MacInTouch Amazon link...

app vs. OS compatibility

Channels
Products, Questions
On my Mavericks Mac, Google Chrome wouldn't update itself from version 65.0.3325.181 to the current version, 66.0.3359.139. It kept falsely claiming that the app was up-to-date.

However, acting on a tip from another website, I downloaded the version 66.x installer file (.dmg) anyway, from:
https://enterprise.google.com/chrome/chrome-browser/

After an initial weird mishap, I eventually got the current version running in Mavericks, despite Google saying it won't. It automatically imported all my previous settings and extensions and seems to work fine, other than putting up an "unsupported" warning on each launch.

I can understand a company falsely claiming that a new version of an application won't run in an older environment -- they don't want to test it there, or be responsible for any glitches. This raises a couple of questions in my mind, however:

How common is this? How often will software run in an "unsupported" environment that it claims it won't run in?

How serious is the potential downside to experimenting like this? For example, I can imagine that, despite having good backups, it might be difficult to roll back to the previous version if the experiment doesn't work... because some programs might spew components or make support-library/preference changes in various obscure locations that you might not even know about (Adobe is notorious for this).

Anyone else have interesting experiences installing "unsupported" versions of software in an older OS X?
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Anyone else have interesting experiences installing "unsupported" versions of software in an older OS X?
For what it's worth, I was able to run Postbox (an email app) on an older version of OS X than what the company claimed was the minimum.
 


Anyone else have interesting experiences installing "unsupported" versions of software in an older OS X?
The other side of this is running "unsupported" older versions of software on a newer OS. I have done this quite a bit, mainly to be able to open older files in, for example Avid Pro Tools 10, not supported under Sierra. There are sometimes quirky display issues, but mostly I've been successful. Sometimes an installer won't run because it checks for system version and sees OS X 10.1x as older than OS X 10.9, but there are hacks to work around this. And I keep a SheepShaver installation around to run MS Word 5 and early versions of Finale music notation software.

"Unsupported" doesn't mean "broken". It just means "untested" and you'll get no help with it. No harm in trying.
 


Here's a possible issue running a newer, said to be unsupported software version on an older OS. Which I think Jonas S. above probably grasped.

Based on watching Linux update (it is mesmerizing to have the Terminal open as itty bitty pieces of code fly into my system as software is updated), developers of a program, e.g., the Chrome Browser for macOS, presume the presence of bits of code, and the status of the kernel.

In a Linux update or software install, the user is informed what is to be added, or removed, and given the option to decline. This empowers those users (sadly, beyond me) who can tell by package names if a change could hurt their install.

It's all automagic in macOS.

Some macOS changes invisible to users could modify how Chrome communicates with the Internet, and be critical to security. This could apply to any software "tricked" into running on an unsupported OS version.
 


I can understand a company falsely claiming that a new version of an application won't run in an older environment -- they don't want to test it there, or be responsible for any glitches. This raises a couple of questions in my mind, however:

How common is this? How often will software run in an "unsupported" environment that it claims it won't run in?

How serious is the potential downside to experimenting like this?
In application space (vs. system software), it seems to be very common.

As for the downside, it can vary greatly. In some cases, everything works just fine. In other cases, it works with problems.

For example, I'm running FileMaker Pro 11 on OS X 10.11. It's not supported on any OS version newer than 10.8, but I haven't had any problems with it. I've read that some people have had issues using it as a server for web apps, but since I don't do that, I don't care.

I also run Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 on OS X 10.11 (also an unsupported configuration). It pretty much works, except that it crashes on exit. Everything is perfect until I type Command-Q to exit. Then it quits normally, followed by a crash-reporter popup.

In the past, I've installed/played games on computers below the minimum specs. In some cases, I would have to turn off all optional graphic elements and lower the rendering detail in order to reduce the CPU load enough for it to remain playable. In other cases, it would work fine - probably because a powerful GPU was able to compensate for an otherwise-underpowered CPU or something similar. And sometimes they are just too slow to be playable.
 


Anyone else have interesting experiences installing "unsupported" versions of software in an older OS X?
This brings to mind the client who upgraded their operating system and had an older version of QuickBooks. It appeared to be working. But after a few weeks, they noticed that a lot of checks they had written were recorded as having been in the millions of dollars.
 


We just discovered that an InDesign plugin is causing file corruption with InDesign and possibly is behind our InDesign CC 2015 crashing. This has been happening with only one user infrequently. Our vendor just passed on this info from the software publisher yesterday with this information. So running software that isn't tested on your version of macOS has its dangers.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts