Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does LR4 need to go on a diet?  (Read 13251 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



WWW
« Reply #80 on: March 09, 2012, 01:45:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I am confident that it is possible to do raw development faster than Lightroom by sacrificing image quality, and that Adobe would sell less if they did.

-h
I am confident that it is possible to do raw development faster than Lightroom by sacrificing image quality, and that Adobe would sell less if they did.
Buy LR1, quality is not as good as more recent versions and it ran faster.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #81 on: March 09, 2012, 03:49:32 PM »
ReplyReply

My configuration: Win7 64bit, 6GB RAM, Intel Core2Duo E8400.

The reality is, that's an older processor now and the associated bus and chipset etc is slower than is currently avialable, even at modest prices.

However, what you haven't indicated is your hard drive setup - that will also have a significant impact.

It again comes down to should developers just ignore new hardware to make sure things run fast on old hardware or should they introduce new technology that can take advantage of new hardware and still work on older hardware albeit slower?
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 624



« Reply #82 on: March 09, 2012, 04:27:26 PM »
ReplyReply



For the end user why should we have to spend an additional 500+ on new hardware every time there's a software upgrade ?
Are the requested features really so resource hungry that has to necessary ? I doubt it. It's especially galling when really simple things get ignored that really can't cost anything in software complexity to add eg a keyboard short cut for the purple label, how hard is that ?

Why should we expect to have to junk expensive working hardware so often ? It's not exactly great for the environment.

What an odd attitude.

You don't have to take every software update. The old version will continue to do everything it did before.

You don't have to junk expensive hardware. It is your choice.

But you do have to run the latest software on the latest hardware to get the optimum results from it.

Again it is totally your own choice - you decide what performance and facilities you want/need and you pay for both the hardware and the software to deliver it.

I can still run Maziacs and Hungry Horace on my Sinclair Spectrum every bit as fast and efficiently as I could in 1984. My Canon A1 still takes as good photographs as it did in the same year. The fact that I now use a Nikon D3s and run LR4 on a PC with an i7 processor and 16Gb of RAM is totally my choice. No point girning about the cost.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
citro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #83 on: March 12, 2012, 06:37:34 AM »
ReplyReply

However, what you haven't indicated is your hard drive setup - that will also have a significant impact.

I have two harddisks. My configuration was Windows & LR installed on one partition and the catalog (incl. previews) on another partition, on the same disk.

Since previous report, I moved the catalog (and previews) on a different disk. There is visible speed improvement, but slower than LR3.
Logged
leuallen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #84 on: March 12, 2012, 07:52:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Tis slow. My computer is up to spec: I7 2600k, 16 GB ram, program on SSD, catalog on another SSD. I can imagine the hurt on a lesser spec machine.

Larry

Opps wrong thread, next one down 'LR 4 slow'. On this topic - who cares. An extra $0.50 cost of drive space.

I don't really notice any speed increase with the SSD's.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 07:56:01 PM by leuallen » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad