Adobe is dead to me

BirdsofBC wrote in post #19487847
because I work 10 hours a day and have not had time to deal with my toys.

I know the feeling, my week is already in, but I am expected to stay on for a couple more hours and then tomorrow. The joys of being salaried...

BirdsofBC wrote in post #19487848
Phenom 995

Yea... That's getting into technological antique territory. Not sure how many generations old, but it's got to be quite a few.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19487858
I know the feeling, my week is already in, but I am expected to stay on for a couple more hours and then tomorrow. The joys of being salaried...

'Salaried' is a euphonism for 'indentured servitude'.

My first job after college was 'salaried', but it was assumed I would come in on Saturday morning routinely for an 'extended work week' and be paid the flat rate of $50 per Saturday worked because it was an expectation of the position.
At least that job -- the only one of my career as a salaried person -- paid something for 'over 40 hours' spent on the job.

Fortunately so far being 100% remote, it makes this less tedious, and I usually operate at a faster pace than 90% of the team, so I deliver much more across areas keeping my demand above 45-50 hours to a minimum.

Of course it has taken 27 years to get to this point.

Wilt wrote in post #19487780
I originally purchased RAWShooter, so after Adobe purchased the code and released Lightroom, they gave LR1 to RAWShooter owners. Upgrades to LR were only $99, and one could skip upgrade versions...so it was truly inexpensive...$99 would be necessary only every 12 or 24 months.
For pixel editing, I used Paintshop Pro, and simply by being slow on the uptake, one could get upgrades for under $50.

It was PS that was expensive to purchase and upgrade, not LR, so Paintshop Pro plus LR certainly would have been a much cheaper alternative. If I recall correctly, PS was about $700 to purchase and major upgrades were around $200. I upgraded both LR and PS every 2 years, so averaged $150 US every year versus $120 US/y that I'm currently paying. And with the subscription the software is always up to date.

If you preferred to purchase Adobe products and wanted to keep them up to date it was pretty expensive. And I get it why some don't like the subscription model, I'm just not in that camp. HOWEVER, if you only want LR, the plans are over-priced. Adobe IMO should have a LR-only plan (no cloud storage) for about $3-4 US/month.

BirdsofBC wrote in post #19487848
Phenom 995

Dude.......

That might be your problem

I work in a museum, I own and drive 20 and a 30 year old cars, I make a living operating 5DS and a 5D3, I get the whole old tech thing.

But sometimes you just have to accept that if you want to run the latest software, your going to have to have some current hardware to make it work.
It's exactly the same as needing old hardware to run old software.

If budget is a problem, a used system with way more performance than your old system should be quite cheap.

Moppie wrote in post #19488087
I own and drive 20 and a 30 year old cars

guessing niether of which will be displayed at Lloyd Elsmore Park on Sunday?

Case in point about newer systems with more capability.


https://www.amazon.com …el+16gb%2Caps%2​C90&sr=8-4

Or new and more future proof

https://www.amazon.com …kb05vdExvZ0NsaW​NrPXRydWU=

If you had kids, the entire PS suite was much cheaper. Many times people forgot back then that several different large packages like Office Suites, Photo software, etc would provide a student or teacher major discount. My kids needed both, so I simply supplied their report cards to the certified seller and paid 1/3 the normal street price. Colleges also sold discounted copies.

Bob_A wrote in post #19487568
PS was really expensive to upgrade. I went 2 -> 4 -> 6. Combined with a couple of (much less pricey) LR upgrades it averaged a lot more than $120/y for a subscription. The subscription plan is not a great deal if you only use LR.

This is why I stopped using Lightroom after Adobe moved to a subscription-only model. I was only using LR, and the math just didn't work out at $120 per year. I figured that was a 3x - 4x price increase over what I was paying by just upgrading the perpetual licenses on my time frame. I tried a few alternatives, and settled on DxO PhotoLab. Been using it ever since, and have been very satisfied with the application.

Moppie wrote in post #19488087
.
But sometimes you just have to accept that if you want to run the latest software, your going to have to have some current hardware to make it work.

.

.
But I think the Op doesn't want to run the latest software - he just wants to be able to keep running the old software that he has been using for years and years.
.

Moppie wrote in post #19488087
.
If budget is a problem, a used system with way more performance than your old system should be quite cheap.
.

.
That is a great point. . Absolutely no valid reason to demand that hardware be new. . The OP repeatedly ways that he will need to buy thousands of dollars of new hardware, when he can surely get everything he needs to run his software for $500 or so if he would buy it used from classified ads. . Depreciation on computers and computer components is rapid and massive - it would behoove him to take advantage of that.

.

BirdsofBC wrote in post #19487293
so I reformatted my computer with a fresh install of Windows 10. very uneventful, which is good. I begin reinstalling my photo apps and after I got CC running, installed Light Room Classic from there and then Photoshop. guess what, Photoshop no longer runs on my machine.

I've been using an older version of it but now that I'm in need of the app, they only offer the newest version. seems I can't get the 21.xxx version I've had since I've had my Adobe Photo subscription.

unbelievable. I'm supposed to spend $2000 on new hardware. no words.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19488146
.
But I think the Op doesn't want to run the latest software - he just wants to be able to keep running the old software that he has been using for years and years.
.


.

BirdsofBC wrote in post #19488155
you don't have an idea what you are talking about. don't ever "think" about what i want to do.

??????

Losing old versions of software is a pain and I hate it at times because sometimes you lose features or the new versions moves things around or works differently in key areas and such. It can be very very annoying; and it is a big downside to the march of technology that old software can become harder to find or won't run on newer systems just like new software won't run on some older ones and soforth.

The other angle is that subscription based systems mean that you can lose access to older software that did run just fine on your hardware yesterday and now you can't access it again. I 100% agree and hate that side of subscription based software.

At the same time I appreciate that each version of legacy software has to come with file hosting; downloading and support from the company and that support means that staff have to be trained in using and providing support for that software. At some point the company has to move on and drop old version support unless there's a very good reason not too. Otherwise their support system becomes increasingly complicated and harder to deliver for their staff. The amount of training goes up; the amount of complexity for those staff working with old systems that they likely dn't have access too in-house any more (can't replicate issues at their end etc...).


Sadly the computing world is one where upgrading is part of the beast and I'd say if you've had a system since around 2009 (at least that's when the processor you use was released) then I'd be darn happy that I'd got that many years of functional use out of it. Upgrading is a pain ,but as noted above there are some fairly affordable ways to you can get a newer system that will work well with modern versions of Photoshop and Lightroom. You don't have to break the bank, but yeah its a nightmare when its a cost you didn't expect to have to make suddenly being thrust upon you.

I totally get that there's a lot of frustration in this. At the same time I can see the other side of the coin from Adobe's perspective when delivering a service style product ot customers.


The other option would be looking to find an older copy of the software to use. This might come with its own issues (eg it might not support newer codecs/systems for newer cameras). Even if it might run find on your computer. So you could look into that alternative as a cheaper solution.

Well at this point if the old system was completely rebuilt which caused this issue, there is actually no better time than to find a newer lower cost system and just move to that, getting any harddrive content moved over, or over to a 1TB SSD (< $90).

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19488146
.
But I think the Op doesn't want to run the latest software - he just wants to be able to keep running the old software that he has been using for years and years.
.

.
That is a great point. . Absolutely no valid reason to demand that hardware be new. . The OP repeatedly ways that he will need to buy thousands of dollars of new hardware, when he can surely get everything he needs to run his software for $500 or so if he would buy it used from classified ads. . Depreciation on computers and computer components is rapid and massive - it would behoove him to take advantage of that.

.

Even new PC's can be purchased for a lot less than the OP expects. During the last Black Friday sales window, I bought a new Dell mini tower with the latest gen i7 CPU, 16GB RAM and a 1TB SSD for about $600. My old PC was still okay, but it was getting a little long in the tooth and wasn't capable of running Windows 11. The sale price was too good to pass up.