Google| Subject | Re: Next Lightroomrequires 64bit |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 01/30/2015 18:41 (01/30/2015 12:41) |
| Message-ID | <300120151241191197%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (28m) Sandman (47m) > nospam Eric Stevens (4h & 49m) > nospam |
In article <sandman-d77557fe6296a5103c461ff4ab09b729@individual.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
yes you did:SandmannospamNIce, always revert to being an asshole in spite of me saying nothing rude to you.nospamSandman: 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.
<http://tinyurl.com/nn9sde8>in the case of the above, it goes through an ad-tracker which can be blocked (and often is).Sandman
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.
you blamed it on me due to your ignorance of the topic.
I blamed nothing on you, you illiterate fool
it's not my browser.I wonder what happened to your browser when you clicked it. Odd!
the tinyurl link, which *you* gave, goes through www.dpbolvw.net which is an ad-tracker.
i block ad-tracking sites, so that link *does not work* at all.
you apparently do not block ad-tracking sites and are oblivious to the redirect and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that it does that.
this is *very* easy to test. look for a connection to www.dpbolvw.net, which resolves to 8.18.45.85.
better yet, block connections to ad-tracking sites.
yet it ended up linking to an ad-tracker.nospamSandman
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.
No, I made a tinyurl directly from the original site. You are clueless as usual.
tony would say you are lying but lying requires intent to deceive. i don't see intent, which leaves being stupid and stubborn.
this is *exactly* the reason why url shorteners are a *bad* idea because there is *no* way to know where it goes.
nobody said it didn't.nospamYeah, 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.Lightroom 6 will require Windows 7 *64bit*.
lightroom 5 requires a 64 bit processor. anyone who can run lightroom 5 can run lightroom 6, making this a complete non-issue.<http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/system-requirements.html>>PhotoshopSandman
Lightroom 5 system requirements and language versionsnospamSandman
Windows € Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon 64 processor* € Microsoft Windows 7 with Service Pack 1, Windows 8, or Windows 8.1
The installer comes with a 32bit and 64bit binary:
<http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5648>you are proving my point.
"Windows: The Lightroom installer contains both a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the application. By default, the 64-bit version will be installed only on Windows 7 and Windows 8 64-bit operating systems. All other operating systems will install the 32-bit version by default."
the fact is that lightroom 5 *requires* a 64 bit processor and windows 7 or later, which means that anyone who can run lightroom 5 is *guaranteed* to have the necessary hardware and software to run lightroom 6. period.
i didn't say there *wasn't* a 32 bit version. all lightroom 6 does is drop the 32 bit version that almost nobody was using anyway.
You're used to being wrong.you're used to lying.
steam stats are not relevant.SandmanAccording 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.nospam
steam stats?? what does that have to do with adobe's customer base?? oh right, absolutely nothing.
Exactly. I don't have access to Adobe stats, so I googled and the first thing I found was steam stats. As I said, I suspect real world stats shows more using 32bit Windows 7.
adobe most likely has *more* 64 bit users than steam does since a lot of gamers are kids or hobbyists who can't afford the latest and greatest hardware or software, whereas adobe's customers are typically on the cutting edge of technology.
it's *exactly* relevant.nospamSandman
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.
Irrelevant to current usage stats.
adobe's customers want 64 bit apps and have for nearly a decade. they don't want 32 bit apps anymore and haven't for a long time.
as i said, none of them, since anyone who can run lightroom 5 is *guaranteed* to be able to run lightroom 6.nospamSandman
even if it is as high as 12%, it's still not enough to matter. they can easily be ignored (and should be).
I agree, and as I said, I'm just curious of how many that won't be able to upgrade.
worst case, 10.7 users will need to upgrade to 10.10, which is free. there aren't very many 10.7 users anyway.
you are implying it will be an issue.Sandmannospamnospam: 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?
they shouldn't, that's the whole point.
I.e. no one has claimed they shouldn't.
not only won't it be an issue, but it's something adobe should have done sooner. maintaining support for obsolete 32 bit systems drags down the product for everyone.
01/30/2015-
