Adobe drops support for XP in next Photoshop

Back in August, Windows 7 overtook Windows XP in terms of market share according to statistics researcher Net Applications. If you're still among the 42.52 percent that's running the 11 year old operating system and looking forward to Adobe Photoshop CS7, you're out of luck. Tom Hogarty, product manager for Adobe, announced that Photoshop CS6 will be the last major version to support Windows XP. The next version of Photoshop will require Windows 7 or later.

It's not clear whether Adobe will restrict users from installing the next Photoshop version on XP, or that it's just not supported. Adobe already dropped support for Windows Vista with Photoshop CS6, although users are not restricted from installing and running the graphics editing program on XP's successor. However the company kept supporting Windows XP, because more users were on XP than Vista when Photoshop CS6 was released.

In his blog post, Hogarty silently states that Windows XP can no longer provide the performance needed to power Photoshop: XP is not modern enough. The next version will make much more use of GPU acceleration, a trend Adobe started with Photoshop CS4. The Photoshop team suggests to begin planning your upgrade to Windows 7 or 8 if you want to "take advantage of future Photoshop innovations".

Source: Adobe via CNET

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft talks about online Word 2013 presentations

Next Story

Google responds to Acer controversy, says its for their own good

43 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Oh but i hate the look of windows vista / 7..

oh but i hate the look of windows 8.

No reason to upgrade from windows 7 to 8

No reason to upgrade from windows xp to windows 7... etc etc..

Dumb people are dumb. Microsoft can't patch that. Just upgrade to the latest most stable / supported / fast OS and deal with the UI changes.

I never understood why PS had such a big following... its gotta be the least intuitive graphics software that I ever used.

In response to the article though, I'm sure anyone good enough with photoshop to care about this is probably quite tech savvy and probably stopped using XP ages ago.... and considering it costs 700$ (!!!!) I'm sure that the only people complaining are people that pirated the software because they didn't have money for it, (or a newer operating system lol)

darkpuma said,
I never understood why PS had such a big following... its gotta be the least intuitive graphics software that I ever used.

In response to the article though, I'm sure anyone good enough with photoshop to care about this is probably quite tech savvy and probably stopped using XP ages ago.... and considering it costs 700$ (!!!!) I'm sure that the only people complaining are people that pirated the software because they didn't have money for it, (or a newer operating system lol)

Really? I've been using PS for about 16 years and nothing comes close. But then professional level software isn't about being intuitive because it's not intended for amateurs.

Furthermore, those who pirate PS are least likely to be complaining because they are most likely to have pirated their OS as well!

darkpuma said,
I never understood why PS had such a big following... its gotta be the least intuitive graphics software that I ever used.

In response to the article though, I'm sure anyone good enough with photoshop to care about this is probably quite tech savvy and probably stopped using XP ages ago.... and considering it costs 700$ (!!!!) I'm sure that the only people complaining are people that pirated the software because they didn't have money for it, (or a newer operating system lol)


Users do have valid reasons to complain. People do need to eat and you can't eat software.

togermano said,
Too bad the XP kernel is much more advanced then the latest linux nightly built

Before anyone will believe you, you need to provide evidence that backs up that ridiculous claim.

soldier1st said,

Before anyone will believe you, you need to provide evidence that backs up that ridiculous claim.

Also, why bring Linux into it. Linux can't run Photoshop natively anyway not to mention the fact that the article doesn't even mention it.

soldier1st said,

Before anyone will believe you, you need to provide evidence that backs up that ridiculous claim.

Sounds like you're asking for a rant from thenetavenger.
Btw, I agree with togermano based on everything thenetavenger has stated repeatedly on the topic.

togermano said,
Too bad the XP kernel is much more advanced then the latest linux nightly built

Given that Linux is used on most of the world's supercomputers I doubt it.

neo158 said,

Also, why bring Linux into it. Linux can't run Photoshop natively anyway not to mention the fact that the article doesn't even mention it.

You are right its not advanced enough to run photoshop.....

thealexweb said,

Given that Linux is used on most of the world's supercomputers I doubt it.

Less api in the kernel to slow it down so its good at supercomputering..... sucks at anything else

togermano said,

Less api in the kernel to slow it down so its good at supercomputering..... sucks at anything else

Kicks ass on mobile too

togermano said,

You are right its not advanced enough to run photoshop.....

I said nothing about how advanced Linux is or not, I simply pointed out that nowhere in the article does it mention Linux, so why bring it into the comments. Also, as others have asked, I suppose you have evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim?

Fact is Linux doesn't have the market penetration, 1.05% as of August 2012 according to NetMarketShare, for Adobe to even bother creating Photoshop for it which renders your argument invalid.

I think it's alright that they dropped support. I've been tinkering with my old P4 build (2.8GHz 2GB Ram) I remember when I first got it, it was really quite speedy at browsing the net, gaming and launching programs etc... Today, even with a "fresh install" of XP, it's slow as molasses. I found it weird that the desktop experience was slow too Does hardware slow down with age? Trying to install a modern CS program would be a bad idea. Is old hardware just a no-no even for intended use of old programs?

Izlude said,
Does hardware slow down with age? Trying to install a modern CS program would be a bad idea. Is old hardware just a no-no even for intended use of old programs?

No, it doesn't slow down over time. Your experience with newer hardware changes your expectations regarding the speed of a process.

You're complaining about XP on old hardware. And the only reason it seemed slow was because you're use to modern CPUs and related hardware. Now, if you had tried XP on new hardware you would have saw a huge difference.

In all honestly, if you've used one version of Photoshop in last few years, then you've used all of them. It's like Quicken, never really changes much, so it's not really a big loss.

Mike Frett said,
You're complaining about XP on old hardware. And the only reason it seemed slow was because you're use to modern CPUs and related hardware. Now, if you had tried XP on new hardware you would have saw a huge difference.

In all honestly, if you've used one version of Photoshop in last few years, then you've used all of them. It's like Quicken, never really changes much, so it's not really a big loss.

I have tried installing XP on my i7 PC, and it sucked as comparison to Windows 7. Your argument is invalid.

Mike Frett said,
You're complaining about XP on old hardware. And the only reason it seemed slow was because you're use to modern CPUs and related hardware. Now, if you had tried XP on new hardware you would have saw a huge difference.

In all honestly, if you've used one version of Photoshop in last few years, then you've used all of them. It's like Quicken, never really changes much, so it's not really a big loss.

Windows XP does not properly take advantage of new hardware, it might run but it will not run as fast and as well as Windows 7. I liked Windows XP too once but it is so old now. Using it on new hardware is riduclous.

I did my CS6 update before three weeks. On Windows there is a big problem with the open, save and export dialogs. They all are in the old Windows XP style without my favorites on the left. Why is Adobe not able to change this? I dont think that a choosable dialog style (XP oder 7) is very hard to implement.

I hope CS 7 without XP support drops the old school dialogs!

honolulu110 said,
I did my CS6 update before three weeks. On Windows there is a big problem with the open, save and export dialogs. They all are in the old Windows XP style without my favorites on the left. Why is Adobe not able to change this? I dont think that a choosable dialog style (XP oder 7) is very hard to implement.

Most of the Adobe CS developers run Mac as their primary OS. This is why the applications feel so non-native. The glitches are minor, but they bug the hell out of anyone who tried to use it on Windows. Most of the Adobe CS devs, though, don't even notice the glitches.

Apart from that, much of Adobe CS is written to a platform-independent UI layer, and it is this layer that in turn translates to Win32/Mac OS. There are some areas where Adobe CS also feels non-native on Mac.

greenwizard88 said,
There's something like 3 different open/save dialogue types used. It's nuts I tell you, nuts!

Yeah there is the REALLY old dialog with only the drop down box at the top with the up, back, forward, and new folder icons. There is the XP style one with 4 hard coded links on the left, and there is the new Vista and later one with customizable favorites.

Good, and honestly it should be 64-bit only also... a powerful image editor like that can actually make good use of 64-bit code (if you work on large projects) and other enhancements you get in more modern API's that XP didn't have in box

neufuse said,
Good, and honestly it should be 64-bit only also... a powerful image editor like that can actually make good use of 64-bit code (if you work on large projects) and other enhancements you get in more modern API's that XP didn't have in box

Exactly.

neufuse said,
Good, and honestly it should be 64-bit only also... a powerful image editor like that can actually make good use of 64-bit code (if you work on large projects) and other enhancements you get in more modern API's that XP didn't have in box

32bit still is around for Photoshop due to the plugins that users use (and have separately purchased) and nothing more.

neufuse said,
Good, and honestly it should be 64-bit only also... a powerful image editor like that can actually make good use of 64-bit code (if you work on large projects) and other enhancements you get in more modern API's that XP didn't have in box
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that 90% of my plugins and filters are 32-bit only. Someday the small companies will catch up but don't expect it anytime too soon.

Luis Mazza said,
Windows XP?
Again, what year is today?
lol

It has nearly half the market share and is still supported for almost 2 more years. And it works, quickly, on all modern hardware. Who are you again?.

Mike Frett said,

It has nearly half the market share and is still supported for almost 2 more years. And it works, quickly, on all modern hardware. Who are you again?.

Rubbish.

Mike Frett said,

It has nearly half the market share and is still supported for almost 2 more years. And it works, quickly, on all modern hardware. Who are you again?.

Me? I'm Mountain Lion 10.8.1 and dual boot with Windows 8 RTM.

Hello again Windows XP!
bye

Reminds me of after effects and not working on XP 64-bit edition... A patch came out pretty fast to fix that.

n_K said,
Reminds me of after effects and not working on XP 64-bit edition... A patch came out pretty fast to fix that.

Yes, but 64-bit XP is a bag of poo very hardly any market share, it deserved to be dropped.

TCLN Ryster said,

Yes, but 64-bit XP is a bag of poo very hardly any market share, it deserved to be dropped.

Windows XP Pro x64 was perfectly fine, Windows XP 64-bit Edition was the one that was no good.

Panda X said,

Windows XP Pro x64 was perfectly fine, Windows XP 64-bit Edition was the one that was no good.

Windows XP 64-bit Edition is for itanium processors, not x86.