Re: Next Lightroomrequires ...

SubjectRe: Next Lightroomrequires 64bit
Date01/31/2015 01:23 (01/30/2015 19:23)
FollowupsSandman (6h) > nospam

In article <>, Sandman <>wrote:

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.

nospam: 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.

you blamed it on my browser and now you're trying to weasel out of it.

I *WONDERED* what happened to your browser. I did *NOT* "blame" neither you nor your browser.

it's not my browser.

by browser has *nothing* to do with it.

this happens to *anyone* who goes to that link, including eric.

i told you how to verify it but you have not done so.

You were an asshole without a valid reason.

nope. i always have a valid reason to be an asshole :)

nospam: 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.

it's completely irrelevant.


it's not relevant no matter how much you argue otherwise.

nospam: 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.

nothing that matters or adobe wouldn't have done it.

You keep saying that, based on no data what so ever. So more hot air from you.

it's common sense. why the hell would adobe cut off support if it mattered? duh.

nospam: 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 an assumption.

Since you have presented no data, it is an assumption by definition.

Present data and make it more than an assumption.

ask microsoft. this is well known.

nospam: 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.

it's not indicative at all.



you did a quickie search and pick the first result, one which is totally irrelevant.

Incorrect. I am an Adobe user and a Steam user. I am not the only one, logically.

you're in a minority.

i didn't say there's *no* overlap.

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.

And yours is non-existant. You have yet to find a good restaurant or better data on W7 64 bit usage.

i have *zero* problems finding excellent restaurants.

here's a hint: you don't just put in 'good restaurants' into a search engine and hope to get useful results.

steam customers and adobe customers are *worlds* different. there is likely to be very little overlap in the two.

More hot air and no data from you.

prove that steam customer usage is identical to adobe.

oh right, there is no such proof.

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.

A claim from you based on exactly no data.

it's common sense.

why the hell would adobe shoot themselves in the foot? the may not be perfect, but they're not that stupid.

you, however, is a different story.