Google| Subject | Re: Next Lightroomrequires 64bit |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 01/30/2015 21:29 (01/30/2015 15:29) |
| Message-ID | <300120151529367011%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (9m) > nospam |
In article <sandman-28f68fb18a9ba0a874c345b765daa14e@individual.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
you blamed it on my browser and now you're trying to weasel out of it.SandmannospamSandmannospam
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.
Correct, i.e. not blaming you for anything. Only wondering. This is how English works. You were an asshole for no obvious reason.
it was *your* link. not mine.
i have absolutely *nothing* to do with *your* link that *you* provided.
all i did is report what it actually links to.
it's not my browser (nor could it be).
all the browser does is connect to tinyurl.com and go to whatever it spits back, which in this case is an ad-tracker.
it's completely irrelevant.nospamSandman
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.
nothing that matters or adobe wouldn't have done it.nospamSandman
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.
it's not an assumption. windows 7 came out in 2009, about two *years* after 64 bit intel cpus were available. most windows users upgrade by buying a new system and there is no simple migration path from xp->7 resulting in even fewer users bothering to upgrade.nospamSandman
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.
it's not indicative at all.SandmannospamI know, can't you read?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.nospam: steam stats are not relevant.
then why did you cite them?
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.
you did a quickie search and pick the first result, one which is totally irrelevant.
that's how you end up at shitty restaurants. you find a link that says some restaurant is good, oblivious to it being a shill review and not surprisingly, it turns out to be not great.
your research skills suck.
steam customers and adobe customers are *worlds* different. there is likely to be very little overlap in the two.
it would be just as ludicrous if you cited the breakdown of how many people use ms word on mac (32 bit app) versus pages on mac (a 64 bit app). that also has *nothing* to do with adobe's usage stats.
adobe knows *exactly* what their customer base is far better than you or anyone else does and they would not drop 32 bit support if it made a difference. it doesn't.
it's a complete non-issue.
this happens all the time across the industry. apple made batteries internal, people bitched and yet sales went *up*. apple dropped matte displays, people bitched, yet sales went *up*.
01/30/2015-
