Lightroom 6: Why won't it install on macOS 10.15 Catalina

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 1 month ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
Why won't Adobe let me install my LR6 on my new macOS Catalina machine? LR6 runs on Catalina. However, the installer that comes with the LR6 download is a 32bit installer, so it won't run in Catalina... LR6 will, the installer won't!
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 5 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Laura Shoe

Laura Shoe, Champion

  • 136 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
That's correct, Peter - Lightroom 6 can't be installed once you've upgraded to Catalina for the reason you cite - the installer is 32 bit. I'm afraid you're out of luck, unless you can revert to Mojave.
Photo of Antoine Hlmn

Antoine Hlmn

  • 812 Posts
  • 203 Reply Likes
Indeed: LR6 runs but the installer won’t. So you can « keep » LR6 on Catalina but can’t run the installer, so you’re ... stuck.

And don’t expect any update from Adobe regarding LR6.

Your options are:
* Restoring Mojave through a backup and recover LR6 and then upgrade (or not) to Catalina
* Keep catalina and ditch LR6 for any other subscription based LR or any other DAM on the market with license.
* Maybe you can find a portable version (in your backup?) of LR6, but not sure it’s the most optimal way of running a software...
(Edited)
Photo of Tjorners

Tjorners

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
this is ridiculous surely ?!! Adobe made a point of LR6 being 64bit only yet you can't install it on 64bit Catalina because of the installer itself - what a farce
Photo of Johan Elzenga

Johan Elzenga, Champion

  • 2704 Posts
  • 1153 Reply Likes
No, it is not ridiculous at all. It made at lot of sense at the time. Lightroom 6 is obsolete software. It was developed at a time when it was totally unnecessary to make everything 64 bits, because 32 bits software ran just fine on the then current MacOS. Because the installer is only needed once, there was no need to spend a lot of time to make it 64 bits. That would not have given you any benefits.
Photo of Robert Hendrickson

Robert Hendrickson

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
Capture One is looking better and better.
It makes no business sense for ME to spend $1200 per decade ($10 / month = $120 / year = 1200 / decade) (assuming zero inflation) for software I have anyway already bought for $130 that has no added features other than a recompiled installer.

First I'll reinstall Mojave, and if that doesn't work I'll buy Capture One.
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 680 Posts
  • 132 Reply Likes
"that has no added features other than a recompiled installer ". Like Luke Skywalker said, "everything in that sentence is wrong". No added features? You haven't been keeping up! It's been explained elsewhere that you actually pay less with the monthly fee than buying it outright every time there's a major upgrade.

Go! And never darken my towels again! ;-)
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 680 Posts
  • 132 Reply Likes
Adobe is in business, and it makes NO business sense to spend resources to update an app for a small minority of users, when there is no return to their investment. That’s why!

You got YEARS of use out of your investment, The Adobe Cloud is the killer feature now, upgrade and you can edit at the beach!
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree, Antoine. But ... the reason why it doesn't work is because Adobe has decided they don't want it to work, it's as simple as that. 
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
What .... a ten minute job to recompile the installer?
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 680 Posts
  • 132 Reply Likes
Oh, you’re a coder now? It’s not 10 minutes, trust me. But I don’t want to interrupt your Adobe Bashing Fun, so proceed.
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Um ... you know me!? (Creating a new installer is not a big deal.)
Photo of roger ames

roger ames

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
go for it.