Forums

I tried to install LR 4 Beta on the latest patched XP, and the installation did not run.  I agree that leaving teh HUGE population of XP users out of the LR 4 Beta (and later release version) is a very big mistake for Adobe.

Does anyone know the logic behind this decision?  Are there features of Vista (eh?) that are needed for LR 4 whixh XP doesn't provide?

No it officially does NOT support xp.

Here are the windows requirements:

Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® 64

processor

Microsoft® Windows Vista® with

Service Pack 2 or Windows 7 with

Service Pack 1

2GB of RAM

1GB of available hard-disk space

1024x768 display

DVD-ROM drive

Internet connection required for Internet-based services*

Mac:

Multicore Intel® processor with 64-

bit support

Mac OS X v10.6.8 (Snow Leopard)

or v10.7 (Lion)

2GB of RAM

1GB of available hard-disk space

1024x768 display

DVD-ROM drive

Internet connection required for Internet-based services*

Its NOT FAIR for windows xp users there a whole famly of us still running xp

I cant run it on my old mac book pro which I drag around with me because it's 32bit :-(

Every Pentium 4 Cpu is not supported, I tried to install on a Pentium 4 660 Prescott 3,6MHz running Win 7/64. Did not work ! Wonder why ?

dave gorke wrote:

 

I guess I won't be purchasing LR4.  I use XP and several software packages I currently own and use won't run on Windows 7.  It would be very expensive for me to change over to a new operating system at this time.

That's not a sustainable situation.  I suggest you do what I do and start planning your post-XP future.  I too used XP for a very, very long time, but I've upgraded the hardware (faster by a factor of 3 to as much as 50, averaging about 20), and a few of my XP-only software packages, and I couldn't be happier that I did that.  I would say this saves me several hundred hours per year, probably close to 1000.

Julie, based on your response I assume that the upcoming Photoshop CS6 will also not run on Windows XP.  Am I correct in this assumption?

John

John, I can't speak for Photoshop as their customer base varies from ours slightly. This was a Lightroom-specific decision.

+1

please rethink the available market share of XP users.  i'm sure xp/vista was a long ago internal choice.  hopefully, the existing XP community user base will be reconsidered.

Wow, I really can't believe the reasons people have for not upgrading to Windows 7.  Why should everyone else suffer because a few won't upgrade and progress?  And who would buy a watered down version?  Would you upgrade if most of the new features relied on Windows 7? 

I use XP and several software packages I currently own and use won't run on Windows 7.

-Dave Gorke

Windows 7 has free virtualization software in it to run older software in a virtualized Windows XP environment so if something happens it doesn't affect your entire system.

Best thing adobe can do is to have two verisons one for xp my Print drivers can not be updated they only go up to xp this will cause me not to up-grade ..

-Alegre282

Seriously?  It's probably cheaper to buy a new printer than it is to replace all the ink catridges in a single printer anymore.  HP, Lexmark, Epson, Canon, Brother and many others have Windows 7 drivers for older printers, so if the printer doesn't qualify it needs to upgrade with Windows XP.

And this isn't the first Adobe product to say no to XP.  I believe the HTML5 tool, Edge, holds that honor.

Please Adobe dropping XP support when it's usage is still high worldwide is a mistake you are doing like Microsoft did with IE9. XP support SHOULD be dropped when it has less than 10% usage share worldwide, not earlier than that. You have already dropped Premiere Pro and After Effects support for XP, please if you really care about customers and listen to them, please support Windows XP SP3 and change this decision. XP with SP3 is far different from the 10 year old RTM release. If anything Vista support should be dropped as it has less than 10% of the usage share and you wouldn't be losing customers. Please support Windows XP and Windows 7! Do you realize that at the moment, Windows XP and Windows 7 have nearly equal share? It means losing 50% of Lightroom customers. I would like a reply from an Adobe representative. I hope this decision is not final and subject to user feedback.

Jeff Schewe wrote:

 

What part of XP not providing the system level APIs needed for LR 4 don't you understand. The application is dependant upon the OS API's. Ok?

 

XP doesn't have the level of system APIs required...so Adobe decided to move on. There are similar API limitations on the Mac side. That's life...move on.

That's not the point. The fact is that LR 3 and earlier ran on it, I bet only a subset of features are actually dependent on W7 APIs and what APIs exactly? Can Adobe tell us that and for what functionality? It's not just our loss, it's their loss too losing all XP customers.

And you can be a little more polite.

That's the thinking of some Microsoft loyalists who think it's all about moving on. They cannot think that way that if something works fantasic, why change it? I have plenty of Windows 7 licenses at my disposal but find many features of XP I used missing, removed or broken on Windows 7. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_7) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_Vista). XP already does everything I need, there are security updates till 2014, my PC is clean. There is no reason to spend $200 on Windows 7. I will "move on" from Lightroom to another product that supports Windows XP. Adobe's loss.

"XP already does everything I need"

Apart from offer an environment that will run Lightroom.

One of the huge successes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, among others, is to turn a hightly sophisticated business tool into a commodity item. People buy computers today with often the same frame of mind as they buy a kettle, or a toaster. There are frequently various flavours of arguments on these, and other forums, about upgrade paths and experience and many of them stem from what is essentially poor practice.

Those of us who earn a living running IT systems recognise that the problems and costs don't end with buying a product; in fact they've only just started. If you decide that, for example, you want Lightroom to meet a specific business need then looking over 3 or 5 years (typical business planning timescales) means you have to budget for the initial capital spend on hardware and software, cost of install, cost of training etc. You should then allow for upgrade costs and these include both hardware and software, testing and learning etc.

The metrics vary but as a rough guide the initial outlay often represents about 20% of the total cost of ownership (tco).

Billl and Steve have brought about a world where many make the initial spend in the mistaken belief that it's the pretty much only financial commitment they will require to make.

There are only really two possible approaches.

1) Make your initial spend and be prepared to stick with the system for the full 5 years. If the features are good enough to meet you business need at the start then they will meet them for the full 5 years. If not then your business need has changed and you need a new business case, and associated funding. Don't confuse business need and the understandable desire to have access to the latest goodies that Adobe produce.

2) Do the sums at the beginning and frame a business case that recognises the need to keep up to date. Budget for upgrade etc etc through the life of the product and plan testing, implementation time etc.

Any other approach puts either the user or Adobe (or both) in an impossible position.

It's all the downside of the huge benefits we can have from the pace of change in the IS industry.

Just to put this in context, Windows OSs are being supported going back to November 2006, Apple OSs are being supported going back to July 2011.

10.6.8 came out in July 2011.  XP first came out in August of 2001.

Windows 7 is more powerful, more secure, faster (on the same hardware), and easier to use than XP.  I upgraded early last year, and I hate those rare times I have to work on XP machines now.

I browsed your website with XP, but do all of my photography work on W7.

About 51% Windows, 32% Mac, 10% iOS.

Kevin (from Adobe) explained why - they needed functionality not present within XP to get some of the new LR functionality to work.

Were you planning to keep XP forever?  Should LR 5 in a year or two support XP?  LR 6 in 3-5 years?

You can't use it forever, just like I had to give up CP/M.

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade. LR4 beta is not really in a usable state

for production work and the final release will surely take a while. Even

after release your lr3 install will not suddenly stop working

Windows7 is stable.

Jeff Schewe wrote:

 

XP doesn't have the system level APIs required by LR 4. Move on and update...the same situation is hitting Mac users too.

According to this website:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200910-201110

Windows XP is the second most popular operating system world wide, only slightly behind Windows 7 (and this is a very recent change). In comparison, XP still has a larger install base than Mac OS (imagine the outrage if Adobe dropped support for Mac...)

Yes, I understand that Lr4 requires some newer APIs for *some* features to work, but, according to other comments in this thread, those features relate to video. I wonder what percentage of photographers actually use/edit video out of their DSLRs - especially compared to the percentage who use XP.

Also, there is a reason most XP users have not upgraded: In addition to being gun-shy over the whole Vista debacle, there is no easy upgrade path to Windows 7. Users have to completely wipe their systems and install the new OS from scratch (which means re-installing every piece of software they own - assuming the software is even compatible). This rarely (if ever?) happens with Mac upgrades.

No, I don't expect Adobe to support XP forever, but to drop support when it is still such a popular operating system seems premature.

They are not dropping support for win XP. Its called LR 3.6

People have options. Now if Adobe dropped support for LR 3.6 I would be screaming with you.

At some point people will be faced with moving there system OS to newer versions.

How do you think the people that used DOS feel right now?

Its not in the cards. Adobe is not going to re-write  a years worth of code to allow LR 4 to run on XP.

If you want the features offered in LR 4 you and others will have to move to Vista (God help us!! )  Win 7, or Win 8

Victoria Bampton wrote:

 

XP may be the second most popular operating system worldwide, but not among keen photographers who are using LR.  According to my LR website stats - obviously LR users - 50% are Windows based, and of those 50%, only 15% are on XP.  I get similar stats on www.lightroomforums.net  So that's about 7.5% of the userbase.  Even taking into account variation for people browsing at work, and other inaccuracies, it's not as huge a group as it sounds initially.  Adobe will have more accurate stats.  Obviously that's a shame for people who don't want to upgrade at this time, but LR3 won't stop working just because they're not supporting XP for LR4.

No offense, but the OS stats from your website aren't exactly all inclusive. And, as you mentioned, it includes people like me who may visit from work (my work PC runs Windows 7, my home system runs XP). But you are correct, I'm sure Adobe will have more accurate stats.

And no, LR3 won't stop working on my XP system, but I assume Adobe is in business to sell software. I won't be upgrading my XP system any time soon (probably not for another year or so), which, unfortunately, means I won't be buying LR4.