Incompatible with Vista? It's Not Always Microsoft's Fault . . .
Although Adobe sends products to Kickstartnews for review from time to time, we don't review every version of every product, so we really don't have free access to everything we need for day to day productivity. That means, just like you, we often have to buy the versions and upgrades we need. I've got several thousand dollars worth of Adobe software installed on two computers. Every couple of years I spend another $750-$1200, and more on occasion, for upgrades, updates, new products, replacing the previous bloated version of Acrobat with the latest bloated version, and generally dump a lot more money into Adobe's coffers.
It came as a shock therefore to find out that Adobe had absolutely no intention of issuing a Vista compatibility update for Photoshop Elements 4 or Premier Elements 2. The combined upgrade cost to move to Elements 5 and Premier Elements 3 is only $150. Not bad? Maybe to some, but I say that any top tier software product which runs perfectly in Windows XP Professional should be updated through at least one operating system revision, and that includes Windows Vista.
The software development business is more of a racket than you think. Taken in total, product updates to repair bugs which have nothing to do with the operating systems and everything to do with programming and quality assurance testing mistakes, easily outnumber (and considering their impact on business productivity) often outrank the number and frequency of bug and security fixes issued by Microsoft and Apple. Adobe made a conscious decision to drop Photoshop Elements 4 and Premiere Elements 2 a long time ago. Both products are stable under Windows 2000 and XP — no significant development effort needed. The fact remains however that Adobe had a long, long run at Windows Vista compatibility and failed miserably to account for compatibility of demonstrably current product versions, including Photoshop Elements 4 and Premiere Elements 2, installed on literally millions of computers. Adobe's claim on their Vista support pages that "All Adobe products available as of January 30, 2007 were released before Windows Vista became publicly available and so have not been fully designed for or tested on this new operating system", is in a word, bullshit or a red herring or a canard or call it what you will — disingenuous perhaps, if you insist on civility. Adobe makes that statement counting on public ignorance about how software is actually developed.
Here's the truth. Microsoft has been working with its top tier partners — and Adobe is all of that — for well over two years in an effort to ensure as much third party software compatibility with Vista as possible. The core stability and final code base of Vista, like all operating systems nearing completion, was somewhat of a moving target up until January 2006. After that, Adobe should have put significant development effort behind Vista compatibility for Creative Suite (CS) 2, Photoshop Elements 5, Premier Elements 3, and a long list of other products including the lamentable Acrobat 7 & 8. Think of the timeline for just a moment. Adobe had an entire year to develop and test patches or updates for six or seven major products to ensure Vista compatibility. But when Microsoft rolled out Vista to the OEM computer makers (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc., etc., etc.), Adobe and many of its software development brethren were still working away, a day late and a dollar short. As far as I'm concerned, Adobe's management has become arrogant and supercilious. The only reason for Adobe to have failed here is a lack of human resources or the will to serve all of its loyal customers. For all the thousands and thousands of dollars we've each spent on Adobe products over the years, I think we have to wonder what sort of squandered financial reserves are no longer available to support two year old software products.
The software 'dodge' is a money pit for consumers. We get no guarantees of any kind with the software we buy. It's good for as long as it works, and when it stops working for any reason, you're on your own. If you don't want the time you've invested in learning and using the software to go completely to waste, all you have to do is pay, pay, pay for next great version again and again.
Lest you think I've invective only for Adobe, rest assured there are many other software developers in my sights. Palm is another company which has managed to squander an enormous lead in the PDA and smartphone business into a struggle to stay even with a range of newcomers, most of whom in North America (RIM's Blackberry being the notable exception) simply don't offer anything as well converged and broadly useful as the Treo. Yet despite the aforementioned long run up to the Vista release, Palm Desktop v4.2 is still the best you can get, Palm QuickInstall won't accept passed files (unless it's in the 'mood' apparently), and an initial HotSync performed after replacing hardware (e.g., upgrading from a Treo 650 to a Treo 700p) is only successful on the first attempt about half the time. Do a hard reset and try again (and again).
What's the problem? Is too much development being outsourced? Are product managers and development directors simply out of touch with reality? Is Microsoft some hydra-headed monster which deliberately feeds development partners bad information? Have marketing departments become so dominant that all thought of supporting even recent product versions has become anathema? Is it unreasonable to believe that a $200-$1200 software product should have a usable life longer than 18-24 months? What is it?
I think the answer lies in the practical exigencies of doing business in a world that is so competitive even the faintest nod in the direction of legacy version support amounts to a human resource cost that represents the difference between a profitable company and a failed enterprise. The future holds no better promise than the one we have now, i.e., if you don't want to (or can't) budget the semi-annual, annual and bi-annual costs required to update your key productivity software, you're either going to have to stick with Windows XP or find a way to afford certain upgrades. Open source software, usually available for free, is available for some productivity applications, but is often not the best choice. Don't blame Microsoft — it doesn't develop Adobe or Palm software. If Adobe and Palm can't afford or simply refuse to dedicate the resources needed to update currently active product versions, don't upgrade to Vista unless you're prepared for what could be a significant expenditure. As well, Photoshop Elements 4 running on Windows XP is a rather excellent marriage. Unless Photoshop Elements 5 and Windows Vista together offer some compelling and unalterable reason for you to upgrade, why bother with the expense, the time and the aggravation?
It came as a shock therefore to find out that Adobe had absolutely no intention of issuing a Vista compatibility update for Photoshop Elements 4 or Premier Elements 2. The combined upgrade cost to move to Elements 5 and Premier Elements 3 is only $150. Not bad? Maybe to some, but I say that any top tier software product which runs perfectly in Windows XP Professional should be updated through at least one operating system revision, and that includes Windows Vista.
The software development business is more of a racket than you think. Taken in total, product updates to repair bugs which have nothing to do with the operating systems and everything to do with programming and quality assurance testing mistakes, easily outnumber (and considering their impact on business productivity) often outrank the number and frequency of bug and security fixes issued by Microsoft and Apple. Adobe made a conscious decision to drop Photoshop Elements 4 and Premiere Elements 2 a long time ago. Both products are stable under Windows 2000 and XP — no significant development effort needed. The fact remains however that Adobe had a long, long run at Windows Vista compatibility and failed miserably to account for compatibility of demonstrably current product versions, including Photoshop Elements 4 and Premiere Elements 2, installed on literally millions of computers. Adobe's claim on their Vista support pages that "All Adobe products available as of January 30, 2007 were released before Windows Vista became publicly available and so have not been fully designed for or tested on this new operating system", is in a word, bullshit or a red herring or a canard or call it what you will — disingenuous perhaps, if you insist on civility. Adobe makes that statement counting on public ignorance about how software is actually developed.
Here's the truth. Microsoft has been working with its top tier partners — and Adobe is all of that — for well over two years in an effort to ensure as much third party software compatibility with Vista as possible. The core stability and final code base of Vista, like all operating systems nearing completion, was somewhat of a moving target up until January 2006. After that, Adobe should have put significant development effort behind Vista compatibility for Creative Suite (CS) 2, Photoshop Elements 5, Premier Elements 3, and a long list of other products including the lamentable Acrobat 7 & 8. Think of the timeline for just a moment. Adobe had an entire year to develop and test patches or updates for six or seven major products to ensure Vista compatibility. But when Microsoft rolled out Vista to the OEM computer makers (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc., etc., etc.), Adobe and many of its software development brethren were still working away, a day late and a dollar short. As far as I'm concerned, Adobe's management has become arrogant and supercilious. The only reason for Adobe to have failed here is a lack of human resources or the will to serve all of its loyal customers. For all the thousands and thousands of dollars we've each spent on Adobe products over the years, I think we have to wonder what sort of squandered financial reserves are no longer available to support two year old software products.
The software 'dodge' is a money pit for consumers. We get no guarantees of any kind with the software we buy. It's good for as long as it works, and when it stops working for any reason, you're on your own. If you don't want the time you've invested in learning and using the software to go completely to waste, all you have to do is pay, pay, pay for next great version again and again.
Lest you think I've invective only for Adobe, rest assured there are many other software developers in my sights. Palm is another company which has managed to squander an enormous lead in the PDA and smartphone business into a struggle to stay even with a range of newcomers, most of whom in North America (RIM's Blackberry being the notable exception) simply don't offer anything as well converged and broadly useful as the Treo. Yet despite the aforementioned long run up to the Vista release, Palm Desktop v4.2 is still the best you can get, Palm QuickInstall won't accept passed files (unless it's in the 'mood' apparently), and an initial HotSync performed after replacing hardware (e.g., upgrading from a Treo 650 to a Treo 700p) is only successful on the first attempt about half the time. Do a hard reset and try again (and again).
What's the problem? Is too much development being outsourced? Are product managers and development directors simply out of touch with reality? Is Microsoft some hydra-headed monster which deliberately feeds development partners bad information? Have marketing departments become so dominant that all thought of supporting even recent product versions has become anathema? Is it unreasonable to believe that a $200-$1200 software product should have a usable life longer than 18-24 months? What is it?
I think the answer lies in the practical exigencies of doing business in a world that is so competitive even the faintest nod in the direction of legacy version support amounts to a human resource cost that represents the difference between a profitable company and a failed enterprise. The future holds no better promise than the one we have now, i.e., if you don't want to (or can't) budget the semi-annual, annual and bi-annual costs required to update your key productivity software, you're either going to have to stick with Windows XP or find a way to afford certain upgrades. Open source software, usually available for free, is available for some productivity applications, but is often not the best choice. Don't blame Microsoft — it doesn't develop Adobe or Palm software. If Adobe and Palm can't afford or simply refuse to dedicate the resources needed to update currently active product versions, don't upgrade to Vista unless you're prepared for what could be a significant expenditure. As well, Photoshop Elements 4 running on Windows XP is a rather excellent marriage. Unless Photoshop Elements 5 and Windows Vista together offer some compelling and unalterable reason for you to upgrade, why bother with the expense, the time and the aggravation?
Labels: Adobe, Compatibility, Legacy Software, Palm, Upgrades, Windows Vista
posted by Howard Carson, Managing Editor @ 10:03 PM
