Lightroom 4 and Windows XP

As many have noticed, the Lightroom 4 public beta we released last week does not support Windows XP.  This decision did not come lightly and was based on a number of factors.  With each version of Lightroom, our goal is always to provide a consistently excellent customer experience.  Developing and testing across Operating System versions and platforms to ensure that we’re achieving this goal is a significant effort that takes time and resources.  XP is substantially different from Windows Vista and Windows 7, and requires a independent testing matrix, which increases the complexity of our development efforts.   Every cycle we need to make difficult resource tradeoff decisions and operating system support competes heavily with new features and performance enhancements planned for each version.  The decision this cycle was to end XP support for Lightroom going forward.

NOTE: On the Mac platform we needed to make a similar decision to end support for systems that are not 64-bit capable.

101 Responses to Lightroom 4 and Windows XP

  1. Morley Goddard says:

    As a very new user of LR 3, I’m very disappointed that XP support will end for LR 4. My upgrade plans for a new computer were at least 9 months away and the new Develop features in 4 are very appealing. I wil have to delay my upgrade to LR 4 and given my upgrade timeline, I will probaly pass of LR 4 and wait for LR 5 or explore other sofware for my post processing needs. It’s unfortunate as I was becomeing quite proficient with LR 3.

    Not a happy and satisfied customer,
    Morley Goddard

    • Mykola says:

      I planed to buy LR3 and found that LR4 is coming. In case I will buy LR3 right now, shall I pay upgrade fee when LR4 sales will start?

      When LR4 will be announced?

  2. Asbjørn says:

    Absolutely the right decision – and about time. XP is an old dinosaur that should have been killed off years ago. Kudos for standing up to these stupid XP fanatics who claim that Windows XP is better than more recent Windows versions. I wish more software makers would do so. I don’t see any problem – part of owning a computer is keeping it up to date. If you don’t, you won’t be able to run the latest software. Simple enough, I should think.

    • Ed Hamlin says:

      It is a disheartening that language is used calling XP users stupid. I have no respect for an individual that would use a description like that. It shows a level of arrogance, and lack of empathy for the reality of life. I am user of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition which is an edition of Windows Server 2003 and it is very different than XP.

      • D. Ghent says:

        Windows XP is a product that is well over 10 _years_ old. Windows XP 64 is essentially the same age, given its underpinnings and was used as a placeholder to get Microsoft a consumer-level 64bit OS when it had none, before Windows 7 was ready.

        Both are very short of viable life span, even according to Microsoft.

        • cyrixx says:

          your vision of XP x64 is very stupid: as said, XP x64 is not based on XP but Windows server 2003 64. It’s the more stable and efficient version of windows. Vista and it’s last service pack (called windows 7) are very buggy and slow. They use far more resources for the same functionnalities.
          So Adobe you are saving fiew money by dropping xp support but your image will suffer a lot: for mac why use Adobe if they have the same support politics than Apple (only support the latest OS version)?? And for Windows or other OS, hopefully we have more and more alternatives: RawTherapy is becoming closer to lightroom release after release
          After the end of flash support, you are turning bad…

    • Mariusz says:

      XP is 11 years old, but the real problem is Microsoft support for this system.
      According to MS Extended Support for will end 08/04/2014.
      Here the link to official site :
      Regards to XP and W7 users.

    • Denise says:

      You are very closed minded. My daughter has a disability and uses the top market assistive software to use morse code because she can’t type. Her assistive technology company uses XP because it is more stable. Also my brother works for the Disney co. And they also require Windows XP on his computer. I think you are not well educated in what makes software usable for everyone. It’s sad that they had to make this choice but I fear it will continue. I understand why the co made this choice but you should think before you are so critical of others.

    • PcMac says:

      You are ignorant. Some people cannot afford new computer every couple of years. They would rather upgrade existing machine. BTW XP IS better than stupid Vista or Win7. It doesn’t use as much resources as Win7.

    • Anthony says:

      XP may be an old hag but XP was written in a way that its rock solid. Its a version that for the server type users are solid and extremely reliable. It has never failed my systems and I installed it many years ago. Unfortunately vendors need revenue and this is the reason why new versions come out every 18 months. They expect people to buy the newest and greatest. But sometimes these versions are loaded with problems and are in need of many patches. Yes XP is a Dinosaur and its strong and reliable and it runs on the simplest systems. My computers have never ever crashed or subject themselves to outside issues. I run the simplest virus and firewall software that it inself is a Dinosaur and one cleaner thats free (CC) that scrubs my deletes.

  3. hsbn says:

    Agree. I would rather see LR4 with more features than worrying about WinXP.

  4. Valerie Henschel says:

    I think many photographers understand the need to keep current, especially in the digital world. The left behinds are not going to be happy, particularly the ones who have budget issues. There may be a significant number of Lr users who will skip this upgrade to wait for the time when they can afford to jump to a new operating system. On the other hand, the new release may just prove to be the reason they decide to make a system upgrade.
    I am sure you folks had quite the debate!
    Best justifiable reason for doing a cut-off would be if there were features in the new version that would not work with the older operating systems.

  5. pcn says:

    Well, then I have to decide whether to buy a new computer with win 7, or stay with LR3. With the current economy the chioce for me is quite clear – no new LR until the old computer is phased out…

    • Peter R says:

      in most cases you don´t need a new PC you need a new OPERATING SYSTEM.

      i have win7 running even on my FTP server.. and that is a slow INTEL ATOM 330 with 1 GB RAM.

      that is not a system i would do photoshop or lightroom work on.. but win7 is running on it 7/24.. stable.. no crash since 2009.

      so if XP is running fine for you with LIGHTROOM 3.. then there is a 90% chance that win7 will run fine on that system too.

  6. Royi says:

    This is the right decision to make!

    Give us GPU acceleration!

  7. Jules75 says:

    XP is a dinosaur and this is far from an unexpected decision. Adobe have made a wise and well justified decision, XP has been dying for years now and to be honest if you want to be using the latest and greatest software you will need to accept that system requirements do move on. I expect it won’t be long before it’s Win X64 only as well.
    Well done Adobe!

    • cyrixx says:

      we will move to more supported software, lightroom is not alone hopefully and dropping support of the most used OS even today is foollish
      differences between XP and 7 from a developer point of view is very slow so it is very stupid to stop supporting an OS to save so few money,
      We can wonder if Adobe is not going Chapter 11 soon, knowing it’s enf of Flash/Flex support for mobiles (and everybody understood it as the end of flash soon)

  8. stormkite says:

    It’s okay, guys. Those of us who weren’t on the “gotta spend thousands for the lastest upgrades we don’t need to do our jobs” path aren’t profitable anyway, and no creative worth his / her salt in today’s world is unaware that it’s a screw or be screwed world. Loyalty is for dogs.

    And there are any number of alternatives for most of us, substantially all far less overpriced.

    Been nice knowing you.

    • Peter R says:

      well if you have an very old XP system that is not capable of running LR4.. how you do your work with high res files is a miracle to me anyway….

      so i guess M$ paint would be fine for you?

      • Peter R says:

        i meant: not capable of running WIN7…. of course.

      • cyrixx says:

        XP 64 is supporting 128 GB RAM so is able to deal with the bigger files on a par with 7, but in a far more efficient way

        • Jose says:

          yeah sure i have a bridge to sell to you….in brooklyn.

        • Cadence says:

          I agree that XP requires far less resource to do things, and do them well.

          Win7 is a buggy and slow moving OS. Surely Microsoft could have built something more efficient and stable than Win7. Phasing out XP is Microsoft’s issue.

          Though it’s a shame that Adobe is cutting off XP users, financially it would make sense for Adobe, if not now, then in the near future.

          Lastly, being creative does not mean that one has to be enslaved by technological trends. Though all advertisements and marketing may want to have people believe that.

  9. tgutgu says:


    As Tom Hogarty stated, Windows XP support needs more time and effort for development, testing, and support. This eventually leads to a delay of the product release, increased pricing, less quality, and perhaps less new stuff in the next release.

    Should all the people, who have no problem upgrading to Win 7 depend on your private “upgrade plans”? Your XP folks should rather wake up and get realistic. Adobe won’t be the only one, which will drop XP support very soon.

  10. Lakata says:

    good move!

    XP is outdated and time moves on.
    i think there are also some people in caves who would like to ses support for windows 98.

    no honest…. it´s 2012 and win7 is CLEARLY the better OS.

  11. Daniel says:

    Morley Goddard, not Adobes fault that you’re unhappy and unsatisfied. In the end the costs for developing and testing for dinosaur-operating-systems are paid by us. So i totally agree stop doing so for an totally outdated os like windows xp. 10 years is really enough now!

  12. mark says:

    The problem is that staying with XP is not a sigle point decision for everyone. When you have scanners, printers and calibration tools that don’t have updated drivers the move to a newer OS it can be very very expensive and disruptive. If otherwise you are happy with your work environment this is not just a simple upgrade.

    • Peter R says:

      i have a 6 year old epson scanner that has no 64 bit driver for win7 64 bit.
      but that does not stop me from using win7.
      i can use vuescan to operate that scanner.

      printer.. must be a strange large format printer… otherwise there should be drivers.

      and even if it would not work at all i would rather spend money for a new scanner / printer then sticking to XP.

      especially for photoshop and lighroom a PC should have much RAM.
      8-16 GB ram are a relief when working with todays high res files.
      and RAM; is cheap… but you need a 64 BIT OS to use 8 or 16 GB RAM.

      i have some old SCI hardware too that i bought while windows 95 was up to date.
      but i dont expect that companys support these old hardware anymore.

      if companys produce no 64 bit driver (or no win7 driver at all) for hardware that is only 3-4 years old that´s bad… i agree. but you can´t blame software companys for the bad driver support of some companys.

      don´t buy from these companys again!

  13. xpclient says:

    Doesn’t matter I will switch from Lightroom to Capture One, Bibble Pro or DXO. All of these still support Windows XP. Adobe’s loss. Windows 7 was not my idea.

    • Jose says:

      i guess you never needed the database function in LR then… or you just telling something because you think somebody cares what you will do 😉

  14. Daniel says:


    bag argumentation. Im a system administrator and there are drivers for older hardware, even if only generic. but if your printer is ten years old, of course, you might run into problems.

    thats all but excuses. serious business people have serious hardware upgrade plans and save money for that. if they don’t recognize IT as a vital part of their businesses, then they are ignorant. and why do they compain anyway? someone who is running a 12 year old O/S want to have the newest lightroom software? From the point of a system administrator for small to large companies THIS IS NO EXCUSE

  15. Peter R says:

    some people can not afford a car… but that does not mean we all have to ride horses.

    if your happy with XP and need nothing better you accustomed to suffering and sure don´t need LR 4. 😉

    sorry but i can´t hear this stuff anymore.. XP XP XP… it´s old, it´s unsecure, ist does not support the latest hardware like win7.

    photogs pay 2000 euro for a 5D MK2 + 300 euro for LR but the PC system can´t be upgraded in 10 years….

    • jeannot says:

      i think you don’t have any knowledge in operating systems. XP is still a very powerful OS. Today advancements are not in the core OS… For exemple, Linux or MacOS are evolving very slowly since 2003, and are better OS than Windows (XP or 7). Microsoft did changes in windows kernel with vista but it’s advantages are not for user, but for maintenance costs by Ms

      • Jose says:

        and i think you have no clue. that is why you still use an outdated OS.

        my advice to all who are complaining…. get a job , get some money and buy a decent OS.. 😉
        one with a better kernel and driver structure then XP.. one that makes better use of multicore systems and SSD drives.

  16. JANJAN says:

    drop XP and drop 32 BIT support.
    64 bit is the future.

    the only people who want 32 bit are not those who buy the applications.
    you can´t tell me that someone who shells out 1200 euro for photoshop has not enough money to buy a 64 bit windowes and 8 GB ram.

    my polarizer i bought yesterday costs more then win7 + 8 GB ram.

    • jeannot says:

      do you know XP x64? It is able to use 128 GB of RAM…

      • Jose says:

        how many drivers are there for xp64 bit?

        don´t be stupid xp64 is a niche system… and it´s not even a good one.

        do you think adobe will waste resources on a few guys who like to live in that past and use xp64?

        maybe they should make a OS/2 version too?

  17. Dave says:

    I’m not happy about the decision, but I understand the rationale. Given that Windows 8 will go into broader public beta in February, I have been considering moving from XP to that (fully aware of the limitations of a beta operating system). Has anyone tried the LR4 beta on an early version of Windows 8?

  18. Patti says:

    Does Adobe’s new policy about upgrading apply to LR? If so, and you skip this update, you will have to pay full price for LR5.

    I agree with Mark. For me, it would mean an upgrade to Windows 7, an upgrade to LR4. Then I have to check on the 30 or so other programs I have to see if they would need to be upgraded, plus finding printer and scanner software updates if possible. It is potentially an expensive and daunting idea.

    With the economy where it is, I have other priorities for my money, like groceries and gas for heating my house.

  19. ShSimpson says:

    I think to call XP users stupid, antiquated or any of the other derogatory comments so far here shows the writer’s ignorance and their lack of tolerance for their fellow man’s choices. I moved to Windows 7 shortly after it came out and it is such a better product than Vista ever was people should really make that move. The learning curve is very short and you will love 7 in no time. I respect Adobe’s right to make the decision that they did and fully understand why they did so, just as I respect someone’s decision having stayed with XP up to now. It means nothing to me if my neighbor stays with the older software so why should I write something nasty about him. It tells me a lot about the kind of person someone is that does that. LR3 does not cease to work the day they release 4 so there is an option for those that want to continue to use XP while they get themselves an upgrade path to Win7. Some may elect to simply upgrade their OS while others may elect for a whole new machine. To many people in today’s economy this can prove to be a hardship but we cannot expect software developers to continue to support multiple versions forever. There is a real cost to Adobe and I am sure they didn’t come to this decision lightly. There have been a couple of comments from some that said they will leave LR over this decision. I call BS on that, are they really going to abandon their current installation of LR3 over this, I doubt it. If they do, so be it. That is a personal decision that each user is going to make based on their own criteria. I’m certainly not going write anything bad about them. Posting in anonymity certainly makes people a lot braver not mention less intelligent at times. My big question for Adobe would be “Is this going to apply to CS6 when it comes out”. Then we will hear all these comments again.

    • Cher says:

      I aggree. SOme people who hahve made comments here are very ignorant how the rest of the world lives. I used to be in tehe medical profession. I am also an artist, and have many talents that I cant perform due to onset of devasting illnesses at an early age. To ad too that devastataion I had al my inheritance money stolen from a local single branch banks safe deposit box! Alot of money, enough to hold me for many yrs. My Dad planned for my disabilites, but not sufficienttly i guess. I thought the money woud be sfae there, but it happens, even with the supposed sfae guards. Bottom line is I am financially devastated. I am running my desktop which I use primarily for photography, and have several vista notetbooks, both 32 and 64 bit noen nof which are working! That ought ot tell some of you something other than what you are saying about XP or XP P being outdated and insufficcient.. it is not. In many instncens people are findiig it a more stable system than any other MS OS. Period. Think before you talk, or write as the case may be, please. Consider that some may have no choice in whata OS they re running. Not everyone is rich, successful or healthy…I would consider you lucky except for theh fact you are so narrow minded that I would prefer to be me. I have to ditch all Lr softwre for fear that if I use it and become used to it, Adobe will render it virtualy useless at somes point.. Would have been nice knowinig some of you.. Cher

  20. Robert says:

    Of course, development efforts should maximize the design vision for the LR4 product! Nonetheless, for Adobe to arrogantly assert that their development resources would be mistakenly allocated by servicing the largest installed base OS is absurd!

    As Adobe’s recent upgrade Policy proclamation and Netflix’s painful and embarrassing lesson demonstrates, companies need to embrace their existing customer base. Adobe needs to accommodate their existing XP user base with LR4. At least, for LR 3.6’s legacy features — as they will be reworked in LR4’s UI, and a bit more. Certainly not all the newer LR4 features will be accessible.

    Adobe may be on the precipice of experiencing a departing migration of sizable portion. Once existing Lightroom users discover other emerging and competitive satisfactory products they may leave and be unlikely to return.

    • Jose says:

      people who WORK with LR have systems that are able to run win7.
      i cannot imagine running LR on a system that is not capable of runing win7.

      are you mascochists??

      and spare me that driver nonsens…. it´s all excuses from people who live in the past.

    • Cher says:

      Thank you for putting this in a concise and sensible manner. I spoke from much disgust, hrt and anger, but essentially wanted too say what you did. take away my embelishment and I can say DITTO. G I aggree. If you or anyone finds a good alternative, pleasee let us or me know. I am looking at Digital Pro 6…by Moose Peterson et al. What do you think? It wont be considered cheap for all of us who have purchsaes LR software and updates for years, I suppose. However, we ought to open this disussion for alternatives whether they like it on the Adobe forum. After all they put us in this position by making great software that we’ve grown accostomed to, and liked, but have now made future use imposible…unfortunately they ruined it for us and for themselves.

  21. Paul says:

    Damn it! I was very excited to see the new upgrades in LR4!! I’ll admit XP is outdated, but my XP machine runs fine. No real reason to upgrade until now. I love Lightroom and will continue to use it. My dilemma now is, new Windows based machine or a Mac and when? Wait ‘til the full version of LR4 is released or buy now and download the beta version? Decisions, decisions decisions?

  22. Russel says:

    I have XP and it works. Getting a new operating system is not an option because the hardware that can handle XP can not handle Windows 7 or what ever comes down the pike. Add that to the need for drivers etc. and upgrading is not going to happen untill hardware dies.

  23. Guy says:

    I am quite disappointed with this decision given the widespread use of XP. We continue to use it as our main OS at the University of Toronto Libraries where I work because it is such a stable system.

    I will not be upgrading to LR4 or other variations of same. Again this is a disappointment to me and I am sure to many, many others. I will therefore manage with what I currently have which has served me well.

  24. Pingback: Lightroom 4 and Windows XP « « Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips

  25. Will McGregor says:

    Windows XP is 10 years old !!! that is prehistoric in technology terms and would be the equivalent of still using a 1 megapixel DSLR for work today.

    Yeah its a bit rubbish that windows have been making crappy operating systems since XP, but even microsoft are phasing out support for XP which should say boatloads !!

    Adobe have done the right thing here, photography is a fast moving field within technology and adobe have to put up with all the moaners eveytime the remove something that is old.

    Read a book called “who moved my cheese” all these people who moan about stuff like this just love to moan about something !! and will get pissed at every change.

  26. Bruce Bullis says:

    XP is eleven years old, people. Move on.

  27. DanT says:

    Go and get a Win7 machine. And then if you need your XP (for apps and whatnot), you can easily run it in a virtual machine. With the right tools, you can image your existing XP system intact and have it run as it used to inside a VM. Incompatibility with older hardware will likely be an issue, due to lack of drivers.
    There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect if we’re demanding the latest and greatest tools from Adobe but unwilling to upgrade the base of the system that will run it.

  28. Jonathan says:

    I work in an organization where Windows 7 is actually reviving and speeding up not so old machines which were forced to run Windows XP for software compatibility reasons. Now a mass upgrade is on and the users are happier their machines are faster cause Windows 7 is actually taking advantage of all the hardware in the box.

    I say, XP was a good OS but at this point, it is past it’s prime and not made for the hardware of today. I have been on Windows 7 for more than a year now on my LR machine at home. I say it was the right move. Had to happen sometime.

  29. SDTux says:

    It’s a right decision – next one is let it be only x64 versions. I can imaging no situation to stay on XP now. If you so much need any old hardware, just buy another one PC and use both of them – one for old software and another for LR4.
    If it’s just a financial reason, you should know LR4 likes more RAM then LR3. And multithreading is not good in XP, not at all.

  30. Ben says:

    Microsoft’s official end of life for XP, Service Pack 3 is April 8, 2014, which means that after that date, Microsoft won’t be releasing updates for it, so XP will become more vulnerable to malware.

    So sooner, or later it’s going to be time to leave XP. As the old adage goes, upgrade when you need it.

    It’s probably not a good idea to be the first person to hop onto Windows 8, which will probably be released by the end of the year, but what’s been released so far, and the public beta is next month, it might really be worth waiting for. There’s a new file system (which you’ll never see) that makes your data 1000% safer and highly unlikely that you’ll lose data, even if one of your disks crash. Amongst the many things that it does (which you will see) is automatically replicates your data to another location (onsite or offsite). It’s called Storage Spaces.

    Also, Windows 8 requires touch screens (even for the desktop), so it’ll seem primitive in a few years to be working without a touch screen. Can you imagine going back to a smart phone w/o a touchscreen?

    As always, everything is a question of resources. If you have XP now and want Lightroom 4 now, then upgrade to Windows 7. If you can hold off a year to upgrade to Windows 8…hmmm….is it worth waiting for?

    Personally, I wish Adobe would make a serious upgrade to Lightroom. Lightrom 4.0 is still basically the same product as 1.0. At the time it came out it was nice to have a jack of many trades, but master of none. Photoshop itself, as well as the Nik products (or image manipulation), Camera Bits with it’s much better catalog product that being released, and tagging capability, and a few others come to mind run circles around Lightroom at this point in time.

    I use Lightroom to its fullest, and wish Adobe would think about the leap it can make with Version 5. Lightroom 4 is underwhelming.

  31. chris swaap says:

    Has Service Pack 2 come out for Windows 7? If it has I have missed it. Our upgrade policy, on operating systems, is to wait until MS have issued SP2. On past performance the product is then stable enough for our business (forget about Vista). The next hardware upgrade cycle will then include that Operating system. The costs of upgrading to a new operating system are not just the cost of the operating system. The testing and upgrading of old peripherals, old business software (some will need to be rewritten) etc is time consuming and costly. We don’t upgrade just because MS or Adobe say so. We do it when it makes business sense to do so.

    I agree that Adobe have to move on and have no problem with them not supporting XP although I am a bit surprised they have done it at this point in time (I would have expected LR5) . If LR4 falls within our operating system upgrade cycle then we will upgrade. If not we will either look for alternatives or wait for LR5

  32. Ben says:

    Microsoft’s official end of life for XP, Service Pack 3 is April 8, 2014, which means that after that date, Microsoft won’t be releasing updates for it, so XP will become more vulnerable to malware.

    So sooner, or later it’s going to be time to leave XP. As the old adage goes, upgrade when you need it.

    It’s probably not a good idea to be the first person to hop onto Windows 8, which will probably be released by the end of the year, but what’s been released so far, and the public beta is next month, it might really be worth waiting for. There’s a new file system (which you’ll never see) that makes your data 1000% safer and highly unlikely that you’ll lose data, even if one of your disks crash. Amongst the many things that it does (which you will see) is automatically replicates your data to another location (onsite or offsite). It’s called Storage Spaces.

    Also, Windows 8 requires touch screens (even for the desktop), so it’ll seem primitive in a few years to be working without a touch screen. Can you imagine going back to a smart phone w/o a touchscreen?

    As always, everything is a question of resources. If you have XP now and want Lightroom 4 now, then upgrade to Windows 7. If you can hold off a year to upgrade to Windows 8…hmmm….is it worth waiting for?

  33. Mary L. says:

    I am very disappointed that Adobe didn’t provide much notice on the lack of support for XP systems, whether 64 or 32 bit. I and many other retirees who are photography enthusiasts that have been very loyal to Photoshop and Lightroom over the years will not be able to afford to purchase new systems. I realize that we could all try to upgrade our operating systems (which may or may not work), but this seems a bit over the top, at least for me. Wish Adobe would re-envision all of this, but I guess I will just have to refrain from upgrading until my system goes belly up. Sad for all us long-time, non-professional users of Adobe products.

    • Jose says:

      what system do you have?

      you work with a system that is not able to run win7 64 bit?
      i doubt that you will be happy using LR3 then!!

      what is it a pentium 90 with 521 mb ram??? LOL

  34. Dim says:

    It’s time to go towards. 64bit is better than 32bit. XP was good. It have been the best for long time. It’s gone.
    It’s time for 7.

    Let us work without thinking about CPU, memory and another shit.
    Just photo. In any case.

  35. Pete Hamer says:

    I purchased Lightroom 3 eight weeks ago to complement my Photoshop CS4 which I run on Win XP.
    I think it is wrong of Adobe to sell software that is to be superceeded in the very near future without making purchaers of their intentions.
    Will tech support still be available for XP/LR3 instalations?

  36. Pingback: Lightroom 4 and Windows XP – modrstudio

  37. jung ho lee says:

    고맙게도 lightroom 4beta ok

  38. Tony says:

    No XP support = no sale.

    Commercial / business environments are rarely early adopters of new versions of operating systems. We skipped Vista entirely and our migration to Win7 will begin in several months, assuming that 64 bit versions of proprietary software used in-house are developed on schedule. I expect it will be sometime next year before the entire user network is running Win7, so in the meantime, Adobe will receive no upgrade money from us.

  39. RKing says:

    I was just about to join the Adobe LR crowd with the LR4 release and found out it will not support XP. I think I understand the decision to limit overhead and development costs. I will not be upgrading to Windows 7. I cannot afford too so all my computers are XP and I support XP in my work Enterprise so you have lost a sale. I was really looking forward to adding LR to my workflow. Maybe in a couple years when I can buy a new computer or two. I will be staying with Nikons Caputer NX and add this money to my next lens buy… Adobe decision makers good luck but you made a mistake.

  40. Bob Blount says:

    Paint Shop is still a user friendly company ………….. not nearly as arrogant as Corel.
    Bye no buy,

  41. Alec says:

    Whiny XP user chiming in.

    I’m bummed.

    Might just start using my laptop more, which dual boots OSX and XP. I guess it would give me a good reason to play with OSX more.

  42. Grant Hanson says:

    Just found out Lightroom 4 will not work with xp. I will be returning my order from BHViedo as soon as it arrives and will find an alternative.

  43. Darren says:

    Good call!

    To those of you who aren’t happy with this choice….Were you similarly unhappy with the decision to cut the retail price of LR4 in half too? I imagine perhaps not….

    I also imagine your choice to want to upgrade to LR4 would be to keep up with the times and take advantage of new features – so why wouldn’t you do the same with your OS? More and more software will go the same way and limit support for old systems..

    Why not take the saved difference in the new retail price of LR4 and get yourself Windows 7? Sorted 🙂

  44. bob says:

    The tech specs do not rule out running in 32 bit win 7.

  45. Alex says:

    There are no major diffs between XP and win7 in OS core.
    So you have decided to save money on testers? It’s funny. But very unfriendly to your users. It’s rather stupid decision.

  46. Harry Samuel says:

    I am not sure on the 32 bit deal. I was / am running 32 bit XP and Windows 7 64 bit. My main system is due for an upgrade, but I like to do upgrades when I want, not when I am told I have too. It is just me, I am over 18 and think I should be able to choose when I do something. My 21 year old daughter says she can make choices so I always wonder why I can’t.

    Anyway, I am spending the fun two to three days installing windows 7 64bit, running the upgrades. Looking for 64 bit win 7 drivers for my extra boards, and new program versions starting with a epson printer driver. I have not checked if my Kodak Dye-subs need new drivers too, but am sure that the three days or more will one day pay off in time savings. My firewire card is not working it needs a new driver, if one is available. Then their will be drivers for the scanner, other printers and who knows what will pop up. The windows 7 check if you can upgrade listed many problems, including the sony dye-subs, and so many that it took almost an hour to tell me it was going to be real fun.

    I like blogs, when people give reasons why something should be done. Like Congress when starting wars, they always have very good reasons to kill people. Hope one day I read the US has invaded Adobe and deposed the current dictator.

    I still want a refund on Windows 286.

  47. Joe says:

    How much did you get from Microsoft for that ? I purchased LR 4 and now it don’t run on my Win Xp. I am very disapointed about that.

    I hope you take it back and i want my money back!

  48. anonymous says:

    please spare me the “old software” yada-yada:

    what microsoft, adobe and other software producers IGNORE is that windows xp is VERY stable (bluescreens happen ONLY in third party poorly written drivers or at hardware failure) and it has a STRONG user base of tech-savvy people that despite obvious kernel improvements are FORCED to use windows xp because of NOTORIOUS BUGS of user interface (explorer, taskbar) introduced by vista, 7 and 8.

    take the explorer folder tree expanding/jumping bugs for example, and look on m$ forums at just how many years it took microsoft to switch from “this feature works as intended” to ADMITTING they were wrong!

    • Jack says:

      As a matter of fact, BSODs only happened when I tried to install CS3…
      Anyway, sad to read this, happy I checked the system requirements first.

      I think it’s a mistake to drop XP. It’s a stable OS and perfectly fine. I will check out LR 4 on other computers but why should I ever bother to change my complete system and peripery for just one piece of software?

      Just out of curiosity: Why is always the 4th the odd one out? Happened to Winamp, Skype, Leisure Suit Larry… and in the latter case the made the right deciion and let it disappear 😉

  49. Pingback: Photoshop CS6 Operating System Support…and beyond | PHOTOSHOP.COM BLOG

  50. Bullshit says:

    Photoshop CS6 supports XP but Lightroom 4 doesn’t? What kind of BULLSHIT is this? Adobe employees are LAZY and INCOMPETENT, just like Steve Jobs said.


  51. Frank Farance says:

    Was interested in LR4, but disappointed it won’t work on XP, and thus I won’t be buying it, will look towards other products, including open source products.

    I’m an IT administrator for large and small systems. Really, other than virtual address space, there is little to offer in Windows Vista or 7. Many of the new user interface features are a step backwards. XP is pretty solid. Right now, when I purchase PCs and latptops, if it has XP, then XP is much preferable to later versions of Windows.

    When it comes to upgrading a system, that’s a good 3-5 weeks of effort, especially for sophisticated users, with much technical risk/heartache. As an example, I recently helped a colleague upgrade (he publishes a biweekly newspaper). Running XP apps in a VM is *not* seamless. It sounds great in principle, but reality is different for many reasons (multiple registries, file systems, etc.). For him, it’s been suffering months of lots of little quirks … and less reliable than XP.

    I know it sounds like whining, but it really takes much time/effort/risk, which means it is a real business/technical decision factor.

    As for the person complaining that we don’t use 1 megapixel cameras anymore, sure they are now 12-25 megapixel. At 24-bit color, 25 megapixels is about 100 MB of RAM, which is no big deal on XP, considering that Firefox and Thunderbird can take up much more memory. As for threading, XP seems to handle multiple cores just fine.

    Just like Photoshop is very piggish (load time, memory, etc.), open source tools like GIMP can work just as well or better in certain scenarios (and the price is great). I’ll be looking for open source LR for XP.

    Adobe’s mistake is not understanding the customer. If there are no upgrade plans for many many XP users, then you need to decide whether or not you want them as customers. I’ve done multi-platform QA for operating systems and GUI products. This is an incremental cost, unless you have completely different implementations for each platform, which itself is a bad idea.

    I’ve been a product manager, too. The problem is: when you decide to not care about the customers’ concerns, the customer is given the opportunity to completely re-evaluate their decisions about a particular product (yours) … and you might not keep the customer. For example, MS Office 2003 -> MS Office 2007: no compatibility with prior user interface, so if the users are going to learn a new product, then it might just be a non-Microsoft one (e.g., Open Office). Sure you’ll buy one copy of the newer version of Office (for compatibility reasons), but you’ve now shifted to a platform away from MS.

    Same here: taking customers (who are willing to pay money) and giving them no options causes them to look at others’ products. Emotionally, they are happy to overcome the hurdle of a new product because they are annoyed at you. In other words, it’s a dumb idea for Adobe to annoy people and give them motivation to consider others’ products. If it really cost more, then separate it out as a different product/SKU with a different price. If you’re still getting XP sales at a higher price, you’ve kept the customer, you’ve sold product, and your still making the profit you want to make.

  52. ninpou_kobanashi says:

    Maybe they should have killed the crappy OS that no one uses, Vista, instead?

  53. giustino says:

    fankulo a tutti quello che parlano male di xp.. xp forever!!! vista e seven bad bad bad

  54. Robert says:

    I understand that it is hurting for the XP users out there, but under light of Windows 8 approaching I understand that Adobe has to cut support at some point.

    Personally I like Windows 7, It is stable and general user experience is good. Any computer that can handle LR4 should be OK with Win7 as well. Doing a new installation and setting up the programs I need takes me about a day, no big deal.

  55. Frank Farance says:

    Robert, while I don’t dispute your personal experience, it is not the same as what I have experienced for many users. Really, device drivers are an issue: whether for printers, cell phones, cameras, etc.. Many things don’t work the same way (or at all) in later versions of Windows. Changing the workflow is a big deal. Going to Windows 7 is a big transition that brings little business value.

    Yes, I understand that newer versions of Windows are available, however Adobe should support their products for the same life-cycle for that Microsoft does.

    Based upon the above comments, I have not heard anyone from Adobe explain technical reasons why they can’t run LR4 on XP. They have only offered “Adobe doesn’t want to test it on XP”, which is a bunch of baloney. If it is that more expensive, then make it a different SKU with a different price.

  56. Mike McCool says:

    I have been considering changing my photo processing software for some time and many friends have recommended Lightroom 4. I was very unhappy to find that it does not support Windows XP. Since I am quite happy with my current PCs and do not plan to upgrade for at least a year, I will definitely NOT be buying Lightroom 4.

  57. Axel says:

    There are just simple decisions: Adobe decided to save money by not supporting XP – and I´ll save money by not buying LR4. There are much more reasons for still runnig XP on my computers!

  58. Tony Lee says:

    I run XP-64 bit and have found it to be exceptionally stable, fast and non-buggy. When purchasing a lap-top I avoided Vista like the plague and bought the only remaining one running XP. Again there have been no problems. It might be “old” but in my experience it is a far better OS than either Vista or Windows 7 – albeit someone else’s!

    I now want to buy Lightroom 4 but will have to move up to Windows 7 which is relatively new and, not to put too fine a point on it, really is still in Microsoft’s extended testing phase. I would consider upgrading to it when SP2 comes out to ensure that all the bugs are ironed out.

    What is the obvious thing for me to do?

    Either, buy LR4 + Windows 7 + spend all my time, effort and aggravation over the next week or so migrating my programs etc to the new OS + installing new drivers where needed etc etc etc
    or, buy a similar program to LR4 but which is compatible with my current OS?

    Obvious answer.

    Result – Because of their short-sightedness and disregard of their customer base, Adobe lose another loyal customer (of 16yrs standing).

    BAD MOVE, Adobe.

  59. Ken Lewis says:

    Im pissed, Major set back, My xp works great, dont have time to waste with this bs. So adobe save $5 not including this version… wise move….. not

  60. robjons says:

    Ditto the Tony Lee comment above. I agree most photographers need to keep up with technology, but here it is clear that Adobe is run with the typical American corporate attitude: Save a dollar at the expense of the customer.
    It is this attitude that ultimately ran GM into the ground.

  61. Charlie says:

    For the record, my main PC was bought in 2002. It’s a Pentium 4, XP with no service packs, 512mb RAM, Photoshop 7… Guess what? It still runs like a charm! Will I trade it for a new PC? Yes, eventually. Will I do that just to please Adobe? Hell no!

  62. f harmon says:

    that means no lightroom. Bad idea, Adobe.

  63. IVan says:

    Adobe is full with bloatware and installation files are growing bigger and bigger… while it has only few minor features. comparing to Nuke for example, a composting software that has much more features and setup file is 70mb!!!! what the heck is Lightroom doing with 700mbs?? This is not only about XP its about clutter and bad programming

  64. Michele says:

    In this current economy, it is unfortunate that it has become necessary to upgrade an OS in order to purchase a SW program! XP is an extraordinarily stable system. I am an IT director and we are still successfully running a whole hospital on it! To upgrade to another OS causes a “ripple effect” with every other SW program on a home user’s PC/laptop.

    Unfortunately, I will have to pass. This is my second negative experience with Adobe…

    Ciao, Adobe products 🙁

  65. Pingback: Lightroom 4 Now Available as Part of Creative Cloud | PHOTOSHOP.COM BLOG

  66. AL says:

    WTF!!!! no support of xp?? i´m really shocked!!! When you do not support XP i need to buy Capture One Pro

    • petegreen says:

      This decision did not come lightly and was based on a number of factors. With each version of Lightroom, our goal is always to provide a consistently excellent customer experience. Developing and testing across Operating System versions and platforms to ensure that we’re achieving this goal is a significant effort that takes time and resources. XP is substantially different from Windows Vista and Windows 7, and requires a independent testing matrix, which increases the complexity of our development efforts. Every cycle we need to make difficult resource tradeoff decisions and operating system support competes heavily with new features and performance enhancements planned for each version. The decision this cycle was to end XP support for Lightroom going forward.

      NOTE: On the Mac platform we needed to make a similar decision to end support for systems that are not 64-bit capable.

  67. Richard Harris says:

    Regardless of the idiotic excuses Adobe continues to put forth — not supporting XP Pro excludes many mid-size to large companies who are still successfully and *productively* run XP as their standard OS is stupid and lazy. Even Microsoft (who would love to kill XP) has recognized this and extended support of XP through April 8, 2014.

    Yet again Adobe grossly overestimates their own leverage.

    I’m off to find an alternative to LR 4… (and yes, believe it or not Adobe, there *are* alternatives! Imagine that.)

  68. web developer says:

    no xp support is purely lame. xp is the only operating system to date that is fast and very reliable.

    upgrading to 7 and loading it up with higher spec hardware so that it can run just as fast as XP ?

  69. gold_kudu says:

    Thankful for lightroom remaining compatible with XP all this time and understand the decision to move on.
    Personally, I use XP as I find it is easy to customize on every level. The system is solid, but unfortunately doesn’t allow a sufficient capacity of RAM to be used. I’ve stuck with it all these years because I also produce music and the only thing stopping me from getting MAC is the politics and price. Mac is fantastic but is also very clever – an overpriced, sleek, non-modular system that by my account has user issues as often as a well-kept XP operated pc. Anyways— I run out of memory pretty fast while editing large files from Full Frame camera raw files i.e. Nikon D800 and to a lesser extent Canon 5d mkiii.

    I’d be grateful if Microsoft could introduce the possibility of higher physical RAM capacity in XP and then sit happily with Lighroom3 and CS5 editing without a care in the world. Go ahead Adobe.. thanks for giving us XP users at least LR3. – used and goodly so.

    Life could be sweet.

  70. Caleb says:

    I totally agree in the specs issue. I have everything from windows 98, windows ME, windows 2000 pro, windows XP Pro, Windows XP Pro 64bit, Windows VIsta and Windows 7. I have a Single Core, Dual Core, Tri-Core, and Quad Core. I plan on upgrading to Hex-Core soon. I have 32 GB of DDR3 ram and nothing is out of my reach. I know how to build them, how to upgrade them. But I still stand by my own personal decision to stick with windows XP 64 bit and lightroom 3. This is as fast as it can EVER be.

  71. Robert Botta says:

    My entire company of over 500 employees operates on XP! I was going to beta this package for potential rollout. Now I need a refund. Is Adobe planning to do same with other packages? If so I had better start looking for other software to manage our graphics.

    • Pete Green says:

      It is the direction that many software companies are moving in, but I am not totally sure of the direction the other Adobe applications are moving, but I’d assume they’ll have similar OS support (or removal of)

  72. Melanie Jaramillo says:

    I was going to purchase Lightroom 4 as was given a gift certificate for Christmas until I found out that XP was not supported. I know XP is old but it has been sufficient for what I do with my laptop and I can’t afford to buy a new laptop at this point. Is Lightroom 3 still supported by Adobe as I think this may be the way to go for now?

    • Pete Green says:

      If you can get a copy of LR3, it will run on XP — but you ar right, LR 4 will not work under winXP.
      You could also consider just upgrading your OS on your current laptop instead of buying a brand new one.