there was a larger thread for Photoshop CS5.5 dealing with that problem already. The devs could fix it by a patch in the end.
Will we see such a patch for Photoshop CS6 as well? Photoshop crashes instantly on non-SSE2 CPUs during initialization.
Edit: This is the CS5 SSE thread.
AMD Athlon XP.
Its the same issue that was discussed over 6 pages in the topic above. The exe crashes almost instantly when starting Photoshop. Nothing special to see there. Its probably just a dependency or compiler flag that injects SSE2 code thats (hopefully) not really needed.
This is the crash log but i hope you still have the AthlonXP machine you mentioned in the other thread.
Zusatzinformation 1: 0a9e
Zusatzinformation 2: 0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
Zusatzinformation 3: 0a9e
Zusatzinformation 4: 0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
I'm running Athlon XP 3000+, 2G memory, NVidia Geforce 6200 512mb (latest NVidia drivers), Win XP SP3 (latest Microsoft Update)
The application does not even start Photoshop CS6 with latest patch:
The application, C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS6\Photoshop.exe, generated an application error The error occurred on 12/04/2012 @ 14:40:13.734 The exception generated was c000001d at address 01638E9B (Photoshop!std___Mutex___Mutex)
Faulting application photoshop.exe, version 220.127.116.11, faulting module photoshop.exe, version 18.104.22.168, fault address 0x01238e9b.
Chris Cox wrote:
It can't be the same issue because that code was fixed. It's probably a similar issue crashing in a different location - and we need the crash info to find that new location.
I realize this is a 7 month old post, but did you actually check, Chris? It's good to hear that you're confident in your code management system, but it isn't unheard-of that old code could accidentally somehow end up replacing newer code, causing a regression. Humans ARE involved, after all.
Just some basic thoughts about economics...
You're asking Adobe to spend thousands of dollars working on this.
By contrast you could spend several hundred dollars to get a faster, more compatible system. Or several thousand dollars to get a top of the line state of the art graphics workhorse.
How fast could Photoshop CS6 possibly run on an AthlonXP? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a processor from 2002, right?
1. We're not talking about performance issues, it's a bug. A 7 month old bug that fell between the cracks. DW 12 is also affected, doesn't even write to the event just closes.
2. Adobe changed upgrade path from CS3 which forced me to upgrade or loose it. A couple of hundred compare to almost 2k.
3. 50%+ of all machines in the world are running XP and of those 30% are P4/Athlon. This especially apparant in the commercial environment.
4. Adobe products come at a premium, and if my machine fall within your requirements, that should afford me a fix and not a dump.
5. New machine comes in 2 months but right now I'm loosing money on my upgrade not being able to use it.
6. Get me a temp license for 5.5 until my new machine comes in?
-The customer Garry
People running XP on 2002 processors and buying Photoshop upgrades so they don't fall off the upgrade path are being penny wise and pound foolish, methinks.
And no, I don't work for Adobe. I *do* however run a company, and I know to budget for new computers from time to time.
Happens to me too:
AMD Athlon XP Barton 3200+ (MMX & SSE1 only)
2 Gb RAM
Windows XP SP3
As a customer, I'm asking you
If there was a fix for a previous version of Photoshop, please integrate that fix into the current version/branch.
That's a bit short-sighted, don't you think S.Kolp?
Maybe the grand majority of people with SSE2+ machines get better performance as it is. Waxing a bit selfish for a moment: Personally I don't want my software to run slower because you're trying to save money and avoid buying a modern computer.
SSE2 is just a minor extension to SSE. You won't notice that on Photoshop. Just google it.
Also, there are only very few SSE2 machines that aren't 64bit capable. If there is any reason for a 32bit version its compatibility. Talking about performance on a 2GB userspace limited application when you can use a 64bit/SSE3/4/5/AVX accelerated version instead is short sighted indeed.
I use 32 bit Photoshop on a modern machine for running some old plug-ins that aren't available for 64 bit. I don't want that experience to be slower.
I believe you're thinking about things a bit too simplistically - I wouldn't bet that the code could just be recompiled to give you compatibility. It may be that it employs libraries that require the higher level of instruction set, and has specific code to use it (though I honestly don't know the content of Adobe's sources). It's pretty clear that the 32 and 64 bit builds do share almost all the same sources. I'm a career software engineer; I know how this stuff works too.
Look, you can only make the point that you want software publishers to support ancient technology for only so long. The plain and simple fact is that Windows XP and older processors will only serve for so long. There will come a time when you just can run new stuff on old systems.
If you need compatibility with the old hardware, run the software that was available for those systems. By contrast, if you want to run state of the art software, you need modern hardware.
As a publisher, where would you cut off support for outdated hardware? Clearly it would be when supporting the old stuff becomes more expensive than the additional income you'd get by supporting it. Adobe has said they haven't even been able to maintain one working Athlon system.
Europe, Middle East and Africa