Lightroom 6

Richard Williams · April 24, 2015

Windows isn't really based on DOS, though 32-bit Windows has a DOS-compatible '16 bit subsystem', and the command prompt window on all versions of Windows still looks suspiciously like a DOS prompt! The infamous MAX_PATH thing still exists - there is actually support in the OS for long pathnames, but many programs (including, I think, MS's own File Explorer) don't use it. Doing away with this limit by default would probably break a lot of stuff (I agree that backwards compatibility is both a strength and a weakness).

miguel_martinez4 · April 24, 2015

Actually, the line drawn by Apple right now for an update is having a 64bit UEFI. The original Intel Macs, from 2006, are 32 bit Core Duos, and don't qualify. The next generation was 64 bit, but Apple still put a 32 bit UEFI on them. So essentially only Macs that are about 6 years or newer qualify for security updates.

Richard Williams · April 24, 2015

64-bit versions of Windows have been available for a decade (and the hardware for longer), though they only became mainstream 5 or 6 years ago. 64-bit hardware is also compatible with 32-bit versions of Windows, and current 64-bit versions of Windows are backwards-compatible with 32-bit software (and likely to remain so - an awful lot of legacy and even current software is 32-bit). I don't see any reason to believe that LR6 will not continue to run on new Windows systems for years to come. Remember that 32-bit PS7 still runs on 64-bit Windows systems 13 years after Adobe released it, and the same is apparently true for 32-bit PS 5.5, 16 years after its release.

64-bit only software like LR6 obviously won't run at all on old 32-bit systems, but not many people will be surprised by this! It's not really relevant to the issue of perpetual licences, where we are talking about older software (potentially) running on newer hardware and operating systems - MS and the hardware companies have been very good at maintaining backwards compatibility with older software, but that doesn't mean that we should expect older systems to be forwards compatible with new software (which might, if nothing else, require a faster and more powerful system than you have now). There will come a point when you have to upgrade your hardware to keep up with CC too. Even so, I expect my current PC will be able to run the next few versions of LR. It's not like the 90s, when PC hardware was evolving pretty rapidly, and your computer started to struggle with current software releases after a couple of years.

EricM · April 24, 2015

For mac the main cut-off line for running old vs newer programs is really the dividing line from when they moved from Power PC cores to Intel i think about 2007. So really, you should be able to run anything from today back to 2007, assuming you have adequate ram.

</blockquote>

And 2007 is about the oldest I would possibly want to run software on :) But also Barry, out of the blue Apple dropped Carbon in favor of Cocoa and left many companies, like Adobe, caught off-guard with no notice. All of the CS4 64-bit legacy code for Mac was thrown in the garbage and CS4 was released as 32-bit. CS4 for Windows on the other hand was released as 64-bit and were able to run more than 2.3 gb of ram.

There's more to this than simply the OS. For example the system requirements for LR6 according to Adobe is:

<ul>

<li>Intel® or AMD processor with 64-bit support (Win)</li>

<li>Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support (Mac)</li>

</ul>

You may have an older OS fine, but without the newer hardware, 64-bit support, it ain't going to run.

</blockquote>

Kind of obvious from Adobe....is there an alternative cpu to Intel or Amd that someone might try to load Lr on? And if you looked on Wiki, you'd notice AMD and Intel cpu's were 64-bit long before Lr1.1 beta was even out testing. My Intel Pentium 4 processor (2003'ish) was 64-bit and I ran Windows XP 64-Pro (so I could get a little bit more ram out of it as opposed to 32-bit Windows XP) and it ran Lr1.3 fine. In theory, that 64-bit P4 from 2003 should also be able to load Lr6? Pretty cool if you think about it to have all six versions of Lr, with a choice of five or more W os's, all able to run on a 12 year old computer

digitaldog · April 24, 2015

Kind of obvious from Adobe....is there an alternative cpu to Intel or Amd that someone might try to load Lr on?

</blockquote>

I don't see how that's pertinent. It tells us nothing about what a future version of LR or any software may or may not run on or with what OS. And that's my point.

EricM · April 24, 2015

I don't see how that's pertinent.

</blockquote>

It isn't. And I have no idea why you're attempting to argue with me and Windows compatibility by pointing out the irrelevant at 3:09pm with:

There's more to this than simply the OS. For example the system requirements for LR6 according to Adobe is:

<ul>

<li>Intel® or AMD processor with 64-bit support (Win)</li>

<li>Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support (Mac)</li>

</ul>

You may have an older OS fine, but without the newer hardware, 64-bit support, it ain't going to run.

</blockquote>

Old or new, it doesn't matter because it is all 64-bit and has been 64-bit since Lr came out in 2006/7. Sure, there's rumors we're going to 128-bit in 2025, but I doubt that's what you're trying to get at.

digitaldog · April 25, 2015

Eric, this yet another of our circular discussions or as you like to call arguments which have moved far past the original topic. Yes, what you wrote isn't pertinent as we both seem to agree. The topic started with the OP asking about LR6 and subscription costs were discussed. Both you, Marc and I seem to be agreeing about the cost benefit. To the degree you pointed out all the Facebook friends you know who now subscribe thanks to our agreement in it's modest pricing. Remember the discussion of Adobe stock, how it's gone up, how as you said, it's due to more subscribers who like the new pricing for a Pro product? You then wrote text that makes this agreement even stronger for Windows users:

This is a Mac users perspective. The "math" will be much different for people like Richard that are on Windows that are accustomed to using software and hardware in harmony for much longer than what Apple has historically provided.

</blockquote>

Maybe I've misunderstood your 'argument' but it appears that a Windows user would find even a higher benefit to the math Marc and I and presumably you agree upon. Unless you want to disagree with what you agreed about earlier, I don't often understand your POV. Now we're down a new rabbit hole about hardware. As I said and as you agreed with me again, as painful as that must be to you, it's not pertinent. So, where do we stand? Neither you nor I nor anyone here knows what the future holds for support of any software on any OS with any hardware. As I tried to explain, a perpetual license can be a burden and not a benefit when, for whatever reason, one can't run it due to: OS, hardware, etc. Based the above synopsis of events as I read them, please tell me where you'd like to take the discussion so perhaps you and I can disagree because as I see it, as painful as it appears, in terms of the OT and LR's cost to benefit ratio as outlined by Marc, we are in agreement. By all means, disagree if that suites you.

Richard Williams · April 25, 2015

Maybe I've misunderstood your 'argument' but it appears that a Windows user would find even a higher benefit to the math Marc and I and presumably you agree upon.

</blockquote>

I think you've got his argument backwards. 'Different math' here means that perpetual licences have historically been a better bet on Windows than on the Mac. That PowerPC Mac copy of PS I bought back in the day isn't much use nowadays, but I have PS7 installed for occasional use on a 64-bit Windows 7 laptop.

regie_de_rueda · April 25, 2015

@Dave

I live in one of the 57 states (if you're a BHO fan) and I got an offer, too! :)

digitaldog · April 25, 2015

I think you've got his argument backwards. 'Different math' here means that perpetual licences have historically been a better bet on Windows than on the Mac.

</blockquote>

Well if so, the Eric's point about: Everyday it is filled with new people that are tickled pink of having pro software for $10/mnth, makes no sense in term of "the math" to me. Perhaps these are all Mac users.

But as I said, the circular logic of so many of these posts isn't new.

Richard Williams · April 25, 2015

I don't see the contradiction. Eric mentions the advantages of the CC subscription, but notes (as I do) that for some users the sums come out differently (especially on Windows, which has historically had good long-term compatibility). If you're not dogmatic that Adobe always makes the right decisions for its users (rather than just for Adobe), it's possible to have a more nuanced opinion about the relative merits of the two business models! I'm happy that Adobe offers a choice of licenses for LR, so that everyone can choose what suits them. But it's a shame they don't offer the same choice with their other products.

digitaldog · April 25, 2015

IF the debate is, some users sums come out differently, only a fool would disagree. If course YMMV, based on the cost and amount of RAM in each system alone.

Richard Williams · April 25, 2015

Not sure what you mean about the RAM - why would that affect your choice of licence? Are you suggesting that CC will probably need more RAM as the software is upgraded over time, whereas a fixed version must only work with the RAM you have now? Of course, upgrading RAM is another thing that is sometimes easier in the PC world!

Carl Stone · April 25, 2015

Richard, this thread has become a yawner. You don't like the way Adobe operates, we get it.

Richard Williams · April 25, 2015

Carl, other threads are available - you might find them more interesting!

digitaldog · April 25, 2015

Not sure what you mean about the RAM

</blockquote>

Sorry I wan't clear, my point is, there are many factors, hardware alone, the price and amount of RAM that affects how some users sums come out differently.

We are at a point where the 'debate' about the price of LR6's subscription vs. perpetual license is based on lots of assumptions and generalizations.

All generalizations are false, including this one.

Mark Twain

</blockquote>

LR6, other Adobes software, other non Adobe software, the decisions we make about what hamburger to eat in a restaurant all boil down to the cost versus benefit ratio. There can be dozens of factors each of us has to factor in deciding if we'll buy or not.

On another forum, folks who have never used any Adobe software but LR are upset about the new activation scheme in LR6 not recognizing this is nothing new. They object to having the app phone home. IF they feel this is such an egregious cost, that the benefits don't out weight this activation, they can skip LR6, CC or perpetual.

Richard Williams · April 25, 2015

Then I think we agree - we all have different requirements and different priorities that may or may not be met by a particular piece of software (or business model).

EricM · April 25, 2015

Doesn't change the math Marc points out. There's always a cost to benefit ratio. It either makes sense to each or it doesn't. Photoshop CS5 or LR6, if you stick with a perpetual license it's yours forever true. But can you run it forever? Are you wiling to dedicate a circa 2015 machine when in 2018, it's very possible that software will not run? - Andrew Rodney SubscriberFrequent poster, Apr 22, 2015; 08:15 p.m.

</blockquote>

Lets try it again. This statement is from a Mac users perspective. The "math" does change and will be much different for people like Richard, and myself, that are on Windows and accustomed to using software, operating systems, and hardware in harmony, for much longer than what Apple has historically provided.

I think you've got his argument backwards. 'Different math' here means that perpetual licences have historically been a better bet on Windows than on the Mac.

</blockquote>

Thanks, Richard. And Barry, as you got it as well. I'm not sure what ram, or Adobe's Intel cpu, or 64-bit architecture has to do with the fact that Windows users are accustomed to using software and hardware together for much longer than on the Apple side and therefore have different "math" results.

digitaldog · April 26, 2015

AR:Doesn't change the math Marc points out

This statement is from a Mac users perspective.

</blockquote>

Nowhere do I see Marc saying he's on a Mac or that his math is based on one platform or another. But assumptions and speculations abound as usual.

digitaldog · April 26, 2015

There are two possibilities here in terms of the math: one is you upgrade every new version of PS and LR, the other is, you upgrade because you have to due to issues with OS/hardware migration etc. Of course it can be a bit of both.

Perhaps Eric and Richard are still using three year old copies of LR (version 4) and Photoshop (CS6) or even older versions and I'm sure others on both platforms are doing the same. That is by choice of course. Some of us upgrade every version.

The main reason Adobe moved to a subscription was to force an upgrade so to speak. Those who waited 1 or more versions obviously spent less money than those of us that always upgrade. LR was typically a $79 upgrade per version, Photoshop $199. That's $278 to move one version. He (Marc) writes, and his math makes sense to me too: $120/year is very close to what I was paying pre-CC to keep both updated. So, for me, it's a good deal.

Doesn't matter what OS or hardware you use, the math is fixed and again, for the third time, There's always a cost to benefit ratio. It either makes sense to each or it doesn't. If you're still on CS6, or LR4, the time will come you will have to upgrade and subscribe which is still a good deal or live with those old products as long as you can.

EricM · April 27, 2015

Nowhere do I see Marc saying he's on a Mac or that his math is based on one platform or another.

</blockquote>

He doesn't need to and it's weak and crass to be dragging other people into it. Windows users are accustomed to using software, operating systems, and hardware together for much longer than Apple and therefore we can not escape having different "math" results.

Richard Williams · April 27, 2015

Yes, still on CS6, with no compelling reason to change right now. One thing this thread has done is to encourage me to check out the alternatives for future use (Dave asked about PS replacements). I think I'd properly demo Corel's suite first (PC only), which looks like it can handle the straightforward PS/Illustrator/Indesign stuff we actually use at work (which is, to be fair, a basic subset of what the Adobe software can do). The perpetual licence costs about half what we were paying for CS DS (or would pay for a single year of CC), but is limited to one machine, so I'd end up paying about the same as before to have it on a home machine or laptop too (which Adobe allows with a single licence). LR can still be 'purchased', so that's not an issue if we need it (I'm using a non-Adobe raw converter at the moment, so no immediate need to buy LR6). We'd lose out on Acrobat Pro, which is still available outside CC, but at nearly half the price of our old CS DS licence - I suspect I'll be looking at Nuance's PDF software, for which we have a site licence. The bottom line is that Adobe will probably lose customers like me, but I doubt they'll lose much sleep over it - I expect the CC revenue will more than compensate them.

Brad_ · April 27, 2015

I upgraded to LR 6 last week and had been using LR 5 for two years. That works out to $3.29 per

month for LR 5. Since using LR from the beginning, my need for PS has dropped off sharply, especially after LR 2 was released in 2008

and featured localized corrections .

Before LR 2 I routinely used PS for creating multiple selections on my images to be able to apply independent corrections. LR is so good with freehand brushing and gradients the only thing I use an old version of PS for is to put a

2 point stroke around finished images for web display.

Later versions of PS have more features, but none that help editing my images. There are a lot of special effects (for example, "growing" buildings to make them taller, content removal, etc) but that's not something I need.

As far as needing software to run on old CPUs, that doesn't interest me in the slightest. I much prefer the

power and speed that modern CPUs offer. Yes, for grins I still have a 23 year old Mac IIci with 25 MHz

CPU and 8 MB of RAM that still works, and even has PS 2 on it. But even if I could, why would I ever

want to run modern software on it? I have no problem upgrading my hardware as performance increases over time.

digitaldog · April 27, 2015

Windows users are accustomed to using software, operating systems, and hardware together for much longer than Apple and therefore we can not escape having different "math" results.

</blockquote>

The math backs up that the subscription model is a better deal than perceptual if you upgrade each new version. You also get new features sooner than sticking with a perpetual license. So much for 'owning' software. It isn't all it's cut out to be.

Uhooru · April 28, 2015

I think people in this discussion who's work I admire know how to use software and what works for them, so I trust their judgement on what they think they need to purchase and how. I use PS a little more than some, (don't like to spot film shots in LR) and I prefer sharpening and other functions in PS. Also photo re-touching when needed for weddings and portraits is just better for me in PS. The newer functions in PS are better and faster than the older versions. So for me, $10 for updated versions of 2 great programs, is a better deal and I believe it is a more economical path IF you upgrade to each new version. If not, than the price breaks will vary based on your need and purchasing patterns. Of course the argument is moot if you only want to upgrade LR as you can only get new versions of PS in the subscription service. But if you use both, I'm not sure what all the ruckus is about.

Sign In

Lightroom 6

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in