Subject | Re: Next Lightroomrequires 64bit |
From | Sandman |
Date | 01/30/2015 20:24 (01/30/2015 20:24) |
Message-ID | <sandman-28f68fb18a9ba0a874c345b765daa14e@individual.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | nospam |
Followups | nospam (1h & 5m) > Sandman |
Correct, i.e. not blaming you for anything. Only wondering. This is how English works. You were an asshole for no obvious reason.nospamSandmannospam
Sandman: I wonder what happened to your browser when you clicked it. Odd!
Thanks for supporting me. That is not blaming you for anything, that is me wondering about something. Do learn to read.
you're assuming it's my browser.
But it doesn't on Windows, which is what I said.nospamNo, but you said it requires a 64 bit system. It doesn't. You were incorrect.nospam: nobody said it didn't.SandmanThe installer comes with a 32bit and 64bit binary:
nospam: lightroom 5 requires a 64 bit processor
it does on mac.
however, i did misread the windows requirements. i saw amd 64 and thought it needed a 64 bit cpu.Good for you. Kudos.
however, anyone running windows 7 and/or lightroom 5 is almost certainly running a 64 bit capable system because windows 7 on a 32 bit system is going to be painful and the vast majority of windows 7 users have it because they bought new hardware, which will be 64 bit.The only data we have suggest that up to 12% of W7 users may be on 32 bit. I don't know how reliable that data is, and no other stats site I found have the W7 versions separated, unfortunately.
so amend it to be that *almost* everyone who runs lr5 on windows can upgrade to lr6 and *everyone* on a mac.Correct. And my curiosity concerns just how much "almost" is.
the number of people who run win7 on older 32 bit hardware is very low, particularly adobe users, close enough to zero to be considered zero.Based on no actual data, of course, just assumption.
Because it's the only data I *could* find. No other site seems to separate them. And while not relevant to the general PC population, it's at least indicative to some extent.nospamI know, can't you read?Sandmannospam: steam stats are not relevant.
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.
then why did you cite them?
nospamSandman64bit processors and systems are not the "latest and greatest" any more. But you have a point, there may not be as much difference as I thought.
nospam: 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.
where are the 128 bit chips?
oh right, there aren't any yet.
64 bit processors *are* the latest and greatest and are rapidly becoming dominant in *phones*. 32 bit is oldschool.Right, I was unclear. They aren't as exclusive and "high end" as they once were. They're commonplace today.
But it says nothing about actual usage stats.Sandmannospam
Incorrect. What an unspecified percentage of users supposedly "pines" for ten years ago is irrelevant to current usage stats, which is also unknown at this point.
it means that the desire for 64 bit is nothing new and dropping 32 bit is long overdue.
So, no source then. Gotcha. You sure make tons of unsubstantiated claims.nospamSandmanSource? Thought so.
nospam: 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.
adobe.