On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:55:31AM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: > P. J. Alling wrote: > > >I'm using W2K All the power of WinXP, just as stable, No stupid > >Microsoft tricks. (At least no more stupid Microsoft tricks than > >Win98). It works well, with no muss or fuss. A rarity in the high > >tech world. Of course Adobe no longer writes software that > >supports it. > > I wonder if there's any technical reason why Adobe can't make their new > software run on Win2k of if they're deliberately making it so it > *won't* run on that OS. From what I've experienced of Adobe I suspect > the latter. I would be surprised if a sufficiently skilled hack could > make CS3 install on Win2k.
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by ignorance" I doubt if Adobe deliberately try to prevent CS from running on Win2K. But, equally, I doubt if they see Win2K as a large enough potential market to make it worthwhile developing for (and testing on) that platform; most of their target (Windows) audience probably runs XP. There are several things, particularly in the graphics driver area, that make XP a more attractive platform for media-oriented software. I wouldn't be surprised to find Adobe making use of one of those APIs; if that means the product doesn't run on Win2K then so be it. But that's really a side effect, not a deliberate goal. I wouldn't be too astonished to find that even support for XP goes away fairly fast, too - there's some interesting stuff in the Direct X 10 APIs, but those won't be available on XP. It rather depends on how fast Vista begins to dominate the desktop (or at least the high end desktop where most Photoshop users can presumably be found). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
