Backward compatibility from DS12.1 to 11.7.2.3

Hi,
Customer is checking whether we can support backward downgrading from DS12.1 to 11.7. I know the chance to support it is very slim. But I just want to seek for any possibility and the impact of it if possible.
thanks and regards
nora

No you cannot. It is not supported. And if the ATL code is different, the older version will not understand it.
Having said that, if you did not use any new transforms and the ATL did not change, you might be lucky. For example from 12.1 to 11.7 it should work - if no new transform was used as said. Just edit the ATL and remove/change the line with the ATL version. If the import works..............
In 12.2 the ATL will be slightly different, there it would not work (I believe).

Similar Messages

My iPad 1 is now very unstable. Apps crash consistently, Mac Numbers/Pages etc incompatible with IOS 5.1 etc. There seems to be no backwards compatibility to iPad 1. Am I just supposed to throw it away? I have restored the iPOad and it has ample storage .

My iPad 1 is very unstable. Many Apps simply crash after opening. There is ample storage available.I have restored the iPad twice now and still it is unstable.
Is this a lack of backwards compatibility because no-one writes apps for IOS 51.1. and the original iPad anymore? not even Apple, as the documents and sheets I create on my Mac are incompatible with my iPad now.
My naievete tells me that this is simply Apple expecting us to upgrade to later levels of hardware. If so, very disappointing for an Apple fan. Seems your App developer approvals (even your own apps) do no require compatibility with anything but IOS 6 or later.

There are various things to make your iPad more stable. You can try deleting all apps from the multitasking bar; do a reset ie hold the power and home buttons simultaneously until the Apple logo appears; Settings > General > Reset all Settings.
If you had the previous version of iPages (version 09) on your Mac before upgrading to Pages 5.2, your Mac should still have that version in Applications, which is still compatible with your version of Pages on your iPad.
If you don't have that version, you can 'Export to Pages 09' which is still compatible with iOS 5.1.1.

Adobe Acrobat -Create PDF 1.0 does not work in FireFox 4.How do i directly convert pages to PDF??Why is that your products are not backward compatable.U people are in the IT industry and should know this.Shame on You people.learn somthing form the IE team

While Updating to Fire Fox 4. It said Adobe Acrobat -Create PDF 1.0 is not supported.How come 3.6 supports but not 4. I believe you people have never heard of the term "Backward Compatibility" .U people will loose your customer/support base if every new version doesn't support some existing stuff.

'''Problem Solved FINALLY !'''
Solution:
I just updated my '''Adobe Acrobat X Pro''' to '''Version 10.1.0'''.By the way, I have to complain, Adobe is really slow in solving this problem...
Here is the official link for the Adobe Acrobat update.[http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5135 <click me!>http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5135<click me!>]
After update, the extention changed from "Adobe Acrobat -Create PDF 1.0" into "Adobe Acrobat - Create PDF 1.1". And the '''"Adobe Acrobat - Create PDF 1.1" is compatiable with the firefox 4.0.1'''. A screenshot is attached as a proof.

InDesign Backwards Compatibility in CS5 an MAJOR issue

I am a print designer who works in InDesign. I bought CS3 Design Premium in late summer of 2008. Shortly thereafter CS4 came out, but after just having forked out a big chunk of change, I decided against upgrading to CS4 right away. Recently I considered upgrading but then heard CS5 was coming out so I decided to postpone the upgrade and wait for the new software. I've just checked out the trial version of CS5 InDesign and after speaking with Adobe Support have come to the conclusion that I can't upgrade to CS5. Why? BACKWARDS compatibility to CS3. The previously offered export features that supplied a path for backwards compatibility via an .inx file are gone.
I design freelance for a lot of different customers and once the design is complete, I have to deliver the InDesign file along with all associated fonts ad images to my clients. Most of my clients are still on CS3. If I upgrade to CS5 I will instantly not be able to work for 2/3 of my clients, as I will have no means by which to save a file backwards to CS3. I was informed by Adobe support that I would need to buy CS4 and CS5, as I could save my CS5 file in the IDML format and open it in CS4 and then I could save the file from CS4 as an INX file and open that is CS3. ARE THEY INSANE??? First off that requires keeping 3 version of InDesign up and running on my machine all of the time and secondly, why should I have to buy CS4 when I'm paying an additional fee to upgrade to CS5 because I didn't upgrade from CS4? This is so screwed up that it has to be an oversight---please tell me there is a patch in the works!!!
PS- I've never posted to a forum before, so if I have broken any rules of forum etiquette or offended in any way, I offer my apologies now and if I (and the Adobe Support staff I spoke to) have overlooked something, please enlighten me!

Cynthia Ryan Graphic wrote:
I am all for working with better workflow practices and I understand that saving files backwards is less than ideal but Adobe needs to look at the real world uses of their software as well. I have to work with firms that aren't upgrading now--especially with the economy we are now in--and most of the items I design for them are ads-- one page- nothing too complex--really nothing fancy. I obviously wouldn't save a book or a very complex document backwards in this way, but simple things have translated just fine in the past. In the real world we hit situations like this.
I bought my software 21 months ago and in this time Adobe has expected me to upgrade twice--I haven't even finished expensing the initial cost of the software on my books yet. Upgrading that often just can't happen in a small firm--it's prohibitively expensive for a one man shop.
So now from what I understand, to do this properly, I am supposed to buy the upgrade and keep both versions running on my machine and track with every client which version of the software I need to be working in. What happens when I have to add an employee? I will have to buy the CS3 version of the software in addition to the CS5 Suite because otherwise we can't work on the same files. I'm finding this frustrating.
Your suggestion of buying CS4 from Amazon is a good one. I will look into that further.
DISCLAIMER: I'm an Adobe stockholder. REALITY: My holdings are probably in the same proportion as the number of bits it takes to store a period character (".") on an Internet server is to the entire Internet's storage capacity. So, while I may have some self-interest here, it's not driving me to encourage you - or even all the participants on this forum - to buy more software than you want to or need to.
If you're simply interested in test-driving a new release, you can do that with the free 30-day trials. If you run out time, you can probably figure out a way to trick out your system to get another 30-day shot.
However, if you use the software commercially - either to train others, or to create new material or revise old material for clients or employers - you need to decide if you can continue to do this with the software versions you own, or if the commercial needs will require you to license new versions.
Regarding "expensing the initial cost of the software on my books" If I understand the US income-tax policies, purchases under a rather modest amount can usually be expensed in the year of purchase. If, because of your accounting method or preference, you're using a longer expensing time period, you might want to reevaluate your approach. If you attribute a portion of the software cost to each project you use it on, and, in this case, in 21 months your work hasn't let you recapture the investment, they you may want to use that information to decide how to pursue more paying for the software, or decline that stream of work and forgo upgrading.
An alternate way to evaluate the software, especially as an employer of users, is to compare the product cost vs. how many more billable hours you and your workers can complete in a given time with it and without it, and, how competitively you can bid projects, due to the product's efficiency.
HTH
Regards,
Peter
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

I want to install Snow Leopard Server on our MacPro (2.66) using Mac Mini Snow Leopard Server disks? I kept getting an error for backwards compatibility. Is this possible or do I need to purchase another copy of Snow Leopard Server?

I want to install Snow Leopard Server on our MacPro(2.66) using Mac Mini Snow Leopard Server disks? I kept getting an error for backwards compatibility. Is this possible or do I need topurchase another copy of Snow Leopard Server?

The OS disks that are shipped with a particular product
are set up so that tey will only install on that product.
It will install on any Mini of that exact vintage, but that
is all.
This is to prevent people from doing exactly what you
are trying to do. The license for OSX shipped with any
is only valid for that product. Also, Snow Leopard,
including Server, is only permitted to be run on one
computer at a time. Bottom line, unlike Lion, legally
you cannot install the same copy on multiple
computers unless some "family pack" or site license
is purchased.
Yes, you need to purchase another copy.
The copy of Snow Leopard license is here:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx_snowleopard.pdf

Backward Compatibility

Hi
Our application is composed of few data layers. The layers comunicate through interfaces.
My manager thinks that we should maintain backward compatibility between the layers.
So:
There is a defined functional interface "I".
There is a layer component "L" which provides the functionality of I.
There is a layer component "UL" which Uses L via I.
A new layer component "L2" is created which has greater functionality than L and which it exposes via a new interface "I2".
All the functions of I are also provided by I2. In other words, I is a subset of I2.
"UL" will provide to a "layer factory" a version number, and the factory will return "L" or "L2" etc.
This means that we cannot override methods, and difficult maintaining of code as well as code duplication.
The bennefit of this is that all the components that worked fine with the previous "L" and were not changed, are guarantied to continue working, and needn't any QA.
What do you think? Does it worth the trouble?
Thanks,
Libbhy

libbysharf wrote:
The bennefit of this is that all the components that worked fine with the previous "L" and were not changed, are guarantied to continue working, and needn't any QA.Based on what you have stated here, this is not necessarily the case. Just having the same method signatures doesn't not mean that it will work exactly the same way. Even if the methods from L are implemented in the exact same way in L2, you could have situations where the new L2 methods change the behavior of the old L methods.
What do you think? Does it worth the trouble?Personally, I think it seems a little over-engineered. If you just add to a class, it will not break binary compatibility with existing clients. You'd be much better off spending time creating unit tests and regression test scripts and try to verify that the behaviors from the previous verison are maintained.

Backward Compatibility Question

Our ADS system is running with Basis 7.0 SAPKB70005
Can we develop forms on systems with a lower Basis version e.g. 6.4?
Are there backward compatibility issues?
Regards,
Lavaughn

Hi Lavaughn
it depends a bit on what you want to do.
If you want to develop the form on the 6.40 box and then render it with the 7.0 Application Server, the answer is No, as the solution always needs to be on the same NW level (i.e. either '04 or 2004s). SAP development always coordinates changes between Designer, ADS, Reader, and the SAP development environment - and there are a few incompatible changes between '04 and 2004s.
If you want to develop and render the forms on the 7.0 box and integrate data from a lower-release backend (e.g. R/3 Enterprise), you can do that for interactive scenarios using RFC connections to transfer the data and/or the PDF form from system to system.
Do not attempt to do this for print forms. The amount of data that may have to be transferred will heavily impact the form generation time.
Kind regards,
Markus Meisl
SAP NetWeaver Product Management

I am considering CS6. I worry about "backwards compatability." I am in a windows-only environment. Some files were antiquated mac computer. Files are: psd doc eps tif indd otf ai jpg RW2 xmp pm7 bmp fh9 fh10 dng pm6 and ps. Rick

I am considering CS6. I worry about
"backwards compatability." I am in a windows-only environment. Some files were antiquated mac computer. Files are: psd doc eps tif indd otf ai jpg
RW2 xmp pm7 bmp fh9 fh10 dng pm6 and ps. Rick

Backward compatibility FROM what TO what?
CS6 to older, or newer to CS6?
For specific answers, you most likely need to check in the forums for specific programs
The Cloud forum is not about using individual programs
The Cloud forum is about the Cloud as a delivery & install process
If you will start at the Forums Index https://forums.adobe.com/welcome
You will be able to select a forum for the specific Adobe product(s) you use
Click the "down arrow" symbol on the right (where it says All communities) to open the drop down list and scroll

Solaris 8 backwards compatibility

Hi,
I am about to begin some java development for the Solaris 8 platform on SPARC, and am setting up a dev server. I'd rather install Solaris 9 for reasons of general superiority, but are there any reasons that compiled java binaries from v9 would have problems running on a v8 platform when its deployed? It won't be particularly low-level design: just some database access, tcp/ip SOAP messaging, and XML manipulations.
thanks
aj

In general there is forward compatibility for applications between Solaris releases. There is no official backward compatibility. This means you
should always compile on the oldest release of
Solaris that you expectto run on. So, if you need
to run on Solaris 5.6, 7 and 8, compile on Solaris 5.6.
There is a tool called appcert which is shipped with
later versions of Solaris 8 and can be downloaded from:
http://www.sun.com/developers/tools/appcert/download.html
That will give you a good idea of the forward and backward compatibility of your application. General ABI information can be found at:
http://www.sun.com/developers/tools/abi/index.html
Alan
Sun Developer Technical Support
http://www.sun.com/developers/support

Known backwards compatibility issues between Robohelp 9 and Robohelp 8?

Hi Group,
In addition to avoiding the tasks in the Review menu, does anyone know of any other backwards compatibility issues encountered while opening and using files generated in RoboHelp 9 from within Robohelp 8? Thanks, gail

Welcome to the forum.
Simply the fact that RoboHelp 8 will not open a project that has been run in RoboHelp 9. Sure you might well open a project by deleting the CPD and perhaps the XPJ and using the HHP, however I would not recommend that except in an emergency.
What I am not clear on is how you link that to "avoiding the tasks in the Review menu." What has that got to do with the question?
See www.grainge.org for RoboHelp and Authoring tips
@petergrainge

Instalation of SQL server 2005 Backward compatibility components in Windows Seven

Anyone can help me to install de SQL Server 2005 Backward Compatibility componentes in Windows 7 home, Intel Core Duo
It say that is not compatible.
Thanks in advance.

Hi,
We can see this feature pack was issued in Nov 2005 from the site, which may not be updated
to add Windows Vista/7 to supported operating systems. However, I can download and install X64 (64-bit)
Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Backward Compatibility Components on Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit successfully.
If you get any error while installing, please let me know.
Thanks,
Chunsong
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.

Does OSX do "backward compatibility to Acrobat Reader version 6"?

I need to prepare a PDF file from my Pages document, and it required to provide "backward compatibility to Acrobat Reader version 6." Apparently this is something Acrobat Distiller can do but I don't have that app. How can I get Pages to make such a PDF file, or how can I convert the one Pages makes to that format? (I looked at ColorSync Utility but didn't see anything relevant among its PDF filters.)
Quick advice would be very much appreciated!

PeterBreis0807 wrote:
is rendered down to only 72dpi.
Peter
Which can be worked around. [PDF/X Problems in Leopard|http://pagesfaq.blogspot.com/2009/01/pdfx-problems-in-leopard.html]
You have to use cmd + P when creating PDF files from Pages with this new option.
Message was edited by: fruhulda

Is it backward compatibility of IME 9

Please,
I would like if anybody knows Intel Management Engine Drivers 9 are backward compatible with IME 7 and 8.
I have not found Intel communication on this subject.
Did anybody use it with P67A-GD55 Motherboard and Sandy Bridge Processor ?
Thank you.

momsola, Bernhard,
As I said before, I gladly admit being wrong.
And in answer of the initial question, yes the IME 9 driver seems to be backward compatible.
I've installed that driver on my P67A-GD65 board in a virtual environment running an evaluation version of Windows Server 2012 and did some initial testing using the last version of ControlCenterII. Although I haven't experienced any problems, I find it still too premature to install it in my real environment. I would also like to see some release notes confirming the backward compatibility or the known problems, but Intel did not include them in the package.
Furthermore, Intel specifically states for which boards the download is intended and that doesn't include any Intel-based boards.
Quote from: brtj on 25-April-13, 05:01:36
I'm still doubtful if the IME drivers are of much use on non-Intel boards.
I must correct myself.
I came across this article (http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/architecture-guide-intel-active-management-technology) that provides a pretty decent explanation of the function of IME and its position within Intel's AMT architecture (which in turn is part of Intel's vPro technology).
As AMT is a mainly presented as a business solution for centralized management of (remote) workstations, above all, it targets the corporate market. Because IME is part of AMT the same applies to IME.
(By the way, the IME driver package also includes updates to other AMT components, which are installed when applicable.)
However that doesn't imply that it's completely useless for the private market. MSI's ControlCenterII (whether you like it or not) is a good example and I suspect that other OEMs have comparable solutions.
As you probably already know HECI(x64).SYS is the file name of the IME driver, therefore I would also recommend reading the Wikipedia article on HECI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HECI). It contains a practical example how IME functions/operates.
Quote from: Bernhard on 25-April-13, 00:04:02
The detailed content of the so-called management engine extension remains a grey area, [..]
I hope the aforementioned articles shed some more light.
Quote from: Bernhard on 25-April-13, 00:04:02
[...] but the known details seem to be functions that quite frankly should be handled by the normal BIOS.
After reading these articles (and some more on the subject) I disagree with you.

Project Spartan policy on backwards compatability

I originally posted this to another Microsoft forum (but the system won't let me link it, so just google a random sentence below if you want to find it). I guess it can only really be addressed by someone on the Spartan team or up their line of supervisors
and a Microsoft Support Engineer suggested I post here instead. So:
Hi. I'd like to know if Project Spartan's backwards compatability policy will be different from Internet Explorer's.
Microsoft's general policy seems to be to go to great lengths to preserve backwards compatibility. (Raymond Chen's blog The Old New Thing has some great war stories about this.) For example, an IE 3 (Aug 1996) JavaScript quirk was that an array with a trailing
comma was longer than one without. [1].length != [1,].length Changing this behavior to match other browsers and the ECMAScript standard would possibly break JavaScript that had been written to depend on it, so it still exists in in-use versions of IE.
I understand why this policy exists and has been such a valuable business policy for Microsoft for decades. The situation is a bit different with a web browser, though, because the majority of third-party authors have to be compatible with browsers from
multiple vendors rather than a single Microsoft platform like embedded browsers or locked-down corporate intranets (not that those groups are tiny!). The other browsers have a different policy and will break backwards compatibility to better match the specs
(whether explicit or de facto). So the code I write to create websites quickly turns into “this works everywhere, except where you need this IE workaround”. I regularly encounter IE-only behaviors and bugs that I expect never to change, like recently finding
that only IE is case-insensitive when scrolling an HTML5 page to an in-page identifier or anchor from the URL fragid.
I've read a lot about the quality improvements planned for Spartan and I look forward to seeing a lot of these hairy old cross-browser differences get reconciled. But as a longtime developer I know no software is perfect and there will always be bugs. So
my question is: will this be a one-time fix or will there be a new policy towards backwards compatibility? If it's the former, Spartan is the new IE, and I know this tune very well. If the latter, there's a little room for hope that it will be pleasant to
work with.
Thanks for your consideration, and good luck with your code.

PU
You can replace Http:// with Hxxp:// to put a link in until your account is verified.
Your thread on Answers is here http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_internet-insider_spartan/project-spartan-policy-on-backwards-compatability/d25ff33b-aeed-40fb-802b-af25fb9d157c
If you are being told you cant post a link, or embed a picture (or any other restriction) you just need to post to this thread saying your account has not been validated
Look for the verify your account thread that is stuck to the top of the page.
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/home?forum=reportabug
Read more here http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/9fe32cfb-ed1c-4b9d-93d9-7ff32b0106a3/verify-your-account-16?forum=reportabug
Wanikiya and Dyami--Team Zigzag

Backward Compatability solaris 10 to Solaris 9

I am trying to mix
executables compiled on Solaris 10 with C++ compiler 5.8
with shared libraries compiled on Solaris 9.
On solaris 9 it says libm.so.2 file not found.
what may be the solution to run the executable from solaris 10 to solaris 9

Running binaries built in Solaris 10 platform, on Solaris 9 or earlier versions, is not "backward" compatibility. It is the other way round ie., running executables built on earlier versions of Solaris, on Solaris 10.
I believe libm.so.2 was introduced in Solaris 10; and is not available for Solaris 9. If you want to run your executable on both 9 & 10, you have to build it on Solaris 9, but definitely not on 10.

Backward compatibility from DS12.1 to 11.7.2.3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for