Windows 7 has a compatability mode for older programs. Right click on the PS5 installer exe,then select "Properties" at the bottom of the context menu.

Click on  the Compatibilty tab of the Properties dialog,and you can choose anything from Win95 to WinXP SP3. Save changes,,and try the install again.

Once you get PS5 in there,then hopefully CS2 will take.

It works fine.

Right click on the "setup.exe" file on the CS2 install disc and then click on "properties", then click on the "compatibility" tab.

Click on the box for "Run this in compability mode" and in the pull down select "XP sp2".

Click "apply" and then "ok".

Now go back to "setup.exe" and click on "Run as administrator" and CS2 should load fine.

I had the same problem and gave up. I found out that elements 9 is far more advanced than photoshop CS2. I purchased CS2 some time ago and thought it was an once only purchase. How wrong I was. I bought an intuos 4 tablet and it had elements 7 as a freeby and was pleasantly surprised. Now I have elements 9 and it has now the layermask tool. Channels can be accessed with the black and white converter and the only thing missing is the pen tool. I'm only an amateur and Photoshop Elements is all I need. I have still CS2 on my laptop but I hardly use it archieving and editing goes really fast and smooth with elements. Regards

I will try the other suggestion first transfer CS2 on an external hard drive from my XP laptop and plug the drive consequently on my Windows desktop. My Windows 7 is a 64 bit, any issues? I hate to fork out $650 on an upgrade if I get satifactory results with Elements 9. I'm just an amateur photographer and not a digital artist. Regards

If you have CS2, you can upgrade to CS5 for $199.00. If you can afford it, that would be the way to go.

Freedom4all wrote:

 

 

TO ADOBE:

Why you don't want to help the costumers. They just want to use your products "the legal way". Failing to help them, when it is possible, just opens more doors to piracy. Or is that you technicians are that good at all and don't have the knowledge to help people with this simple mater? That makes you (Adobe) look worst. Shame on you!

 

Your naiveté is so adorably cute!

Adobe has given the resources to help the customers. You are looking at it. And you can look at it here too.

Adobe just can't keep supporting customers that are not supporting Adobe. CS2 was released over 5 years ago.

Welcome to the forums. 

Liz, you DO know that addressing other users here, not Adobe, right?

And Adobe absolutely supports running their latest products on Windows 7.  It's the old Photoshop application that came and went long before Windows 7 was ever invented that they don't support.

But given all that, if you do the right things you can easily run Photoshop CS2 on Windows 7.  People do it all the time.

I suggest you investigate the Windows UAC facility, read about how it causes incompatibility and how you can turn it off if you want compatibility with old apps.

The information you've given above in changing a long filename to a short filename could be misleading.  You've typed it wrong (Program Files - plural), it is not normally necessary, it won't work on every system (e.g., those where people have turned off short filename support to improve performance), and even if it were necessary the generated short filename will differ from system to system.  Finally, if UAC or permissions problems are the issue, what you've listed won't help at all.

-Noel

Noel Carboni wrote:

 

...The information you've given above in changing a long filename to a short filename could be misleading.  You've typed it wrong...

I don't think that is a real issue. Sure, the default installer location was mistyped but the address that the user needs to type is correct and that is all that really matters.

EDIT: oops. The 2nd address that the user needs to type, which is the one that matters, was typed incorrectly. It should have been "C:/Progra~2/Adobe".

Marian Driscoll wrote:

 

You're likely mad because you had the money to buy a fancy new computer or to upgrade your OS but you failed to upgrade the apps you run on it. Why use a 64bit OS if you're not running 64bit apps on it? That is a terrific waste of money. It makes me laugh to see people put $2000 worth of tires on a 1982 Ford Fiesta. If you think this makes you mad, take a look at the Mac Photoshop forums. The Mac users have had a greater problem with mismatching Photoshop and their OS. In addition to a migration to 64bit systems, they've also wrestled with a move from PPC to Intel processors and a move from Carbon to Cocoa APIs. Windows users do not realize how well they have it. You can even run CS5 on a Windows OS from 10 years ago. You cannot say that for Mac.

 

Nice snarky comment, too bad you're only partially correct. Running a 32-bit application under a 64-bit OS is perfectly fine. The ONLY thing that you gain from running a 64-bit version of an application is the ability for that program to adress more than 4GB of memory. Thats it. Running a 64-bit OS allows you to actually use more than 4GB of memoryTOTAL. There is no performance increase from using a 64-bit application, and most people won't need to worry about it at the application level.

Hell, even most of the built-in applications for Windows 7 64-bit are 32-bit applciations. Explorer defaults to the 32-bit version because otherwise it would be incompatible with most plugins. Very few users need thier individual applications to access that much memory. Many users run multiple applications at once, and do need to be able to access > 4GB of memory. That's why you run a 64-bit OS and still use your existing 32-bit applications.

Marian Driscoll wrote:

 

zombiereagan wrote:

...Nice snarky comment, too bad you're only partially correct. Running a 32-bit application under a 64-bit OS is perfectly fine. The ONLY thing that you gain from running a 64-bit version of an application is the ability for that program to adress more than 4GB of memory. Thats it. Running a 64-bit OS allows you to actually use more than 4GB of memoryTOTAL. There is no performance increase from using a 64-bit application, and most people won't need to worry about it at the application level...

 

Hi. Welcome to the forums. Please note that you have entered a Photoshop forum. This forum is for a resource-intensive program (ie: now 64bit CS4 & CS5) that can make use of that extra RAM for a performance increase. CS2 is a 32bit app. We were not really talking about other Windows programs that may be 32bit.

 

Snarky?  Really? Oy. Merciful heavens! 

Oh well thanks for clearing that up, I thought I was in the MS Paint forums.

If someone is still using an old version of CS, maybe they aren't really a power user in the first place? Not everyone is manipulating 12MP RAW/TIFF images you know. Plus, you can hardly even buy a bargain PC that doesn't have Windows 7 64-bit preinstalled these days, and the way you worded it might give someone the impression that 32-bit applications on a 64-bit OS is ALWAYS a bad idea. You didn't say "you know that newer versions of CS are 64-bit and would take full advantage of your new machine, you might consider updating" or something along those lines.

zombiereagan wrote:

 

If someone is still using an old version of CS, maybe they aren't really a power user in the first place?...

So why would a non-power user buy new hardware?

You seem to be confused by my tone in this thread. You need to scroll up and read this entire mess for context. I was responding to someone misdirecting shame at Adobe for not being able to predict Microsoft's future.

Maybe you have that miraculous power to develop software for a Windows OS that has not been developed yet. I just don't know. (shrug)

Whenever I advise turning off UAC, I recommend learning about it and making an informed decision - as I did above.  I think the following, quoted from above, is sufficient:

Make sure you go read and understand what UAC does for you and the additional steps you might want to undertake to mitigate the additional risk before disabling UAC.

Disabling UAC is the only reasonable way for a power user, who knows something about security and exercises better measures to keep unwanted malware out, to get the most productivity out of Windows 7.  I simply don't need the system fighting me doing what I need to do.

UAC is nothing more than an ugly bandaid Microsoft added (most likely because Apple has it) to protect naive users from doing stupid things.  User education leading to smarter computing practices would be FAR better, but users tend to resist that.

For example, I'm far, FAR better protected from malware just by setting IE not to automatically run active content from every site I visit, unless I've put the site in my Trusted Sites list.  Not installing every free package or toolbar in sight, and an occasional review of what's running on my system take me the rest of the way.  Add to that the fact that I run top quality antivirus/antimalware software that actually costs money as a safety net.

The simple fact is that Adobe's earlier versions of Photoshop do things that fly in the face of the "modern" direction of security.  For example, they expect to be able to write freely into what are now considered "protected" areas, such as folders under C:\Program Files\...  The only way to support such old, "incompatible" software is to turn off UAC.  Hence my advice.

-Noel

Here's your smug response:  I am a software engineer/architect with 35 years experience.  I have run Windows systems for years on end without problems, including corporate divisions full of engineers.  I might actually understand what I'm writing about.

You're entitled to your opinion about what's "best" for people.  I'm not playing in that arena at all here.  I'm just letting folks know how to make their modern Windows systems compatible with pre-UAC software, which was - after all - the subject of this thread.  Quite likely a better approach would be to update the application software to a modern level that does not require such antics - I never said it wasn't.

But hey, if your computer actually needs protection from you, please by all means keep your UAC enabled.

-Noel

This thread outlived its usefulness. It is now closed.