Need to update OS High Sierra to Catalina For TurboTax

[chscag]

That being said, I run Mojave which you might want to upgrade to. It works just fine. One of the other reasons I installed Monterey was to explore it. Have to say I’m disappointed with it and won’t upgrade my computer to have Monterey be the primary OS. Someday, a 64 bit OS will be necessary, but hopefully Apple will develop a better OS.

You can hang on to Mojave for as long as you wish, however, you will gradually fall behind for security and very likely the apps you're running will no longer run or update. (I understand that losing your 32 bit apps may be unacceptable.)

And as far as Apple developing a better OS, that's exactly what they're doing with every update. There will come a time when Intel apps will no longer run. Just look at Apple's past history with changing the architecture: Motorola -> PPC -> Intel -> Apple Silicon.

 

[billinden]

OMG! Please say it isn't so. I have an old iMac that I love with El Capitan 10.11.6. Does this mean I'm screwed as far as 2021 taxes?

 

[chscag]

This is what Intuit says:

Here are the minimum system requirements for TurboTax 2018 through 2021 software for Mac Basic, Deluxe, Premier, and Home Business editions.

Operating System

• 2021: macOS Catalina 10.15 or later
• 2020: macOS Mojave 10.14 or later
• 2019: macOS High Sierra 10.13 or later
• 2018: macOS X v.10.12 or later (64-bit required)

Note: You may be able to do your taxes on line. Check with Intuit to see what is required.

 

[billinden]

Thank you chscag. I just went on the TT Forum and was told by another subscriber that I'm okay. The problem is when you use the CD, your Operating System needs to be Catalina or newer. When you do it online like I always do, it's no problem. I was relieved.

 

[chscag]

System Requirements for H.R. Block are not as stringent:

macOS 10.13 or higher is needed for 2021 taxes.

H.R. Block software will read and use TurboTax previous returns.

 

[chscag]

Thank you chscag. I just went on the TT Forum and was told by another subscriber that I'm okay. The problem is when you use the CD, your Operating System needs to be Catalina or newer. When you do it online like I always do, it's no problem. I was relieved.

Okay, great. Personally I'm not fond of doing my taxes online although I have done it that way in the past.

 

[jpdemers]

Apple now defines the structure of storage in terms of hardware, Partitions, Containers, and Volumes.

I'm willing to bet that the OP's machine has an HFS formatted HDD. A small partition can be added in which to install Catalina (20 MB should be plenty), but only after shrinking the existing (single) partition.
A useful guide is here: How to Use Disk Utility to Add, Delete, and Resize an Existing Partition on Mac

 

[MacInWin]

I'm willing to bet that the OP's machine has an HFS formatted HDD. A small partition can be added in which to install Catalina (20 MB should be plenty), but only after shrinking the existing (single) partition.
A useful guide is here: How to Use Disk Utility to Add, Delete, and Resize an Existing Partition on Mac

You cherry picked one line out of a post that was not directed to the OP at all. I clearly was responding to @exncite, who had posted in Post #18, just before mine. It was his reference to "volume" that triggered the post.

 

[exncite]

Just to be clear, @exncite, by "volume" what do you mean? I ask because Apple now defines the structure of storage in terms of hardware, Partitions, Containers, and Volumes. So, for example, Monterey installation into a partition on a hardware drive creates two Volumes in the Container in which it is installed. I don't think Monterey can be installed into a Volume that exists under any other version of the OS. By using "volume" do you mean partition? That would be accurate, in that one could install Monterey into a separate Partition on the hardware with it's own Container and Volume(s). But re-partitioning an existing hard drive could lead to a loss of data on the existing drive, so it would need to be carefully done.

Yes, partition is probably the better term. Funny because the Apple Support tech that helped on this used the term volume. Nevertheless, it involved "splitting" my hard drive into 2 different parts. One running Mojave as set up and the other available to install the 64 bit OS.

 

[MacInWin]

Yes, partition is probably the better term. Funny because the Apple Support tech that helped on this used the term volume. Nevertheless, it involved "splitting" my hard drive into 2 different parts. One running Mojave as set up and the other available to install the 64 bit OS.

Yeah, even Apple is struggling with the terminology these days. Decades of "volume" meaning one thing and then they change the definition. I sort of get it, given that for the average user who never dives into the inner workings, what appears on the desktop as Macintosh HD looks and feels just like the volumes they have always used. It becomes a problem when a novice opens Disk Utility and sees the sausage being made that things can get hairy. We had one person here who kept reinstalling to what he saw in Disk Utility as "Macintosh HD" and created a whole set of "Macintosh HD - Data" volumes, none of which had his data. As I recall, he had deleted he first "Macintosh HD - Data" because he thought it was junk, which deleted all of his own stuff. He came here because he saw the Data volume being created over and over, but couldn't find his data. We got it sorted out and got him back from his backups, but it was dicey for a while.

As we move more into Apple Silicon and things get even more convoluted, I think the terms are going to get weird. In an M1 Mac, for example, there is no "SSD" as such, just storage that is shared with the OS, internals, and the /User folder. So, if there is no "drive" except as the OS defines it in software, do we need new language? I think that is what Apple intended with the idea of "Container" and "Volume." On an M1 Mac, I don't think you can "partition" the storage, although Disk Utility still shows that as an option to support externals and older systems with an actual hardware drive. You can create new Containers and then Volumes in those Containers, but I think the concept of "partition" is going to go away for internal storage on Apple Silicon. If I were more adventurous, it would be an interesting experiment to build a bootable external drive, boot my MBP from that and see if I can partition the internal storage on the Mac. I'm not going to try that for a couple of reasons: 1) It could totally bork up my MBP to the point of needing to go back to Apple and 2) from what I know of the boot process on M1 Macs and Monterey, that other partition can't be used to boot, just storage, so the logic of having two partitions in the storage on an M1 Mac just doesn't make any sense.

Ah, well, isn't change interesting!

 

[kittie miller]

@JoeMcCaz

Your reference to brain surgery can be used as a model for what is being suggested. The brain has two halves - hemispheres.

In computer terms, we are suggesting that you separate the two hemispheres. Keep one for your current Operating System (OS) and use the other, when required, for Catalina.

Although the two hemispheres are contained within the skull, ie the Mac, they would now work separately, each having no knowledge of the other's existence. They would each share same the blood supply - electric power - and when one was was selected for use, the other would lie quietly dormant until activated.

This is the basis of a partition. Each works independently when selected. The one NOT in use would lie dormant until it was required.

The selection process is called booting. You boot into the one you need. Later you exit that one and boot into the other.
Now you see how easy brain surgery is

Good luck.

Ian

oh my gosh Ian, please talk to me like this forever, you have MADE IT MAKE SENSE in an instant!!, the partition thing, using the brain and the halves, I love it, I have partitions for Photos or iPhotos or both, cant keep it straight, saved on an old external. It is a little herky jerky tho since I never know which are on my COMPUTER, and which I have to plug in the old hd and then try and locate Which library, its a lot of fumbling around

I will keep reading since i also am in need of upgrading from Mojave and am petrified of the 32 bit thingie, since I Cannot lose old Word docs and Quicken, MY taxes

Joe, I sympathize, haven't yet made my way reading to the bottom, hope you're getting it figured out

Jules

 

[Rod]

I think I like Jake's suggestion in post #13. It will have the least impact upon your existing system and enable you to perform the task with your tax app without creating additional work.
If after doing that if you still want to upgrade to eg. Mojave which will enable you to continue to run your 32 bit apps we can explore the implications/complications of that as a seperate topic.

 

[exncite]

Yeah, even Apple is struggling with the terminology these days. Decades of "volume" meaning one thing and then they change the definition. I sort of get it, given that for the average user who never dives into the inner workings, what appears on the desktop as Macintosh HD looks and feels just like the volumes they have always used. It becomes a problem when a novice opens Disk Utility and sees the sausage being made that things can get hairy. We had one person here who kept reinstalling to what he saw in Disk Utility as "Macintosh HD" and created a whole set of "Macintosh HD - Data" volumes, none of which had his data. As I recall, he had deleted he first "Macintosh HD - Data" because he thought it was junk, which deleted all of his own stuff. He came here because he saw the Data volume being created over and over, but couldn't find his data. We got it sorted out and got him back from his backups, but it was dicey for a while.

As we move more into Apple Silicon and things get even more convoluted, I think the terms are going to get weird. In an M1 Mac, for example, there is no "SSD" as such, just storage that is shared with the OS, internals, and the /User folder. So, if there is no "drive" except as the OS defines it in software, do we need new language? I think that is what Apple intended with the idea of "Container" and "Volume." On an M1 Mac, I don't think you can "partition" the storage, although Disk Utility still shows that as an option to support externals and older systems with an actual hardware drive. You can create new Containers and then Volumes in those Containers, but I think the concept of "partition" is going to go away for internal storage on Apple Silicon. If I were more adventurous, it would be an interesting experiment to build a bootable external drive, boot my MBP from that and see if I can partition the internal storage on the Mac. I'm not going to try that for a couple of reasons: 1) It could totally bork up my MBP to the point of needing to go back to Apple and 2) from what I know of the boot process on M1 Macs and Monterey, that other partition can't be used to boot, just storage, so the logic of having two partitions in the storage on an M1 Mac just doesn't make any sense.

Ah, well, isn't change interesting!

Not to belabor the issue, but when accessing through Disk Utilities, this is what I get:
"
APFS volumes share storage space within a container, occupying a single partition. Adding and deleting APFS volumes is faster and simpler than editing a partition map.
To add a new volume to a container without seeing this message, use the Add APFS Volume command in the Edit menu or the Add/Delete Volume toolbar item.

Would you like to add a volume to the container, or partition the device?"

You're right about the terminology stuff.

 

[exncite]

You can hang on to Mojave for as long as you wish, however, you will gradually fall behind for security and very likely the apps you're running will no longer run or update. (I understand that losing your 32 bit apps may be unacceptable.)

And as far as Apple developing a better OS, that's exactly what they're doing with every update. There will come a time when Intel apps will no longer run. Just look at Apple's past history with changing the architecture: Motorola -> PPC -> Intel -> Apple Silicon

I do understand your perspective, but "a better OS" doesn't mean ruining what you have. What it really boils down to is generating new revenue for the company. It's always about the $$$.

 

[MacInWin]

Not to belabor the issue, but when accessing through Disk Utilities, this is what I get:
"
APFS volumes share storage space within a container, occupying a single partition. Adding and deleting APFS volumes is faster and simpler than editing a partition map.
To add a new volume to a container without seeing this message, use the Add APFS Volume command in the Edit menu or the Add/Delete Volume toolbar item.

Would you like to add a volume to the container, or partition the device?"

You're right about the terminology stuff.

Well, technically what Apple said is partially incorrect. A partition can contain more than one Container, and a Container can contain more than one Volume. In fact, a hardware device can have more than one Partition, with more than one Container with more than one Volume. So, theoretically, if you have a 2TB drive you can turn it into two Partitions, one, let's say, of 250GB, one of 750GB and one of 1TB. Then you could format the 250GB as APFS, the 750GB as APFS and the 1TB as APFS. In the 250GB partition you have one Container and can create as many Volumes as you want to share that 250GB. In the 750GB you create one Container of all of the space, namely 750GB and then again have a couple of Volumes to share that 750 GB dynamically. Finally, on the 1TB partition you create two Containers, each 500GB and each with one or more Volumes in them to share the 500GB in each Container. So, the flexibility is there, but that approach gets overly complex pretty quickly. No need to do all of that when you can have ONE partition on the drive, ONE container on the drive and as many Volumes as you may need sharing the 2TB. About the only reason to have more than one partition is if you want to have an exFAT partition, or NTFS partition to support Windows, which works for older Intel Macs, but not for the new Apple Silicon.

I do understand your perspective, but "a better OS" doesn't mean ruining what you have. What it really boils down to is generating new revenue for the company. It's always about the $$$.

Just a reminder, Apple gives away the OS. The last one they charged for was Lion. Not that they are not trying to generate revenue, but in the case of the OS, they support it to sell hardware, not the other way around like MS does. As chscag said, sooner or later Apple will drop Rosetta2 and no longer support Intel applications, just as they dropped PowerPC apps and 32 bit apps. You can stay behind as long as you are happy, but your software may move on to "better" and you won't be able to keep up if you are too far behind.