news

Re: Next Lightroomrequires ...

Sandman
SubjectRe: Next Lightroomrequires 64bit
FromSandman
Date01/30/2015 15:04 (01/30/2015 15:04)
Message-ID<sandman-db2e929f114aa76d5d0df59ed4b9cd2a@individual.net>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
Followsnospam
Followupsnospam (20m) > Sandman
Mayayana (26m)

In article <300120150856010133%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:

Sandman
<https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/01/update-on-os-support-for-

next-version-of-lightroom.html>

nospam
that link works.

Sandman
<http://tinyurl.com/nn9sde8>

nospam
that link is *not* the same as the above, which is *exactly* why tinyurl is *bad* and should never be used, as it doesn't necessarily go to where the user says it does.

in the case of the above, it goes through an ad-tracker which can be blocked (and often is).

That's really odd, it doesn't for me, and using tinyurl's preview function:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/nn9sde8

Shows it pointing directly at Adobe's site. I wonder what happened to your browser when you clicked it. Odd!

Sandman
"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?

nospam
almost none, since that's basically the same as lightroom 5.

the only difference is 10.7 is no longer supported for lightroom 6, which affects almost nobody.

Yeah, I was thinking more about the Windows folks

Sandman
I wonder if there is any data on this. How many here use a 32bit operating system?

nospam
of course there's data, and adobe has it.

anyone still stuck on 32 bit systems isn't worth the trouble to support anymore and holds back advancement for the rest of the world.

it's a complete non-issue.

Agreed, still curious though. One has already replied that he's using Windows XP, so...

-- Sandman


Thread