Backwards compatibility chart of past AE releases?

I know this topic comes up every so often. I just ran into it today where I was trying to open an AE 5.0 project in CS6 and it just won't.
EDIT: I installed CS5 and it still won't open. Geez. Installing CS4 now...
Is there a handy dandy chart that shows how far back each version of After Effects can open AEP project?
And what's the earliest version of After Effects can I install and run on a current Mac with Mountain Lion (no Rosetta)? What about Windows 7? Win8?

After Effects CS4 opens project from After Effects 5.0 and later
After Effects CS5 opens project from After Effects 6.0 and later
After Effects CS5.5 opens project from After Effects 6.5 and later
After Effects CS6 and CC opens project from After Effects 7.0 and later
Here are the system requirements for the past several versions,which answers your OS question:
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/system-requirements-effects.html

Similar Messages

Is There No Backward Compatibility With The New CC Release?

Hi,
I've been really keen to have a go with the (eagerly anticipated!) new incarnation of Edge but having downloaded it - with a view to assessing it using the 30 day trial - I've discovered that nothing can be saved in a format that's backward compatible with the free version (1.5.0.217.23270).
I frequently need to send partially completed projects off for finishing by other participants who, now, may or may not have opted for a paid version of the software; so the need for compatible files is a crucial one for me. Have I missed something, or is there a workaround?
Hope you can help

Thanks for the feedback, and as a former agency veteran myself I understand the pain point.
One thing to keep in mind is while the 1.5 version is perpetual, we'll be adding a lot more valuable features in the future which most definitely won't be compatible with 1.5. There's still a lot of critical features we'll be introducing which are must-haves in any animation software.
I'm not sure of the level of collaboration you're looking at but a great thing about Animate is the files are editable outside of the application itself. So if you have a little bit of coding know-how you can change design properties, images, and text through edge.js and actions.js. So for example, if you have a CC project someone and you just need to swap an image, you can relink the image in edge.js. Major edits (like tweaking a motion path) can technically be done with code but it would be really, really painful and better left to the tool
If you're interested in upgrading to get all the CC apps, Animate comes bundled with that. There's special pricing for students too (hint: doesn't really matter what you're a student of... take a cooking course and you're good to go)
Also if you have a serial laying around for any CS3+ product you can exchange that to get a discounted rate for Animate ($9.99USD/month).
Best of luck, and thanks for using Animate.
Sarah

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

Backwards Compatability of iWeb?..Problems

On my main mac pro, I have all the latest updates of software etc. and my new iweb site (which is published but not yet launched) works great in Firefox and Safari.
BTW..I'm still in the 60 day trial period.
On my older mac at my other desk, I'm running 10.3.9 with Netscape,Safari, and Internet Explorer, all of which are (i think) updated as far as they can go in 10.3.9.
Problem: the site does not load and function properly on the older mac. Top menue bar is gone, and the photo gallery page comes up blank.
What is the backwards compatability of this iWeb program?? MOST visiters to a site are NOT going to have the latest and greatest software. Plus, I have NO idea about PC's.
This could be a deal breaker for anyone who wants to use .Mac in a more serious capacity.
Any thoughts of ideas??
Craig

The 10.3.9 Safari version does not support a lot of the advanced code that Safari 2 creates. For those users I believe the latest Firefox browser will work for them. With the release of Leopard imminent 10.3 is getting left further and further behind.
The latest Internet Explorer version does handle the iWeb 2 pages satisfactorily as I understand. You can go to http://ipinfo.info/netrenderer/ and past your site's URL into the URL field provided and see how the different versions of IE will render the page. I think it does a fair job in duplicating how it will look. But I don't have a PC to compare.

Firefox is trying to update my 8.0 version to 9.0.1. I'm not ready to do so because the Norton Toolbar is not yet compatable with the new Firefox release. How do I get firefox to stop trying to update every time I open the application?

Question
Firefox is trying to update my 8.0 version to 9.0.1. I'm not ready to do so because the Norton Toolbar is not yet compatable with the new Firefox release. How do I get firefox to stop trying to update every time I open the application?

Swarnava wrote: '''''Firefox 9 is Compatible with Norton 2011, 2012, 360 v5'''''.
This reads backwards, It is the other way as "Norton update is compatible with Firefox 9".

Specific Flash Player 10 Backward Compatibility Issue

There's an issue with backward compatibility on Flash Player
10 that is breaking a lot of Flash content that was created with a
tool that I develop and sell. It is to do with the way
globalToLocal and localToGlobal handles NaN.
I've reported it on the bugbase at
https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FP-964
There are more details here -
http://www.questionwriterblog.com/archives/2008/11/scrollbar_causing_content_to_disappear. html
The impact of the bug can be seen here.
http://www.questionwriter.com/samples/fp10problem/v1perceptions.swf
It is a serious enough backward compatibility issue, and
doubtless affects other content too. I'm hoping for the outcome
that the functionality will be restored in future player releases -
but right now, can someone give me confirmation it is on the Flash
Player team radar?

bump!

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

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

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.

Forms and Reports - Backward Compatibility

Is it possible to load a .fmb file created using Developer/2000
Form Builder for Windows 95 (V5.0) and then convert it so that
it can be loaded into Forms Developer V 4.5 (16 bit). The same
applies to backward compatibility of different versions of
Oracle reports.
A number of students in my 4GL Programming class have access to
more recent versions of Oracle products then those installed at
my College, and would like to develop assignments, etc, on both
platforms.
null

Les Fielke (guest) wrote:
: Is it possible to load a .fmb file created using Developer/2000
: Form Builder for Windows 95 (V5.0) and then convert it so that
: it can be loaded into Forms Developer V 4.5 (16 bit). The same
: applies to backward compatibility of different versions of
: Oracle reports.
: A number of students in my 4GL Programming class have access to
: more recent versions of Oracle products then those installed at
: my College, and would like to develop assignments, etc, on both
: platforms.
Developer is not Backwards compatibile across major releases(2.x
to 1.X).
null

Backwards Compatibility Flags

One of our dgraphs has the following parameters -
--back_compat 601
--back_compat 610
--back_compat 614
Is there any known performance issues or has anyone a bad experience setting these flags? We're seeing some performance slowness with regards to navigation requests and I wonder if setting these might be a cause for our performance degradation.
-Tim

Tim,
While I can't say with 100% certainty, I seriously doubt these flags have any impact on performance. The backward compatibility flags were built in so that customers could upgrade their version of the MDEX without having to upgrade their API logic on the front end (back two releases maximum). These flags instruct the MDEX to allow some older, possibly depricated, filter syntax to be processed. Therefore, my strong suspicion is that these flags themselves will have no impact on performance itself. The features you're using in the MDEX along with your data volume, data characteristics, and hardware/network will continue to be the main drivers for performance.
Thanks,
Dan
http://branchbird.com

Backward compatibility of MS Flash object in Windows 8

I have a case opened with Microsoft from Pfizer, Inc and need a case open with Adobe so that the MS engineers can communicate with Adobe within non-disclosure constraints.
What MS needs from Adobe are debugging information the don't have in order to resolve the issue in their Win8 Flash object (15x). MS will need to share with Adobe details and data that belong to Pfizer hence need to open that channel for those purposes and for MS to request technical information from Adobe.
My MS case number is 114111712050982 so that you have that information and can share email addresses and phone numbers privately with Flash technical support.
I have picked the best fit I could find for a community

As a general rule, we'd highly recommend that everyone move from fscommand to ExternalInterface. It's a superior replacement and eliminates some of the weird quirks that fscommand has. In your situation, changes to IE11 caused backwards compatibility problems with fscommand, but ExternalInterface is unaffected. We have some work in the pipeline to address the issue on IE11, but it has the potential to break existing content on configs that currently work, so we're trying to be really methodical about providing public pre-releases and soliciting feedback. In 2014, the only high-traffic content that really uses fscommand are old enterprise applications, so it's hard for us to collect feedback or gauge the impact directly by looking at popular sites.
We just handed a build off with the proposed fscommand changes to Microsoft for inclusion in the next Windows 10 technical preview. We were soliciting feedback on any related fallout for Windows 7 users on our beta channel (http://www.adobe.com/go/flashplayerbeta); however, there's not a good way to provide a beta build for Windows 8 since Flash Player is a built-in component of IE. We're working with Microsoft to establish a beta program for Flash Player in IE on Win8+. If you have access to the Win10 Technical Preview builds, we'd encourage you to test any of your legacy systems that require Flash and give us feedback once the next update is available.
The fact that introducing a proxy solves the problem intermittently is interesting. I guess it could be some internal timing, or it might be that the proxy is masking a cross-domain policy issue or an SSL negotiation problem. Have you guys tried with a Debugger version of Flash Player? You might get some useful feedback, particularly if it's a policy file thing.
Adobe Flash Player - Downloads
Configure the debugger version of Flash Player
You can turn on policy file logging by adding these to your mm.cfg. They'll get logged to flashlog.txt:
PolicyFileLog=1 # Enables policy file logging
PolicyFileLogAppend=1 # Optional; do not clear log at startup

Workaround for lack of backward compatibility?

Is there any workaround for the new iOS7 Pages' lack of backward compatibility? I am still running Pages '09 on my MacBook Pro and won't upgrade to Mavericks until it's reached version 9.02 or so. The new Pages tells me that any doc I open will no longer be compatible with any version of Pages except the newest one. I also see in reviews of the new Mavericks Pages that some people are losing formatting etc of their old Pages docs in the new version because of this backward compatibility problem, and that makes me even less inclined to upgrade given how many Pages docs I have that May be unreadable in the new version.
Any suggestions accepted. Thanks.

I solved my own problem. I'm posting how in the hope it'll benefit others. This will only work after you have synced your iPad to iTunes on your computer.
First, I recovered the old version of Pages from my laptop's trash.
Second, I made a copy of the old version, went into user/music/iTunes/Mobile Applications and removed the new version of Pages and pasted in the copy of the old version.
Third, I opened iTunes and clicked on "Apps" in the "Library" section of the Sidebar. I then dragged and dropped the old verison of Pages onto the Apps screen in iTunes. iTunes asked me if I wanted to replace a newer version with an older one and I clicked on "yes."
Fourth, I deleted the new version of Pages from my iPad.
And fifth, I synced the iPad with iTunes, which copied the old verison of Pages onto the iPad.
I have a feeling that step 2 is redundant, but I've done that kind of thing before and it has seemed to work.

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.

An error occcurred on line 105 while executing script 'MOM Backward Compatibility Service State Monitoring Script"

We've been getting the following error for some time now.
An error occurred on line 105 while executing script 'MOM Backward Compatibility Service State Monitoring Script'
Source: Microsoft VBScript runtime error
Description: The remote server machine does not exist or is unavailable: 'GetObject'
One or more workflows were affected by this.
Workflow name: System.Mom.BackwardCompatibility.ServiceStateMonitoring
Instance name: server.domain.local
Instance ID: {INSTANCE}
Management group: GROUP
Unfortunately the instance in question has since been decommissioned and simply does not exist any more.
We're currently on a repeat count of over 350,000 and I would REALLY like to get it stopped. I've had a look at adding an override but that points to the management server rather than the instance itself.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
thanks in advance!

Hi Steven,
There are for option for us to override a monitor ot rule:
For all objects of class:
Class
When you select this option for your override, the override settings apply to all objects in the class at which the rule or monitor is targeted.
For a group
When you select this option for your override, the override settings apply only to members of the group. The rule or monitor without the override settings continues to apply to all objects in the targeted class except for those objects that are also members
of the group used for the override.
When you create a group, you save it to an unsealed management pack. However, an element in an unsealed management pack, such as an override, cannot reference an element in a different unsealed management pack, such as a group. If you are going to use a group
to limit the application of an override, you must either save the group to the same unsealed management pack as the override, or you must seal the management pack that contains the group.
For a specific object of class:
Class
When you select this option for your override, the override settings apply only to the specified object. The rule or monitor without the override settings continues to apply to all other objects in the targeted class.
For all objects of another class
When you select this option for your override, the override settings apply only to objects of a class other than the targeted class. The rule or monitor without the override settings continues to apply to all objects in the targeted class.
Did you try to override it for a specific object of class?
Regards,
Yan Li
Regards, Yan Li

Backwards compatibility chart of past AE releases?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for