P: Error at loading of ippCV library

Most if not all companies hold trade secrets close to the vest, including updates and changes to software products. There are many reasons for doing so,one of which is that until a design is set in cement, there could be changes, another is that hinting at upcoming new product can suppress sales of the existing product. Also, in any corporation there are many people involved in decision making about details prior to "launch" which include a lot more than just developers and coders. These include Legal staff, accounting, treasury, sales and marketing, production, advertising,and more, with all having to get final approval from the top. In corporations in  which I have had various roles, there is a component never observed by the public, which is corporate politics. Each of these Corporate functions has objectives which often collide with others; those debates can delay launch or cause changes to a product.

That is why there is a management structure that leads pyramid style to the apex, top level that rules on debates.

Sometimes product (of any kind) is delayed or altered because of future plans for different next generation product. All decisions must lead to a product that is profitable, else the whole exercise is a waste of time.

So, addressing your post that says: "That begs the question of why they were not very communicative about this. They could have easily given much better and earlier communication this was going to happen." No company can do what you suggest.

An outsider, wondering out loud why a particular company has done X instead of Y, has no idea of the complexity and rationale behind the answer.

@DGrainger 

That means as I interpret it, that Adobe made a decision to choose between trying to make   the new code work on non-SSE 4.2 machines or not implementing the features. It also does seem to state that this was a conscious decision and not an oversight. It also implies that the features would not work without SSE 4.2.

That does get us right back to the need for users to try and keep their computers generational changes in synch with software.

That begs the question of why they were not very communicative about this.

They could have easily given much better and earlier communication this was going to happen.

@richard_lindley_9jb02bijdrjjo 

I am one such! My current primary PC is on Windows 7, could be switched to Windows 10, but even though it has an INTEL motherboard, there is not room for a "2-slot" video card, which is the pacing item for my particular system. I will wait until January to make the purchase, as I would have to spend a lot of time getting all of my other software up to versions that work on Windows 10.

That makes sense - Adobe's need for new features being the reason so many of us need an upgrade.

I would add that maybe they knew of this problem for us with old clunky machines, and could have given us a warning in advance. In my case I would have started saving for a newer machine earlier. It looks like a lot of you people should get selfish and have a good Christmas! HO HO HO!!

@16830678:  Here's what came up with that Comment ID, written by Tranberry: "Engineering says this is not a supported configuration - and that testing showed that there were other issues if you tried to run those libraries on a non-SSE 4.2 compliant machine. Hence, why they were removed and not officially supported.

@16830678: Thanks! I will go look at that...

@dgrainger

'You cited ". . . what Adobe is referring to when they say there are problems forcing them to this stance. . ."   I am not aware of that reference - I am not an Adobe employee; could you provide a citation?'

See responses by JeffreyTranberry in this thread starting here.  Read through a few pages to get the full exchange.

https://feedback.photoshop.com/conversations/photoshop/photoshop-error-at-loading-of-ippcv-library/5f8f06c2c17a06631eb72c7e?commentId=5f934590c17a060f8ebe929a&replyId=5f9b2cfe49d3ca3d56baa58b

@dbur Applauses!!!

@dbur : You make some good points.  I wonder whether the issues with SSE 4.2 were unknown by the developers and the problems older computer users of which ran afoul were completely innocent mistakes, born of working on much newer hardware during development of this update.   There has to be a practical limit on just how far back in time must testing of legacy compatibility be, else there would be infinite combinations of hardware and cohabiting software to test.

You cited ". . . what Adobe is referring to when they say there are problems forcing them to this stance. . ."   I am not aware of that reference - I am not an Adobe employee; could you provide a citation?

With all of that said, there always is an evolutionary march forward, hopefully with a bit of synchronicity between hardware and software progress.  A wise user would expect to stay current , not just with software but also hardware generations. There will always be users that find themselves caught like these posters: like the coed who didn't know she had been violated until the check bounced.

The least we can say is that this issue has been poorly handled by Adobe.  It would go a long way if they could point out exactly what feature of SSE4 is needed by Photoshop that no other app in the world seems to need, or if needed does not have a transparent workaround if SSE4 is not available.

I don't know what Adobe is referring to when they say there are problems forcing them to this stance, but as an electrical engineer who has worked on numerous HW and SW projects for many years I can say when some limitation such as this is imposed by a SW team it normally means:

1. they have a feature they are fixated on using whether it is really needed or not

2. there is a work around but we don't want to be bothered to implement or support it.

3. The work around is not in my toolbox and I don't want to learn how to do it.

I site as evidence the fact that no other app I have ever run in to or heard of has this limitation (not even other Adobe apps).

When a HW platform is selected then flexibility of what can be done is fixed by the choices.  The same is not true of SW, which most often is only limited by the imagination and willingness of the developers to do what needs to be done.  I've had HW design colleagues site this very reason as why they switched from HW to SW.  They thought the opportunities for creativity were more limitless.