Photoshop and Win 98

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by EGR, Nov 23, 2003.

  1. EGR

    EGR Guest

    Hi all, I am wondering why Adobe chose to make their "Creative suite" run
    on Win 2000 or XP thus not permitting users like myself to upgrade because I
    am using Win. 98se. I suspect that this will cost them money in the long
    term because if people like myself wish to upgrade to Creative Suite they
    must also upgrade their operating systems too. I really can't see their
    motive for such a stupid move. EGR
    EGR, Nov 23, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. the reason is simple. when better software comes along you use it.

    when the PC was new every body wrote programs that ran under dos 1,
    after dos 2 came out even though you *could* write stuff that ran on
    both you wrote for the new version. other wise we'd all be still useing
    floppies to work with - dos 1 didn't support hard drives.
    James Connell, Nov 23, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. EGR

    EGR Guest

    I take your point James but as it stands they may not get my money now where
    as if I could have upgraded in Win 98 I would have done so. I can't see how
    that has benefited Adobe.There must be many people out there just like
    me.After all,it's one thing to get me to buy an Adobe product but forcing me
    to buy a Microsoft product is another thing.. EGR
    EGR, Nov 23, 2003
  4. EGR

    Eric Gill Guest

    Same reasoning applies for DOS, as he noted. 98 is no longer supported by
    the company that made it; expecting someone else to do so is not resonable.
    Not having to spend money and resources on an unsupported OS?
    Yes, there are. And you really do not realize what a disservice you are
    doing yourself. Many applications perform much better under the NT line,
    due to better memory and resources managment. Photoshop *especially*
    benefits. Better performance, better stability. *Much* better.
    They are not.

    PS/CS also runs on a non-M$ OS. (say that three times fast).
    Eric Gill, Nov 23, 2003
  5. i'm at the same point ( see post in "Download Photoshop CS" thread ).

    in '95 you really had no choice - if you want to run software on a PC
    you were stuck with a M$ opsys. linux still has a long way to go to
    match windblows as far as choices of programs go, but some of the
    emulators are looking good now.

    i used to do a lot of programming in windows but i haven't done much
    lately ( at least not the nuts and bolts stuff that make API calls, i
    use borland builder, it takes the hassle out of windows programming) so
    i'm not sure what the major diff is between win98 and XP ( other than
    the security issues that are inherant in NT over win95, and the change
    from FAT for the file system). my daughter has XPh on her box - i can't
    see any improvement! it loads slower and runs ~about the same speed - it
    does do multiusers much more smoothly than win98 but is that really a
    big deal?
    James Connell, Nov 23, 2003
  6. EGR

    JP White Guest

    I feel your pain but agree with Adobe's decision.

    Analyzing the types of OS that visit my personal website only 13.65% of
    visitors have win98. XP and 2000 together make up 67% of all visitors.
    Why go to the extra trouble for such a small (and diminishing) market?
    2000 and XP are essentially the same

    MAC OS only adds up to 5% of visitors but that market is at least stable
    and won't fade away anytime soon. In addition I would guess that
    Photoshop has a greater market penetration with MAC OS vs Windows.

    Interestingly Linux barely makes the radar at 0.5% of visitors.

    JP White, Nov 23, 2003
  7. i would bet that the majority of windows user hits you get are from IE6
    as well. why? most people have out of the box systems, my daughter is a
    good example, her old (actualy my old) PII/win98 box wasn't good enough
    she Had to have a new system so she went to gateway last year and got a
    new one ( that's OK i got some fair parts out of the deal ) it came
    loaded with XPh and Intergut Exploder 6 and a bunch of OEM software (
    including PS elements ). the same with linux - how many plug it in and
    run systems are loaded with linux?
    James Connell, Nov 23, 2003
  8. EGR

    JP White Guest

    If you were a betting man you'd do well on your wager. 76% have IE6 and
    a further 12% IE5.

    JP White, Nov 24, 2003
  9. EGR

    Paul J Gans Guest

    It has been said here many times before. There are significant
    internal differences between the Win9x (and WinME) series of
    operating systems and the WinNT series (Win2000, WinXP).
    These differences allow totally different programming
    methods that allow a huge program like Photoshop to run
    as quickly or more quickly than the previous version,
    even though it contains more "stuff".

    Just as new programs for users solve problems the users
    were having, new operating systems solve problems for

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Nov 24, 2003
  10. EGR

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Buy a Mac. It is a better operating system and PS for
    OSX does not include activation.


    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Nov 24, 2003
  11. EGR

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Yeah. That's the chicken and egg problem. Developers
    don't write apps for linux so folks don't run linux on
    the desktop so developers don't write apps so folks don't
    run linux on the desktop...

    Well, you get the point.

    On the other hand, unix and its derivatives like linux
    RULE the web. Google runs on Linux and Yahoo on Unix
    and so on with other major web sites. I'll leave it
    to you to guess why.

    I run Windows ONLY because of Photoshop and Dreamweaver.
    If those ever go over to linux (and earlier versions of
    Dreamweaver runs under a windows emulator in linux)
    I'll be out of the Windows market and I'm sure I'm
    not alone.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Nov 24, 2003
  12. EGR

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Yeah, and that includes me running Opera on my linux box and
    asking it to identify as IE6 so that certain sites will talk
    to it.


    But seriously, I think your figures are pretty much on. They
    generally agree with mine and I have more than the normal
    number of unix/linux hits from universities.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Nov 24, 2003
  13. yes but the win32 API is locked in, M$ can add to it but if they drop
    calls they lose backwards compatability, so far even the stuff i wrote
    to run in dos 3.1 still runs fine. you can change the functionality of a
    API call but still have it stay the same call it just works better - i'm
    curious has anybody Tried loading PS 8 ( i can't stand this trend to
    'names' for and upgade either :) onto a win98 box to see if it'll run??
    after win 98 "replaced" win95 all the new software began saying for 98
    and up but it ran under '95 fine.
    James Connell, Nov 24, 2003
  14. EGR

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I agree with you. However there are *new* API routines that do
    things that were not done before.

    XP runs programs in separate spaces. Thus an XP program can not
    interfere with another program running simultaneously. It cannot
    "use up" all the memory or hog the resources.

    Under Win98 programs ran in the same space. They were supposed
    to cooperate. However, if one program hogged the memory, any
    others were simply screwed.

    This is just one difference. It leads to different methods of
    programming. Threads are another. This is a technique that
    allows a program to start up a subprogram to do a "simultaneous"
    calculation. This ability was rudimentary in Win98 if it existed
    at all (I no longer recall). It is a major feature in XP. It
    also is helped by independent memory spaces for programs.

    The list of such things is almost endless.

    There is another point. Because the operating system model is
    totally different, using the old API amounts to running an
    emulator to recreate the old Win98 environment inside the new
    environment. It isn't simply a matter of using the same API

    Let me give you an example of this. Back in the stone age of
    computing (before personal computers) it was common for a program
    to modify its own instructions as it ran. These self-modifying
    program were hell to debug, but they were the only efficient
    method to do many things.

    As time went on computer hardware changed and so did the OS's.
    Programs were loaded into memory space that was unwritable by
    anybody but the OS itself. That kept all sorts of "Oops, my
    program just overwrote yours" types of errors from occuring.
    It also meant that all the old programs had to be rewritten
    -- or, in many cases, the old compilers had to be changed.

    Sure, one could have written routines to make it possible for
    the old code to continue to run, but it would have done so
    far slower and at a competetive disadvantage relative to programs
    written for the new programming models.

    That's the sort of thing going on here.

    ---- Paul J. Gans

    PS: Would it help if I told you that I feel your pain? I
    have an old portable that runs Win98 and I'm as screwed vis
    a vis that machine as everyone else with a Win98 machine.
    Paul J Gans, Nov 24, 2003
  15. EGR

    EGR Guest

    Thanks everyone for the input.I must confess that I have little
    comprehension about the programming side of thing's and reading your points
    about the problems running on Win 98, which I hadn't thought about, I
    suppose they have a point but the pain remains that if I wish to upgrade,
    it is going to cost me double the price of the "Creative Suite" upgrade. EGR
    EGR, Nov 24, 2003
  16. EGR

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Then wait a bit. If you have PS 7 and do not need the new
    features in CS right away, what's your hurry? Computer
    prices are always falling -- or more exactly, the same
    $600 buys you more and more of a computer each year. So
    upgrading might be easy in eight months.

    One does not always have to have the latest and greatest.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Nov 25, 2003
  17. EGR

    G_F Guest

    Although I understand your view point, we have to admit that nowadays
    everyting is designed that way and consumers have either to agree or stay

    And thus all is left to poor guys like us is to remember the good old time!


    Gérard Férini
    G_F, Nov 26, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.