Here Comes Windows 11....

[Bobby Henderson]

Any reason not to install it in an Oracle Virtual Box and try it out that way?

I think my old and semi-retired notebook would not be strong enough to run Win11 in that manner. I don't have any desire to load Win11 on my new Alienware X17 until that version of the OS is functionally complete and stable. Also I'm not looking to leap until I know the applications I rely on in my work are proven to run on it without any serious issues.

I've never tried using Virtual Box before. It might be interesting to try with loading an old version of Windows on my old notebook in order to run ancient versions of Macromedia Freehand, Adobe Illustrator and CorelDRAW. I still have some old CD-ROMs of those applications.

My biggest near-term concerns with computer software have more to do with Adobe's upcoming 2022 slate of Creative Cloud applications as well as third party vendors releasing updates to their Adobe plug-ins. Those updates usually lag at least a week or so behind the release of Adobe's application updates. I would be surprised if any of that stuff has been optimized for Windows 11. It may be well into Winter or even Spring 2022 before that happens.

[Van Dalton]

Back on topic, Microsoft is slowly giving in and has apparently shared an "official method" of bypassing the TPM 2.0 check, by adding a registry key...

Think I'll just park this here for safekeeping (since we all know what M$ are like, don't we?):

Ways to install Windows 11
Windows 11

This article describes ways to install Windows 11.

Note: To upgrade to Windows 11, devices should meet the Windows 11 minimum system requirements. Some Windows 10 features aren't available in Windows 11. System requirements to experience some Windows 11 features and apps will exceed the Windows 11 minimum system requirements. Find Windows 11 specs, features, and computer requirements

Before you begin

Make sure the device you want to install Windows 11 on meets the minimum system requirements. If your device is currently running Windows 10, we recommend you verify the minimum system requirements using the PC Health Check app. We do not recommend installing Windows 11 on a device that doesn't meet requirements. For more info, see Installing Windows 11 on devices that don't meet minimum system requirements.

Windows Update in Settings (recommended)

If you’re upgrading from Windows 10, we recommend you wait until you're notified through Windows Update that the upgrade is ready for your device. To check if Windows 11 is ready for your device, select Start > Settings > Update & Security > Windows Update > Check for updates.

For known issues that might affect your device, you can also check the Windows release health hub.

Other ways to install Windows 11 (not recommended unless instructed by support)

Use the Installation Assistant to upgrade

We recommend you wait until your device has been offered the upgrade to Windows 11 before you use the Installation Assistant. When you're ready, you can find it on the Windows 11 software download page.

Create Windows 11 installation media

On the Windows 11 software download page, select Create tool now and follow the instructions to install Windows 11.

Warning:

Microsoft recommends against installing Windows 11 on a device that does not meet the Windows 11 minimum system requirements. If you choose to install Windows 11 on a device that does not meet these requirements, and you acknowledge and understand the risks, you can create the following registry key values and bypass the check for TPM 2.0 (at least TPM 1.2 is required) and the CPU family and model.

Registry Key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\Setup\MoSetup

Name: AllowUpgradesWithUnsupportedTPMOrCPU

Type: REG_DWORD

Value: 1

Note: Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall the operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.

There are two installation paths available:

Upgrade by launching Setup on the media while running Windows 10. You will have the option to:

a. Perform a Full Upgrade, which keeps personal files (including drivers), apps, and Windows Settings. This is the default experience and is the one that Installation Assistant uses.

b. Keep Data Only will keep personal files (including drivers) only, not apps and not Windows Settings.

c. Clean Install will install Windows 11 and keep nothing from the Windows 10 installation. For more info, see Give your PC a Fresh Start.

Boot from media to launch Setup. This path is a clean install and will not retain previous files or settings. For more info, see Give your PC a Fresh Start.

Important: You should verify that your device meets minimum system requirements before you choose to boot from media, because it will allow you to install Windows 11 if you have at least TPM 1.2 (instead of the minimum system requirement of TPM 2.0), and it will not verify that your processor is on the approved CPU list based on family and model of processor.

Create an image install

Use DISM or 3rd party tools to directly apply an existing Windows 11 image to the disk.

Important: An image install of Windows 11 will not check for the following requirements: TPM 2.0 (at least TPM 1.2 is required) and CPU family and model.

Related articles

Installing Windows 11 on devices that don't meet minimum system requirements

================================================== ====================

Installing Windows 11 on devices that don't meet minimum system requirements
Windows 11

Note: For more info about the minimum system requirements for Windows 11, see Windows 11 specs, features, and computer requirements.

Installing Windows 11 on a device that does not meet Windows 11 minimum system requirements is not recommended. If you choose to install Windows 11 on ineligible hardware, you should be comfortable assuming the risk of running into compatibility issues.

Your device might malfunction due to these compatibility or other issues. Devices that do not meet these system requirements will no longer be guaranteed to receive updates, including but not limited to security updates.

The following disclaimer applies if you install Windows 11 on a device that doesn't meet the minimum system requirements:

A message in Windows 10 explaining that a PC doesn't meet the requirements to upgrade to Windows 11. The message includes a warning not to upgrade because the PC will become unsupported.

Before you install Windows 11

If you are unsure if your device meets the Windows 11 minimum system requirements and have Windows 10 already installed, you can download the PC Health Check app, which will assess eligibility and identify components of your device that don't meet the minimum requirements. The app will also link to info that details steps you can take to make your device meet the minimum system requirements. To learn more, download and install PC Health Check app.

After you install Windows 11

If you're experiencing issues after upgrading to Windows 11 and your device does not meet the minimum system requirements, we recommend you go back to Windows 10. Select Start > Settings > System > Recovery > Go back.

This option is only available for 10 days following your upgrade, after which time the files needed to perform this function will be removed to free up disk space on your device.
Related articles

What you do with this information of course is your business. Personally I wouldn't touch Windows these days with a 50-foot pole attached to my buddy's computer but I'm sure somebody will find it useful.

[Frank Cox]

I would consider installing Win11 on my old notebook PC just to explore features in the Win11 interface.

Any reason not to install it in an Oracle Virtual Box and try it out that way?

I've become a big believer in VB for trying new stuff; I even keep sacrificial Linux images that I use to experiment with when I'm not sure what something will do. It's easy to take a snapshot and roll back to it if anything explodes.

[Bobby Henderson]

Aside from the slick looking new UI shell, what are the big improvements in Windows 11? I'm not sure I even see the point of it. This advertised OS release feels a bit like a massive public beta in disguise.

IIRC, the XBox instant resume feature and the ability to run Android apps are both not ready yet. They're not in the version of Win11 going out to users now. Some of the changes to the Start menu, task bar and file manager seem like down-grades from Windows 10 functionality.

I would consider installing Win11 on my old notebook PC just to explore features in the Win11 interface. But that's not possible with such old hardware. I don't really feel like trying it out on my new notebook. I don't have a spare M.2 SSD laying around to install a Win11 image on it. I'm probably going to get a 2 terabyte M.2 Gen 4 drive pretty soon, but it will be for use in the second drive bay for internal storage.

Yet, there are platforms like iPad Pro that cost at least as much as a decent notebook and at least according to Apple, are targeted at professional usage. I'd say the iPad Pro would be a great platform for Adobe creative products to have a fully fledged client available on.

Despite what certain ads from Apple suggest an iPad is not a replacement for a full fledged desktop/notebook computer. I've made that judgment from using an iPad Pro to a limited extent in my work. While it is great for some tasks, such as hand drawing artwork directly on the screen, it has other limitations that can be maddening. Someone can spend over $2000 US on certain iPad configurations, which is more than a lot of mid-range computers. But the iPad still has some serious limitations.

Adobe is, in terms of software companies, an old company. I'm not saying they're weak, because right now they're probably bigger and stronger than ever. But they show many of the signs of a large, somewhat oversized company with many layers of red tape and bureaucracy.

Such as?

The chief criticisms with big lumbering corporations is they're slow to release new products, slow to fix issues with existing products and take their customers for granted. Adobe isn't really doing that to any large degree. For all the talk about how Adobe is vulnerable, no one is stepping up to best them -at least not in the mainstream graphics space, which makes up the bulk of their user base. Over the past decade Adobe's rivals have been tripping over their own feet even worse.

I guess they're focusing a lot of their efforts on a new set of applications. But the thing that they have going for them is that they've provided all those updates for free. I bought our original licenses back in 2017 or 2018 and I've never had to pay for any feature upgrade. I don't know if this will remain a sustainable model for the future though.

I'm wondering if the version numbers could be any clue. Affinity Designer is currently at 1.10.1. I think it was at version .08 when I first bought a copy. I suppose we'll see what happens whenever version 2.0 arrives. I might consider using the application more often if Serif would fix some of the limitations involving type.

[Leo Enticknap]

Thanks Marcel. I had a feeling that they were going to relent on that. If they hadn't, there would have been so many non-upgradable PCs in the field that the takeup rate for W11 would have been largely restricted to new computer sales, themselves currently depressed because of the semiconductor shortage and inflation caused by covid-related economic policies. If that can had been kicked down the road until their announced end of support date for W10 (2025), the end result would have been a PR disaster.

Following an upgrade to the BIOS on one of my laptops (the 2019 work-issued one - from 1.2.6 to 1.6.0, so quite a big jump), an option called Platform Trust Technology (PTT) has appeared. Poking around online a bit, it looks like this could be a firmware TPM for Intel processors that W11 will accept.

The next time I have a work-at-home day, I'm going to buy a cheap M2 SSD (a 250GB one for $25 will be OK, as this laptop has an additional SATA drive for data), remove the one currently in the laptop, enable UEFI and PTT in the BIOS, and then attempt a from scratch W11 install. That way, if I get into any trouble, the project will be completely reversible, simply by undoing the BIOS changes and putting the original M2 drive back in again.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Back on topic, Microsoft is slowly giving in and has apparently shared an "official method" of bypassing the TPM 2.0 check, by adding a registry key...

[Marcel Birgelen]

Devices such as an iPad or an Android phone are not a substitute for a full fledged desktop computer or notebook for use in graphics production. At best, devices like an iPad or smart phone augment the work one can do on a traditional computer.

Yet, there are platforms like iPad Pro that cost at least as much as a decent notebook and at least according to Apple, are targeted at professional usage. I'd say the iPad Pro would be a great platform for Adobe creative products to have a fully fledged client available on.

You keep characterizing Adobe as an outfit that has grown slow and weak. In terms of traditional graphics software (pixel-based image editing, vector graphics, page layout) I don't see any of Adobe's rivals doing any better on any platform. If we were talking about another market, such as video production, yeah Adobe has a much harder fight on its hands there with rivals like Avid and Blackmagic Design. Adobe doesn't have rivals that tough in the traditional graphics market.

Adobe is, in terms of software companies, an old company. I'm not saying they're weak, because right now they're probably bigger and stronger than ever. But they show many of the signs of a large, somewhat oversized company with many layers of red tape and bureaucracy. That's where they can be beat and I don't mind a bit of competition in this space either, but they're currently the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

The only thing that is going to hurt Adobe where they dominate is graphics applications coming along that truly out-class Illustrator, Photoshop or InDesign. The rival application has to be good enough to convince professional creative users to switch. In the 1990's Quark Xpress was the dominant page layout application for mass-produced print publications. InDesign came along and surpassed it. If one of Adobe's rivals is going to market a "Photoshop-killer" the application actually has to be better than Photoshop. The really difficult thing is the rival has to develop superior alternatives to Illustrator and InDesign at the same time. Integration across applications is a pretty big deal.

It wasn't even a paradigm shift that "killed" Quark. They became so complacent that Adobe eventually started to eat their lunch with a competing and far better integrated product (that ran native on MacOS X). People started to accept backward compatibility issues and moved forward and ditched QuarkXPress in the process. I don't see that happening any time soon with Adobe. While Adobe may be somewhat complacent in their "luxury position" at the top, they keep innovating and adding features to their products. But paradigm shifts are often hard to predict. The modern smart phone, for example, killed almost all other hand held entertainment products, nobody is buying iPods or mobile audio players of any kind anymore, it killed the HiFi stereo tower and a whole lot other stuff in the process. It's those kind of developments that could render something like Photoshop or Illustrator obsolete. I don't see that happening any time soon, but this whole space is fast moving, looking 10 or even 20 years ahead is pretty difficult.

Adobe took advantage of the situation when it happened. They even offered ways for Final Cut 7 users to import their projects into Premiere Pro when they couldn't do so in Final Cut X. Premiere Pro has had its own technical problems. To Adobe's credit, in recent years they've really opened up their beta and pre-release programs to more users and their development teams interact with users more frequently. Significant point-release updates happen more often and minor updates are pushed to users much more often than I see from Adobe's rivals.

DaVinci Resolve is still getting quite a few updates and for most video editing tasks it's really more than good enough. It's generally more stable than Premiere Pro and that's what matters a lot. While Premiere Pro stability has improved over the years, but the bitter taste of constant crashes still lingers with quite a few users. As for Avid MediaComposer, I think that Avid is a bit too complacent in their current position. Their product has a steep learning curve and caters to a specific niche they seemingly don't want to get out. We'll see how long they'll last...

I haven't used Gravit Designer, but I've tried other web-based attempts in creative software. CorelDRAW has a web-based app that is sort of passable for basic things. But it's not an acceptable substitute for the desktop application. I've seen message creation software for LED signs that was web-based. It mostly sucks. The applications that work best are those which install and run in the traditional sense.

If you're not locked into the Adobe ecosystem, this thing might actually work. It's a worthy vector editing program and it's remarkable because the desktop version and web version are essentially the same. Still, it will not beat Illustrator anytime soon. Their pricing is stupidly expensive compared to what Serif has to offer though and Serif has actually built some kind of mini-ecosystem around their products.

Serif has released a handful of minor updates to Affinity Designer over the past year. They've done more than Corel has with CorelDRAW. But they're not even close to matching the frequency of updates Adobe has given to Illustrator.

I guess they're focusing a lot of their efforts on a new set of applications. But the thing that they have going for them is that they've provided all those updates for free. I bought our original licenses back in 2017 or 2018 and I've never had to pay for any feature upgrade. I don't know if this will remain a sustainable model for the future though.

That's only an advantage for developers, not users. I do not expect graphics applications to move to an entirely web-based metaphor anytime soon, if ever.

It's also an advantage for the user, because I can't run Linux now on all my machines, because I need to run Windows only software. I could buy Macs, but even then I'll need to implement some emulation as I still need some software bound to Windows. For some software I could switch to native Mac software, but that would require me to buy new licenses, sometimes it would also require data conversions. Software that runs independent from host operating system therefore also gives the user more choice and the likes of Microsoft less power over my computer.

We'll see what happens, let's hope we and this forum are still around and somewhat kicking in 10 years or so and see whether we're running Photoshop from a browser or a stand-alone app. The Internet is an unpredictable thing. About 20 years back I expected wonderful things to happen around the Internet. I expected robots, actual self driving cars, the works... But what we got is a bunch of new megacorps setting people up against each other, while harvesting the last little detail of their personal life and selling it all of for cold hard cash. That's where all those billion dollars of venture capital money eventually went into...

[Bobby Henderson]

An old code-base isn't necessarily a bad thing, as old code has often proven itself. It doesn't rot, but it can become a burden if the world around you is changing to other platforms. They've been pretty slow to adapt to Android and IOS and those clients still aren't entirely feature complete.

Devices such as an iPad or an Android phone are not a substitute for a full fledged desktop computer or notebook for use in graphics production. At best, devices like an iPad or smart phone augment the work one can do on a traditional computer.

There are some really good graphics applications on the iPad platform, such as Procreate for example. But most of the graphics apps on that platform serve a specific niche. In the case of Procreate it's a digital painting app that works great in conjunction with the Apple Pencil. None of those graphics applications can do everything that Illustrator or Photoshop can do in Mac OSX or Windows. The apps that come closest to doing so are the iPad versions of Illustrator and Photoshop.

You keep characterizing Adobe as an outfit that has grown slow and weak. In terms of traditional graphics software (pixel-based image editing, vector graphics, page layout) I don't see any of Adobe's rivals doing any better on any platform. If we were talking about another market, such as video production, yeah Adobe has a much harder fight on its hands there with rivals like Avid and Blackmagic Design. Adobe doesn't have rivals that tough in the traditional graphics market.

Adobe is an absolute behemoth in the 2D graphics world and their footprint will not easily dissolve. With many people having a large part of their careers invested into those applications. But they aren't entirely unbeatable and you can see how the competition is making some inroads. Adobe's biggest vulnerability are paradigm shifts that happen so fast, they can't follow.

The only thing that is going to hurt Adobe where they dominate is graphics applications coming along that truly out-class Illustrator, Photoshop or InDesign. The rival application has to be good enough to convince professional creative users to switch. In the 1990's Quark Xpress was the dominant page layout application for mass-produced print publications. InDesign came along and surpassed it. If one of Adobe's rivals is going to market a "Photoshop-killer" the application actually has to be better than Photoshop. The really difficult thing is the rival has to develop superior alternatives to Illustrator and InDesign at the same time. Integration across applications is a pretty big deal.

Apple had a thing going with FinalCut, but they dropped the ball a few years ago when they decided to ditch their existing platform and simply introduced a completely new product. I guess this is a good lesson for the likes of Adobe what happens when you leave your userbase standing in the rain.

Adobe took advantage of the situation when it happened. They even offered ways for Final Cut 7 users to import their projects into Premiere Pro when they couldn't do so in Final Cut X. Premiere Pro has had its own technical problems. To Adobe's credit, in recent years they've really opened up their beta and pre-release programs to more users and their development teams interact with users more frequently. Significant point-release updates happen more often and minor updates are pushed to users much more often than I see from Adobe's rivals.

Gravit Designer has always been implemented as a web-app first. Their desktop client is essentially their web application running in a browser kiosk. This has the advantage that they have all the features on all platforms, without the need to port it to those platforms. It's not a serious contender for Illustrator, primarily due to file format incompatibilities, but it is a nice example of what can be done with pure web technology at this point in time, although it also still shows its limitations.

I haven't used Gravit Designer, but I've tried other web-based attempts in creative software. CorelDRAW has a web-based app that is sort of passable for basic things. But it's not an acceptable substitute for the desktop application. I've seen message creation software for LED signs that was web-based. It mostly sucks. The applications that work best are those which install and run in the traditional sense.

I don't have much faith in Corel at all and I do have more faith in Serif/Affinity when it comes down to competing with Adobe. Their photo editor and vector graphics tool see a continuous stream of updates, rivaling most other offers out there and are just short of what Adobe has to offer. File compatibility with Adobe products will forever remain an issue though and a big factor in the decision for people to keep committed to Adobe software, as long as it works for them.

I have the Windows and iPad version of Affinity Designer. I bought both last year when Serif was doing its half price sale. I think I ended up paying $25 for the Windows version and $10 for the iPad version. The price was cheap enough for me to be willing to experiment with it. It's also nice to at least have the application on hand if I get any client-provided art made in Affinity Designer. It's typically better to open any graphics files in their native host application than import the art into a non-native environment. That's one thing that makes it so difficult, if not impossible, to do with Adobe software. Most major corporate branding and their other graphics assets are created using Adobe software. Rival applications are very spotty at importing Adobe generated AI, EPS and PDF files.

Serif's creative applications are decent in terms of affordable creative software. I wouldn't have any problem recommending Affinity Designer to someone wanting to do his own DIY graphics work on a budget. The user interface in their applications is more polished than open source applications like Inkscape. On the other hand their applications are missing some critical features. With me being such a font nerd one glaring problem with Affinity is no support for OpenType Variable Fonts. Illustrator was first to support OTF VAR fonts, but then Adobe was involved in developing the standard. Illustrator was also at the forefront at supporting OpenType-SVG, aka SVG Color Fonts.

Serif has released a handful of minor updates to Affinity Designer over the past year. They've done more than Corel has with CorelDRAW. But they're not even close to matching the frequency of updates Adobe has given to Illustrator.

There is one big advantage though: A web application, at least when done right, isn't tied into a particular operating system.

That's only an advantage for developers, not users. I do not expect graphics applications to move to an entirely web-based metaphor anytime soon, if ever.

[Marcel Birgelen]

For all the criticism anyone tries to level at Adobe for having an old code base, I don't see any software vendor anywhere matching Adobe in the general purpose professional graphics market. Adobe Illustrator is the best vector graphics application available. Illustrator is over 30 years old, but it blows the doors off any of these free/low-cost upstarts. None of Illustrator's professional rivals are keeping up with it either. Most of the Johnny-come-lately vector applications feel old because they're only covering bases Illustrator did back in the 1990's.

An old code-base isn't necessarily a bad thing, as old code has often proven itself. It doesn't rot, but it can become a burden if the world around you is changing to other platforms. They've been pretty slow to adapt to Android and IOS and those clients still aren't entirely feature complete. Their code base is heavily platform dependent and as such it takes them a lot of efforts to port code to new platforms, as many of those ports are essentially new implementations of existing functionality.

That's the strong part of web-driven applications, as they don't need merely that much porting to be able to run on another platform, whether it's another OS (Linux, MacOS, Android) or another CPU architecture (Intel x86 / AMD64 v.s. ARM and maybe even MIPS).

Photoshop is still the best image editor on the market. InDesign is the industry leader in professional page layout. Competition gets a lot more fierce in the video production space, but After Effects is still an industry leader in that niche thanks in large part to the integration it has with Illustrator and Photoshop.

Adobe is an absolute behemoth in the 2D graphics world and their footprint will not easily dissolve. With many people having a large part of their careers invested into those applications. But they aren't entirely unbeatable and you can see how the competition is making some inroads. Adobe's biggest vulnerability are paradigm shifts that happen so fast, they can't follow.

I'd say that Adobe has a strong hold in the semi-pro sector for video. While they have made quite a few inroads into "Hollywood-scale productions", that world is still dominated by Avid (MediaComposer ProTools), DaVinci and the likes of Foundry (Nuke). Apple had a thing going with FinalCut, but they dropped the ball a few years ago when they decided to ditch their existing platform and simply introduced a completely new product. I guess this is a good lesson for the likes of Adobe what happens when you leave your userbase standing in the rain.

The problem with web-based applications goes farther than what code base the application is using. Hardware, bandwidth and latency are far bigger problems. The performance of local hardware is going to utterly trounce whatever through-put could come from a puny Internet pipe.

Those are all well-known problems and the reason why those applications haven't been moved to "the cloud" yet are primarily due to the current limitations of main-stream web technology. While it is perfectly possible to run applications on a server and stream the I/O to end-users, this places the burden on the cloud, latency becomes an issue and streaming at high resolutions doesn't come free either. The current Javascript VM of modern browsers, while highly optimized compared with a few years back, is a big burden. Code needs to be sent in bulky, clear text, JavaScript has serious performance and threading issues. That's why WebAssembly was proposed and implemented by the likes of Google, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla. Those companies dominate the browser landscape and many of them have a vested interest in selling cloud-based services. WebAssembly, while not the end solution to it all, will solve a lot of the performance issues of JavaScript and will essentially revamp your browser to an "app delivery platform", where entire applications can be "streamed on demand" towards the end user and where the local hardware can be used to increase efficiency, reduce bandwidth burdens and latency.

I wouldn't put all that much faith in Corel. I think the company is in trouble. Their previous owners (Vektor Capital) went on a buying spree, loading Corel down with debt. Then they spun-off the whole thing to KKR last year. CorelDRAW has been Corel's main tent-pole application from the beginning (1990). But they've done a terrible job maintaining the application in recent years. The v2019 release was riddled with bugs and saw only two modest updates. Some of the bugs have lived on thru the v2020 and v2021 product cycles. Worse yet, Corel adopted a licensing and pricing model that may end up helping kill the application. BTW, Gravit Designer has its own problems. Corel wants $50 per year for it. For a one time $50 purchase a person on a budget can buy Affinity Designer and get upgrades after that for free.

Gravit Designer has always been implemented as a web-app first. Their desktop client is essentially their web application running in a browser kiosk. This has the advantage that they have all the features on all platforms, without the need to port it to those platforms. It's not a serious contender for Illustrator, primarily due to file format incompatibilities, but it is a nice example of what can be done with pure web technology at this point in time, although it also still shows its limitations.

I don't have much faith in Corel at all and I do have more faith in Serif/Affinity when it comes down to competing with Adobe. Their photo editor and vector graphics tool see a continuous stream of updates, rivaling most other offers out there and are just short of what Adobe has to offer. File compatibility with Adobe products will forever remain an issue though and a big factor in the decision for people to keep committed to Adobe software, as long as it works for them.

Yet, I'm pretty sure that all those companies are looking at models of how to bring their apps to the web. Adobe will be late to the party, but I'm pretty sure we'll see something like Photoshop Elements move to a web-based version first. It's not that I'm going to like all of this. The big Facebook outage has clearly shown the limitations of "the cloud" and what happens if it all goes tits up, but it's an evolution we won't be able to stop, even if it will probably still take a few years to actually get there.

There is one big advantage though: A web application, at least when done right, isn't tied into a particular operating system. Once everything has moved "to the web", Microsoft Windows and Apple MacOS essentially will become irrelevant, at least as client operating system...

[Bobby Henderson]

Adobe's application code base is very much relevant for whatever comes next. They have the advantage of the userbase, but also the disadvantage that their userbase expects some level of backward compatibility. While the first assures them of a steady income, the latter can be quite a challenge when there is a need to move to new platforms.

Adobe has few problems at all when it comes to backward compatibility. They're doing better at this than some other companies I can name. I can open ancient Illustrator AI/EPS files or Photoshop PSD images made in the 1990's on the latest CC versions of those applications. The file formats have been compatible across multiple platforms. The Intel side has been pretty stable, but the Mac side has gone thru Motorola 040 and PowerPC CPUs, then Intel x86 and now lately the ARM/M1 architecture. Let's not forget about mobile platforms like iOS/iPad OS. I can work in Adobe Illustrator on my iPad, save the file, then open and edit it on my Windows-based notebook. A CC license doesn't tie me to a specific platform; I can use it on two computers, both could be on the same platform or one could be a PC and the other a Mac.

For all the criticism anyone tries to level at Adobe for having an old code base, I don't see any software vendor anywhere matching Adobe in the general purpose professional graphics market. Adobe Illustrator is the best vector graphics application available. Illustrator is over 30 years old, but it blows the doors off any of these free/low-cost upstarts. None of Illustrator's professional rivals are keeping up with it either. Most of the Johnny-come-lately vector applications feel old because they're only covering bases Illustrator did back in the 1990's.

Photoshop is still the best image editor on the market. InDesign is the industry leader in professional page layout. Competition gets a lot more fierce in the video production space, but After Effects is still an industry leader in that niche thanks in large part to the integration it has with Illustrator and Photoshop.

I guess you're over-estimating stuff a bit here. Yeah, stuff is slow, but that's primarily due to the fact that most if not all of those tools are still using JavaScript and not WebAssembly.

The problem with web-based applications goes farther than what code base the application is using. Hardware, bandwidth and latency are far bigger problems. The performance of local hardware is going to utterly trounce whatever through-put could come from a puny Internet pipe.

I guess you're over-estimating stuff a bit here. Yeah, stuff is slow, but that's primarily due to the fact that most if not all of those tools are still using JavaScript and not WebAssembly. They don't require gigabit connections to and from the server, because they're running most of the stuff right on your own machine, inside the VM of the browser. Maybe test a few of those links I've sent you. Yeah, their performance is pretty awful compared to native apps for complex files, their toolset isn't nearly as complete or advanced as Adobe's, but it isn't as dreadful as you describe it, because it actually works... well, mostly... And Corel is pouring millions of their dollars into it.

I wouldn't put all that much faith in Corel. I think the company is in trouble. Their previous owners (Vektor Capital) went on a buying spree, loading Corel down with debt. Then they spun-off the whole thing to KKR last year. CorelDRAW has been Corel's main tent-pole application from the beginning (1990). But they've done a terrible job maintaining the application in recent years. The v2019 release was riddled with bugs and saw only two modest updates. Some of the bugs have lived on thru the v2020 and v2021 product cycles. Worse yet, Corel adopted a licensing and pricing model that may end up helping kill the application. BTW, Gravit Designer has its own problems. Corel wants $50 per year for it. For a one time $50 purchase a person on a budget can buy Affinity Designer and get upgrades after that for free.

The higher ups are obviously not giving Corel the resources it needs to properly maintain CorelDRAW. The current 2021 version has had two updates (and the second update released last week introduced more new bugs than old ones it fixed). Meanwhile Adobe has had four major point-release updates for the current version of Illustrator along with at least a couple dozen minor updates. No other vector graphics application on the market comes close to that. Adobe has large public beta and pre-release programs for Illustrator and several other applications. It's easy for critics to paint a big company like Adobe as being slow and complacent. In actual practice they're putting a lot more work into their graphics applications than their rivals.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The age of Adobe's applications is irrelevant to the basic problem: the Internet is GLACIER-SLOW compared to locally installed and operating applications. It might be possible for a remote server to deliver modest office productivity applications to a bunch of dumb terminals in various locations across the country. But it's not currently possible to do the same thing with professional level graphics applications and yield performance that is anything better than horribly awful.

Adobe's application code base is very much relevant for whatever comes next. They have the advantage of the userbase, but also the disadvantage that their userbase expects some level of backward compatibility. While the first assures them of a steady income, the latter can be quite a challenge when there is a need to move to new platforms.

New players will never be able to deliver a suite that will be completely compatible with Adobe's proprietary file formats, they don't have any comparable userbase, but they also don't have the codebase legacy.

A person's Internet connection would need to run on the order of many gigabytes per second to match speeds a creative application can yield when running on local hardware. His connection to the remote server would have to be at least as good, if not many times better. Hardly anyone has access to such online speeds. But those speeds are common on new computing hardware.

Even if Internet speeds didn't absolutely stink compared to local hardware speeds running the apps via the web seems like a solution in search of a problem. Adobe gets enough criticism as it is for services like Adobe Fonts requiring an always-on Internet connection. Making the applications themselves require always-on connections is a bit much. Then there's the business case for the whole thing. Professional graphics applications running via the web is just too ridiculous to take seriously.

I guess you're over-estimating stuff a bit here. Yeah, stuff is slow, but that's primarily due to the fact that most if not all of those tools are still using JavaScript and not WebAssembly. They don't require gigabit connections to and from the server, because they're running most of the stuff right on your own machine, inside the VM of the browser. Maybe test a few of those links I've sent you. Yeah, their performance is pretty awful compared to native apps for complex files, their toolset isn't nearly as complete or advanced as Adobe's, but it isn't as dreadful as you describe it, because it actually works... well, mostly... And Corel is pouring millions of their dollars into it.

Again, read up on what stuff like WebAssembly and WebGPU is doing. It is leveraging your local processing power, it's essentially a way to deliver "hybrid" applications, where the developer decides on what resides server-side and what resides client side.

Right now, for static 2D stuff, performance should be a manageable thing, also the amount of bandwith required isn't all that terrible. I don't see myself editing 4K video on-line just yet though and heavy 3D stuff currently simply lacks an interface, but that's what WebGPU tries to solve.

Regarding bandwidth: Even though large ISPs and carriers are often reluctant to invest in proper upgrades, they can't simply stay behind forever, even my 4G is pushing 200 MBit/s nowadays and I haven't tried 5G yet. The likes of Microsoft and Amazon are pushing towards datacenters ever closer to the edge for low-latency, high bandwidth computing and a VDI machine with dedicated GPU will happily run any heavy graphics software over a VDI/RDP connection. Yeah, that isn't really web-based as it simply remotes a screen, keyboard and mouse, but it still runs "in the cloud". I've tried one of the new VDI offerings of Microsoft Azure lately and the results are pretty decent, even running DaVinci Resolve as an experiment. The problem here though is that even with a gigabit internet connection, uploading raw 4K files "to the cloud' still takes a while. Another problem is that integration with stuff like a local Wacom tablet doesn't work yet, at least not with Microsoft's VDI solution, VMWare has this working.

[Bobby Henderson]

Adobe's software stack is still mostly based on client-based applications. Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. all still are client based apps, based around a decades old codebase.

The age of Adobe's applications is irrelevant to the basic problem: the Internet is GLACIER-SLOW compared to locally installed and operating applications. It might be possible for a remote server to deliver modest office productivity applications to a bunch of dumb terminals in various locations across the country. But it's not currently possible to do the same thing with professional level graphics applications and yield performance that is anything better than horribly awful.

A person's Internet connection would need to run on the order of many gigabytes per second to match speeds a creative application can yield when running on local hardware. His connection to the remote server would have to be at least as good, if not many times better. Hardly anyone has access to such online speeds. But those speeds are common on new computing hardware.

Even if Internet speeds didn't absolutely stink compared to local hardware speeds running the apps via the web seems like a solution in search of a problem. Adobe gets enough criticism as it is for services like Adobe Fonts requiring an always-on Internet connection. Making the applications themselves require always-on connections is a bit much. Then there's the business case for the whole thing. Professional graphics applications running via the web is just too ridiculous to take seriously.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Quite a few things? Please be specific.

I use Adobe Creative Cloud applications pretty heavily, but very little of those applications operate via the cloud. Getting assets such as fonts, images or even some clips of audio & video from the cloud is one thing. Loading and running the application from the Internet is another. That is NOT happening any time soon, not while there is an extremely enormous speed advantage in running the applications on hardware inside the computer. The speed difference even for a mundane mainstream application like Photoshop is huge. Running Photoshop via the web would be laughably bad.

Adobe's software stack is still mostly based on client-based applications. Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. all still are client based apps, based around a decades old codebase. But Adobe isn't known to be a fast mover, if it comes down to moving their codebase to another platform. It has taken them years to move their Mac implementation to native Cocoa, a 64-bit Flash client only appeared once Flash was already declared dead.

But there are tons of entirely on-line Photo editors, like Photopea, Pixlr. Just google and you'll find like 10 of those, some of them are actually pretty sophisticated.
As for vector based web-based tools, there are also quite a few, the best known is probably Gravit Designer, which is now part of Corel.
Mind you, I don't use those apps, as they're not fit for professional use yet and for now, they're still slow as #$%, but you can clearly see a trend here.

Keep in mind that while a lot of those applications are "web based applications", they essentially do a lot of the heavy lifting on your machine, only now it's a bunch of Javascript running on your machine. Javascript is slow as f&ck, compared to native code, but if you replace that Javascript with WebAssembly though, stuff becomes a lot more performant as JIT compiled WebAssembly doesn't have to be much slower than pre-compiled C or C++ code, in which most of Photoshop and Illustrator have been written.

Microsoft has already indicated that they see WebAssembly as the way forward not to just deploy "web based applications", but essentially all applications, no matter if they're loaded via the web or from your local disk.

[Bobby Henderson]

Even graphical applications aren't safe for "webification" anymore. While moving heavy 3D applications and professional video rendering into the cloud may be a few years down the road, most of the basic stuff provided by apps like Photoshop and Illustrator has already seen at least a partial move into the cloud. Yeah, performance is often abysmal, but right now there are quite a few things happening to improve on that one.

Quite a few things? Please be specific.

I use Adobe Creative Cloud applications pretty heavily, but very little of those applications operate via the cloud. Getting assets such as fonts, images or even some clips of audio & video from the cloud is one thing. Loading and running the application from the Internet is another. That is NOT happening any time soon, not while there is an extremely enormous speed advantage in running the applications on hardware inside the computer. The speed difference even for a mundane mainstream application like Photoshop is huge. Running Photoshop via the web would be laughably bad.

[Marcel Birgelen]

What creative applications are going web-based? I can't think of any on the professional level that are doing so. Hell, I can't think of any open-source graphics applications doing that either. They all install on and operate off of the computer's local hard disc. The applications are too big download and install temporarily every time they're run. And they're sure not going to be running remotely from some server. It's no contest, especially when using new hardware like NVMe solid state hard drives connected directly to the PCI Express bus, fast RAM, fast GPU boards, etc. Someone could get away with running a word processor in a web browser window. Legit graphics production, video editing, etc isn't happening as a web-based thing any time soon.

The only things in graphics that are running via the web right now are specialized services, such as cloud-based storage (very slow compared to local discs), value-added content (clip art, stock photos, stock video) or fonts. The creative applications themselves still install and operate very much like they have for 30 years, despite the word "cloud" being tossed around. The only differences now is we're not installing off physical CD or DVD discs and don't have huge retail boxes with printed manuals inside.

Even graphical applications aren't safe for "webification" anymore. While moving heavy 3D applications and professional video rendering into the cloud may be a few years down the road, most of the basic stuff provided by apps like Photoshop and Illustrator has already seen at least a partial move into the cloud. Yeah, performance is often abysmal, but right now there are quite a few things happening to improve on that one.

One of those things is Web-Assembly, that ditches slow-as-hell Javascript for a bytecode that can eventually be JIT compiled to the local architecture. Another initiative is WebGPU, an initiative to create something like an "OpenGL" or "DirectX" for the Web. It is actively being pushed by some major tech companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google...), all to allow direct access to hardware accelerated rendering and GPU features, directly from the web.

So yeah, expect Photoshop running in a browser and maybe even Autocad and Maya within a few years from now... I'm not saying you, me are going to like it, but the writing is euhm... in the sky...