Adobe: No Plans to Make Current Products Vista Compatible

According to a statement posted on Adobe's Web site, Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver won't be getting updates to run on Windows Vista, users will have to shell out the cash for new versions (slated for shipping this spring) that support Microsoft's new operating system. Current versions of most of Adobe's major products won't work properly on the new operating system (note: I'm running Photoshop CS2 just fine, but others may have issues such as having to register the software every time it is launched). Dreamweaver 8, Adobe warns, will crash on some Vista computers when users browse for files. InDesign customers, meanwhile, may get a false error message indicating they do not have enough available disk space to run the product. Adobe lists a number of other known Windows Vista compatibility problems for those and other products. Additionally, Adobe Acrobat 8 encounters errors when run atop the new Windows OS, but the company says it plans to issue a free patch in the first half of 2007 to resolve those issues.

News source: InformationWeek

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

EMDB 0.40

Next Story

Microsoft, researchers take aim at 'search spammers'

47 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I don't think they would have ever tried to get away with this before they acquired Macromedia. Adobe has been trying to tick off their customers for a while now (just look at the acrobat reader debacles).

So far, what I see the Vista update bringing to my business (if I allowed it) is instability, OS and program crashes, incompatibility, and HUGH costs to replace hardware and software. In return, I get pretty pictures? Oh, and before the fanboys go crazy, you're damned right I tried it, and yes it was the final version, and it will stay on my test bed until SP1 so I can see if it's stable by then.

There's a reason that most government agencies AND businesses are not "upgrading." The job has not been done very well and still Microsoft and their "partners" like Adobe expect Vista to be a cash cow. Instead, I'm looking seriously at alternative sources for all of my business computing needs.

Yes, if you're not blinded by the bling-bling features, there's only little making an upgrade to Vista worth it, and in exchange for "ooooh... look them purty pictures!" effects, you get instability from poor driver support, many apps don't work properly, and then still immense hardware upgrade costs just so the PCs are running Vista properly, even if they before were running XP just fine.
Yet MS and other companies try to milk the customers for Vista compatibility as much as they can.

Aero Ultimate said,
Yes, if you're not blinded by the bling-bling features, there's only little making an upgrade to Vista worth it, and in exchange for "ooooh... look them purty pictures!" effects, you get instability from poor driver support, many apps don't work properly, and then still immense hardware upgrade costs just so the PCs are running Vista properly, even if they before were running XP just fine.
Yet MS and other companies try to milk the customers for Vista compatibility as much as they can.

Ugh... Do you know anything about the underlying features of Vista?? -_-" Do you think the only major update is Aero Glass?

Let's see, if Vista was made without Aero, people will keep praising Mac and say Microsoft fails at making a graphiccally beautiful OS like the Mac OS X. When it launches Vista with all the eyecandy and a lot more features, people ignore the rest completely and say that the only improvement in Vista is the improved graphics...

Stop creating misinformation. Vista has wayyy more than Aero Glass. Sure, less that what was initially promised, but still quite a long list.

I'm not so fond of Microsoft either, but you have to credit a company when it launches something like Vista, not by trying hard to find something bad and criticize. Microsoft has actually been improving a lot, Office 2007, Windows Live, etc. A lot of innovation there. Stop being so childish and stereotypical, people... Companies change. (and the Almighty Sony I used to love is such a disappointment now, sigh.)

Well personaly I can't wait to see some of these DX10 Cards and Games. Flight Sim X looks pimp in DX10. DX10 will force people to goto Vista and get new hardware to play there new games. So ya theres going to be programs coming out that will run on vista only and not old systems. Things change and we move on. Vista in a sence is kinda like how hard of a shift it was to Windows 95. This is the first time in many releases they removed lagacy code. Just wait till you start seeing 64bit required on the box. That day is coming also, and Vista is here to make that happen.

Studio MX runs perfectly for me on Vista.

I have no idea why Adobe/Macromedia software shouldn't run under Vista. It's nothing more than Adobe trying to reap some sales from Vista's release:

1) Microsoft announces new OS to be released in x number of years.

2) Insert code into product update or new version of product to be released a few months before new OS that either cripples product or causes instabilities

3) Make announcement that newest product is incompatable with brand-new OS and that customers must purchase new product to solve incompatability problems

4) PROFIT HUGE $$$$$

All the programs run wonderfully on Vista for me. Just enable a couple of compatibility options for the programs (which are found on Adobe's support site) and you're good to go.

Well, doesn't it make sense that new products (from whichever software vendors) are the ones that are going to provide better support for the new version of windows? I mean it's not like I expect old products to work perfectly with vista, specially with new versions of photoshop and dreamweaver right around the corner. It's a bad thing, however, that the newly released adobe acrobat doesn't fully support vista.

I've only had problems with nero and it works flawlessly if I use it in "windows xp sp2" compatibility mode.

It may not be popular and I wouldn't exactly call it being consumer friendly, but Adobe's decision does make some sense.

The vast majority of Adobe's high-end user base are corp customers. Very, very, VERY few corps are anywhere near thinking about upgrading to Vista (*maybe* after SP2). Plus, the majority of corp graphic departments are on Macs in any case.

So, why would Adobe spend the time and resources right now on an upgrade that very few consumers will ever use? They are better off working on the next versions and enhance the overall product line IMHO.

lbmouse said,
It may not be popular and I wouldn't exactly call it being consumer friendly, but Adobe's decision does make some sense.

The vast majority of Adobe's high-end user base are corp customers. Very, very, VERY few corps are anywhere near thinking about upgrading to Vista (*maybe* after SP2). Plus, the majority of corp graphic departments are on Macs in any case.

So, why would Adobe spend the time and resources right now on an upgrade that very few consumers will ever use? They are better off working on the next versions and enhance the overall product line IMHO.

So this is why it took Adobe a year to port their software to OSX and another two years to make the switch to Intel?

bluarash said,
So this is why it took Adobe a year to port their software to OSX and another two years to make the switch to Intel?

No, it is the same reason it takes a company over 5 years to deliver an OS with diminished features from what was promised, filled with major bugs, and loaded with anti-consumer "features". We need better programmers (and PHBs). Two of the last dozen-or-so programmers I've hired (w/ CS degrees) are now working at fast-food restaurants.

lbmouse said,

No, it is the same reason it takes a company over 5 years to deliver an OS with diminished features from what was promised, filled with major bugs, and loaded with anti-consumer "features". We need better programmers (and PHBs). Two of the last dozen-or-so programmers I've hired (w/ CS degrees) are now working at fast-food restaurants.

No, what we actually need is better management (run by business professionals with MBAs and not promoted, burnt out programmers with little knowledge of how corporates and capital operates). There is no reason that a person who holds a CS degree should be working at a fast food place (if what you are saying is literal). You do not go to school for four years or (more i.e. MS/MA/PhD) to work for $7 dollars an hour. Someone needs to teach these kids some socialization skills to move up the corporate ladder and get away from this nonsense. What's next on the list, suicide.

Does it matter?
What professional benefits does Vista have over XP? None?
My bet is most companys wont move on to Vista for a looooooong time..

Is the new Creative Suite 3 fully compatibel with Vista?

Huleboeren said,
Does it matter?
What professional benefits does Vista have over XP? None?
My bet is most companys wont move on to Vista for a looooooong time..

Is the new Creative Suite 3 fully compatibel with Vista?

How about an more updated kernel in Windows 2003. A completely designed architecture and subsystem. Do I have to go on?

bluarash said,

How about an more updated kernel in Windows 2003. A completely designed architecture and subsystem. Do I have to go on?


I think you do. These Anti-Vista zealots have absolutely no clue what Vista brings to the table. Perhaps they should actually use it for a few months before saying rubbish like "no business benefit".

Improved Offline Files facility for laptop users.
Bitlocker Drive Encryption to keep data secure.
UAC to protect users with admin privileges from themselves.

TCLN Ryster said,

I think you do. These Anti-Vista zealots have absolutely no clue what Vista brings to the table. Perhaps they should actually use it for a few months before saying rubbish like "no business benefit".

Improved Offline Files facility for laptop users.
Bitlocker Drive Encryption to keep data secure.
UAC to protect users with admin privileges from themselves.

I couldn't agree more with your analysis. This has got to stop. If someone do not like Microsoft (heavy handed business practices, you like Unix or VMS) that is one thing (people have a right to their preference, opinion), but to outright lie or spread massive disinformation is another. It makes their arguments look foolish (and somewhat childish).

ok.. i have had it with Software and hardware companys not supporting old stuff with vista.. at least i know where to go for printers.. lexmark (yeah i know some may say lexmark is bad) is good in my books.. they have Vista Drivers for my old Lexmark Z22 printer and I got that I think back in 2000.. only wish others can do the same as lexmark has done.. but no they want more $$ what greedy basterds they are..

Canon Powershot A40 - No Vista Drivers
SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 (Non 24-bit) - No Vista Drivers
nForce 2 Mobos - No Vista Drivers
Lexmark Z22 printer - Vista Drivers

my point of the list is.. is that the Lexmark z22 is older then the Canon Powershot A40 & the nForce 2 but still got vista drivers

dl0711 said,
ok.. i have had it with Software and hardware companys not supporting old stuff with vista.. at least i know where to go for printers.. lexmark (yeah i know some may say lexmark is bad) is good in my books.. they have Vista Drivers for my old Lexmark Z22 printer and I got that I think back in 2000.. only wish others can do the same as lexmark has done.. but no they want more $$ what greedy basterds they are..

Canon Powershot A40 - No Vista Drivers
SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 (Non 24-bit) - No Vista Drivers
nForce 2 Mobos - No Vista Drivers
Lexmark Z22 printer - Vista Drivers

my point of the list is.. is that the Lexmark z22 is older then the Canon Powershot A40 & the nForce 2 but still got vista drivers

I've had similar experiences. My Umax 2100u, HP ScanJet 5200c, and Visioneer 9020 are not supported. When I called HP and inquired about support (he actually laughed and hung-up on me). My APC stuff is "finally" supported. My Brother HL-5140 "might be supported with an enhanced driver but is currently limited to the built-in stuff, which is not much different than PCL "i.e. no software duplexing, resource settings." My Creative Nomad IIc is not supported by Creative period...it does not work with WMP11 on either Vista or XP. Apple is not forthcoming in support for Vista, it works, but does not work well.

Hell Office XP does not even work well. It has a number of compatibility issues (and I have no interest in 2007).

I just want Flash to run properly in Vista The rest of the stuff I use runs fine (besides dreamweaver closing randomly on me)...speaking of...wheres a dang autosave/recover!!

The constant prompt in Photoshop to register the software can be fixed by:
- Right click on the PhotoShop shortcut
- select RunAs Administrator
- Click Dont remind me...

Done...

99% of there software is pirated anyway.

Seeing news like this gives me no drive to rush out and buy there next product.

Stuff them

As long as these products run under the operating systems they are officially supported on Adobe has no obligation to support new operating systems.

That said, TRC has an excellent point: Adobe can choose to do its customers a courtesy and make their software Vista compatible or they can look at Vista compatibility with their next release. It's a question of whether they want to spend the extra money vs. how upset their customers will be if they insist on using Vista to use Adobe products.

HEY WAIT... i bought a new GMC last year, YOU SHOULD PUT A NEW ENGINE IN IT THAT EATS LESS GAS LIKE THE 2007's hahahaha.

Hey guys and girls, don't blame the software companys, they did not say that what they were selling ran on VISTA.
It is you and me, that installed it. There was no gun to my head, but maybe there should have been saying don't install that #rap. I would love to get a refund and shelve it. XP with window blinds if you want some blingage, worked great.

The software for my new (small fortune) Canon camera does not work in vista, and Nikon just got theres going.

So i cross my fingers hoping the better company make patches. I run Illustrator and Corel and have no problems, under vista. All the softare in general is released too early, and always need patching. If you sold someone a car with as many defects as most software, you would not be allowed to drive it on the road.

NeoFlux said,
Vista isn't just visual "Blingage" you know.

That's just it, he doesn't 'know'. He has no clue. He is just jumping on the anti-vista-stick-with-xp bandwagon.

That's just it, he doesn't 'know'. He has no clue. He is just jumping on the anti-vista-stick-with-xp bandwagon.

He does, however, have a point: you can't reasonably ask someone to perform a major update on their software, free, to make it compatible with an OS that didn't exist when the software was released.

To continue with the car analogy, it would like asking the auto manufacturers to upgrade all of their gasoline engines to burn propane or hydrogen, free, if a new law was passed requiring that all internal combustion engines burn these fuels.

It would be nice, but it wouldn't be reasonable.

TCLN Ryster said,

That's just it, he doesn't 'know'. He has no clue. He is just jumping on the anti-vista-stick-with-xp bandwagon.

Nice trolling. Jumping on the "omg vista is teh sh*t!!1! let's call all who don't want it clueless n00bs!!1!" bandwagon isn't any better

Adobe is in no way obliged to support an OS that wasn't out when they released their apps. Like many other companies out there, they want to sell their software and thus will probaly only put explicit Vista compatibility in their newest products which will be released soon. Adobe is by far not the only company doing this - actually, even most other companies behave like this.

As long as there upgrade price plans are resanble then I'm all for supporting new software. But if there are no upgrade plans then it's a bit of a slap in the face.

Most people did the same sort of thing when XP came out (who remembers the Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition fiasco when you needed to get 7.6 for XP compatibility (7.5 and below wasn't compatible) and the only difference between the two was one file!

I remember when I went from 98 SE to ME (which, for the record, worked just fine), I had to upgrade my Norton SystemWorks because the edition I had wasn't "compatible" with ME but I had a suspicion that instead of making a very minor chage in the software they were jsut cashing in on the situation.

I don't see any problems....I use photoshop 7 just fine on vista. Even elements 4 works ok (tad slow though) after I get past the vista dialog box stating that it shouldn't work.

They're just doing the same thing they did to Apple when they switched to Intel chips. Honestly, it does make sense. CS3 is just around the corner and they are business to make money.

If they are in business to make money they may want to think about supporting their products better. Angering your customers is not a good idea.

QuarterSwede said,
They're just doing the same thing they did to Apple when they switched to Intel chips. Honestly, it does make sense. CS3 is just around the corner and they are a company trying to make money.

To be honest, this is what a lot of companies are doing. No one seems to actually want to support it. My experience has been if the hardware or software is more than two years old; it will be be getting a free Vista update (driver or patch). I have a load of hardware that will not be supported. The same can be said for software. I think from a personal experience if I had to do over again (I would not buy Vista). The latest product activation problem I think has moved me from supporting Microsoft (to looking for other options). [Please no Mac suggestions...]

As for why Adobe Creative Suite v2 does not work, I will never know. I can understand a major architecture change (like with Mac OSX, but Vista is not that radical of a change (at least not for the subsystems running the software). I think someone with some authority needs to take Adobe to task over this.

I hate you Adobe, Audition 2 doesn't support Aero glass and the system has to stutter every time I open it when it switches between them, plus the splash screen is really screwy every start-up urgh.

This is such a disappointment. It seems that a lot of companys have dropped the ball on drivers and now are trying to make some extra cash on making people pay for compatibility.

Yeah, I saw this coming, with the dealy in drivers and updates to software. They've found the perfect chance to snatch up more sales from people by requireing you to upgrade.

It was a sign when nVidia released Vista nForce drivers but cut out old nForce chipsets, I think the v3? And only supported v4 and up?

I find that really poor of adobe, considering the prices of the programs.

Though I guess those who actaully buy photoshop and acrobat, buy the latest versions.