On Jul 15, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Peter Lacus wrote: >> It's operation did mate well with my already established workflow as >> well. I've not had any performance problems on the Apple G4 and G5 >> systems I'm running it on, even though they are well behind the >> leading edge of the new Apple systems based on the Intel cpu. > > in my experience Lightroom is much more disk bound than CPU bound. > Provided you have at least 1GB of RAM available to LR (the more the > better) and reasonably fast CPU (say over 1.5 GHz), it's fine. I > haven't > noticed any substantial speed difference running LR on iMac Core2 Duo > and MacPro (2x dual core Xeon).
Yes, it is quite busy and does IO back and forth to disk often. In analysis, on Mac OS X, I find it's consumption of real RAM tops out at about 1.5 Gbytes, no matter what I throw at it (measured on a G5/2GhzDP system with 3G of installed RAM). Virtual memory, however, can go quite a bit higher. I run it on my desktop system with about 80G free on the startup drive and on the laptop with about 20 G free at present. When I've allowed the latter to drop down below 10G, performance suffers noticeably. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
