Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Question for Schewe  (Read 7291 times)
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« on: May 13, 2013, 10:13:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, there's been a lot of talk about various ways that CS6 could go obsolete -- that operating systems change, that new cameras are no longer supported, etc. If somebody were to press a gun to your head and ask you to make a prediction about how long LR5 and CS6 would be commonly and easily functional, without jumping through your ass or mothballing computers or any of that...just commonly and usably functional...

How many years would you give them? Four? Five? More or less?

If you were determined to keep one as (commonly and easily) functional as possible for as long as possible, would you go with Mac or Windows?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2013, 11:32:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, there's been a lot of talk about various ways that CS6 could go obsolete -- that operating systems change, that new cameras are no longer supported, etc. If somebody were to press a gun to your head and ask you to make a prediction about how long LR5 and CS6 would be commonly and easily functional, without jumping through your ass or mothballing computers or any of that...just commonly and usably functional...

I don't think I am Jeff, but here is my view anyway:

1. It depends on the platform you're on (Win or OSX),
2. Odds are much worse in the Apple world because of the faster pace of OSX upgrades and the fact that it is becoming next to impossible to install an older OS on a newer hardware.

Think of the following worst case scenario:
1. Apple release OSX 10.9 on Sept 1st 2013 (very likely),
2. The current version of CS6 is not compatible with OSX 10.9 (TBC but pretty likely)
3. Adobe decides not to patch CS6 to make it compatible with OSX 10.9 (unclear, it seems they wrote somewhere they would provide a patch... but I couldn't find any official statement),
4. Your Macbook pro dies on Sept 2nd (unlikely... but who knows),
5. You buy a new Macbook pro on Sept 3rd, shipping with OSX 10.9,
6. You try to install OSX 10.8 on your brand new laptop on Sept 4th, but fail to do so... (pretty likely).

-> CS6 reached its End of Life for you on Sept 2nd 2013... or any day your current Apple hardware dies.

Assuming that Adobe does patch CS6 for OSX 10.9... the same threat will show up again after Sept 2014 when Apple releases 10.10... yes they are now on a yearly release cycle (I'd personnally be surprised if CS6 worked on 10.10 without any change, it hasn't happened for years on OSX as far as I can recall). So at best... you have 16 months of peace of mind ahead of you... after that you'll probably be at the mercy of any hardware failure unless Apple decides not to make any change in 10.10...

This scenario is a lot less likely to happen in the Windows world because 6 typically doesn't happen. MS is very careful to make it possible to install newer versions of Windows on older hardware and their release cycle remains slower.

But... hey... Adobe doesn't officially authorize a change of platform unless you upgrade to a new release of CS/PS... and there is no new release planned for the boxed version... so it is already too late to switch from OSX to Windows... unless you have outstanding negotiation skills or are willing to buy a new Windows PS license from scratch.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 11:48:52 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2013, 11:42:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe has said it will do upcoming OS upgrades for CS6 in the near (foreseeable) future...OS X 10.9 is due soon and Windows 8 Blue as well. So, after 10.9 & 8.Blue I don't expect a lot of major OS gyration for a while. (I really hope this is true)

In the past, Mac has had some hard tech lines drawn in the sand...the switch from OS 9 to OS X was a line that made old software obsolete. When Apple switch from PPC to Intel cpus, there was another hard line–although it was several years–OS X 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 before PPC code was finally dropped in 10.7. 10.8 drew another line when it stopped supporting non-64bit cpu.

I don't see Apple making those kind of massive changes (although I could be wrong) so I see Photoshop CS6 to be able to be run for years to come. How many years? I don't know...but +3 for sure, prolly +4, maybe 5+. Possibly longer but that's in Apple's hands.

For Windows, MSFT is far more reluctant to drop backwards compatibility because, well MSFT is far more conservative than Apple. CS6 will still run with Win XP SP3 and above. No problems running in Win 7/8 and if there is an issue with 8.Blue, I think Adobe will honor their promise and do a update for compatibility. After that, I see +4 - +5 years easy.

For Lightroom it's slightly different. LR4 dropped Win XP support. LR5 is dropping OS X 10.6.x support. But I do think there will be a LR6 that retains a perpetual option (no promises but that's my guess–with cloud functionality that might be interesting and compelling but not required). I see LR as a hybrid tweener app that will cross the perpetual/subscription model. I

But, I think LR5 will run for years +3 on Mac easy, more likely +4, +5. On Windows, +4 easy, prolly far more. The code base is more modern than Photoshop so there wasn't a lot of old cruft left in when developed. That makes it easier to maintain the code base and requires much less backwards compatibility issues.

So, I think LR5 (I would suggest getting the LR5 upgrade for the features and to extend the useful life) and Photoshop CS6 are good for multiple years with a slight edge to MSFT because they care more about backwards compatibility. But I would NOT jump from Mac>Win or Win>Mac because of Photoshop CS6 or LR5.

While Adobe was prepared for pushback because of the killing of CS7 and going subscription only for the former suite apps, I'm not sure they were prepared for the volume and viciousness–particularly for the small pro, non-pro Photoshop users. That's a group that Adobe simply doesn't have expertise in dealing with.

Don't discount what Eric Chan wrote in his post on this thread: Re: Moving on from Adobe, need some final Lightroom advice. Parse what he wrote carefully. And let me correct a slight fact, Eric isn't an exec, that's true, but Thomas is actually an Exec VP (I think that's his current title) these days so while Thomas ain't a "suit" (I actually saw him in a suit once-pretty dapper, but it was only for a wedding) and not "in charge" of of major Adobe corp direction, he has a say...and I don't think Thomas is happy with how things have transpired.

My thoughts, one week into the DECISION.

I've been dealing with Adobe directly since Photoshop 3 days (June, 1995), I was the first external alpha tester for Photoshop 4 (not CS4, the version 4 that shipped Nov, 1996) and I've seen Adobe do a lot of, uh, questionable things and making some, uh, less than stellar decisions. The whole Creative Suit initiative was great for Adobe but really kinda sucked for Photoshop. The last true independent version of Photoshop was version 7. Once Photoshop CS was released, Photoshop was held captive by the Creative Suite. Let me repeat what I've said before, Photoshop is successful IN SPITE of everything Adobe has done, not because of ANYTHING Adobe has done over the years...

Photoshop 7 was also the last version that a small core of photographers had some major influence over the feature set Photoshop developed. People like Martin Evening, Bruce Fraser, Seth Resnick, Katrin Eismann and a few others (myself included) knew how to work with Mark Hamburg who was the Photoshop "architect" till then. Mark "washed his hands" of Photoshop when the Creative Suite occurred...and turned his attention to, well, Lightroom–where a core group of photographers helped drive LR development.

It would be wrong to look at Adobe as a single entity...yes, corporations are considered a legal entity, but it's really more of a community. Don't for a second presume everybody inside of Adobe agrees with what "Adobe" has decided to do. But understand everybody in Adobe will be very circumspect with their criticism. The engineers on Photoshop are the cream of the crop. If you were a talented engineer who was really into digital imaging, where would you want to work? But Adobe is really good at circling the wagons when under fire (I think this counts as Adobe being under fire?)

A lot of people are pissed off at Adobe (both inside and outside of Adobe) at the "decision" to take their talents to subscription...yes, a lot of people seemed to also be really pissed at me for pointing out the obvious–that Photoshop was never developed for the photo industry but for "graphics" pros. That Adobe is a company that is good at developing pro apps and pretty poor developing apps for consumers. They still suck at consumer apps and marketing (otherwise they would have launched CC a lot better). Yeah, ok...my attitude doesn't make what I tell people easier to swallow, but I am what I am...I call it as I see it. I let the chips fall where they may.

Of all the apps Adobe has ever developed, Lightroom is the ONLY app that was designed, engineered and marketed directly at photographers–all types of photographers, non-pro and pro. Guess which app is still available as a perpetual license? Lightroom...you can read a lot into that decision. Yes, you can get LR via the cloud but you can but it as a perpetual license and even buy it from the Apple app store. Why? Well, the LR product/marketing team actually does have a much better understanding of the photo industry than Adobe in general does.

So, for the short term, people should evaluate the sea change and wait for what happens over time. Don't jump off the cliff just because things look dark...it's darkest just before dawn. Adobe may have given smaller 3rd party developers the opening they've needed for years to try to wedge an opening into the industry. I think this could be good for the industry, long term, if competition ends up breeding excellence. But don't count out Adobe from looking at the landscape and developing something interesting to come up with something above Photoshop Elements but less than Photoshop. That's why I started the thread: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...

So, hopefully, this will be mildly useful to offer a way of looking at what happened only a week ago...so, unless you have an immediate need for buying new hardware (that would create a line in the sand) I would suggest bidding you time and see what shakes out in the next year or so. I do think LR5 is a worthy (although not huge) upgrade...that's due soonish. Photoshop CC is a useful (although not huge) upgrade over CS6. The upside is Adobe has committed to making Camera Raw 8.x work in Photoshop CS6–so, buying a new camera doesn't screwup you AC updates. Beyond that, there's always the free DNG Converter option.

Bottom line? Chill out and let's see what happens. Nobody has to do anything immediately.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 11:47:04 PM by Schewe » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2013, 12:50:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Think of the following worst case scenario:
1. Apple release OSX 10.9 on Sept 1st 2013 (very likely),
2. The current version of CS6 is not compatible with OSX 10.9 (TBC but pretty likely)
3. Adobe decides not to patch CS6 to make it compatible with OSX 10.9 (unclear, it seems they wrote somewhere they would provide a patch... but I couldn't find any official statement),
4. Your Macbook pro dies on Sept 2nd (unlikely... but who knows),
5. You buy a new Macbook pro on Sept 3rd, shipping with OSX 10.9,
6. You try to install OSX 10.8 on your brand new laptop on Sept 4th, but fail to do so... (pretty likely).

Adobe has said that there would be OS compatibility updates...presumably for Mac OS 10.9.x and Windows 8/Blue. After that, prediction becomes less likely to be accurate.

Also note that Adobe has said that ACR 8.x will run in Photoshop CS6 and provide new camera support (but not CC features) and there's always the free DNG Converter moving further forward.

It isn't likely that anything Apple or MSFT will do will kill Photoshop CS6 in the near term...at least several years out.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2013, 12:59:14 AM »
ReplyReply

The CC model brings a new concern, perhaps.

This thread isn't about the CC model, it's about how long Photoshop CS6 and LR5+ will last on Mac or Windows...do you have something to add about that issue?

Adobe has said they will do at least some OS updates to Photoshop CS6. LR5 will run on Mac OS X 10.7.x+ or Windows 7+ So, the question is, how long can one hold out using a perpetual license? I think 3+ years minimum, likely 4+ or more–depending on the platform.
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 568


« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2013, 01:05:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This thread isn't about the CC model, it's about how long Photoshop CS6 and LR5+ will last on Mac or Windows...do you have something to add about that issue?

Sorry, wrong place to post.  Deleted.

Rand
Logged
Wayland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2013, 02:00:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Always worth buying up old machines from people on the upgrade path and keeping some spare hardware just in case.

Logged

Wayland.
aka. Gary Waidson
Enter theWaylandscape...
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2013, 03:33:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Adobe has said that there would be OS compatibility updates...presumably for Mac OS 10.9.x and Windows 8/Blue. After that, prediction becomes less likely to be accurate.

OK, that's one good piece of info. Then we only need to start worrying in 16 months from now when 10.10 is released. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2013, 08:05:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder whether Adobe has a truly professional COMMUNICATIONS team trained to interact with the broad community of their customer base in order to find out what will work best for customers in terms of an upgrade path, rather than making the kind of "ex cathedra" decisions we are seeing from them.

Bernard is right on the money about a key difference between MS and Apple: MS is far more attentive to legacy than Apple is, but, Jeff, it's not because they are more conservative, it's because, unlike the situation for Apple, most of the world is on Windows - the corporate world that largely keeps the world going. Apple makes a great computer and a great operating system - personally I much prefer it to Windows which I used from 1991 to 2010, but frankly, looked at objectively, Apple is a bit-player in the bigger world of desktop, corporate computing. And it's the corporations that are conservative - they need to be. The cost and disruption of upgrading these systems in large corporations is enormous and that's why such a large number of them are still using Windows XP, believe it or not. That will have to change by next year, but it goes to show what drives what behaviour.

There are MANY Mac users still on 10.6 (including myself) because of applications that won't run on 10.7+, we need, and they never will. Did Adobe bother to find out what percentage of Mac users are on 10.6? I read somewhere it's about one-third. That's huge. A SENSIBLE corporation would have made LR5 backward compatible at least to Snow Leopard, if not Leopard, just to help people along the transition - and at the same time announce the FUTURE cut-off point for backward compatibility so people will be forewarned. I don't like waking-up one fine morning to find out that the latest version of the application I depend on most will not work on my computer unless I upgrade it and lose functionality for some other stuff I can't replace. It's just a jungle out there - perhaps to some extent unavoidable for well-known reasons, but both Adobe and Apple could go a long way to reduce the worst effects of it; but they don't because it will cost them money and they are prone to discounting their customers' money far more readily than their own. It's really as simple as that.

I fully agree with you that I would not switch back to Windows for any of this. To answer John Camp's original question, for the time being the real fall back for Mac users is to install Windows either under Bootcamp or as a VM under, for example, Parallels, and install a second copy of LR there. Then one has the flexibility to work between the least-worst solution depending on the situation at hand. But the ultimate solution is to get more responsible corporate behaviour out of both Adobe and Apple.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2013, 08:26:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

Thanks.

JC
Logged
rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2013, 09:08:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,
Thanks, your communications about all of this are one of the brighter sets of ideas and communications that I've seen.

Too bad that Adobe corporate hasn't done something akin to this.

No matter how this all shakes out it will make an interesting bidness school study.

Cheers,
Mr. Rasterdogs
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2013, 09:12:53 AM »
ReplyReply

There are MANY Mac users still on 10.6 (including myself) because of applications that won't run on 10.7+, we need, and they never will. Did Adobe bother to find out what percentage of Mac users are on 10.6? I read somewhere it's about one-third. That's huge. A SENSIBLE corporation would have made LR5 backward compatible at least to Snow Leopard, if not Leopard, just to help people along the transition
FYI my estimate is 8-9% of Mac users. That's based on very similar visitor stats at two Lightroom sites, one of which is mine, and is about the same proportion as when Adobe dropped support for Windows XP.
Logged

kingscurate
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2013, 09:30:02 AM »
ReplyReply

John beardy,
Nice to see your a red!!
Logged

I aint a pro
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2013, 09:30:26 AM »
ReplyReply

FYI my estimate is 8-9% of Mac users. That's based on very similar visitor stats at two Lightroom sites, one of which is mine, and is about the same proportion as when Adobe dropped support for Windows XP.

Other evidence I turn-up on a web search indicates 28% to 30% as of several months ago. Maybe the difference reflects the larger community of people who don't use Lightroom and/or report to the sites you mention.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
hokuahi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


Warrior, Photographer


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2013, 09:34:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Jeff, for such a clear, levelheaded answer.
Logged

Two 2.26 Quad-Core Mac Pro
16 GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.8.4
Canon 5DIII
PS CC
LR 5
Epson 3800/3880
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2013, 09:43:03 AM »
ReplyReply

John beardy,
Nice to see your a red!!
Ha! Just about to format a new drive - "RVP".
Logged

Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 920


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2013, 09:43:13 AM »
ReplyReply

My thoughts, one week into the DECISION.

A great post, Jeff, and one filled with what we need right about now: perspective, reason, and a fine-grained understanding of the facts.

Jim
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2013, 10:00:12 AM »
ReplyReply

A great post, Jeff, and one filled with what we need right about now: perspective, reason, and a fine-grained understanding of the facts.

Jim

I agree. Very sensible advice - especially the conclusion.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1878


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2013, 11:31:47 AM »
ReplyReply

With regard to supporting older OS platforms, There are possibilities. First the virtualization technology available to Windows is called Hyper-V. Hyper-V runs on some versions Windows 7 and 8. I don’t know off hand if Hyper-V runs on all versions but didn’t check. Hyper-V also runs on x64 server platforms beginning with Windows Server 2008. On most 64-bit workstation platform through Windows 8 it’s possible to install Windows XP (and more recent OSes) as a virtual machine. The same is true for the server platforms, except that one can run Windows workstation and/or server platforms back to Windows 2003 on the server platforms.

Based on Hyper-V support, as technology advances move along, it is very likely that support for older Windows OSes will continue to be around for a long time. This suggests that it’s possible to run current and/or older versions of PS and related for just about as long as the OS platforms can be run from virtual machines.

The potential gotcha here is if Adobe turns off support for activating older editions of their software. I have no knowledge about that.

I agree that not only is there no reason to corner oneself by being hasty, at the very worst, one can always rent the CC platform long enough to convert their documents, if needed or desired, to another format. It’s never wise to put a case of arrogance ahead of a $20 bill, imo.
Logged

Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 920


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2013, 11:55:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Based on Hyper-V support, as technology advances move along, it is very likely that support for older Windows OSes will continue to be around for a long time. This suggests that it’s possible to run current and/or older versions of PS and related for just about as long as the OS platforms can be run from virtual machines.

Good advice. However, there are still opportunities for incompatibility in a hypervisor environment. I came very close to getting my Imacon Precision II running under a virtual version of Windows XP running under the Microsoft hypervisor. The project ultimately failed because of my inability to find a virtual display driver that met the requirements of Flexcolor.

Jim
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad