New Adobe CC Software Will Require Current OS

[faberryman]

Well, this is bad news. Adobe released the following statement:

"To take advantage of the latest operating system features and technologies, the next major release of Creative Cloud will not support Windows 8.1, Windows 10 v1511 and v1607, and Mac OS 10.11 (El Capitan)."

I do most of my editing on a Mac with the current operating system, but when I travel I use my IBM Windows laptop running 8.1, which will no longer be supported. Looks like I'll have to upgrade Windows. Not happy about needing to spend $200 or so to maintain compatibility. A new computer with Windows 10 included may be the better long term investment. Or move to a Mac laptop. I am obtuse enough to like the TrackPoint though.

An alternative may be to ditch Adobe CC and embrace Capture One. I liked what I saw with it at the Photrio Symposium. Only downside is that it doesn't support the Fuji GFX which I have been mulling over.

Digital can be a puzzle sometimes. Film is simple in comparison. I guess that is the attraction for some.

 

[michr]

Well, this is bad news. Adobe released the following statement:

"To take advantage of the latest operating system features and technologies, the next major release of Creative Cloud will not support Windows 8.1, Windows 10 v1511 and v1607, and Mac OS 10.11 (El Capitan)."

I do most of my editing on a Mac with the current operating system, but when I travel I use my IBM Windows laptop running 8.1, which will no longer be supported. Looks like I'll have to upgrade Windows. Not happy about needing to spend $200 or so to maintain compatibility. .

If you have a valid Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 license, you can update to 10 for free still.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/heres-how-you-can-still-get-a-free-windows-10-upgrade/

 

[nmp]

Anything major happening in this new version of CC that can not be lived without? I still use 2014 version. Probably time to get up to date.

 

[faberryman]

If you have a valid Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 license, you can update to 10 for free still.

Thanks for the link. I tried to upgrade. I got through the first reboot before it failed. Perhaps my laptop doesn't have the requisite hardware. I can see where this is leading.

 

[winger]

An alternative may be to ditch Adobe CC and embrace Capture One.

I just got a new Mac and haven't gone the CC route, yet (I had CS5 and LR5 on my old one). I've been using On1 and kinda like it. I can't do some things as quickly as in CS5, but that's mostly learning curve.

It is a bit annoying that newer software needs newer hardware and vice versa - never ending cycle.

 

[juan]

Microsoft now calls Windows a service rather than a product. The next versions will be Microsoft Managed Desktop - yes, you will pay Microsoft to manage your computer and you will pay them monthLy to do it.
The day of the desktop computer is almost gone.

I use Capture One and like it a lot.

 

[RattyMouse]

I just got a new Mac and haven't gone the CC route, yet (I had CS5 and LR5 on my old one). I've been using On1 and kinda like it. I can't do some things as quickly as in CS5, but that's mostly learning curve.

It is a bit annoying that newer software needs newer hardware and vice versa - never ending cycle.

I just got a new Mac too and installed Lightroom 5. I see no need at all to upgrade Lightroom. None at all. I paid something like $79 for Lightroom 5 just about five years ago. That is one low cost piece of software. I'm not going to rent the new version for a much higher expense. I dont rent software.

 

[michr]

Thanks for the link. I tried to upgrade. I got through the first reboot before it failed. Perhaps my laptop doesn't have the requisite hardware. I can see where this is leading.

If you know or can obtain the Windows product key, you can do a fresh re-install, even onto a new disk, by booting the installer from a USB drive. That's probably your best bet to make it work and keep using the same laptop. And a good excuse to buy a SSD if you don't already have one.

 

[jim10219]

Do you need one of the new features? If not, why upgrade? I don't upgrade software unless I have a specific reason to. I used to. But then I found myself constantly running into compatibility issues, corrupted files during install, bloated software taking up all of my free space, and unfamiliar menus. Plus they'd often remove features that I used, or make my old work flow more complicated for no good reason! I still have a few software programs that I run that are at least 10 years old. There are newer versions of them available. But they don't offer anything of value to me. So I keep the old ones that I'm familiar with, and enjoy the extra money I get from not upgrading. Which is another reason why I've avoided the whole Adobe CC suite. To me, it's just a scam to get more money out of your pocket in a way that you won't notice. Much like boiling a lobster by slowly turning up the heat.

 

[RattyMouse]

Adobe could not produce enough new features with their software to make them compelling enough for people to upgrade. To get around that problem, they stopped selling the software and now people have to rent it.

Ridiculous.

 

[TonyB65]

I got off the Adobe train a while back and would never "rent" software at this cost, if Microsoft go down the same route I'll be ditching windows as well.

 

[MattKing]

Technically, you rent just about all commercial software, because it is licensed to you, not purchased by you. In some cases the rent is periodic, while in others there is a prepaid rent price.
But that doesn't really matter to most of us on a day to day basis.
I sort of understand where Adobe is coming from. Their support and maintenance requirements for Photoshop and Lightroom are likely huge, and only sustainable if they have substantial cash flow. Photoshop in particular is quite massively complex - most photographers don't use but a tiny fraction of its capabilities.
Early on, it made sense to have a professional product - a comprehensive and powerful graphics tool like Photoshop - and a home users product - a scaled down, pay once every few years tool like Photoshop Elements.
Now however there are so many factors that push people to the professional level products that it makes sense that they charge for them.
I come at this from the perspective of, in the past, having to depend on vertical market (non-photographic) software to run a business. That software cost a lot more than $10.00 USD a month to use, and would stop working if you didn't pay your annual licensing fee.
In my case, the only Adobe product I use is Acrobat Reader. For photography I use two Corel products - Paintshop Pro and Aftershot Pro - that roughly approximate the functions of Photoshop and Lightroom. The Corel products have the sort of "buy it once and keep it until you want/have to upgrade" licensing that some people prefer. I also make a lot of use of Fast Stone Image Viewer, which is free with a request for a donation.

 

[faberryman]

I just got a new Mac too and installed Lightroom 5. I see no need at all to upgrade Lightroom. None at all. I paid something like $79 for Lightroom 5 just about five years ago. That is one low cost piece of software. I'm not going to rent the new version for a much higher expense. I don't rent software.

I had LR5/PS5 for several years before I upgraded my camera to a Fuji XT2. I was going to have to upgrade to LR6 to process the XT2 RAW files (I didn't want to separately convert every image to DNG with the Adobe utility before working on them). I was was going to have to upgrade to PS6 to take an advanced digital processing course at my local community college. Since LR6/PS6 were the last stand-alone versions with no incremental upgrades, and both programs together were going to be expensive, I just jumped to CC. There have been some nice upgrades to CC that would have never been available to me in PS6/LR6. And I know if I shift cameras again, I'll be covered. And I can stop my subscription tomorrow if I migrate to Capture One. Pluses and minus.

Query: can you process Nikon Z6/Z7 RAW files in LR5/6? If not, I can see some people shifting to CC.

 

[BMbikerider]

I am one of those that pay monthly. Looking at it another way, taking it over 5 years the total sum is less than when you could buy a new full version disc before the CC version came along. Yes I will agree it isn't cheap but what is these days? I have not had any notification from adobe of any change in operating system and I get regular updates from Microsoft so I can only assume that my version of Windows 10 is up to date.

 

[TonyB65]

Technically, you rent just about all commercial software, because it is licensed to you, not purchased by you. In some cases the rent is periodic, while in others there is a prepaid rent price.
But that doesn't really matter to most of us on a day to day basis.
I sort of understand where Adobe is coming from. Their support and maintenance requirements for Photoshop and Lightroom are likely huge, and only sustainable if they have substantial cash flow. Photoshop in particular is quite massively complex - most photographers don't use but a tiny fraction of its capabilities.
Early on, it made sense to have a professional product - a comprehensive and powerful graphics tool like Photoshop - and a home users product - a scaled down, pay once every few years tool like Photoshop Elements.
Now however there are so many factors that push people to the professional level products that it makes sense that they charge for them.
I come at this from the perspective of, in the past, having to depend on vertical market (non-photographic) software to run a business. That software cost a lot more than $10.00 USD a month to use, and would stop working if you didn't pay your annual licensing fee.
In my case, the only Adobe product I use is Acrobat Reader. For photography I use two Corel products - Paintshop Pro and Aftershot Pro - that roughly approximate the functions of Photoshop and Lightroom. The Corel products have the sort of "buy it once and keep it until you want/have to upgrade" licensing that some people prefer. I also make a lot of use of Fast Stone Image Viewer, which is free with a request for a donation.

No, paying once for software is nothing like a subscription model, you can choose to just stick with the version you have, you are not obliged to carry on paying month after month, you are not at the mercy of the company should they change policy, which Adobe seems to want to do regularly.

 

[MattKing]

No, paying once for software is nothing like a subscription model, you can choose to just stick with the version you have, you are not obliged to carry on paying month after month, you are not at the mercy of the company should they change policy, which Adobe seems to want to do regularly.

You still license software, rather than owning it, and the terms of the license determine whether you can continue to use it for as long as you wish.
Many of us are used to licenses that permit long term use without further payment, just as we expect that software will be regularly updated to permit that long term use, again without further payment.
But that isn't the way things work for many, many things in the software world. And it may not be a sustainable model for a lot of product "manufacturers" in the software world.

 

[BMbikerider]

At the end of the day, if Adobe or any other digital software company gets really stupid, I can simply completely revert back to my film and dark room away from the rat-race. It is the end image that I am concerned about, not how it is done. It will be their loss not mine.

 

[TonyB65]

You still license software, rather than owning it, and the terms of the license determine whether you can continue to use it for as long as you wish.
Many of us are used to licenses that permit long term use without further payment, just as we expect that software will be regularly updated to permit that long term use, again without further payment.
But that isn't the way things work for many, many things in the software world. And it may not be a sustainable model for a lot of product "manufacturers" in the software world.

You buy the license, there are always T&C's with software, generally they tell you that you own the software but must not re-distribute it, modify it or copy it etc. You are also often told whether your license expires or not, most don't. This is not the same as a subscription model at all. You usually have the option to upgrade later if you want to, at a discounted price, that's how it works, it is not on loan unless that is specified, it invariably isn't in my experience.

 

[MattKing]

Not really ownership.
This is an excerpt from the licensing language for Corel's Paintshop Pro software, which is fairly typical (and which I have in hand):
IF YOU AGREE TO THIS EULA, YOU ARE GRANTED A LIMITED, PERSONAL, WORLDWIDE, NON-ASSIGNABLE, NON-SUBLICENSEABLE, NON-TRANSFERABLE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE FOR AGREED REMUNERATION TO USE THE SOFTWARE.
and then later:
LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE. You receive a usage right (license) to the Software but you will not own the Software itself.
The decision on how to charge for that license and whether or not to charge for any support or for any upgrades is a decision influenced by market forces, but there are lots of situations in the marketplace - particularly the commercial and professional marketplace - where support and upgrades are only provided to those who regularly make payment for them.
Despite their penetration into the amateur and home user marketplace, Adobe is primarily oriented toward serving commercial customers.
I have done a fair amount of (non-photographic) work using specialized software that required me to either choose to pay on subscription or to pay handsomely for regular upgrades and to pay by the minute for any required support. That isn't at all unusual in the specialized software world.

 

[faberryman]

I am sure he meant the ability to run out of date off the shelf software as long as your operating system supports it, like buying and running Photoshop 2 and the like.

 

[RattyMouse]

Query: can you process Nikon Z6/Z7 RAW files in LR5/6? If not, I can see some people shifting to CC.

Another option is to move away from Lightroom. There's no reason that one has to stick with such a complacent and non innovative company like Adobe, that forces customers to pay for software in perpetuity.

 

[faberryman]

Another option is to move away from Lightroom. There's no reason that one has to stick with such a complacent and non innovative company like Adobe, that forces customers to pay for software in perpetuity.

The move to other software requires relearning/retraining, a non-trivial task, which may deter some, the question becoming do you want to pay $10/month or purchase and learn new software. The only image software I would consider moving to is Capture One.

 

[guangong]

The moment Adobe offered CC I bought all of the Adobe programs I would need for photography, videos and publishing that were on disks before they became unavailable. Because I work erratically in spurts, cC just doesn’t make economic sense. Some Adobe products have become improved with more and more features that sometimes their core reason for being seems to get lost. I wish I could still use Pagemaker rather than InDesign.

 

[RattyMouse]

The move to other software requires relearning/retraining, a non-trivial task, which may deter some, the question becoming do you want to pay $10/month or purchase and learn new software. The only image software I would consider moving to is Capture One.

Learning photo software like Lightroom is not rocket science. If that is what it takes to avoid payments in perpetuity, then I'm all up for it.

 

[RattyMouse]

The moment Adobe offered CC I bought all of the Adobe programs I would need for photography, videos and publishing that were on disks before they became unavailable. Because I work erratically in spurts, cC just doesn’t make economic sense. Some Adobe products have become improved with more and more features that sometimes their core reason for being seems to get lost. I wish I could still use Pagemaker rather than InDesign.

You and many people did this. Smart move.