LR6 Operating System support

It makes sense - 32 bit OSs are limited to <4GB RAM, and it will mean they only need develop two (rather than 4) versions of the code. All macs less than 6 years old can run ML, which is a free upgrade, and those older than that would be painfully slow anyway. LR5 is pretty nasty to use on my 6YO core 2 duo Macbook, and I'd not be surprised if LR6 was even more demanding.
 
It makes sense - 32 bit OSs are limited to <4GB RAM, and it will mean they only need develop two (rather than 4) versions of the code. All macs less than 6 years old can run ML, which is a free upgrade, and those older than that would be painfully slow anyway. LR5 is pretty nasty to use on my 6YO core 2 duo Macbook, and I'd not be surprised if LR6 was even more demanding.

Core 2 duo or greater will run OSX 10.10 just fine with enough RAM. That's all 2007+ models there. That is not to say LR performance would be brilliant on these older systems, very far from it.
 
Core 2 duo or greater will run OSX 10.10 just fine with enough RAM. That's all 2007+ models there. That is not to say LR performance would be brilliant on these older systems, very far from it.

There's a cut off related to graphics chips for 64 bit OSX, rather than processing power. With the exception of the iMac everything must be 2008 or later.

http://gizmodo.com/heres-a-list-of-macs-compatible-with-os-x-yosemite-1585858217

I know exactly what lightroom performance is like on a core 2 duo, and you'd have to be off your head to want to use LR5 for any serious amount of processing. Yosemite works quite acceptably on its own for ordinary use, but LR is too heavy.
 
There's a cut off related to graphics chips for 64 bit OSX, rather than processing power. With the exception of the iMac everything must be 2008 or later.

http://gizmodo.com/heres-a-list-of-macs-compatible-with-os-x-yosemite-1585858217

I know exactly what lightroom performance is like on a core 2 duo, and you'd have to be off your head to want to use LR5 for any serious amount of processing. Yosemite works quite acceptably on its own for ordinary use, but LR is too heavy.

I have 07 MBP 15 and that's running 10.10.
 
The question was largely rhetorical. Looks like they can't even control software distribution on their own machines.
 
Does anybody still use a 32-bit OS these days?
Yes, I do. For my low volume purposes LR5 runs ok on my 32 bit machine, not a rocket but adequate. I don't need to upgrade my PC at the moment - if LR6 will only work on 64bit then I won't upgrade till I need to change the PC out.
 
It's a good move and one I wish more software houses should employ. Shame MS see fit to be working on a 32-bit Win 10 build...
 
Can there be many machines still running that couldn't cope with a 64bit OS, or is it more a case of legacy software?
 
32 bit versions of the current windows OS are still being offered. normally pre-installed on low spec machines.
I just bought an H-P budget laptop (c £300) and it came with Windows 7 professional 64-bit installed, with an option to "upgrade" with an included Windows 8.1 64-bit installation CD (an option I decline to use).
 
I just bought an H-P budget laptop (c £300) and it came with Windows 7 professional 64-bit installed, with an option to "upgrade" with an included Windows 8.1 64-bit installation CD (an option I decline to use).
yup, i didnt say they all did. some still do pre-install 32bit for some unknown reason (drivers maybe).
 
Driver issues vanished years ago, 32 bit apps run fine on 64 bit OS, the processors have been 64 bit for years, so idleness or apathy are probably to blame for the slow adoption.
 
yup, i didnt say they all did. some still do pre-install 32bit for some unknown reason (drivers maybe).
Since I was in need of a new budget laptop I have been doing a lot of market research on the subject.
I eventually bought my laptop from Dabs, and out of nearly 550 different models running Windows listed on their website, only 7 are offered with a 32-bit OS.
 
Back
Top