LR4 and WinXP

[Brad Smith]

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,

[john beardsworth]

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

[Rhossydd]

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.

[wolfnowl]

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.

[mac_paolo]

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? 

[dreed]

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?

[dreed]

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? 

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.

[Farmer]

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.

[Rhossydd]

Adobe forums are full of threads like this.

That rather demonstrates that this is an issue Adobe ought to reconsider then.

[Rhossydd]

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.

[RogerW]

 ::)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.

[Rhossydd]

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 ?

[mac_paolo]

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. 

[Brad Smith]

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.

[Rhossydd]

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.

[Anthony.Ralph]

[..]

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.

[mac_paolo]

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.

[Rhossydd]

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.

[Alan Goldhammer]

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."

[mac_paolo]

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.