Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR4 speed totally unacceptable  (Read 49291 times)
headmj
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« on: May 13, 2012, 04:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

As much as I like the output from LR4 I may have to find something else.  It is totally and unacceptable slow.  I am am using RC2.  I am running vista 32 bit, dual core 3 gigs of ram.  Lots of free HD and I have optimized the catalog.  It is just plain terrible.  Unusable.  I do something in develop and I have to wait a minute fro it appear on screen.  This machine ran LR3 very well.  If this is no longer enough machine then they should have said so before I spent the money on the upgrade.  Any other suggestions?

Mike
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 585


« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2012, 04:58:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Your machine is spec'd a little lower than most who have reported this problem, but it doesn't "seem" to be purely a hardware spec issue. Some folk w/ very high spec machines are also having serious difficulty.

I'm 8 gigs RAM, Quad core AMD, 500+ gigs of free 7200 rpm HDD space - and after a few minutes with an A900 file can bring my machine to "black out" the 27" NEC PA monitor & have to wait for it to redraw before I can make the next painfully slow incremental move.

I LOVE what LR4 does & am confident that Adobe will get it sorted out.  Patience is in order, I think, as LR4 is ground breaking power in PP and obviously there were issues that the team were not able to anticipate prior to release.
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1191


« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2012, 12:19:15 AM »
ReplyReply

What files are you using and cataloging in LR?
What are your screen sizes?

These do play a role. 3GB of RAM sounds minimal.

Even those with 64bit and maximum ram as  Rand mentions ...we feel it is sluggish to the point of simply slow.  I hope things get better also!
Otherwise I wish they would revamp ACR and make better use of the empty space under the righ column adjustments, and make the interface more adjustable...
Add WBalance adjust in the grads and spot ...etc

I would rather use ACR than have LR Library slow me down when all the file types it supports are RAW/JPEG/TIF/ and only compatible PSD files.

I would rather have a DAM with real image managment power, and the superior developing power of LR/ACR
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5541


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2012, 12:58:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Add WBalance adjust in the grads and spot ...etc

Haven't used ACR 7.1 or LR 4.1? There are Temp and Tint adjustments for all the local adjustments...
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291


« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2012, 01:37:42 AM »
ReplyReply

As much as I like the output from LR4 I may have to find something else.  It is totally and unacceptable slow.  I am am using RC2.  I am running vista 32 bit, dual core 3 gigs of ram.  Lots of free HD and I have optimized the catalog.  It is just plain terrible.  Unusable.  I do something in develop and I have to wait a minute fro it appear on screen.  This machine ran LR3 very well.  If this is no longer enough machine then they should have said so before I spent the money on the upgrade.  Any other suggestions?

First, try increasing your RAM to 4GB...

But at a guess, it sounds like the CPU is now "too slow". By that I mean it is possible that LR4 is able to take advantage of newer CPUs to do things in hardware whereas on an older system like yours, all of it is done in software. I'll add that this is pure speculation.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2012, 03:19:10 AM »
ReplyReply

obviously there were issues that the team were not able to anticipate prior to release.
No, the beta for LR4 was painfully slow, they knew they had a problem before release.

4.1rc was significantly better. 4.2rc has worse performance again, but one great new feature.
One can only guess at how the next update will actually perform.

Screen size seems to be the critical issue. As desktop resolution increases performance falls.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2012, 03:32:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Whenever performance is "erratic", i.e. 10x faster on system A compared to system B (both being reasonably fast system), this is a pretty strong indicator that something strange is going on. Undesirable calls to some quirky OS API, silly memory usage or something along those lines.

In other words: something that _could_ be fixed by some (possibly very hard to find, possibly simultaneously a single line) change of code.

Using a faster cpu with higher clock frequency, new instructions etc tends to be a more incremental upgrade, and tends to involve (in the case of new instructions) a rewrite of critical code-paths.

A clever gui can hide many of the underlying problems (seems to be partially what they did in RC1).

-h

Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2903



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2012, 04:13:09 AM »
ReplyReply

No, the beta for LR4 was painfully slow, they knew they had a problem before release.
No they didn't. It surprised a lot of people.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2012, 06:38:11 AM »
ReplyReply

No they didn't. It surprised a lot of people.
Are you seriously suggesting that no one in Adobe took any notice of the myriad of reports of sluggish behaviour in the beta ?
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2012, 07:21:21 AM »
ReplyReply

You have a crappy computer.  Big shock, current programs take it past it's max, whoa.

Upgrade.
Logged

Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2012, 07:29:53 AM »
ReplyReply

As much as I like the output from LR4 I may have to find something else.  It is totally and unacceptable slow.  I am am using RC2.  I am running vista 32 bit, dual core 3 gigs of ram.  Lots of free HD and I have optimized the catalog.  It is just plain terrible.  Unusable.  I do something in develop and I have to wait a minute fro it appear on screen.  This machine ran LR3 very well.  If this is no longer enough machine then they should have said so before I spent the money on the upgrade.  Any other suggestions?

Mike


All I could suggest is that you upgrade your Vista to the 64 bit version and add some more RAM to take you up to, say, 8GB.

By upgrading the OS you would also get a clean, faster system. Bit of a pain to do, I know.

I am running LR4 RC2 on both a powerful desktop but also a Thinkpad T61p with a Core 2 Duo ( something like 2.5GHz) with 4GB RAM Win 7 64 bit, and, while it is not as smooth as the desktop, it is perfectly usable. I'm processing Hasselblad 3FR files (roughly 30MB). The programme seems to slow down more when the DETAILS panel is used, so I add these corrections as late as possible in the flow.
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2903



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2012, 07:40:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you seriously suggesting that no one in Adobe took any notice of the myriad of reports of sluggish behaviour in the beta ?
I'm saying what I said. Performance problems were not unusual during the public beta, and the range of significant slowdowns emerged after the full release.
Logged

headmj
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2012, 03:15:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I am using DNG files generated by A Pentax K-5 running from 17 to 28 MB each.  The system would gain far less than 1 GB of memery if I had 4gb in the system.
Logged
headmj
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2012, 03:18:56 PM »
ReplyReply

KAELERIA!  Nice attitude jerk!  How old are you 12?  I have a better computer than you do NYAH NYAH.  This system should be adequate.  It is 3.5 yeras old and had absolutely no issues with LR 3 or CS 5.  If the system needed a specific minimum hardware Adobe should have said so.  Your comment was SOOO MUCH help.  
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 03:21:11 PM by headmj » Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2012, 04:24:14 PM »
ReplyReply

If the system needed a specific minimum hardware Adobe should have said so.
They do. From adobe.com:-
"Windows
    Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® 64 processor
    Microsoft® Windows Vista® with Service Pack 2 or Windows® 7 with Service Pack 1
    2GB of RAM
    1GB of available hard-disk space
    1024x768 display
    DVD-ROM drive
    Internet connection required for Internet-based services*"

In other words, your system ought to run LR4.
As you've found, just because it will 'run' doesn't mean it is usable.
Make sure you complain directly to Adobe about this.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2012, 05:11:46 PM »
ReplyReply

You can dislike my attitude but that doesn't make me wrong.  I didn't say what I have.  I said you have a crappy computer.  That's a fact.  Deal with it and quit bitching, since you know jack shit about technology, obviously.  3.5 years is OLD. 
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2012, 05:44:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I was told I have to apologize or be banned.  Not gunna happen, so cya!
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2012, 06:21:10 PM »
ReplyReply

KAELERIA!  Nice attitude jerk!  How old are you 12?  I have a better computer than you do NYAH NYAH.  This system should be adequate.  It is 3.5 yeras old and had absolutely no issues with LR 3 or CS 5.  If the system needed a specific minimum hardware Adobe should have said so.  Your comment was SOOO MUCH help.  
No need to compound one bad attitude with another and then add name calling and juvenile behavior as well.  These forums are better than that.

You should have listened to the message instead of zeroing in on the attitude.  It's a fact, your computer is very under powered in all respects (memory, cores, operating system, (probably drives as well)) to run LR4 with any degree of comfort.  And it's a fact that LR4 requires heavy resources to run well.  We get thread after thread after thread with people going over the same issues/thoughts.  Hint:  There is a search feature on the forums.   Or, just read down  a page or two and you'll pick out 3-4 other threads talking about LR's performance.

What performance was acceptable to you with LR3 probably won't be achievable with LR4 on your system, but it shouldn't be a huge difference.. more like incremental.  I assume you've optimized your catalog, defragged your drives, made sure the drives aren't more than 60-70% full for best performance, went over MSCONFIG and minimized which programs start by default every time you boot and consume resources, configured the caches for best performance on your system, reduced the size of your previews, and done the proper maintenance on your system to ensure it's running at full speed and isn't being throttled due to heat issues or the like?

People come here looking for the magic pill to cure cancer and it's just not available.  LR requires powerful hardware.. personally I love LR and I have no performance issues save for a 1/2 second delay it takes to apply changes to my 2nd screen.. and that's only because my video card was recently replaced with a less powerful version.  Before that there was no delay.  I'll live with it until my next computer upgrade.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
MBehrens
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2012, 08:41:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Boy these things get out of control quickly.

I was seeing some really bad performance from RC2 and "reset" my preferences file by deleting it and letting LR create a new one. Helped a lot. The link below will explain where the preferences file is stored. Let me know if this helps. Yeah, you'll have to go reset a few settings, but oh well.

http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/preference-file-locations-lightroom-4.html
Logged
headmj
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2012, 10:19:32 PM »
ReplyReply

No need to compound one bad attitude with another and then add name calling and juvenile behavior as well.  These forums are better than that.

You should have listened to the message instead of zeroing in on the attitude.  It's a fact, your computer is very under powered in all respects (memory, cores, operating system, (probably drives as well)) to run LR4 with any degree of comfort.  And it's a fact that LR4 requires heavy resources to run well.  We get thread after thread after thread with people going over the same issues/thoughts.  Hint:  There is a search feature on the forums.   Or, just read down  a page or two and you'll pick out 3-4 other threads talking about LR's performance.

What performance was acceptable to you with LR3 probably won't be achievable with LR4 on your system, but it shouldn't be a huge difference.. more like incremental.  I assume you've optimized your catalog, defragged your drives, made sure the drives aren't more than 60-70% full for best performance, went over MSCONFIG and minimized which programs start by default every time you boot and consume resources, configured the caches for best performance on your system, reduced the size of your previews, and done the proper maintenance on your system to ensure it's running at full speed and isn't being throttled due to heat issues or the like?

People come here looking for the magic pill to cure cancer and it's just not available.  LR requires powerful hardware.. personally I love LR and I have no performance issues save for a 1/2 second delay it takes to apply changes to my 2nd screen.. and that's only because my video card was recently replaced with a less powerful version.  Before that there was no delay.  I'll live with it until my next computer upgrade.

I did listen to the message.  I also have discovered over on the adobe forum that there are literally hundreds of folks with much better computers than mine that are experiencing the same or very similar issues.

I have over 30 years experience in IT.  I have actually done all of the items you have mentioned.  Some of it happens automatically on a recurring basis.  Thank you for actually trying to be helpful.  The problems I am experiencing actually stop the program from working properly.  So in that case the program is broke not just slow.  I understand that I don't have a "flag ship" machine.  I keep my "working" catalog small usually less than 500 images.  I also don't expect it to POP.  I think i have realistic expectations I had hoped that someone might have found a issue I could deal with.  The way it looks right now the only group that will fix this coding issue is Adobe.

Have a nice day.

Mike
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad