I am getting ready to upgrade my photoshop 7.0 to photoshop CS. Does anyone know if it will run on win. 98?. When I called Adobe, the tech seemed a little confused. According to the system requirements for CS. It can be installed on windows 2000, and XP. It doesn't say 98. Is anyone out there running Photoshop CS on win 98? I would hate to have to upgrade to XP if I didn't have to.
Thanks, Lynn
#1
CS will ONLY run on Win2K and XP systems. It won't even install on Win98.
If you want CS your best bet is to update to XP.
#2
You've already got your answer. I don't see what's so confusing about the system requirements.
Bob
#3
I'm a user of Windows 98, since Adobe Photoshop CS can't work on it, where's Adobe Photoshop for Windows 98 in adobe.com?
What's the latest version of Adobe Photoshop for Windows 98? And where can i find the page for information?
Thanks!
#4
You'll have to stick to PS 7.0. It's no longer for sale so you'll have to look around to see if any retailers still have copy left.
Bob
#5
Also, your Microsoft Windows 98/98SE will be "Entering Non-Supported phase" Effective date: January 16, 2004
See Microsoft URL for Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support... <
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/desktop/consumer/ default.mspx>
#6
Peter,
Who cares. When was the last time you needed Microsoft support anyway. The only thing you stand to loose are security patches. Use a hardware firewall and a good antivirus you are fine. Stop trying to scare people into upgrading. Not everyone can afford a costly software upgrade and an OS upgrade. For most it simply isn't worth putting more money in an aged computer and they don't have the money to buy a new computer right now.
Marie,
Curios question. I would be tempted to copy it to a 98 system just to see if it will still run. I have run across several installers that will not run if you don't meet the system requirements only to move it over after installing and have it run fine. The question in this case would be if it gives you a chance to activate if you copy the installed software to another system. Unfortunately you would still need to have access to an Xp\2K system to install to (but not activate) then copy it to your system.
In other words it might work but it most likely wouldn't be worth the trouble if it did.
#7
#8
No need to try copying it. It won't run. It's not like when we stopped running on Win95. There is some functionality needed form the OS that simply isn't there on Win9X and the app won't even get to opening it's first window.
-Scott
#9
Who cares. When was the last time you needed Microsoft support anyway.
I would think that Adobe Systems cares!
Adobe cannot reasonably be expected to produce and support software for an unsupported/discontinued operating system. "Scaring people into upgrading" has nothing to do with it. You can not argue with the FACTS of the clearly stated systems requirements for software installation and use.
#10
Dude 98 is the worst hunk of garbage ever developed. You dont even have a clue what a stable system is yet... seriously you have no idea. You need to update real real fast to 2000 pro ....NO XP! 2000 pro is stable and not to new like XP. XP wont be ready for us professional users for a year or two atleast. Thats just my opinion anyway.
#11
Thats just my opinion anyway.
That's the most intelligent part of your post.
Bob
#12
Peter,
I don't question CS running only on XP. The NT kernel has always been light years ahead of 9x. I was just saying that Microsft dropping support should not even need to be an issue when discussing reasons for upgrading to XP. There are so many advantages that a little piece of information like that should be at the bottom of the list.
DV8R,
If that was addressed at me you don't know me very well. I have been working with NT since 3.51 and using it on my home systems since NT4 was released. I know the advantages all too well. My servers at work run everything from NT4 to 2003 Advanced server.
At home my old dual processor computer is running 2000 Server. I also have one 2K workstation, two XP pro systems and a 98 second edition system I keep around for testing.
XP wont be ready for us professional users for a year or two at least.
I disagree. It is every bit as stable as 2K. It has better driver support and runs old apps as fast as 2K and new apps faster. I wouldn't spend the money to upgrade 2K to XP but I would not encourage anyone to buy 2K over XP. I will say that the new interface is worthless so set it to classic mode with a classic start menu and you will never need to go back to 2K.
#13
Photo Help,
I was just saying that Microsft dropping support should
not even need to be an issue when discussing reasons for upgrading to XP. There are so many advantages that a
little piece of information like that should be at the
bottom of the list.
You've forgotten about the original question from Marie McGarry in your replies to myself and DV8R.
THE ISSUE was to help her...and the simple answer is that she needs either Windows 2000 or Window XP as clearly stated in the system requirements for Photoshop CS.
Your qualifications was not being questioned however your reply about attempting an installation in Windows 98 was just WRONG.
*OR* you could attempt such an installation on your Win98SE ...have Photoshop CS properly activated by Adobe...and report back your success to disprove my statement and Adobe's posted system requirements.
#14
Peter,
THE ISSUE was to help her.
Yes and I offered a suggestion that had not yet been discussed or disproved. We now have an answer (See post #7). Just keep in mind that system requirements are not always set in stone.
As for upgrading to XP on a system that came with 98 (Assuming the system has not gone through a major hardware upgrade). She would be better off sticking with Photoshop 7 for now unless she buys a new computer at the same time. Why sink $100 more into an aging computer when you can buy a new (low end) one that comes with XP for $350. Even a low end system is at least 5 times faster than what she has.
Lynn,
What are your system specs?
#15
NO XP! 2000 pro is stable and not to new like XP. XP wont be ready for us professional users for a year or two atleast. Thats just my opinion anyway.
<BZZZT!> Wrong. This professional user says see Photo Help's post #11. Stop spreading misinformation.
#16
NO XP! 2000 pro is stable and not to new like XP. XP wont be ready for us professional users for a year or two atleast. Thats just my opinion anyway.
I use W2K as well as XP. Both are stable platforms, but experienced users all around contend that XP is more stable than W2K. That said, I prefer W2K because it lacks Redmond's phone-home technology and supports all of the apps that I currently run w/o any problem whatsoever. If I were to decide to run games, then it would be another story.
#17