS and make the required adjustments.  As has also been pointed out this is why it is so important for application/firmware developers to avoid taking shortcuts by for example sidestepping API calls/methods that can come back to bite them in the a$$ in a subsequent OS version. Sometimes the problem is something the OS developer broke,  intentionally abandoned, or failed to include in the new version, or perhaps a change necessary to continue the evolution of the OS and everyone who plans to stay current or even operational on the new OS version is simply forced to update their application/firmware.

 

I have been caught a few times too many between various software/hardware/OS parties, all of whom adamantly insisted the other party was at fault only for one of them to hangdog back into the room after discovering they were the culprit. The upshot is I hope L6 and Apple get this sorted out quickly and soon regardless of who needs to provide the remedy. Telling people not to upgrade their OS is a less than desirable strategy.  I am sure L6 is working on it.

[DunedinDragon]

15 hours ago, Drybonz said:

Ok... so, neither Microsoft or Apple or any operating system developer is testing the many thousands of individual pieces of software that are out there on their OS updates.  To think that they could or would do that is absurd.  The way it works, in general, is they release betas to the developers before it hits the public, and software developers, like Line6 have an opportunity to get their software ready to be compatible with the new OS.  Some developers take advantage of this, and some, like Line6 do not.

 

There are certainly and frequently problems with all sorts of new OS versions, but that is not what we are talking about when we have a discussion about third party software compatibility.  You are not talking about the same thing.

 

This is incredible.  It's like talking to a wall.  The point of a beta release is NOT done to help you prepare YOUR software for the new OS.  It's about finding bugs, reporting them back to the OS development team, and stabilizing the OS.  The LAST thing you would want to do is to try and re-tool your software to work around bugs in the OS.  If, and when, the OS manufacturer states explicitly that the "bug" is not a bug but is the way it's designed to work by necessity, then and only then would a 3rd party software manufacturer take steps to fix their software, or choose to alert their customer base there are problems with the new OS and not upgrade as they did in this case.

What is stunning to me is that you insist on blaming Line 6 for not doing their job, for which you have no evidence and which is exactly the opposite of what is happening here.  They fulfilled their duty to you as their customer to alert you to the problems and try to protect you instead of placing the blame where it deserves to be placed...on the OS manufacturer that didn't adequately test their software and is causing problems with MULTIPLE 3rd party companies.  And yet in spite of all of this evidence you still choose to point your finger at all of those manufacturers than the ONE SINGLE SOURCE causing all the problems.  And you're doing it with a clear and evident lack of any knowledge about software development or computers in general.

 

So let's get down to the brass tacks here.  What is the single most compelling feature that is FORCING you to upgrade to Big Sur?  What is the feature you can't live without?  If you can't answer those questions then all of this is mute.  Apple is nowhere near big enough and prominent enough in the industry to be able to dictate the development schedules of all the companies that have built software for it's OS at the drop of a hat.  And that's why they have a long history of filing for bankruptcy multiple times.

[Drybonz]

8 hours ago, HonestOpinion said:

I would think OS developers do at least some cursory testing with some of the more popular or mission critical applications, hardware, or peripherals when they roll out a new OS version. 

 

Sure... you are right.  Probably the Adobe stuff (or something like that) and a very limited number of high profile things, but an unmeasurable percent of the software out there.

[Drybonz]

1 hour ago, DunedinDragon said:

The LAST thing you would want to do is to try and re-tool your software to work around bugs in the OS.

 

What is the "bug" you are talking about in the update that is causing Line6's software to run with problems?

[DunedinDragon]

1 hour ago, Drybonz said:

 

What is the "bug" you are talking about in the update that is causing Line6's software to run with problems?

 

From 9 to 5 Mac:

macOS 11 Big Sur has been widely seen as the least stable of the major new Apple software releases this year during the beta period from June until this fall.

 

Common issues have included graphical issues like problems with external display support, apps freezing, and random reboots. Stability has improved over the course of the beta period and Apple had longer this year with macOS Big Sur launching in November instead of September or October, but bugs and performance issues aren’t totally resolved yet. So there are a few things to consider when wondering “should I upgrade to Big Sur?”

•  
• TL;DR: if you have any concerns about app stability, performance issues, and other bugs, hold out at least for the next bug fix update before upgrading (but maybe even a later update depending on your stability tolerance).
  • macOS Big Sur actually launched as 11.0.1 (after 11.0.1 RC 2 just two days ago) and the next build will likely fix initial issues with the first release available to the public.
• If you have critical apps that must work, make sure to check for Big Sur compatibility before upgrading whenever you choose to (again initial release not recommended if you have crucial apps)
• If you’re cool with initial bugs and issues, go for it!
• Ideally, if you have a secondary Mac, install Big Sur on that for now

 

[datacommando]

1 hour ago, DunedinDragon said:

If you’re cool with initial bugs and issues, go for it!

 

It's totally futile - he won't believe you.

 

Most of the serious music plug-in people have warned their users off until further notice, but "drybonz" refuses to accept that it's an issue with the Mac OS.

[loonsailor]

4 hours ago, DunedinDragon said:

 

The point of a beta release is NOT done to help you prepare YOUR software for the new OS.  It's about finding bugs, reporting them back to the OS development team, and stabilizing the OS.  The LAST thing you would want to do is to try and re-tool your software to work around bugs in the OS.  If, and when, the OS manufacturer states explicitly that the "bug" is not a bug but is the way it's designed to work by necessity, then and only then would a 3rd party software manufacturer take steps to fix their software, or choose to alert their customer base there are problems with the new OS and not upgrade as they did in this case.

 

It's more iterative and cooperative than that.  They (Apple) send me (developer) a beta.  I can choose to ignore it, but at some point in the beta cycle I decide to try my application on it.  I do this for two reasons.  (1) It helps me to know if I'm going to need to do work on my app to remain compatible when the OS is released, and to do some of that work before the OS reaches release stage so my users will be happy with me.  And (2) it helps them because I'm stressing the beta in ways that they might not be able to do without me.  By the way, (2) is good for me, too, because I don't want them to release an OS that might have a bug they haven't found, but that is a show stopper for me. That cycle iterates a few times through the beta cycle.  After that iteration, when the OS is released I still need to test on that final release, but hopefully most or all of my development work is done, and I just need to drop it into my own release cycle and get it to my happy users.  Hopefully, that's where Line6 is now, and I'm perfectly fine with them doing a thorough job of the final test before offering it to the user base.

[silverhead]

8 minutes ago, loonsailor said:

 

..... because I don't want them to release an OS that might have a bug they haven't found, but that is a show stopper for me. That cycle iterates a few times through the beta cycle.  After that iteration, when the OS is released I still need to test on that final release, but hopefully most or all of my development work is done, and I just need to drop it into my own release cycle and get it to my happy users.  Hopefully, that's where Line6 is now, and I'm perfectly fine with them doing a thorough job of the final test before offering it to the user base.

 

(... I added the bolding above for emphasis ....)

Unfortunately I think Line 6 and other manufacturers may not be where you hope they are. What if Apple went ahead and did what the bold text says you don't want them to do?

[loonsailor]

2 minutes ago, silverhead said:

 

(... I added the bolding above for emphasis ....)

Unfortunately I think Line 6 and other manufacturers may not be where you hope they are. What if Apple went ahead and did what the bold text says you don't want them to do?

Sure, I can't stop them from doing that.  But if I test early and notify them of any issues I find, I increase the odds of the release being clean.  Isn't that the whole point of a beta release?

 

As to where Line6 is, I have no idea, but I choose to assume the best until proven otherwise.

[HonestOpinion]

18 minutes ago, loonsailor said:

...

 

As to where Line6 is, I have no idea, but I choose to assume the best until proven otherwise.

 

I think assuming the best is probably the way to go. That and everyone exercising a little patience. We know where L6 is right now - beta testing a massive new firmware revision. Having a major new OS release come during that can really stretch resources. It is a little like having the foundation ripped away while you are building the third level of a house. I would say there is about zero chance though that L6 is going to leave users hanging too long when HX devices are still flying out the door. I think current and future users can rest assured this will be fixed; whether it comes from Apple or a workaround from L6. 

[Drybonz]

2 hours ago, DunedinDragon said:

 

From 9 to 5 Mac:

macOS 11 Big Sur has been widely seen as the least stable of the major new Apple software releases this year during the beta period from June until this fall.

 

Nothing in the article you copy/pasted answers the question I asked... What is the "bug" you are talking about in the update that is causing Line6's software to run with problems?

[silverhead]

15 minutes ago, Drybonz said:

 

Nothing in the article you copy/pasted answers the question I asked... What is the "bug" you are talking about in the update that is causing Line6's software to run with problems?

I expect that's what Apple is asking themselves right now (or will be asking when they get around to prioritizing it). What's the bug in Big Sur that is causing problems with all these audio equipment manufacturers? It's not public knowledge afaik.

 

It's not exactly known who needs to fix what at this point, but with numerous apps failing and only one new iOS involved, chances are it's the one that's at fault - not the many.

 

When iOS 13 was released it wasn't until v13.4 that they (Apple) fixed whatever bug it was that was causing problems in other Line 6 apps from v13.0 through v13.3. Will they do better this time? We'll see.

[DunedinDragon]

13 minutes ago, Drybonz said:

 

Nothing in the article you copy/pasted answers the question I asked... What is the "bug" you are talking about in the update that is causing Line6's software to run with problems?

 

Okay...we're done here.  I'm tired of playing the the children.  How could I possibly know that?  No manufacturer publishes what bugs are affecting them and how, especially L6.  Apple is certainly not going to publish the list of bugs until they have a release that fixes them.  I don't know what planet you're from but it's apparently not one with computers.  

[Drybonz]

Here's a specific example of a company who had an incompatibility with Big Sur early in the beta... Dropbox.  Dropbox would simply crash when you opened it.  Instead of telling their customers not to upgrade their OS, they fixed the incompatibility, released an app update and everything was resolved.  That is how it works.  OS updates break app compatibility all the time... the companies update their software.   Line6 and other audio companies that make software simply as an afterthought so that they can sell their hardware as "works with Windows and Mac" don't put much resources into keeping things up to date.

 

Also... I haven't insulted you at all.

[DunedinDragon]

1 hour ago, loonsailor said:

 

It's more iterative and cooperative than that.  They (Apple) send me (developer) a beta.  I can choose to ignore it, but at some point in the beta cycle I decide to try my application on it.  I do this for two reasons.  (1) It helps me to know if I'm going to need to do work on my app to remain compatible when the OS is released, and to do some of that work before the OS reaches release stage so my users will be happy with me.  And (2) it helps them because I'm stressing the beta in ways that they might not be able to do without me.  By the way, (2) is good for me, too, because I don't want them to release an OS that might have a bug they haven't found, but that is a show stopper for me. That cycle iterates a few times through the beta cycle.  After that iteration, when the OS is released I still need to test on that final release, but hopefully most or all of my development work is done, and I just need to drop it into my own release cycle and get it to my happy users.  Hopefully, that's where Line6 is now, and I'm perfectly fine with them doing a thorough job of the final test before offering it to the user base.

 

All of these things are really dependent to a large degree on where you and your company sit in the pecking order of beta's.  Larger companies with bigger market shares come in very early in the process and are more focused on platform stability.  This makes sense when you consider they have their own release cycles they're planning so they do as much as they can to preclude touching their software which is sometimes in the process of being developed for it's own release and don't want this to affect their schedule.

As you move down the scale to smaller market shares it tends to be a lot more give and take as generally the platform stability is relatively solid.  Every once in a while there's something that's uncovered but unless it's a pretty invasive bug, they're typically put off until a maintenance release.

What's atypical in this case is vendors stepping out into the public on the public release of a new OS with statements encouraging their users to not do the upgrade yet.  THAT is what's not very normal these days with the way OS's are incrementally improved and the users annual licensing fees pay for those incremental improvements that are often just downloaded and installed automatically rather than purchased once and installed as used to be the case.  What is different in this case is they've made some MAJOR changes to core elements such as the user interface, and major upgrades come with bigger risks of not finding all the show stopper bugs.

I personally have no idea where L6 sits in this hierarchy but I would imagine they're not at the top nor at the bottom.  The problem being they're currently in a time crunch to get 3.0 out the door which is probably significantly limiting what they might be willing to do to accommodate this release.  That would explain the public announcements.

[Drybonz]

19 minutes ago, DunedinDragon said:

I personally have no idea where L6 sits in this hierarchy but I would imagine they're not at the top nor at the bottom.  The problem being they're currently in a time crunch to get 3.0 out the door which is probably significantly limiting what they might be willing to do to accommodate this release.  That would explain the public announcements.

 

So, you believe that Microsoft and Apple are lining up all the many, many producers of software when there's a new beta OS update and one by one, in some kind of order of importance, "fixing" the problems that their software is having with their OS?  And that Line6 is waiting for their turn to get fixed?  I'm just trying to understand.

[HonestOpinion]

33 minutes ago, Drybonz said:

 

So, you believe that Microsoft and Apple are lining up all the many, many producers of software when there's a new beta OS update and one by one, in some kind of order of importance, "fixing" the problems that their software is having with their OS?  And that Line6 is waiting for their turn to get fixed?  I'm just trying to understand.

 

It probably is a fair guess that that they are prioritizing fixes as I mentioned earlier for what they deem the most common or mission critical software/firmware/hardware even if they are not "lining up all the many, many producers of software".  I would think if you are Apple or Microsoft and your new OS broke the operation of every attached HP printer in the country, or enterprise level software like Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server, they would get priority over L6.  It is probably a safe bet that there is some prioritization going on regarding where the most significant pushback or even potential loss of revenue will come from. One of the ironies is that the enterprise software that probably receives a higher prioritization is often used by very cautious large corporations who actually take longer than individual users before they upgrade their OS. They often employ rigorous certification and testing that can take months or years before they upgrade. At least that has been my experience working in anything but cutting edge technology companies.

[gunpointmetal]

Some people want to hump Apple so bad they'll ignore the fact that this has happened with almost every major (and some minor) Apple OS releases. Spending 2x on your hardware doesn't exclude the maker from being responsible to their users. I know PC has had its issues, but I can still run the original version of Tux Guitar I downloaded in like 2009 on my Windows 10 PC if I want to....

[phil_m]

1 hour ago, Drybonz said:

Here's a specific example of a company who had an incompatibility with Big Sur early in the beta... Dropbox.  Dropbox would simply crash when you opened it.  Instead of telling their customers not to upgrade their OS, they fixed the incompatibility, released an app update and everything was resolved.  That is how it works.  OS updates break app compatibility all the time... the companies update their software.   Line6 and other audio companies that make software simply as an afterthought so that they can sell their hardware as "works with Windows and Mac" don't put much resources into keeping things up to date.

 

Also... I haven't insulted you at all.

Well, I’ve gotten all sorts of emails from all sorts of companies, many that are primarily software companies, like Slate Digital, for example, that have told people to hold off on updating. I imagine that companies are reluctant to invest a lot of time in a fix prior to big release just to have that fix be broken in the final release.

[Drybonz]

20 minutes ago, phil_m said:

I imagine that companies are reluctant to invest a lot of time in a fix prior to big release just to have that fix be broken in the final release.

 

Yeah, that is completely true, but it's also the point of the developer beta... so that they can be ready.  Now that the final release is out, you can see what companies invested resources in getting their products ready.

[silverhead]

1 hour ago, Drybonz said:

 

Yeah, that is completely true, but it's also the point of the developer beta... so that they can be ready.  Now that the final release is out, you can see what companies invested resources in getting their products ready.

Developers update their apps based on the OS provider’s specs. Apple’s ‘final’ release of iOS 13.0 did not seem to comply with their own specs. It wasn’t until v3.14 that Apple fixed what they broke in 13.0. Is the same thing happening with iOS 14? How can companies who have invested resources in getting their products ready by complying with the specs deal with a non-compliant OS ‘final’ release? 
 

Again, it seems that many audio companies are having this problem. Is it more reasonable to think that they all were unprepared for the final release, or to think that one company, Apple, released an OS that is non - compliant with their own specs? I think it’s more reasonable to assume that one company, rather than many, is at fault.

 

Now I’m out of this debate.....

[datacommando]

15 hours ago, Drybonz said:

Now that the final release is out, you can see what companies invested resources in getting their products ready.

Mmm... well I’ll bet Adobe are kicking themselves for not getting all their products ready.

 

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/download-install/kb/macos-big-sur.html

 

I just checked with DAZ 3D who just released a new version of their flagship software. This is a quote from their forum.

 

”Please be aware that at the moment Daz Studio is not compatible with macOS Big Sur and cannot be made to run. At present the only option for running DS under MacOS is to downgrade the OS to an earlier version.

Daz is working on an update to address this issue, but it is not due until mid-2021.”

 

Oops!

 

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by datacommando
Typo