LR4 and WinXP

[meyerweb]

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.

[Rhossydd]

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).

[Rhossydd]

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.

[Photo Op]

.........won't appeal to everyone.

EXACTLY (also in regard to XP)....so move on! (but I'm sure you'll respond)

[Steve House]

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.

[NikoJorj]

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.

[mac_paolo]

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. 

[john beardsworth]

"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

[dreed]

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.

[mac_paolo]

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. 

[barryfitzgerald]

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)

[Rhossydd]

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.

[mac_paolo]

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.

[Jeremy Roussak]

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

[Steve House]

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

[dreed]

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.

[dreed]

...
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.

[dreed]

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.

[RikkFlohr]

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/01/lightroom-4-and-windows-xp.html

[RFPhotography]

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.