Skip navigation
S.Kolp
Currently Being Moderated

CS6 - Doesn't work on non-SSE2 CPUs (again)

May 7, 2012 4:52 PM

Tags: #crash #patch #sse2

Hallo,

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.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 5:01 PM   in reply to S.Kolp

    What are you seeing on older CPUs?

    And which CPU are you having trouble on?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 7:02 PM   in reply to S.Kolp

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 8:59 PM   in reply to S.Kolp

    No, that machine stopped working after a few weeks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 4, 2012 12:49 PM   in reply to S.Kolp

    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 13.0.1.0, faulting module photoshop.exe, version 13.0.1.0, fault address 0x01238e9b.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,528 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 4, 2012 1:19 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    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. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 4, 2012 10:22 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    We tried to - but we haven't been able to get any pre-SSE2 machines working to debug the issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,528 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 4:23 PM   in reply to S.Kolp

    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?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 4:46 PM   in reply to S.Kolp

    We did just that, and ended up with several non-working machines, plus 2 working ones that died after a month or so.

     

    Even AMD can't find working machines that old.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 5:26 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,528 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 5:40 PM   in reply to G-Mans Shadow

    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.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 11, 2013 11:20 PM   in reply to S.Kolp

    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.

     

    Regards

    Mihai

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,528 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 12, 2013 1:49 PM   in reply to S.Kolp

    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.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,528 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 13, 2013 9:43 AM   in reply to S.Kolp

    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.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)