Future of Daz Studio on MACs
mcorr
Posts: 1,104
Have I missed something, or has Daz just quietly stopped developing for MACs? The current built of 4.12 doesn’t seem to have a MAC version, only Windows (my product library only has a windows version of Studio, the Beta version is also only for Windows, and Daz Central only has a Windows download button, not one for the MAC). If so, this would appear to be the case because nVidia is no longer producing MAC drivers for nVidia gpus, but I’d like a formal statement from DAZ anyway, just for clarity’s sake. For example, will the MAC never be developed for in the future, or only for now? Has all developing of Studio for MACs been completely abandoned, or are limited-feature versions (that can run on previous nvidia gpus) in the works? This also effects future scripts and add-ons sold for Studio that are not developed to be backward compatible with versions of Studio that still run on MACs. MAC folks presumably won’t be able to use them. Big changes like this are normally addressed by software developers so that their fan base can draw conclusions and make plans accordingly.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Where are you looking? There is no stand-alone installer for the current Mac version, but it should be in Install Manager as usual.
Where am I looking? As I wrote, my product library. And there is no MAC stuff there any longer, only Windows stuff. why is that?
I just installed ver 4.12.1.118 (64 bit) on my Mac via Install Manager.
And have you checked Install Manager? No stand-alone installer means nothing to download from your Product Library.
I'll probably get a mac mini to migrate my macbook to a more current version (which apple stopped supporting with updates), but I've already begun to migrate my personal content (music, movie and pics) over to the PC (and my new Surface Pro) and Nvidia Shield Pro. Sad because I used to love working with my Apple computers. I guess the machines will be decent for small form factor and entertainment, but since I use Iray, it doesn't make sense for me to invest in a mac for rendering rendering since Nvidia isn't supported..
Sad indeed, but if Apple leaves people no choice, then it is what it is (I am telling myself).
You didn’t answer my question. Why were there standalone installers in my product library until recently, and now only windows people can continue to use standalones, but mac folks are herded into using install manager? And where is the announcemnt about this that would have obviated the need for my post? Was there such an announcement and I missed it, or did DAZ not bother to inform people of this different and dual treatment among it’s user base?
tbf, if Daz decided they don't want money from Mac users, then I'll just use the library I have and start using it with Blender.
Eevee and Cycles are better than Iray, anyways.
https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/353851/daz-studio-4-12-pro-general-release-updated/p1#known_issues
Daz hasn't decided anything of the kind, though.
This is because of changes in the way Macs work. Modifyiing the installs will be a non-trivial task, and since there is still a way for Mac users to install it is perhaps not being set as a priority - which doesn't mean it won't ever be addressed. For now using DIM for application install doesn't stop you from using other methods for content.
Blender Cycles can't run in GPU mode on Mac anyway because OpenCL is no longer being supported by Apple.
Radeon ProRender is known to use Metal and will run in GPU on Mac, if you think you are okay with that option
..since Apple had their spat with Nvidia they stand to lose the 3D segment of their base. Octane and Iray, the two most widely used render engines, are CUDA only.
I've become very disillusioned with Apple in recent years. I hope to get a good PC Windows desktop by the end of the year.
Before this thread devolves into a platform flame-war I'll get an official word in:
1. A Mac version of DazCentral is being actively developed at the current time but is running in to some weird bugs that are having to be developed around. I don't believe it will be released to the public this week.
2. With Apple's ARM transition we are evaluating various options to keep Daz Studio updated with the latest Mac updates. Depending on what changes need to happen to Daz Studio, we might not make it in time for the ARM launch. Fortunately Apple has declared there will be a two year transition window, so Mac users should still be able to get updated Mac's that run existing versions of Daz Studio for quite some time.
Reassuring to hear macOS development is ongoing, Rawb. I had begun to wonder.
Apple already demo'd Maya runing in Intel emulation, so worst case DS will run that way (and it ran pretty well considering the demo machine was basically a 2 year old iPad), and based on previous silicon transitions (Motorola -> PowerPC -> Intel), this is an option that will stay in place for at least 5+ years.
I'm more concerned though with what MacOS11 will break - Apple are getting notorious for shutting stuff down with their security strictures. Already we saw the effective death of Carrara in Catalina (although Daz could get a massive chunk of goodwill in just doing an Open/Save Dialog Fix build). Yes, many of us - even PAs - still like and use Carrara! On Macs! But every OS update does seem to be greeted with a chorus of "oh gawd, what have they killed now..."
Fortunately, my Mac is now old enough that it won't run Big Sur!
It will be interesting to see just how much work is involved in porting DAZ|Studio to ARM. I've seen some developers report that rebuilding their stuff for ARM is basically as simple as clicking a checkbox and recompiling. But I don't think it's realistic to expect Studio, with its reliance on the Qt Toolkit and Nvidia's Iray, to be such a simple proposition. The Rosetta 2 install-time transpilation might be enough to get it up and running, but there may well be a speed hit on processor-intensive tasks like rendering.
Yeah, Apple's demo pointedly didn't show Maya rendering...
Carrara is 32 bit right? If so the only fix is to go to 64 bit which is never a trivial undertaking.
As to Rosetta 2 until people get it and try it no one will be sure but the claim Apple is making simply isn't possible. A program may run fast enough that UI actions won't be noticeable but software emulators, obviously, have to run many many instructions to get one instruction from the base program run. Doing the whole program at load will make load times longer. How long that is very hard to say. However many modern programs use dynamic loading of components and that is hard to get right the way Apple claims they're doing this.
Apple of course has a horrid track record on this. Why promise a 5 year transition? Why not promise indefinite availability?
As to OSX versions, that seems to have become Apple's favorite way of forcing anyone who competes with an Apple product out of the "ecosystem."
Qt says they're devoted to supporting ARM but they haven't seen the ARM compiler yet, who knows if Apple itself will even make one available that runs on x86?, so until then knows anything for sure.
The demo I saw didn't show anything with Maya other than a model which was already loaded being rotated.
Carrara is now 64-bit.
My understanding is that Rosetta 2 does install-time transpilation -- i.e. it produces an ARM version of the Intel code when the program is first installed, not when it is loaded or executed. This won't be possible for all code in all programs; some systems, such as Javascript, that rely on just-in-time (JIT) compilation will still require the kind of on-the-fly approach used in Rosetta 1. However, code that is already transpiled should load and execute significantly faster than code that needs to be run under emulation or uses on-the-fly transpilation. There will probably be some performance hit, but if Rosetta 2 is able to leverage features of the Apple silicon that are specifically optimized for running transpiled Intel code -- and if the Apple chips are significantly faster anyway -- it might not be noticeable.
When the program calls on Apple libraries, of course, all that code will be executed natively. How well any given program performs will thus depend partly on how much time it spends in its own code, and how much time in library code. Stuff that's heavily interactive -- i.e. it's doing lots of stuff within the libraries that support Apple's UI -- will probably perform pretty well.
Unfortunately, that's not so much the case with DAZ|Studio. It's not going to benefit as much from install-time transpilation and native libraries as some other apps. Perhaps things like losing and posing content will go well (depending on how much the Qt Toolkit leverages Apple's libraries, rather than "rolling its own"). But rendering is -- I believe -- heavily dependent on non-Apple code. Moreover, if I understand correctly, CPU renders actually involve creating Intel-specific code on-the-fly, which is then executed by the processor. That code can't be precompiled at install time or even load time, so Rosetta 2 will need to handle it like other just-in-time code, which means on-the-fly transpilation and a consequent slowdown.
Apple has a lot of experience doing this kind of stuff -- the original Rosetta was built for the PPC-to-Intel transition, and worked entirely on-the-fly -- so they may be able to optimize it until the bits squeak. However, DAZ|Studio is inherently at the harder end of the problem spectrum as far as this is concerned.
Products like MAXONs Cinema 4D and Octane are porting their code to use Metal. They realise that companies have a sizable investment in Apple hardware and aren't going to windows simply because their software no longer runs on Apple. Instead they'll move to software that does work on Apple. I've found that animators are usually well versed in multiple render software and moving to a new one isn't as big a deal as the software vendors try to make out. Unfortunately for DAZ they've tied themselves up pretty tight with nVidia and since nVidia and Apple are competing in the same space, I wouldn't hold my breath for a Metal iRay.
Some companies will want to stay with Macs, certainly. The question is how many and for how long. Apple's not terribly focussed on workstation type users or even AI, for that matter. They're more interested in laptops, and get most of their revenue from mobile and, increasingly, services. Macs only accounted for just under 10% of Apple's revenue last year. If I were thinking of the future, I wouldn't put my money on Apple providing for my needs.