Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR 5 and Vista 64  (Read 4309 times)
rbthum
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« on: June 11, 2013, 11:52:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there any way to make LR 5 run on Vista?  The beta did, but the final LR 5 download stops installing when it detects no Windows 7.

Help.    Sad
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2764


« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2013, 12:20:36 PM »
ReplyReply

System requirements / Windows

    Microsoft® Windows® 7 with Service Pack 1 or Windows 8
Logged
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2013, 12:51:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there any way to make LR 5 run on Vista?  The beta did, but the final LR 5 download stops installing when it detects no Windows 7.

Help.    Sad
Why not upgrade to Win 7?  Upgrading over Vista was seamless on the two computers I done it with and 7 is far more stable than Vista
Logged
egd5
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2013, 01:56:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Well Hell. That just sucks.Vista has been fine on my PC since day one. I just may have to join all the Adobe haters now.
On the other hand, I just saved $80.
Logged
RikkFlohr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2013, 03:05:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Well Hell. That just sucks.Vista has been fine on my PC since day one. I just may have to join all the Adobe haters now.
On the other hand, I just saved $80.

Just because Vista has been fine since day one doesn't preclude Win 7's being better.  You may have also cost yourself image quality and time-spent. Your dime - your choice.
Logged

Rikk Flohr
Sagas in Light
jferrari
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2013, 08:33:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Seriously??? So now in addition to buying the upgrades to LR, I have to buy Windows 7 for all four of my Vista boxes??? There's not one single thing that 7 does that I can't live without as compared to the capability of Vista. Just getting pissier by the minute...
Logged
egd5
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2013, 08:42:57 PM »
ReplyReply

They're determined to drag us kicking and screaming into the 21st century whether we want to or not. Grin Grin Grin
Logged
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2013, 10:33:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Seriously??? So now in addition to buying the upgrades to LR, I have to buy Windows 7 for all four of my Vista boxes??? There's not one single thing that 7 does that I can't live without as compared to the capability of Vista. Just getting pissier by the minute...
I hear ya - still have one PC running XP here 'cause that particular hardware just won't handle anything newer.  But as new software comes out with new capabilities, eventually you run into brick wall where the software needs OS calls that don't exist in older systems or you want newer hardware and you need to upgrade the operating systems to take advantage of its new capabilities.  I've been working with PCs since the 1970's and the need to continuously upgrade has always been a simple fact of life - Sisyphus would feel right at home today.
Logged
rbthum
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2013, 12:10:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Changing OS is a giant hassle - you have to reinstall all your programs, you'll need upgraded versions of some critical ones (like SilverFast), some hardware is not compatible, etc.  Why do it if you don't have to?

Since LR5 beta operated under Vista (although Adobe said it wouldn't support Vista), doesn't someone know a way to get the final LR5 to work under Vista as well?

Of course, if LR5 isn't materially better than LR4, perhaps there's no reason to upgrade or to swap OS.  Can someone comment on the differences?
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2013, 01:36:32 AM »
ReplyReply

There's not one single thing that 7 does that I can't live without as compared to the capability of Vista.

My wordprocessing and spreadsheet needs were (and still would be today) met by the versions of WordStar and SuperCalc that I ran on a CPM+ operating system in the early 80s. But I would have to concede that, for photo-processing, the software and OS platforms of today are a big improvement on what was available even 5 years ago.

Having said that, I really have no interest at present in upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 8. I tend to only move up in OS terms when I replace a PC and get the current Windows version with it. Which, currently, means about once every three years.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1908


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2013, 02:30:33 AM »
ReplyReply

But as new software comes out with new capabilities, eventually you run into brick wall where the software needs OS calls that don't exist in older systems or you want newer hardware and you need to upgrade the operating systems to take advantage of its new capabilities.
The real issue is do you need those 'new facilities' to do the job ?
When support for XP was dropped by LR in version 4, some people claimed it was because process 2012 needed those 'new facilities' to run. It didn't as the matching version of ACR ran just fine(actually much faster) in PS on XP. It seems the only things that needed the 'new facilities' were the support for video. Did anyone at Adobe ask users whether they want video support or the ability to run on older hardware (possibly faster) ? you know the answer.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2013, 03:02:23 AM »
ReplyReply

"Did anyone at Adobe ask users?" The answer is probably yes - Adobe do conduct market research.

There's also the cost involved in writing and testing code for a small and fast-declining portion of the user base. Vista's under 1% of Lightroom users (Snow Leopard's around 6%).

John.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2013, 03:09:30 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1908


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2013, 03:22:06 AM »
ReplyReply

The answer is probably yes. Adobe do conduct market research.
I'm sure they do, but are they asking the right questions to the right people ?
Asking would you like video support, is easy and most people would just say yes. Qualifying it by saying what you loose by having it, it won't run on your existing hardware, the whole program may run slower etc and the answer may well be different.
Quote
There's also the cost involved in writing and testing code for a small and fast-declining portion of the user base. Vista's under 1% of Lightroom users
There's also costs involved in writing unnecessary code too. ACR/PS CS6 ran just fine on XP, so it really wasn't any core functionality that caused it to be dropped.
Vista has never been exactly popular, but I'm still seeing a lot of customers using XP (over 20%).
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2013, 03:53:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Unless they're complete morons, they probably ask enough questions from enough angles to make a rational decision. Remember existing core functionality gets rewritten (eg Slideshow this time), the basis is laid for future developments, and existing core functionality is fine tuned - or fixed. There's little point doing it for operating systems and hardware that will be a tiny minority of your customers.

XP users are probably under 4% of total Lightroom users now compared with 6.7% when LR support for it was dropped last year.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1908


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2013, 04:27:17 AM »
ReplyReply

XP users are probably under 4% of total Lightroom users now compared with 6.7% when LR support for it was dropped last year.
Using stats like this is just daft as the program no longer supports the OS.

As I said, for my customers of colourprofiles.com (who by definition are serious about their photography) I'm still seeing over 20% using XP & Vista. It's also interesting to see fewer and fewer using the latest versions of PS too (25% using CS3 or older). 5 years ago when we first starting tracking photo editor used nearly 90% were using the very latest version of PS, last year that had dropped to 30%(possibly lower as that figure is skewed by the use of ACPU).
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2013, 05:19:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Depends how they are used. 6.7% gives some indication of roughly when Adobe find it uneconomic to continue to support an older OS (see Snow Leopard number above) while 4% shows your "a lot of customers using XP (over 20%)" may not be representative. I'd believe my 4% not least because you'd have to be a complete numpty to visit my Lightroom site for anything other than Lightroom, and also because my numbers are usually close to another two Lightroom-only sites.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1908


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2013, 05:33:47 AM »
ReplyReply

6.7% gives some indication of roughly when Adobe find it uneconomic to continue to support....
I think we've discovered that anything less than 10% doesn't matter at all to Adobe.
Every selection of users(and potential users) they alienate will look elsewhere and leave. They may not care now, but in future that lack of care may come back to haunt them.
Quote
"a lot of customers using XP (over 20%)" may not be representative.
It may not be representative of current LR users, but it's an indication of the nature of usage amongst the wider photographic community.
Logged
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2013, 06:58:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Changing OS is a giant hassle - you have to reinstall all your programs, you'll need upgraded versions of some critical ones (like SilverFast), some hardware is not compatible, etc.  Why do it if you don't have to?
...
Actually I upgraded by installing Win 7 on top of Vista and virtually everything came over without problems.  I know the conventional wisdom says the best practice is to reformat and do a clean install but I decided to try the upgrade path instead and it worked just fine, just some minor cleanup but no re-installs needed.  But if I were on Vista today and needed to update because it wasn't supported in some software I wanted to use, I'd skip 7 and go to 8.  It just makes no sense to me to 'upgrade' to something that's already on the way out and some of the Win 8 frustrations should soon be fixed in the update due in a couple of months.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2013, 07:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I think we've discovered that anything less than 10% doesn't matter at all to Adobe.
Every selection of users(and potential users) they alienate will look elsewhere and leave. They may not care now, but in future that lack of care may come back to haunt them.It may not be representative of current LR users, but it's an indication of the nature of usage amongst the wider photographic community.
Current LR users are all that matters here. If the rest of the potential market hasn't come over already, you're not going to win over much more of them by continuing to support older OS's.
Logged

jferrari
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2013, 07:09:31 AM »
ReplyReply

<rant> I, too, come from the days of mag tapes, punch cards and floppy discs the size of dinner plates but the issue here is not that LR5 WON'T run on Vista 64bit, it's that the coders wrote in a switch that asks: "Is operating system Windows 7 or greater?" Yes or no. As mentioned elsewhere, to upgrade a computer that is used daily for business is not to be taken lightly. Printer drivers, (a BIGGIE!) scanner drivers and software, display calibration, ICC profiles and bloated UI are some of the genuine concerns I have in addition to the cost outlay. Now, if I didn't have a 64bit platform I could justify the upgrade. But to upgrade just because Bill Gates is starving to death... Don't get me started. </rant>
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad