Mac Pro 6,1 OS upgrade: Catalina or Big Sur?

[reichman]

I've been pleased with macOS Mojave 10.14.6 on my trashcan Mac Pro 6,1. But I need to move to a new macOS soon. For those of you with trashcans, how has the performance been on Catalina and Big Sur? Is one better than the other on the 6,1?

Thanks in advance,

[JFreak]

I would recommend Catalina for any Intel hardware

[Pete Gates]

I would agree. I was on Mojave and went to Big Sur and have generally regretted it. Out of support third-party software no longer working and the horrible look of Big Sur have been the main ones for me. I know I could go back, but since it was a clean install and I have now got it all working happily I'm loath to go back, just wish I'd never gone Forward. Stick to Mojave or Catalina unless you have a real need to upgrade.

Pete

[Leverson]

Following this thread with interest, as I'm in the same boat as the OP. Trashcan mac pro, Mojave 10.14.6 and PT 2019.6 still. Probably the most stable combination of PT and OS that I've ever had, it runs like a dream. But I also feel it's about time to embrace new versions of both, and am searching for whatever the new island of stability is to cling on to for a while.

[JFreak]

Latest Catalina runs better than any Mojave, IMO. Not so humble opinion, but there is a big difference.

[citysoundman]

I was going to ask the same question! I've stuck with Mojave so as to not disrupt Quicktime. I remember there were issues with newer OS's and not being able to use QT in PT (or was it bounce to QT)? But has this been totally resolved on Catalina and Big Sur?

[jeremiahmoore]

I'm mixing on a trashcan 6,1 machine in someone else's studio, running big sur... and the UI is just... quite slowwwww. The processor is running a big (native) mix just fine, but UI wise ...A great many actions take three to five seconds to execute. For instance changing the height of a track takes about four seconds. It's like mixing inside molasses. I'm constantly tripping up on the machine.

This particular MacPro is about the fastest unit available, with the fastest video card, so it's not because it's a slow machine. I've sought ways to disable any exraneous graphics processing but not found any.

It's really driving me crazy. My mac mini 2018 on Mojave flies comapred to this.

Even my 2012 i7 Macbook Pro (10.14 Mojave) actually performs better graphics-wise (but not overall processing wise)

I too will need to leave Mojave on my main machines, and thinking Catalina not Big Sur.

[JFreak]

There is zero reason for Intels go past Catalina


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeremiahmoore]

Can you (or anyone here) elaborate?

I've been meaning to dig into the Ars Technica articles about the last three macOS's but haven't gotten around to it.

-jeremiah

[JFreak]

Yes I can.

Mojave was a stopgap and introduced Metal graphics. It however still allowed 32bit code to run, so Catalina got it perfected and you can only run 64bit code. That is the pinnacle for Intel hardware.

Big Sur is the starting point of Apple Silicon, and works pretty well now. Monterey continues where Big Sur left, but it is still currently buggy. For someone using Intels there is zero reason to go there, it brings nothing new (regarding PT) and can only possibly cause trouble.

Plugin support is also much better on Catalina than these new ones.