P: Error at loading of ippCV library

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

On my computer it is impossible to start the Photoshop 22.0 After starting the program, following errormessage appears:

Your application is dynamically linked with Intel(R) IPP libraries version 2020.0.1.

No DLL from the list below is found an the system search path:

 ippcvm7.dll (the most suitable for your CPU)

Please provide a path to at least one of them.

The operating system is:

Edition Windows 10 Home
Version 20H2
Installiert am ‎27.‎05.‎2020
Betriebssystembuild 19042.572
Leistung Windows Feature Experience Pack 120.2212.31.0

The hardware is:

Gerätename HP_Leng
Prozessor AMD A6-3600 APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics   2.10 GHz
Installierter RAM 8,00 GB
Geräte-ID E2F99962-C5E4-461F-849F-D1979C252659
Produkt-ID 00326-10000-00000-AA210
Systemtyp 64-Bit-Betriebssystem, x64-basierter Prozessor
Stift- und Toucheingabe Für diese Anzeige ist keine Stift- oder Toucheingabe verfügbar.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

@shad0w Thanks a lot for this fix. Luckily there are your kind of open-minded people. I have an old MSI motherboard with Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 processor with Windows 10. Photoshop works. At least this error message clearly informs what to do. 

[hecfran61]

They say it is an infringement or crime to modify Adobe application files.
And what would this be? Scam?

Of ten applications for which I am subscribed (I add PS 2021) only 3 are available
It's definitely a scam

[cos49]

The Phenom II x6 1100T supports SSE4, but NOT SSE4.2.

And SSE4.2 is the issue.

Also, from what I could determine is that no AM3/AM3+ motherboard supports a cpu that supports SSE4.2.

[dgrainger]

Huh? YOU are the one trying to use incompatible hardware, not Adobe, and you are being told that your hardware is not compatible with the latest version of software. How is that a scam?

[cos49]

Why did Adobe knowingly install software on incompatible hardware?  Why didn't they notify the user before the install instead of after?

[hecfran61]

No sir Grainger, until a month ago all adobe products worked on my hardware. Adobe is the one who decided without previus advice by itself to make the new versions incompatible, and also the only option it bring is: buy a new computer. But you still charge the subscription where you should have access to all your updates.
What is called charging for a service that cannot be accessed?
The minimum is a lack of ethics and total professionalism, not to mention the lack of consideration towards those who maintain their enterprise.

[dgrainger]

@hecfran: You wrote: "until a month ago all adobe products worked on my hardware"

and you wrote "lack of ethics and total professionalism, not to mention the lack of consideration towards those who maintain their enterprise."

As software is updated, sometimes in order to do more advanced tasks, more advanced hardware is necessary.  That has happened with the October releases from Adobe. You DO still have the option to stay with the previous version, so your complaint that you are being charged but cannot use the product is incorrect. You could recognize that as things evolve and features are added, you must stay current in meeting the minimum hardware requirements.

An analogy: consider the plowman of 150 years ago, following a mule and using an iron, then later steel, plow to cut single furrows in which to plant.   When mechanical tractors and multiple disc plowshares were invented, was it a requirement that the farmer pull the tractor with his mule? Was it even possible?  Put your mule out to pasture, and get yourself a tractor that can pull the new "plow."

As to your second comment claiming malicious malfeasance and so forth: that is baseless and malicious gratuitous nastiness which does not add to any furtherance of the discussion.

[dgrainger]

@dennis_roesler 

You wrote: "Why did Adobe knowingly install software on incompatible hardware?  Why didn't they notify the user before the install instead of after?"

Adobe didn't do that.

When you start the Adobe Creative Cloud "app" you would have been notified that one or more of the programs would not be compatible with your computer; it actually will NOT install. If you were doing an Update, you will see the same screen.

[dgrainger]

*danilo_guarino_ferreira 

You wrote: "I would like to be using the latest version of the software."

You will need to update your computer to conform to the updated Minimum Requirements in order to do so.

[windypics]

I'm sorry but that's not the case, when I did my update it installed fully and only showed the error message when I then tried to open the program. This was very annoying as I had chosen the 'remove old version' option, and was then forced to uninstall the new version and re-install the old one once again. Had a warning message popped up beforehand telling me that it was not compatible with my system it would have saved me wasting a lot of time and causing me a lot of frustration.

Hardware requirements do change, but since many Photoshop users are using the program for business purposes, it's little wonder that so many users are now angry about the way it was done, and having valuable working time wasted like this. Adobe were keen to tell us about all the wonderful things the new version would do, but not so keen to tell many of their loyal customers not to bother installing it unless they upgraded their machines or processors first, and it's never a good business model to treat paying customers in this way and take them for granted like this. It's clear from some of the comments on this page that a lot of customers are now very unhappy with Adobe, so they need to treat users with a bit more respect in the future, especially at a sensitive time like this when many people have already lost a lot of earnings due to the pandemic and don't have lots of spare cash to throw around on buying new computer systems.

[cos49]

@dgrainger

What @Alan Gale said.

There was no warning in CC Desktop the latest version was incompatible.  Only after I tried to launch Ps from Lr did I get the .dll not found error.

[dgrainger]

You are correct. That particular error relates to  the SSE4.2 issues, discussed a lot in a different thread. One of the posters also quoted some tech detail, which he had received from a German technical publication. As I recall, it has to do with certain AMD products which cannot interpret some code compiled using INTEL compiler. If you do a search and include the words "Heise Verlag" I think you will find that thread.

For most other reasons (of incompatibility) the Creative Cloud app does seem to reveal incompatibility when attempting to install the new versions, from what I have read and one of my own systems which balked at going to the October release.

[hecfran61]

The comparison is as incoherent as saying that 50 years ago everything was drawn by hand because photoshop did not exist.
We are not talking about 150 years ago, we are talking about a month ago. Ridiculous comparison.
I'm already tired of responding to your defense at all Adobe costs, even more so when there are hundreds of us who think the same about this nonsense, I hope you have your reward for doing it. But don't ask to be right.
Try to provide a solution coherent and not to defend Adobe.
From the side you look at, what Adobe did is wrong.
Goodbye for ever, greetings

[hecfran61]

@Alan Gale Totally true, from the side you look at it, despite the fiery defenses of some, the Adobe thing is at least unethical and lacking in respect for the user.

[dgrainger]

A fellow went in to see his doctor, who did extensive testing. A week later, the chap went back for a review of the test results, whereupon the Doctor said "I'm sorry to have to tell you, but we will need to schedule surgery, as you have cancer. "

On hearing this, the patient lept out of his chair, and said "Doc! That's way too expensive! You will just have to find a different diagnosis!"

hecfran, I hope that you become more open to advice!

[dbur971]

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.

[dgrainger]

@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.

[hecfran61]

@dbur Applauses!!!

[dbur971]

@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/5...

[dgrainger]

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

[dgrainger]

@dbur:  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.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging"

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.

[RichardL1967]

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!!

[dgrainger]

@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.

[cos49]

@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.

[dgrainger]

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.