|
|
22Thanks
-
March 11th, 2012, 08:27 PM
#11
Works fine on my MacBook Air, I switched from Aperture which was starting to be sluggish, most notably when straightening a picture...
again, LR4 seems fine.
Bruce
M9/Cron35 and OK, fine... now an RX1
I think I'm done now.
-
March 11th, 2012, 08:34 PM
#12
Hmmm... conflicting reports. Smells like a bug to me.
-
March 12th, 2012, 01:29 AM
#13
It's version 4.0 - I bet that version 4.1 will run more quickly.
“It doesn’t matter what you look at, but what you see.” (Henry David Thoreau)
-
March 12th, 2012, 02:03 AM
#14
Running it on my more than 2 year old 4GB Sony Laptop. Can't say I've noticed any difference one way or the other.
-
March 12th, 2012, 04:39 AM
#15
I'm running a 3GHz quad AMD with 8GB of RAM and it is slower but not enough to think about not using it. I too am hoping 4.1 will address the issue.
__________
Bill Shinnick
X100; RX100; GH2; G5{IR}.
-
March 12th, 2012, 05:17 AM
#16
 Originally Posted by Amin Sabet
Yn, people who buy Core i7 processors are probably more sensitive to performance
.
Perhaps, Amin ... but when I move a denoise slider and the whole machine slows and the processor fan comes on full-blast, or it takes 2 or 3 seconds for an zoomed image to draw (and yes, I do have my 1:1 previews built) ... well, not good, as I've said ... it is consistently amazing to me that companies the size of Adobe, who charge significant amounts of cash for their product, still manage to produce dogs like this ... and I speak as someone who spent a slab of his life having sign-off for software
My photostream at Flickr.com is here
"We can not shake the illusion of the truthfulness of photography" - William Gedney
-
March 12th, 2012, 05:51 AM
#17
I run LR4 beta on my Core 2 duo 1.3ghz (not a typo) / 4GB RAM laptop. Startup is slow, slower than LR3, but after that I don't find much performance difference with LR3 in normal use. It's not quick, but adequate for my needs, I rarely have to wait more than a second for any adjustment to be processed (contrary to Color Efex where it can take a while). Now it's a very very clean and optimized computer which probably has a lot to do with it (I work as a computer programmer and do 100% of my pro work on this machine, generally connected to an external monitor and wireless keyboard/mouse). I imagine I'm not very sensitive to performance
-
March 12th, 2012, 06:09 AM
#18
I wasn't really interested in LR4 but the cheaper than anticipated upgrade price has me interested, maybe I'll wait for a little while to see how things work themselves out.
Being somewhat of a noob with Lightroom I just learnt to create separate catalogs which greatly increased the speed of the program, having all 100gb of photos in one catalog became a real problem but now I've split them up and the program runs much more smoothly.
Has transfering the catalogs and setting over to LR4 been an issue, i've heard that there are a few problems and you may loose a few changes.
-
March 12th, 2012, 06:43 AM
#19
Be interesting to know if those people not experiencing significant problems are running the 32- or 64-bit version?
(I'm on 64-bit)
My photostream at Flickr.com is here
"We can not shake the illusion of the truthfulness of photography" - William Gedney
-
March 12th, 2012, 06:49 AM
#20
32-bit here (but as stated previously, running slowly on my netbook).
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
FTC Disclosure
This site uses affiliate programs and referral links for monetization.
|