P: Allow CPUs without AVX2 to install Adobe Products

[DexterGordon]

Adobe continues its practice of colluding with other corporations (AMD, Intel, Microsoft) by leaving out perfectly competent computers with AVX (up to 2013), capable of running professional programs much more demanding than LR and PS, in order to force subscribers to buy new computers with AVX2. 

[ThomasH_on_the_web]

I am certain of it:They will not yield.  The dilemma is that even a new purchase of a new PC/Laptop does not warrant support to AVX2. No hardware maker advertises AVX2 support in their products. This is the problem. Try to verify it with Intel/AMD web page once you will determine a specific CPU.

[jamesb31844299]

Unfortunately, the vast bulk of users of Lightroom and Photoshop do not know what CPU's include (or were made before the existence of) AVX2 support.  Far more helpful than "Intel or AMD CPUs having AVX2 support"

would be earliest model numbers of CPUs with AVX2.  Windows System Information gives the processor brand, generation, and model number.  (No mention of AVX or AVX2) 

[DexterGordon2]

@jamesb31844299 
Well, that data can be found on the processor manufacturer's website. But the crux of the matter here is that there's no technical evidence to support that decision. It's clearly a business decision, and it's debatable. And when you dispute it, you run the risk of being eliminated from the discussion. But these are the times we live in. It's another matter to assume that you should accept it and shut up.
From what I've read, Adobe is on bad financial footing, and these types of policies hurt it even more, leaving the door open for someone to break the habit of using one software for a couple of decades and start using another.

[DexterGordon2]

Since other posts that discussed this situation in more detail seem to have magically vanished, a quick search reveals a video of the procedure. Be careful, everyone should do so if they're curious, but they do so at their own responsability. I won't respond to the detractors with unprovable technical arguments because they "accused" me of not respecting the community rules, without engaging in a direct debate, face to face, that is, acting behind my back, they deleted my account and all my previous posts. Such misconduct never occurred (nor could it be proven when I appealed several times), but these days, debating is considered "offensive."
Watch it for general information only. If you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP64h9JF9MU
Cheers

[ThomasH_on_the_web]

Thank you DexterGordon! A similar debate rages around the TPM2 requirement for W11 to install. In that case also numerous videos exist instructing how to install W11 of course "with own responsibility".

As a veteran in the industry, soon to smell roses and "abuse our great nation" while receiving the Social Security, I am not so eager to get the latest and greatest in hardware, copy local data, restore installed programs (now called Apps) . I know from my practice that we can always write a code using an older set of instructions, or an established older API. I plead to the Software providers, espcially these who promote the SaaS model (Software as a Service) to make best effort in maintaining the backward compatibility. 

[DexterGordon2]

@ThomasH_on_the_web 
Thanks for your response, Thomas! Well, as long as we're still on planet Earth with consciousness inside our bodies, we can have a healthy debate.
I completely agree with you. I'm not interested in the latest offerings either, eventually (some things yes, others no), but I am interested in ensuring that neither people nor I are run over by immensely rich corporations that want to get even richer. Especially when there's no plausible technical reason, but rather a commercial one, the right thing to do is to charge you less because they're denying you a portion of the subscription you're paying, meaning you get less for the same money. The problem of forced obsolescence goes more unnoticed and unchallenged among younger generations or among the group that is or pretends to be somehow connected to this industry (and wants to score gratitude points). So there's an amoral consent that establishes that if a corporation does it, "it's okay," without debating the "why."
The "at your own responsability" thing is like putting a band-aid on the wound before it actually happens, so as not to give that group an open flank.
Cheers
P.S. The important point is that without AVX2, PS and LRC work fine, which had already been proven before, with the Beta version.

[Park Street Printers]

Wait for an AVX512 requirement in a year or so...

[Dave Gramatges]

Or an AVX10 requirement.

[dbur971]

Please yes revert to support AVX.  This incompatability is a crock.

[DexterGordon2]

@dbur971 
I agree with you on the request.
I don't know if this has happened before with Adobe, but one way might be to let people know that there are many affected subscribers. As long as people remain fragmented, which is the norm now, nothing will happen, but if everyone unites with a single demand, it might mean something, based on the fact that there's no technical reason to have AVX2 for photo editing. In fact, editors like Capture One, which offers more or less the same thing, don't require it, nor do other competitive programs.
Cheers,
D.G.

[JLCKJC2015]

I too would like to see this requirement reveresed if possible and a legacy mode offered as has been done in the past. I was caught in the transition when the earliest 14.X.X releases were offerred. My CPU was not flagged as "Incompatible" so the update installed. That resulted in a crippled installation. Some features like Slide Show stopped working unbeknownst to me. My catalog was also uppgraded and by the time I descovered the issues created by the upgrade I had performed a large number of edits. I had to down reveve my installation including my catalog resulting in a loss of all those new edits. A legacy mode would likely have avoided this mess.

Not a good look for Adobe. And to make matters worse they still offere the update to me through the Creative Cloud App so users beware!

Adobe's Tech Support Team (second tier) is aware of this issue but the only solution they have at the moment is to down reveve your system. They also suggested I post in this forum to get the attention of the Adobe Marketing and Engineering team. Based an the comments of others I imagine this is a fruitless action, but you never know.

Jim

[DexterGordon2]

@JLCKJC2015 
OK. I wasn't aware of any issues with people who had computers that  did support AVX2 until now. But in short, I contacted user support several times, first, to explain to me why we needed AVX2 and they never gave me a technical answer, they just repeated that it was the requirement, as if it were an unquestionable (rationally) order that came down from "heaven." They were also unhelpful when the administrator "expelled" me from the community for questioning the requirement (I clarify once again, without having exceeded the rules of conduct, nor could they prove it). There was always someone "above" who authoritarian wielded power, without dialogue or reasoning.  In other words, doing the opposite of what an open forum for a community of users, not corporations, should be. 
I believe middle management isn't aware of the strategic guidelines adopted, not by marketing, which go beyond the technical and enter the purely commercial realm. Engineers should be aware of them, because they follow guidelines issued "from above", but they are shielded from contact with users.
I think what can be done on the forum is to unite people around a concrete proposal, like a Change.org petition or similar, that gathers signatures.
Cheers,
D.G.

[JLCKJC2015]

You may have misunderstood my post. My computer does not support AVX2. Even so, Creative Cloud offerred and allowed me to install the earliest 14.X.X versions of LR Classic that apparently did require AVX2 support. This is what caused numerous issues for me which included Slide Show not running. My only solution was to down rev to version 13.

[DexterGordon2]

@JLCKJC2015 
Okay, sorry about that.
It's strange because those of us with AVX (not AVX2) can have up to LRC version 14.0.1 (Camera Raw 17) and PS version 25.1.3, which are the ones I have without issues. There have been minor stability and compatibility updates for new cameras, but it's not possible to upgrade to v14.1, which AVX2 required. Now, it seems to me that the current LRC version is version 14.3.1, and in the case of PS without AVX2, version 26 was not available. The current version is 26.4.1. Camera Raw and camera compatibility updates have also been received for those of us who have incompatibility issues. Just to know, what processor do you have?
In any case, regarding communication with Adobe's support team on this issue, it's been useless, so the only option is to exert pressure from the community.
In any case, people who have installed the version that requires AVX2 and have processors with AVX only did so without using the CCD, editing one file, and had no problems.
Cheers,
D.G.

[JLCKJC2015]

I just tried again. Anything newer than 13.5.1 will cause the Slide Show to stop working with an error message complaining about the dynamic link server not being found.

[JLCKJC2015]

I'm curious, is your Slide Show panel fully functional with the 14.0+ releases?

[ThomasH_on_the_web]

They deleted also one of my recent musings: A satire really. I wrote a message titled similar to "Changing fate of Adobe by Touring Price category code". The "top-secret" Touring Price category code is: 

boolean avx2=check_avx2();
if (avx2) do_new_stuff();
else do_old_stuff();

Someone got upset, and they 1st relocated the message (I received email about that from a "moderator") and than this message has vanished completely.  But aside of the sarcasm, the content has had a genuine merit. This is how we do it all the time. Backward compatibility in Database business is paramount. We have a subscription, and in order to use a new camera (Z50 II, I gave it to my wife) I needed to have a newest version of Lightroom. But no, I need to spend one more thousand on a new computer.

[Park Street Printers]

@ThomasH_on_the_web Very tongue in cheek! I still don't see why the newer versions require AVX2. I lucked out when I replaced my January 2006 system in November of 2018. The old system didn't even have AVX, and the newer cpu had both AVX and AVX2. I have another, newer machine (2020-2022) that missed the AVX512 bandwagon, so Adobe will probably force me to replace it in a year or two. You don't want to know how much I spent on it. I don't even want to know. I don't make a whole lot, and I saved for over a decade to build both newer machines. I don't know what I'll do next time the AVX and other requirements change. Sell my organs?

[DexterGordon2]

@JLCKJC2015 
The slideshow and everything works perfectly on my computer with an AVX processor and LRC version 14.0.1.
To complement your information: you say you upgraded because the CCD didn't detect an incompatibility between your computer and the new version (at that moment), and after doing so, you had problems. Which upgrade version are you referring to? 14.01 or 14.1? Because, as we've said, 14.01 still allows processors with AVX, but 14.1 already requires AVX2. And finally, what processor do you have?
You say:
"Anything newer than 13.5.1 will cause the Slide Show to stop working with an error message complaining about the dynamic link server not being found." Is that confirmation that you never had the latest version installed with an AVX processor (v14.01)?
Cheers,
D.G.

[DexterGordon2]

@ThomasH_on_the_web 
I thought the small updates to the latest possible version with AVX would allow compatibility with new cameras. Then I was wrong, and this is a good indication that this is a worse problem than I'd already described.
Of course, the moderation is authoritarian, coming from the person listed as an Adobe employee. There was no dialogue possible: he told me, not by email, but directly on the forum, that after the third warning he would close my account. But what he did was close the thread, and I couldn't reply that I found it unfair to reprimand me without explaining why or being able to rationally defend my point. Since I had nowhere to respond, I opened a new thread, and he closed it. I complained via direct message, not a new thread, and they closed my account and deleted all my posts except this one, which was originally on the LRC forum and relocated here.
Interesting what you're suggesting about "Changing fate of Adobe by Touring Price category code." It would be good to elaborate a little more.
Greetings,
D.G.
P.S. I spent US$3000 in 2012 on my computer and it's still very good, except for Adobe/Intel/AMD who want me to spend more.

[JLCKJC2015]

If I install LRC versions newer than 13.5.1 the Slide Show functionality is crippled and will not play. When I open the Slide Show panel it throws up the error about not being able find the Dynamic Link Server. CC tells me LRC 14.0 and 14.01 are compatible with my computer and that 14.3.1 is not.  Even so, as mentioned earlier, the Slide Show will not work with any 14+ version. My system is 10 years old now with an Intel i7-4930 processor. It may not even have AVX1 support. I don't know for sure. 

Finallly you asked about my comment "Anything newer than 13.5.1 will cause the Slide Show to stop working with an error message complaining about the dynamic link server not being found." Is that confirmation that you never had the latest version installed with an AVX processor (v14.01)? I'm not quite sure what yor asking other than to say I did install the new versions (14.0 and 114.01). When installed the Slide Show problem I describe occurs. When I revent to 13.5.1 Slide Show functions normally.

In any event it looks like going forward with Adobe will require new hardware. I'm stuck where I am for the time being.

[DexterGordon2]

@JLCKJC2015 

OK, I asked because you weren't specific about which version 14 you installed when it started malfunctioning ("when the earliest 14.X.X releases were offerred. My CPU was not flagged as "Incompatible" so the update installed"). The requirement change occurred after v14.01, meaning from version 14.1. You also didn't mention the processor before, so I couldn't tell if it was due to the same problem as all of us who don't have AVX2 or if it was possibly something different.
It's easy to tell if you have AVX or AVX2. Just go to Intel's website and see the specifications:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/77780/intel-core-i74930k-processor-12m-cache-up...
Your processor is slightly later than mine, but it's from the generation before AVX2. Your processor has AVX(1), as you can see. So, it should be possible to install LRC up to version 14.01, which would mean there's potentially some other conflict, probably not related to the processor. There were GPU conflicts years ago... at least I had to replace mine (using the same system, same processor that I still use). I'm not saying it's the GPU; I'm saying there could be other factors involved.
Adobe support is obligated to help you because you have a compatible processor till V14.01. But that would be in an ideal world, where Adobe behaves seriously and on the side of its subscribers, which hasn't been the case.
Greetings,
D.G.

[ThomasH_on_the_web]

To summarize:  So far Adobe did not made any effort to chime in, and to explain anything.  Moderation of messages is always somewhat arbitrary, as arbitrary as people can be with their opinions. The merit of the problem here is:

1. Adobe simply assumes that a vast majority of users have more modern computers, do not maintain existing systems over prolonged periods of time. Consequently to them this here is a "marginal issue."
2. They do not care how to discover which processor has AVX2. They assume "every current one has." 
3. Admitting to a mistake and/or even a reversal is probably impossible in the current culture at Adobe. Might cost position, influence or even the job. 
4. List of processors, alone from Intel and AMD, is excessive. It is difficult to make a proper decision based on the scarce specs of each of the hundreds of processors. 
   
   

So realistically, aside of voicing the awareness for future cases, we all have invest in new hardware, unexpectedly. I am perusing regularly offerings from all major manufacturers, because my wife has the Z50-II, and we need the new Lightroom for our trip.  Someone mentioned here a whopping $3000 expense for his now obsolete system.  I hope that a new motherboard could solve this dire situation. Since I was not aware of AVX, my newest system with XEON has AVX2 only by coincidence.

Some decade age we encountered a rapid decline of HP and Dell hardware, caused by their focusing on games and overclocking. Since I focus on durability, I took XEON systems designed for 24/7 operations. This computer is really old: It is a T1600 Dell in my 2nd studio, also a XEON, but it does not has AVX2 because of its age: It went through Windows Xp-Windows 7-Windows 10 updates without any issue, has of course SSD now!  Now that's the end: The tower does not has TPM2, required by W11. 

[DexterGordon2]

@ThomasH_on_the_web 

Well, to clarify a couple of things, without wishing to get into a controversy so as not to distract from the thread. I don't agree that Adobe's arbitrary moderation is on the same level as people's "arbitrary" opinions, because these may be subjective, illogical, or irrational, but they don't prevent others from expressing their opinions, so they don't have that kind of power to censor or eradicate others' opinions. So, arbitrary isn't the right adjective for those participating in the forum.
The other thing is that it's illogical for Adobe to assume everyone has newer computers. Based on what? A statistic? A hunch? Because with processors it's not like searching in a messy drawer: from a specific date, Intel processors start to have AVX2, Q2 2013 and in the case of AMD, from Q2 2015.  It's not just a minor detail, because it would only assume that the actions Adobe takes are irrational, absurd, or blind, and not purposeful, when it comes to the dominant corporation (and one that's in crisis). Someone (an "expert") in another thread that was censored and deleted also said, to continue in the realm of euphemism, that it was potentially just due to clumsiness. Don't you wonder why other pro editing software doesn't require AVX2, for example, to see what they do or don't assume?
Since I'm the one who mentioned the cost of the hardware, I can tell you with certainty that it's not obsolete at all, and that's been the point from the beginning, and that was the complaint, not just mine, but many others. I can easily run professional programs that are much more demanding than a photo editor.

Best, 

D.G.