Google| Subject | Re: Next Lightroomrequires 64bit |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 01/30/2015 16:08 (01/30/2015 10:08) |
| Message-ID | <300120151008059591%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (1h & 44m) > nospam |
In article <sandman-d2cc79e8b19eb3d3ba8347abf9a3e66a@individual.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
you blamed it on me due to your ignorance of the topic.SandmannospamSandman
<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/nn9sde8Shows it pointing directly at Adobe's site. I wonder what happened to your browser when you clicked it. Odd!nospam
it's not my browser. you are once again, clueless.
NIce, always revert to being an asshole in spite of me saying nothing rude to you.
that's what i would call being clueless, and now that you mention it, blaming it on me qualifies as being an asshole as well.
it's *not* me. period.
if you can't see the redirect, then you're clueless as a bag of rocks.
again, there is absolutely nothing wrong at my end whatsofuckingever.nospam
the tinyurl you gave links to this: <http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-6154686-10503029?sid=i5jnjckw980002cl0082j &url=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.adobe.com%2Flightroomjournal%2F2015%2F01%2Fupda te-on-os-support-for-next-version-of-lightroom.html>dpbolvw.net is an ad-tracking site.Sandman
As you can see above, this is false. Something is wrong at your end at the looks of it.
as i said, you're clueless.
your tinyurl link is a dpbolvw redirect. end of story.
i assume you saw the story on some website and then copied the link directly to make a tinyurl out of it, not realizing that it was actually an ad-tracking redirect.
what's worse is you aren't even noticing the redirect, which means you're susceptible to much worse.
and as i said originally, there is never a need for url shorterners on usenet because unlike twitter, there is no limit on how long a post can be.
lightroom 5 requires a 64 bit processor. anyone who can run lightroom 5 can run lightroom 6, making this a complete non-issue.Yeah, I was thinking more about the Windows folksnospam
there is no difference for windows folks.lightroom 5 requires win7 or later, as does lightroom 6, which means anyone who can run lr5 can run lr6.Sandman
Lightroom 6 will require Windows 7 *64bit*.
<http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/system-requirements.html> Photoshop Lightroom 5 system requirements and language versions
Windows € Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon 64 processor* € Microsoft Windows 7 with Service Pack 1, Windows 8, or Windows 8.1
Mac OS € Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support € Mac OS X Server v10.7, v10.8, v10.9, or v10.10
According to Steam stats, 12% of Windows 7 users are still at 32bit, but since most gamers are more likely to use 64bit I bet real-world numbers are a bit higher.steam stats?? what does that have to do with adobe's customer base?? oh right, absolutely nothing.
adobe customers were pining for a 64 bit version of photoshop nearly *ten* years ago, leading up to cs4's release on windows in 2008 and also upset that mac users had to wait for cs5.
even if it is as high as 12%, it's still not enough to matter. they can easily be ignored (and should be).
it is for mayayana.SandmanAgreed, still curious though. One has already replied that he's using Windows XP, so...nospam
one who said he isn't an adobe customer, which reinforces adobe's decision to not support xp, something they've done since version *4*.
Which has not been in contention.
they shouldn't, that's the whole point.nospamSandman
if someone hasn't upgraded from xp, they're certainly not going to be buying new software. why waste time supporting it?
Who said they should?
01/30/2015-
