Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR 5 and Vista 64  (Read 4804 times)
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2013, 07:17:58 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>
Didn't say periodic OS upgrades were to be taken lightly, just that they are a fact of life.  My "day job" is a PC applications trainer and I'm still training new users on Office 2003 fer cryin' out loud!  In fact, I've still got clients who are still "upgrading" to 2003! Cheesy  I have no insider info but I'm confident Adobe didn't make Win7 or later required for LR5 out of any concern for Microsoft's bottom line - it got to be that something in the code doesn't work properly in older OSs.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1951



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2013, 10:07:45 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

Get Windows 7! It is *SO* much better than Vista, LR-compatibility aside.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2013, 11:16:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Current LR users are all that matters here.
No, otherwise they'd support their existing users that use older OSs.

They're just happy to loose any that won't play the 'buy the latest' game.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2013, 11:21:02 AM »
ReplyReply

That's just sensible business.
Logged

Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2013, 11:29:24 AM »
ReplyReply

No, otherwise they'd support their existing users that use older OSs.

They're just happy to loose any that won't play the 'buy the latest' game.
Time marches on - remember Vista is 10 years old in an industry where a "generation" is about 18 months.  I'm not knocking it - although it got a bad rap in some circles I personally had no problems with it on two computers where it was installed but all things eventually must pass.
Logged
Dan Glynhampton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2013, 03:28:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Time marches on - remember Vista is 10 years old in an industry where a "generation" is about 18 months.

It's not quite that old, Microsoft say it was released in 2006 and Wikipedia (if you trust that source) says it became generally available on the 30th January 2007, so that's just over six years.

But your point is well made, OS capabilities advance every few years and once LR needs something that isn't in an older version then support will be dropped.  I think another significant factor is the testing time and effort required to support multiple versions.  Supporting 3 versions of an OS instead of 2 could increase the test time by 50% if full functional testing is carried out (which I would hope it is) and that's a significant overhead.

Dan
Logged
rbthum
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2013, 11:07:18 PM »
ReplyReply

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.

What do you mean "on top of Vista"?  Is there something about an "upgade path" that eliminates the need to reinstall S/W, drivers, etc.?
Logged
mlewis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2013, 01:41:09 AM »
ReplyReply

What do you mean "on top of Vista"?  Is there something about an "upgade path" that eliminates the need to reinstall S/W, drivers, etc.?
If you want to upgarde from Vista x32 to Win7 x32 or Vista x64 to Win7 x64 all you have to do is insert the upgrade media and install Win7 using the upgrade option.  All your software etc will not need reinstalling.

If you wish to change bit depth of OS then you will need to do a clean install - start again from scratch.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2013, 04:08:10 AM »
ReplyReply

That's just sensible business.
The really smart thing is not to restrict the software install, so if users of older OSs can get it working they can still buy the upgrade and use it as the OP here wanted.

LR3 came with a warning when trying to install on 'unsupported' hardware, but you could carry on and in my experience still get a useful installation.
On my XP netbook LR3 ran well enough, LR4 wouldn't install and would have been a bit sluggish, LR5's speed improvements might have made it viable on that hardware, but it can't be installed, so I'm not rushing to buy the upgrade. "sensible business" ??
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2013, 04:24:54 AM »
ReplyReply

My starting point would also be a dislike of restrictions at installation, but even with disclaimers and warnings users will still pass on the blame and give you the bad reputation when your product doesn't work properly. It's good business sense not to attempt to please everyone.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2013, 04:36:07 AM »
ReplyReply

It's good business sense not to attempt to please everyone.
Adobe have certainly managed that recently.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 13, 2013, 06:00:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Adobe have certainly managed that recently.
And only time will tell if they've made the right call. I'm bored with this.
Logged

werner from aurora
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2013, 07:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I too was playing with the beta version on my Vista 64 system. I almost upgraded never thinking the release version would not work. I use Silvervast for my scanning, If I upgrade to 7 I need to fork out another $250.00 to Silvervast to get it to work with 7. It is the main reason I stick with vista 64 as I also have another (non photography) program that only works with Vista. All of a sudden upgrading to Lightroom 5 will cost me 5-6 hundred bucks!! Why would 5 beta work and then not work on the release?  FRUSTRATING!!!
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 636



« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2013, 10:12:26 AM »
ReplyReply

All of a sudden upgrading to Lightroom 5 will cost me 5-6 hundred bucks!! Why would 5 beta work and then not work on the release?  FRUSTRATING!!!

One possible reason is that the beta-testing revealed some bugs and the easiest way to resolve the bugs involved restricting the release version to Win7&8
Logged

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

Posts: 844



« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2013, 01:30:21 PM »
ReplyReply

One possible reason is that the beta-testing revealed some bugs and the easiest way to resolve the bugs involved restricting the release version to Win7&8

 No, the release notes with the Beta stated that Vista was not supported, Win7 with service pack 1 or Win8. Many people complained about this on the LRBeta forums.

 Werner, I moved Silverfast from XP to win7 without any addditional cost when my XP box went up in smoke. Also any program that runs on Vista will run on Wn7 under emulation,
I think that is the correct term.

 I think if you run the upgrade you will find about everything will transfer over seamlessly. It did for me when I took my Vista laptop to Win7, drivers, programs, data.... even down to the screen calibration.

Rich
Logged

PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1951



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2013, 04:10:46 PM »
ReplyReply

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

So, if you can live without running LR 5, what's the problem?
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8075



WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2013, 04:43:30 PM »
ReplyReply

All the way through XP my mantra was that MS-DOS 3.1 was Microsoft's only OS that was ready for prime time.

With Vista, my Blue Screens of Death went down from about once a week to once every couple of months. With Windows 7 (64) they occur only once a year at most. And I can run any old software in "compatibility" mode with no trouble.

Eric M.


Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
jferrari
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 247


« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2013, 06:04:17 PM »
ReplyReply

So, if you can live without running LR 5, what's the problem?
Where did I say I could live without LR5? Read what I actually said. I was talking about the forced upgrade to Windows 7 or above. You know what? Don't bother. I'm done with this.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad