Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Brad Smith on January 14, 2012, 08:30:23 am
-
LR4 Beta requires Win Vista or Win7 on the Windows side and does not work on WinXP. Does anyone know if the full LR4 will work with WinXP, or is it time for me to consider getting a new Operating System?
Thanks,
-
Yes, time to move on. Adobe have said that LR4 depends on certain APIs which don't exist in XP. They are at least being even handed here - those with Core Duo Macs are in the same boat.
John
-
If you don't like it make sure Adobe know there's a problem with them dropping LR from XP.
As I understand it most of this is about providing the support for video.
Quite why their installer is so rigid it won't even let us try to install on XP beats me. If the important bits work on XP many of us would be happy to ignore the gimmicks that need the new OSs. The beta's a fine opportunity to do this, say it won't work and isn't supported, but quietly allow people to just try it anyway to see how it works out of the lab.
Adobe put features into Photoshop that were hardware dependant and also have two versions depending on what features you need. This should be the time to do the same to Lightroom, then they could charge more for the 'extended' version and pull in some extra revenue.
-
All I know is that Tom Hogarty said that making LR4 work for XP would involve too many compromises that they weren't prepared to make. End of story. You're welcome to write in the forums or tweet him at @LR_Tom or whatever, but I don't think that's going to change. Good luck with it!
Mike.
-
Adobe forums are full of threads like this.
The answer is no: they won't support the Microsoft 2001 operating system. Time to move on with the rest of the world.
A Lightroom machine should be quite powerful and updated: we are not just opening a browser to chat on Facebook, are we? :P
-
All I know is that Tom Hogarty said that making LR4 work for XP would involve too many compromises that they weren't prepared to make. End of story. You're welcome to write in the forums or tweet him at @LR_Tom or whatever, but I don't think that's going to change. Good luck with it!
I wonder how much video is a part of this.
Microsoft's image stitching program only supports video stitching on Windows 7 (even though you can install it on XP), so it seems safe to assume there are some APIs that are new to Windows 7 (and maybe Vista?) that just aren't available on XP.
Which begs another question - would a LR4 without video be possible?
-
Adobe forums are full of threads like this.
The answer is no: they won't support the Microsoft 2001 operating system. Time to move on with the rest of the world.
A Lightroom machine should be quite powerful and updated: we are not just opening a browser to chat on Facebook, are we? :P
When I'm travelling, my laptop isn't nearly as "powerful" as my main host.
I don't need a 16GB, 4GHz, 4TB host when I'm travelling.
When I'm travelling, I almost need a "Lightroom-Lite" - something that I can import images into a catalogue with, tag appropriately and do some light rating to filter out the really bad shots. I'm definitely not looking to produce books or websites from my travelling laptop. That way the evenings aren't wasted and when I get home, I don't have to start from scratch with 1000s of photographs.
-
As to why they don't allow it to install? Because even if they say it's not suppored, they'll get support requests when it fails.
-
Adobe forums are full of threads like this.
That rather demonstrates that this is an issue Adobe ought to reconsider then.
-
When I'm travelling, my laptop isn't nearly as "powerful" as my main host.
Exactly. One of the great aspects of LR until now is that has run gracefully, and most importantly USEFULLY, on lower spec machines.
There's risk here of over complicating LR to the point it starts to develop feature bloat and reduce it's appeal.
-
::)I have a laptop that's XP though my main machine is Windows 7. I don't think that Adobe should make compromises to suit the older system at all! For me the software needs to be as cutting-edge as it can possibly be; if that means that I can't use it on my laptop, so be it. After all, I can still use LR3 on the dinosaur.
-
For me the software needs to be as cutting-edge as it can possibly be; if that means that I can't use it on my laptop, so be it.
Are you still happy if the "cutting edge" features aren't any use to you ?
-
When I'm travelling, my laptop isn't nearly as "powerful" as my main host.
I don't need a 16GB, 4GHz, 4TB host when I'm travelling.
When I'm travelling, I almost need a "Lightroom-Lite" - something that I can import images into a catalogue with, tag appropriately and do some light rating to filter out the really bad shots. I'm definitely not looking to produce books or websites from my travelling laptop. That way the evenings aren't wasted and when I get home, I don't have to start from scratch with 1000s of photographs.
To be honest I have nearly zero interest in that as I'm a Mac user and the upgrade costed me 3 hours and 24€, however I think that a lot of Windows 7 users wouldn't be happy to subtract human resources to the Lightroom project just to support an operating system with more than 10 years on the shoulders.
Maybe I'm a bit too biased as both Mac user and IT professional, but after all these years we all -DO- need to move on, IMHO.
PS: I know it's not nice to say that —as for PC hemisphere it could means a tough expense— but you can actually travel light with a Win7 machine. In the end the final choice is yours. :)
-
I understand the various positions represented here.
Mine is that I have an otherwise perfectly well functioning computer system running Win x64 with 8 GB of RAM that is fine for all my other uses, including Photoshop CS5. The system is less than 4 years old and is now being obsoleted, at this point, solely by Adobe LR4. As time goes on, I suppose other apps will also be no longer downward compatible, so I suppose Adobe is in the front of the wave. But, I am not applauding them for that. As everyone knows, it is a lot of work, not to mention the expense, to set up a new system, even if one is well organized. I don't like doing it any more often than I must, and doing it in less than 4 years is a bit too fast, IMO.
-
To be honest I have nearly zero interest in that as I'm a Mac user
So why are you getting involved with this ?
There seems to be a more general acceptance amongst Mac users of paying regularly for upgrades and accepting what Apple/Adobe etc impose on them.
PC users expect a rather better return on their investment and don't expect companies like Adobe not supporting their three year old systems.
-
[..]
PC users expect a rather better return on their investment and don't expect companies like Adobe not supporting their three year old systems.
Surely it's not Adobe supporting a system, rather Adobe deciding not to offer a new software version to run on an OS which will be three iterations behind the current one during it's life cycle (2012/2013). For those who wish to continue with Windows XP - and that is their right - they are able to use the current version LR3.6. LR4 is, after all still in Beta at this point.
Anthony.
-
So why are you getting involved with this ?
There seems to be a more general acceptance amongst Mac users of paying regularly for upgrades and accepting what Apple/Adobe etc impose on them.
PC users expect a rather better return on their investment and don't expect companies like Adobe not supporting their three year old systems.
Apart from the fact that your tone is somewhat offensive (who is "we" and who tells you "we" accept anything?), if you just would have quoted the whole phrase I mentioned other Microsoft Windows users.
I don't like to pay, but 24€ every 18-24 months is a reasonable amount for a substantial upgrade of an excellent operating system. Higher upgrade fees are not a problem of mine. It's a matter of choices. I just expressed my opinion in a polite way.
The question may arise: why so many XP users are so afraid to upgrade? I can't believe that so many XP-only applications are still working around, especially when Win7 may start them too.
Beside that... it's the first time ever I read someone who really thinks a Mac might not mean a good ROI. First time ever.
-
why so many XP users are so afraid to upgrade?
They're not. They just don't see any reason to spend out on something that's 'new' when what they've got works perfectly well.
-
Beside that... it's the first time ever I read someone who really thinks a Mac might not mean a good ROI. First time ever.
Not wanting to start a flame war on Mac vs. PC but the ROI is better on a Win machine with respect to hardware and software cost. This has been mentioned a number of times previously in different threads on this forum so it's not the "first time ever."
-
Not wanting to start a flame war on Mac vs. PC but the ROI is better on a Win machine with respect to hardware and software cost.
I always found the software and the OS upgrade fee to be FAR cheaper on Apple systems (especially with Mac App Store), lowering the global cost. Anyway I agree on the first part: we shouldn't start an OS war. I made a choice and never regretted it. :)
-
When I'm travelling, my laptop isn't nearly as "powerful" as my main host.
I don't need a 16GB, 4GHz, 4TB host when I'm travelling.
When I'm travelling, I almost need a "Lightroom-Lite" - something that I can import images into a catalogue with, tag appropriately and do some light rating to filter out the really bad shots. I'm definitely not looking to produce books or websites from my travelling laptop. That way the evenings aren't wasted and when I get home, I don't have to start from scratch with 1000s of photographs.
So keep LR3 on your travel machine. It will still do all those things.
-
Beside that... it's the first time ever I read someone who really thinks a Mac might not mean a good ROI. First time ever.
It's usually not phrased like that.
The VAST majority of computer buyers have voted with their wallets and NOT bought Macs, it not just because they don't like shiny things, it's about cost and value (aka ROI).
-
So keep LR3 on your travel machine. It will still do all those things.
That's exactly what I intend to do, but it isn't a nice solution. I'd prefer to have the same version across both my machines.
The problem is that there will be cameras on sale before LR4 hits the shelves that probably won't ever be supported on LR3 eg Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx, G1x etc.
The DNG "solution" won't appeal to everyone. Importing a lot of images into LR can be time consuming enough, if you then need to do a conversion to DNG, especially on a low spec machine, the process takes too long.
-
.........won't appeal to everyone.
EXACTLY (also in regard to XP)....so move on! (but I'm sure you'll respond)
-
They're not. They just don't see any reason to spend out on something that's 'new' when what they've got works perfectly well.
You're overlooking the decision tree to follow when purchasing computer hardware and software. Firstly you choose the application software that does the job you need doing. Let's say that is LR4. Then second you choose the OS that is required to run it. Then LASTLY you choose the level of hardware that's required to support the OS. I've found many users who are most vocal in complaint about OS upgrades have actually reversed the order of operations, looking first at hardware, then at OS, and lastly at applications. You say "no reason to upgrade what they've got works perfectly well." It's the APPLICATIONS they've got that work perfectly well. The OS is just a utility that runs them - it's essentially irrelevant in the upgrade/don't upgrade process. As said before, you decide what OS to use base on what is required to run the applications you've decided to use; you don't decide what applications to buy based on the OS you have on hand to run them. As long as those APPLICATIONS are adequate, there's no reason to upgrade the OS. But if one wants to upgrade the applications, and not just Adobe's, that can always be the trigger for OS and hardware upgrades as well. And LR4 is not the only example - take a look at Premier's requirements.
FWIW, I too am still on WinXP on my desktop, Win7 on my laptops. The two reasons the desktop is still on XP is that all the applications I use so far have not required anything newer and my hardware is long enough in the tooth as to not be able to comfortably run 7. But all things must come to an end and it's time to move on - even LR3 is uncomfortably slow on a 8 year old P5.
-
I've found many users who are most vocal in complaint about OS upgrades have actually reversed the order of operations, looking first at hardware, then at OS, and lastly at applications.
That could mean, for someone 100% logical, upgrading the hardware more often than the software?
I'm with Rhossydd here : my XP system works great with LR, whose memory requirements didn't hit anywhere near the 32-bit limit (a few hundreds MB actually) - and if memory was such a limiting factor, it would have been wiser to exclude altogether Vista-32bits and 7-32bits from the requirements.
For PS, that's another story of course... but I (almost) don't use it anymore.
And at least for the beta version, it might have been more useful not to exclude one third of a user base from taking a peek at it. I'd be glad to install it on my system, knowing well it is unsupported, and not touching to the incriminated video features.
-
That could mean, for someone 100% logical, upgrading the hardware more often than the software?
No, it doesn't.
More often you'll get a software upgrade which doesn't need an hardware replacement. Lr, Lr2 and Lr3 worked with more or less the same os/architecture requirements, so 3 software upgrades vs 1 hardware/os upgrade.
Anyway most non-IT workers think the hardware ahead of the software that is going to be used. It's quite a common mistake. 8)
-
"And at least for the beta version, it might have been more useful not to exclude one third of a user base from taking a peek at it. "
I doubt if it's anywhere near a third of the user base. Closer to 10% based on viewing stats at a couple of Lightroom-related sites.
John
-
So keep LR3 on your travel machine. It will still do all those things.
For now, yes.
But what happens when in 6 or 12 or 18 months when I upgrade my camera, there's no raw conversion for it in LR3 and thus LR3 refuses to load the pictures.
-
For now, yes.
But what happens when in 6 or 12 or 18 months when I upgrade my camera, there's no raw conversion for it in LR3 and thus LR3 refuses to load the pictures.
Why is it so normal to constantly update the camera and never upgrade the PC or the Operating System?
Oh yes, the camera is sweet and lovable while the computer is cold and hard to use.
Camera, computer, OS, software: they all are tools, nothing less, nothing more. If you keep upgrading one leaving the others behind it's normal to struggle somewhere.
Windows XP used to be the best Microsoft's OS as Nikon D2Xs used to be the best Nikon flagship camera. The world kept going on. :)
-
XP is still very popular.
My web statistics demonstrate this.
Win 7 has been a big success for MS (not likely that Win 8 will repeat that to this scale)
-
Why is it so normal to constantly update the camera and never upgrade the PC or the Operating System?
Oh yes, the camera is sweet and lovable while the computer is cold and hard to use.
No, for an "IT professional" you don't seem to have much of a grasp on technology and how it's developed.
The two different technologies are at different levels of maturity. Do Really need to spell out how and why that effects the way people upgrade their tech ?
The other issue here it isn't just people 'upgrading ' their cameras is also about supplementing what they use already. Many people here seem to be considering adding a large sensored compact to their kit. It's a model type that has long been asked for, but only in the last year have suitable cameras been available, eg X100, G1x, Pro1 etc.
And yes, computer OSs aren't glamorous shiny things, if they are 'fit for purpose' people aren't interested in spending more for no benefit. That's why XP is still so widely used.
-
No, for an "IT professional" you don't seem to have much of a grasp on technology and how it's developed.
I may have it and, more important, you don't know me at all. ;)
And yes, computer OSs aren't glamorous shiny things, if they are 'fit for purpose' people aren't interested in spending more for no benefit. That's why XP is still so widely used.
No benefit in an upgrade from an old PC with WinXP to a new (better) PC with Win7? ::)
What about the "grasp on technology" of yours? :-\
Have a nice day.
-
But what happens when in 6 or 12 or 18 months when I upgrade my camera, there's no raw conversion for it in LR3 and thus LR3 refuses to load the pictures.
Probably, you use DNG Converter, as in the past.
Jeremy
-
For now, yes.
But what happens when in 6 or 12 or 18 months when I upgrade my camera, there's no raw conversion for it in LR3 and thus LR3 refuses to load the pictures.
I confess I don't tend to think "periodic upgrade cycle" when I think about cameras. My camera purchases tend to be more long-haul. I have a near-mint Nikon F2As that I dearly love that I purchased in 1980 and have babied over the years and it would STILL be my mainstay camera if a) I had room to set up my darkroom, and b) it hadn't become such an expensive hassle to shoot on film these days, what with the disappearance of good lab services. One of the reasons for going with a Nikon FX format camera when I went digital was I could still use my old glass in the manner I'm accustomed to.
What do you do when there's no raw conversion for your camera in the version of LR that runs on your machine? You download the free DNG converter from Adobe and convert your raw files outside of LR before importing them (assuming the DNG converter will run under XP).
My only complaint would be if the reason they had to drop XP was to allow them to include working with video files in LR. Guess I'm a Luddite in that regard but I think that video shooting and editing is a separate and distinct discipline from still photo work and each deserve their own separate hardware and software. Merging them, either in the camera or in the software, is a kludge that serves neither discipline very well
-
Why is it so normal to constantly update the camera and never upgrade the PC or the Operating System?
Because when you upgrade the camera, you don't have to:
- reinstall all those applications
- backup and restore all of your data
- plug in all of those external disks and "fix them" so you can use them normally again
Upgrading the operating system takes a lot of time and effort. It is also prone to mistakes and can mean you lose access to data, websites, email or all of that and more.
Getting a new camera introduces no risk except to my credit card.
-
...
My only complaint would be if the reason they had to drop XP was to allow them to include working with video files in LR. Guess I'm a Luddite in that regard but I think that video shooting and editing is a separate and distinct discipline from still photo work and each deserve their own separate hardware and software. Merging them, either in the camera or in the software, is a kludge that serves neither discipline very well
+1
Software should do one thing and do it well.
-
After Hans Kreuse's message elsewhere about LR4 offering better ability to recover highlights and shadows, I thought I'd give it a try.
LR4 beta is using approximately 1.9GB of RAM under 64bit Windows 7.
On Windows XP, even with a 4GB machine, the per-process limit on available RAM is 2GB - unless you do special tricks to get 3GB but that's not without risk.
So it would seem that using LR4 on WinXP would mean that it was always in danger of running out of memory and crashing.
-
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/01/lightroom-4-and-windows-xp.html
-
For those who may have an XP laptop and a Win7 desktop, you can still work in both environments. When you're on the road, you can work on images in LR3, transfer the images and associated sidecar files to your desktop when back in the office and continue to work on the images using the 2010 Process Version in LR4. Are you getting all the goodness of LR4? No. But you're not getting all the goodness out of a computer by using a 11 year old operating system either.
Dreed, flipping the 3gig switch in XP really entails no risks.
-
LR4 wouldn't crash due to running out of memory - 1.9GB is just the RAM being used - memory management would deal with it using however much it needed in each process, but you'd be swapping out to disk. Yes, each process would be more limited under 32bit OS, but overall the program would deal with it if written to do so.
-
LR4 wouldn't crash due to running out of memory - 1.9GB is just the RAM being used - memory management would deal with it using however much it needed in each process, but you'd be swapping out to disk. Yes, each process would be more limited under 32bit OS, but overall the program would deal with it if written to do so.
I think you misunderstand.
Windows XP has a limit on 2GB for a process's address space unless you do something special to make it 3GB and also compile the application in a special way.
So even if I have a PC with 4GB of RAM, no application running under Windows XP can ever have 3.5GB of allocated address space.
-
...... also compile the application in a special way.
Huh? If the application can access more than 2GB of RAM then turning on the 3 gig switch in the boot.ini menu is all that's required unless, like Photoshop, there's a preference setting for how much memory to use and if that's set to less than 2GB it can be increased. I've never read or heard anything else related to flipping that switch.
So even if I have a PC with 4GB of RAM, no application running under Windows XP can ever have 3.5GB of allocated address space.
But as Farmer pointed out you're talking only about physical memory. If there's insufficient physical memory (RAM) then applications use virtual memory (i.e., the scratch disk) as a substitute. It's not as efficient but it works. This is why, for users of applications such as Photoshop and Lightroom that can be resource intensive the suggestion is to have a large amount of free disk space for the applications to use as virtual memory. A number of people have a separate hard drive installed that is dedicated as just a scratch disk.
-
I think you misunderstand.
Windows XP has a limit on 2GB for a process's address space unless you do something special to make it 3GB and also compile the application in a special way.
So even if I have a PC with 4GB of RAM, no application running under Windows XP can ever have 3.5GB of allocated address space.
It's a process limitation, not application (which can run many processes). A 32bit PS or LR can already deal with a 6GB image file, for example. So you wouldn't run out of memory just because your current version is reaching near to 2GB on a particular process.
Even assuming an app wasn't compiled to be Large-Address-Aware, it would still deal with larger amounts of data without crashing due to running out of memory (unless it was horribly written!). If it was compiled to be Large-Address-Aware then each process could use more memory if the 3GB flag is set (up to 3GB - the 3.5GB frequently quoted is another limitation relating to video memory mapping and refers only to physical RAM and even that is not always correct - smaller GPUs will see that number increase toward 4GB and this is because the x32 versions of Windows can not address memory above 4GB range eventhough a PAE set system and PAE aware drivers can do so).
-
I updated my pc to a quad core last year the whole lot new drives everything and Win 7 64bit too (obviously)
I can't say I'll be using that 16Gb of ram I put in (but it was cheap DDR3 is dirt cheap)
I've run plenty of budget builds on 4Gb ram (Win 7 64bit again) 8Gb offer some gains for heavy hitters above that not really any improvement but at least you won't be crying out for more ram.
But I could easily have just done an update to my older build and used XP. XP is still decent, granted it's getting on a bit but a lot of folks like it. I would say to people Win 7 is actually very good it's no Vista so don't be scared of it or upgrading. But still I'd expect the OS to be around for quite some time XP was (after SP2) well liked.
-
...XP is still decent, granted it's getting on a bit but a lot of folks like it. I would say to people Win 7 is actually very good it's no Vista so don't be scared of it or upgrading. But still I'd expect the OS to be around for quite some time XP was (after SP2) well liked.
But the fact is, LR 4 won't be running on XP. You can read what Tom Hogarty, the product manager said (and the myriad of comments) on the Lightroom Journal (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/01/lightroom-4-and-windows-xp.html). He also noted that Mac support is being limited to 64-bit Mac systems and 10.6.6.
But unlike Adobe's reversal on Suite upgrades which was a policy decision not based on technical limitations, Adobe won't be changing their minds about XP. You either upgrade your OS to run LR4 or you don't run LR4 regardless of which platform you are on. This really ain't a Windows thing here...
-
Huh? If the application can access more than 2GB of RAM then turning on the 3 gig switch in the boot.ini menu is all that's required unless, like Photoshop, there's a preference setting for how much memory to use and if that's set to less than 2GB it can be increased. I've never read or heard anything else related to flipping that switch.
But as Farmer pointed out you're talking only about physical memory. If there's insufficient physical memory (RAM) then applications use virtual memory (i.e., the scratch disk) as a substitute. It's not as efficient but it works. This is why, for users of applications such as Photoshop and Lightroom that can be resource intensive the suggestion is to have a large amount of free disk space for the applications to use as virtual memory. A number of people have a separate hard drive installed that is dedicated as just a scratch disk.
No, I'm not.
A process's address space refers to how much memory it can address.
Scratch disks are not virtual memory.
-
No, I'm not.
Not sure what you're referring to.
A process's address space refers to how much memory it can address.
I understand that. But commercial software either is or isn't able to use more than 2GB of RAM. If it is, flipping the 3 gig switch is all that's required. If it isn't, then that won't work. But recompiling a piece of commercial software isn't something that the user does.
Scratch disks are not virtual memory.
Yes, technically true. OK, substitute scratch disk for virtual memory in my previous comment. Either way the point is the same. The Photoshop scratch disk is a form of virtual memory.