It's difficult to judge the performance of the v1.0 release version by running the v4.1 beta release. In addition, the Windows version in v4.1 beta isn't as well tuned as the Mac OS X version ... the latter had about a year's more development/optimization time when the Windows version was released and they haven't posted more than one Public Beta version update for the Windows product, while there were at least three for the Mac OS X version. I suspect they've been tuning and testing the Windows version rather a lot more than is visible with the public beta.
There is far greater variability in quality and performance between hardware platforms in the Windows marketplace compared to the Mac OS X marketplace. I try to keep at least 20-30% free space on my working system's boot drive for best performance. That's what all the backup data drives are for. ;-) Both Windows XP and Mac OS X are virtual memory OS systems and do a lot of back and forth to the drives when using large, complex image processing applications. Total RAM, speed of the drives and free space all combine to influence performance in big ways. Just for reference with Lightroom v4.1 Beta ... All my systems are running Mac OS X v10.4.8. - Running on a PowerMac G5 2.0Ghz DP with 3G RAM and a 500Gbyte drive with 200Gbyte free space. I've been using Lightroom v4.1 beta for two months on a regular basis. Last import was 8500 DNG files, imported by reference. That took about 45 minutes, complete. Total number of files in the Library now is around 28,000. I've seen no slowdowns and performance switching image files is pretty snappy, all controls operate smoothly and without hesitation. - Running on a Mac Book with 2.0Ghz Intel dual core and 2G RAM, 60G drive with 30G free space: With 100 files on board, performance seems very similar to the Power Mac G5 above. This isn't my machine so I can only test on it occasionally. - Running on a PowerBook G4 1.67Ghz with 1.5G RAM and an 80Gbyte drive with 20Gbyte free space: Imported 250 DNG files by reference, took about 10 minutes. Total in the Library now comes to about 380 files. Performance with the trackpad is a little unresponsive ... I find it easier and more precise to use the arrow keys in the Develop module. No particular slowdowns, but you can definitely see that the single processor/older chip configuration leaves a bit to be desired. The same differential in performance is easily visible when running Photoshop CS2+Bridge +Camera Raw. Godfrey On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Thibouille wrote: > Yes I can second that. > On my old PC (my laptop is modern but not hte other PC) which is > AthlonXP 2GHz, 768 RAM etc... Lightroom is VERY slow. To the point > that when it begins to rebuild its thumbnail database (every program > start.. don't ask me why it acts like that) my computer is simply > unusable. > > My laoptop being dual core, it is usable, slower due to disc access, > but usable. However I wouldn't want a final product to behave as the > beta does, for sure. > > 2007/1/31, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I had similar experiences and from my reading on the boards, many >> people have the same problems. I know that if I would load the >> program and walk away for about 20 minutes, it would cache things and >> I don't know what else, but would run at a reasonable speed after >> that >> - not blazingly fast, but tolerable. Sorry to offer no help, but I >> can sympathize with your experience. The product itself is rather >> slick and quite capable. I may look again when it is released, but I >> finally gave up on the beta due to performance. >> >> -- >> Bruce >> >> >> Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 9:21:09 PM, you wrote: >> >> BL> I send my questions and concerns ;-). >> >> BL> Folks, I've imported about 350 images to LR beta 4. This is >> all my K10D >> BL> stuff that I shot so far. My PC at home is running Win XP (not >> 64 bit) >> BL> and hardware is Athlon 64 at rated 2800+ with 1.5 GB RAM on >> board. Not >> BL> the fastest, but not a slouch either. >> >> BL> Now, if I have an image in the Develop pane and try to open >> another >> BL> image it takes ages. I see CPU jumpin' up to 100% for quite >> some time. >> BL> Also some of the more subtle adjustments such as individual color >> BL> correction seem to be very unresponsive... >> >> BL> What is it I am doing wrong? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
