| Author |
Chris Cox: Why does PS-CS need Win 2000/XP?
|
|
| David C. Barber 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| Chris,
I notice the new Win Photoshop CS specifies either 2000, or XP. No more
98/Me. Is there a specific reason for this? Does Photoshop now use some
API not supported in Win 9x?
David
| |
| Derek Fountain 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| > I notice the new Win Photoshop CS specifies either 2000, or XP. No more
> 98/Me. Is there a specific reason for this? Does Photoshop now use some
> API not supported in Win 9x?
Those operating systems are ancient (by computing standards), and supporting
them hobbles the Adobe product line. Microsoft themselves no longer support
Win98 and support for ME finishes next month. Adobe had to call time at
some point, so I wouldn't assume there was a specific reason.
| |
|
| "David C. Barber" <david@NOSPAMdbarber.com> wrote in message news:P-udnTIKRuV0JTCiRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> Chris,
>
> I notice the new Win Photoshop CS specifies either 2000, or XP. No more
> 98/Me. Is there a specific reason for this? Does Photoshop now use some
> API not supported in Win 9x?
Yeah. A stable one.
Rick
| |
| Nicholas Sherlock 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| David C. Barber wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I notice the new Win Photoshop CS specifies either 2000, or XP. No
> more 98/Me. Is there a specific reason for this? Does Photoshop now
> use some API not supported in Win 9x?
Photoshop sucks resources (I'm talking about system/GDI handles) like a
vacuum cleaner. Windows 98/95 has a limited amount of these resources
available. This limit was upped in Windows ME - but I can't run Photoshop
and a couple of other applications at the same time. There is no limit to
these resources in Windows 2000/XP (Only available memory).
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
| |
| Chris Cox 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
|
Photoshop needs several APIs that were added (or fixed) in Win2K.
We tried to support older OSes, but the huge number of required (or
fixed) APIs forced us to abandon the older OSes (especially since
Microsoft has already abandoned them and will not be fixing bugs in
them).
Chris
In article <P-udnTIKRuV0JTCiRVn-vA@comcast.com>, David C. Barber
<david@NOSPAMdbarber.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I notice the new Win Photoshop CS specifies either 2000, or XP. No more
> 98/Me. Is there a specific reason for this? Does Photoshop now use some
> API not supported in Win 9x?
>
> David
| |
| Fred Coote 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| Chris,
Additionally, will Win Photoshop CS work in/on NT4 Service Pack 6a? Many thanks in advance.
Fred
"Chris Cox" <ccox@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:091120031843142185%ccox@mindspring.com...[color=blue]
>
> Photoshop needs several APIs that were added (or fixed) in Win2K.
> We tried to support older OSes, but the huge number of required (or
> fixed) APIs forced us to abandon the older OSes (especially since
> Microsoft has already abandoned them and will not be fixing bugs in
> them).
>
> Chris
>
>
> In article <P-udnTIKRuV0JTCiRVn-vA@comcast.com>, David C. Barber
> <david@NOSPAMdbarber.com> wrote:
>
| |
| Bill Hilton 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| >From: "Fred Coote" fdraw@erols.com
>Additionally, will Win Photoshop CS work in/on NT4 Service Pack 6a?
According to Adobe, CS for Windows won't work on NT regardless of the SP, just
Win 2000 w/ SP3 or XP.
| |
| Timo Autiokari 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| "David C. Barber" <david@NOSPAMdbarber.com> wrote:
>I notice the new Win Photoshop CS specifies either 2000, or XP. No more
>98/Me. Is there a specific reason for this? Does Photoshop now use some
>API not supported in Win 9x?
CS needs the MS Activation support and that is only available in the
2000 and XP (and in the 2003 server). The corporate version of CS does
not require the Activation, it can be made to run on 98se but the
installer refuses to run so there is plenty of registly patching and
file hunting.
Timo Autiokari
| |
| Chris Cox 2003-11-19, 10:59 pm |
| In article <dk20rvotrrh0s2fiuo24gkotvj1k4tl00i@4ax.com>, Timo Autiokari
<timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote:
> "David C. Barber" <david@NOSPAMdbarber.com> wrote:
>
>
> CS needs the MS Activation support and that is only available in the
> 2000 and XP (and in the 2003 server). The corporate version of CS does
> not require the Activation, it can be made to run on 98se but the
> installer refuses to run so there is plenty of registly patching and
> file hunting.
1) Photoshop CS doesn't use MS Activation
2) Photoshop CS will not run on any flavor of Win9X, even with registry
hacks. (many OS APIs would be missing)
3) Please don't respond unless you have some idea of what you're
talking about
Chris
| |
| Chris Cox 2003-11-19, 10:59 pm |
| In article <boo6cg$in3$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, Fred Coote
<fdraw@erols.com> wrote:
> Chris,
> Additionally, will Win Photoshop CS work in/on NT4 Service Pack 6a? Many
> thanks in advance.
No, it says it requires Win2K or XP, and that means it requires Win2K
or XP.
Chris
| |
| Fred C. 2003-11-19, 11:00 pm |
| Thank you...however, this seems like a smartass response from you.
"No, it says it requires Win2K or XP" would have answered the question...why add "and that means it
requires Win2K or XP."?
Fred
"Chris Cox" <ccox@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:161120031657548673%ccox@mindspring.com...
> In article <boo6cg$in3$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, Fred Coote
> <fdraw@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, it says it requires Win2K or XP, and that means it requires Win2K
> or XP.
>
> Chris
| |
|
| "Fred C." <fdraw@erols.com> wrote in news:bpako7$brd$1@bob.news.rcn.net:
> Thank you...however, this seems like a smartass response from you.
>
> "No, it says it requires Win2K or XP" would have answered the
> question...why add "and that means it requires Win2K or XP."?
One of Adobe's internal programmers takes the time to monitor these boards
and answer all kinds of technical questions, and you're complaining because
he isn't wearing soft enough kid gloves?
C'mon, take your answer like a man.
| |
| Fred C. 2003-11-19, 11:00 pm |
| The company has 40 + copies of PS7.01 running on Win NT4 ...so it is a big deal. I don't need your
crap either!
"anon" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:Xns94365E6B467B5232hji229dvvmb91@66.185.95.104...
> "Fred C." <fdraw@erols.com> wrote in news:bpako7$brd$1@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
>
> One of Adobe's internal programmers takes the time to monitor these boards
> and answer all kinds of technical questions, and you're complaining because
> he isn't wearing soft enough kid gloves?
>
> C'mon, take your answer like a man.
| |
| Stuart 2003-11-19, 11:00 pm |
| I newsgroup is not the place for a company to be making decisions about
their IT strategy is it?
Stuart
Fred C. wrote:
> The company has 40 + copies of PS7.01 running on Win NT4 ...so it is a big deal. I don't need your
> crap either!
>
> "anon" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:Xns94365E6B467B5232hji229dvvmb91@66.185.95.104...
>
>
>
| |
| nospam 2003-11-19, 11:00 pm |
| Probably Fred because it was a semi-smartass question. Don't you think that
if it did work on NT with service packs that they would have said so?
R
"Fred C." <fdraw@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bpako7$brd$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Thank you...however, this seems like a smartass response from you.
>
> "No, it says it requires Win2K or XP" would have answered the
question...why add "and that means it
> requires Win2K or XP."?
>
> Fred
>
> "Chris Cox" <ccox@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:161120031657548673%ccox@mindspring.com...
Many[color=blue]
>
>
| |
| nospam 2003-11-19, 11:00 pm |
| I disagree. While I wouldn't use it as my sole source of information. It
never hurts to get as much information as possible. Then you have to
carefully weigh it all and make your choice.
R
"Stuart" <stuart@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:3FB90517.70904@nospam.uk...
> I newsgroup is not the place for a company to be making decisions about
> their IT strategy is it?
>
> Stuart
>
> Fred C. wrote:
>
big deal. I don't need your[color=blue]
news:Xns94365E6B467B5232hji229dvvmb91@66.185.95.104...[color=blue]
boards[color=blue]
because[color=blue]
>
| |
|
| Fred C. wrote:
> Thank you...however, this seems like a smartass response from you.
>
> "No, it says it requires Win2K or XP" would have answered the question...why add "and that means it
> requires Win2K or XP."?
Because, the caliber of Photoshop users should be able to read and
comprehend.
Regards,
Uni
>
> Fred
>
> "Chris Cox" <ccox@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:161120031657548673%ccox@mindspring.com...
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:3FB98756.1090903@no.email.invalid...
> Fred C. wrote:
>
> Because, the caliber of Photoshop users should be able to read and
> comprehend.
It was a fair question. Older versions of PS claim it "requires"
a Pentium III, which isn't true.
Rick
| |
| Stuart 2003-11-19, 11:00 pm |
| Minimum hardware recommendations are usually for just being able to
install and load the program, not actually using it properly. At least
that is what microsoft does.
Stuart
Rick wrote:
> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:3FB98756.1090903@no.email.invalid...
>
>
> It was a fair question. Older versions of PS claim it "requires"
> a Pentium III, which isn't true.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
| |
| Henrik2000 2003-11-19, 11:00 pm |
| > There is no limit to
> these resources in Windows 2000/XP (Only available memory).
----
It is not like this: No single application under a 32 bit Win XP can
have more than 2 GB of RAM. I had 4 GB installed - just for Photoshop
-, but my Photoshop always tells me it doesn't see more than about 1.7
GB. I asked why, then i learnt about this Win XP limitation.
You can extend the available RAM per application by some tricks which
sound very problem prone.
| |
|
| Rick wrote:
> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:3FB98756.1090903@no.email.invalid...
>
>
>
> It was a fair question. Older versions of PS claim it "requires"
> a Pentium III, which isn't true.
We are not talking about "older" versions, we are talking about
Photoshop CS. See The Subject line.
Regards,
Uni
>
> Rick
>
>
| |
| Norman Black 2003-11-19, 11:00 pm |
|
"Henrik2000" <henrik2000@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c08e47f2.0311180441.51b93c2@posting.google.com...
> ----
> It is not like this: No single application under a 32 bit Win XP can
> have more than 2 GB of RAM. I had 4 GB installed - just for Photoshop
> -, but my Photoshop always tells me it doesn't see more than about 1.7
> GB. I asked why, then i learnt about this Win XP limitation.
> You can extend the available RAM per application by some tricks which
> sound very problem prone.
You misunderstood the statement made. Which was as follows.
> Photoshop sucks resources (I'm talking about system/GDI handles) like
a
> vacuum cleaner. Windows 98/95 has a limited amount of these resources
> available. This limit was upped in Windows ME - but I can't run
Photoshop
> and a couple of other applications at the same time. There is no limit
to
> these resources in Windows 2000/XP (Only available memory).
Win9x had a system wide limit on GDI/USER handles and such. The system
could "run out of memory" even with tons of free memory available if the
storage areas for the special handles is all used up. Any NT based
system has no limit on these handles except for "available memory".
Norman
| |
| Chris Cox 2003-11-24, 10:20 am |
|
Because sometimes I get tired of answering the same question over and
over.
Sorry about that.
Chris
In article <bpako7$brd$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, Fred C. <fdraw@erols.com>
wrote:
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> Thank you...however, this seems like a smartass response from you.
>
> "No, it says it requires Win2K or XP" would have answered the question...why
> add "and that means it
> requires Win2K or XP."?
>
> Fred
>
> "Chris Cox" <ccox@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:161120031657548673%ccox@mindspring.com...
|
|
|
|
| Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |