![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
They reduce the price to a more competitive compare to other software (even if all the other are not as good as LR to manage the catalog -> if you play with only one computer
![Sad :-(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Regards,
Frank
System requirements
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*
Mac OS
•Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support
•Mac OS X v10.6.8 or v10.7
•2GB of RAM
•1GB of available hard-disk space
•1024x768 display
•DVD-ROM drive
•Internet connection required for Internet-based services*
Tired of waiting of Lightroom 3.x and A900 RAW files, I have built a monster machine in the past ... Even the BETA of LR 4.0 was not feeling slow a few weeks ago.Mike-Photos wrote:Just be careful if you don't have a powerful computer. There are lots of complaints on the Adobe forum that LR4 is significantly slower than LR3. The beta version was slower, but I think everyone was expecting the released version would be better.
It's a conspiracy!Dusty wrote:As I was reading this thread Adobe pop an ad into my mailbox, as if they knew...![]()
Dusty
I have done some quick test on my side, and the LR 4.0 is using in general about ~twice the memory in single execution of browsing from picture to picture.Mike-Photos wrote:Here's the link to the forum:
http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/ ... iscussions
And it's going to stay about the same until we upgrade our machines. Twice the mem and lower speed come from more 'layers' needed for auto CA correction and the associated calculations.InTheSky wrote:I have done some quick test on my side, and the LR 4.0 is using in general about ~twice the memory in single execution of browsing from picture to picture.
The speed looks a bit slower then the LR 3.5.
That would be driver related then. A strange thing though, LR doesn't utilize hardware acceleration as much/at all.agorabasta wrote:I didn't get catastrophic slowdowns with Lr4 on all machines I tried. It was just somewhat (1.5-2 times) slower than Lr3. And I even tried one 32bit Win7 installation.
One thing in common between all my machines was that none of them had any Nvidia components, neither video nor chipsets.
And it seems that those who report catastrophic slowdowns all have some Nvidia parts in their configs.
It may well be that some driver patch may alleviate the problem. But it's more than likely that there's simply too much latency somewhere there deep inside Nvidia architecture. After all, Nvidia never managed to cure switchover stutters in their abysmal 'Optimus' tech drivers.mvanrheenen wrote:
That would be driver related then. A strange thing though, LR doesn't utilize hardware acceleration as much/at all.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests