Google| Subject | Re: Next Lightroomrequires 64bit |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 01/30/2015 14:55 (01/30/2015 08:55) |
| Message-ID | <300120150855590029%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Mayayana |
| Followups | Mayayana (26m) > nospam |
In article <mag1bu$akl$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>wrote:
Mayayanayou must not do much of anything if you think xp is sufficient. most software requires win7 or later (sometimes vista).
| "In order to leverage the latest operating system features and technologies, | Lightroom 6 will require Mac OS X 10.8 or above, or a 64 bit version of Windows | 7, 8 or 8.1." | | Makes sense, but how many will be left with version 5? I wonder if there is any | data on this. How many here use a 32bit operating system? |
I do for most things. I'm running XP. I have a dual-CPU Win7-64 box, but I find Win7 tedious and overproduced, in addition to being spyware. I prefer XP because it mostly just does what I tell it to and gets out of the way. I've only used the Win7 box occassionally for large, memory-intensive operations.
also, xp is no longer supported by microsoft and is not receiving security updates anymore. that right there should be a clue.
as for overpriced, win10 will be free, and you can thank *apple* for that.
If I were doing a lot with large RAW images the Win7 box might be worth the trouble, but not because of "the latest system features". That's just BS Adobe is using to justify dropping the work of 32-bit support. The case for 64-bit is all about RAM.it's not bs at all and has little to do with memory.
win7/10.8 offers a lot of functionality not present in earlier systems and it's stupid to hold back advancement for a tiny minority of people who won't upgrade and who wouldn't be buying the apps anyway.
in short, supporting 32 bit is not worth the trouble.
On the other hand, I don't and wouldn't use Adobe, so I'm not concerned.you're confirming that adobe made the correct decision.
01/30/2015-
