I notice that it only runs with OS versions of Catalina or newer. There are many people who have no wish to move up from Mojave as it is a stable platform. Do you intend to make it Mojave compatible at all?
Hi, no. As a matter of fact initially we will probably support Big Sur only.
Is there a technical reason Istvan? I know that a lot of users are still having problems with Big Sur, and even with Catalina, and are unwilling to update. Mojave has proved to be very stable and there are no major reasons to update to what it still having issues.
1 Like
Yes, the reason is purely technical. Shapr3D for mac is running on Catalyst, which is in a poor shape on Catalina, and not available on Mojave unfortunately. If we see significant demand for supporting older macOS versions, we will do it, but that would mean that we have to rewrite the UI from scratch, which does not sound like a reasonable investment, especially considering that most likely the M1 macs will gain very significant market share over the next couple of years. Another issue is that the performance of 3-4 years old macs are not even coming close to the performance of iPads (yes, seriously). So most likely we would have significant performance problems on those devices that are still on Mojave.
4 Likes
Yea ! Go iPads 
I figured it must be something like that. It’s a shame but I won’t be moving to Big Sur, or even Catalina until it performs as stably as Mojave. I took my MBP to Catalina and it broke several of my main programs and Catalina was even worse, so it looks like I will have to stay with the iPad.
I think updating a mac every 5-8 years is fine - except now. I would seriously consider investing in an Apple Silicon mac, either the current ones or the upcoming 16’ Macbook Pro. I’ve been using one for a couple of months now, and it’s amazing. Worth every cent.
2 Likes
Please consider me to be part of significant demand. There are a lot of folks who, when getting their system running very stable, cannot afford to jump every time apple says jump – if i upgrade i stand to loose a SIGNIFICANT number of plugins for various platforms. I cannot afford to just throw away several plugins in my other software platforms just because tech companies say so.
Once they force people to go to M1, it’s going to BREAK a LOT of VERY useful older software for which modern/‘up-to-date’ equivalents simple do not exist, and my never.
If we could we would support older macOS versions.
Hey Chris,
I can absolutely understand your concern. I am also a software developer for iOS and macOS, and I know this constant weighing and questioning, which minimal version of an operating system should still be supported. But if I interpret your writing correctly, then it’s not so much a problem with macOS as a problem with the apps you use. If their developers would provide updates for their software, everything would be okay. Maybe it’s also an option for you to ask these developers when they will update their software to more modern operating systems?
From a developer’s point of view, as well as from a business perspective, Catalyst makes a lot of sense. Even if there is still a lot of work to be done in adapting the UI for the desktop version, the largely shared code base is a blessing for developers, and the CEO is happy about lower development costs. 
What I want to say is, I think it’s right to go with Catalyst right now, and as mentioned here, investing in an M1(x) Mac is currently the right way to go. Intel will quickly become a thing of the past in the Apple ecosystem.
The CEO happens to be a software engineer, and also from a technology point of view I am super happy. Yes, catalyst is a big pile of bugs, but still it was easier to do this with catalyst than writing a new native UI.
3 Likes