Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1  (Read 8352 times)

Mort54

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 590
    • http://
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« on: July 30, 2008, 08:58:51 pm »

LR 2.0 seems somewhat slower to me - not hugely slower, but noticeably so. For example, it now hesitates slightly when switching between modules (Library, Develop, etc). I'm on a fast Mac Pro with lots of RAM, and 1.4.1 was blazingly fast on this setup.

Does anyone know if LR 2.0 goes back and regenerates all the previews for the whole libray? Just wondering if that might be slowing things down.
Logged
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My

rugydp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
    • http://rdp-photo.net
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2008, 11:58:14 pm »

I have the overall impression that L2 is faster and more responsive on my G5 dual so far.

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13769
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2008, 03:19:11 am »

FWIW, I find LR2 faster and more responsive than LR 1.4. I'm running LR on PPC & Intel powered Macs (Mac OS X 10.5).
Logged
Francois

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2008, 07:04:01 am »

LR2 is faster to me, using a dual core CPU. A fair bit too.
Logged

Mort54

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 590
    • http://
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2008, 10:23:52 am »

I'm still running the latest version of OS X 10.4. I wonder if that's the difference in my case.

Isn't LR 2 a 64-bit app, and isn't OS X 10.5 more 64-bit compliant?

Jeff, if you're reading this, is OS X 10.5 better at running LR 2?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 10:24:27 am by Mort54 »
Logged
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13769
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2008, 11:18:14 am »

Quote
I'm still running the latest version of OS X 10.4. I wonder if that's the difference in my case.

Isn't LR 2 a 64-bit app, and isn't OS X 10.5 more 64-bit compliant?

I don't know if Mac OS X 10.4 can be the cause of  LR2 slowdown, but I don't think so…
I'm running LR2 in 32 bit mode on my dual G5 and it is definitely faster than LR 1.x.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 11:19:44 am by francois »
Logged
Francois

phila

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 327
    • www.philaphoto.com
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2008, 01:09:18 am »

Just did a test.

2.8 GHz MacPro with 8GB RAM on 10.5.4. Writing to my main 7200rpm 500GB HD.

Import 208 Canon 1D MkII files with custom Import settings & Standard previews:

1.4 = 5:28

2/32 = 6:17

2/64 = 7:03

Export the same files as 300dpi/16bit/TIFFs

1.4 = 7:47

2/32 = 5:54

2/64 = 9:12

I would have liked LR2 to be a lot faster than that! :-(
« Last Edit: August 02, 2008, 01:09:53 am by phila »
Logged

Mort54

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 590
    • http://
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2008, 01:47:51 am »

Quote
Just did a test.

2.8 GHz MacPro with 8GB RAM on 10.5.4. Writing to my main 7200rpm 500GB HD.
......
I would have liked LR2 to be a lot faster than that! :-(
Interesting. Finally another person who is seeing somewhat slower performance in version 2 (albeit in selected cases). I thought the slowdown I was seeing was just something weird in my system.

For the 2/32 and 2/64 cases you reported - are you indicating that you are running the app in 32-bit and 64-bit modes? Or are you running the OS in those modes? In either case, I didn't realize either was possible.
Logged
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My

phila

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 327
    • www.philaphoto.com
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2008, 01:52:44 am »

Quote
Interesting. Finally another person who is seeing somewhat slower performance in version 2 (albeit in selected cases). I thought the slowdown I was seeing was just something weird in my system.

For the 2/32 and 2/64 cases you reported - are you indicating that you are running the app in 32-bit and 64-bit modes? Or are you running the OS in those modes? In either case, I didn't realize either was possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Running LR in each. You change to 64 bit by highlighting the app in Finder and do a Get Info. Uncheck the default 32bit box.

Mort54

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 590
    • http://
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2008, 02:09:30 am »

Quote
Running LR in each. You change to 64 bit by highlighting the app in Finder and do a Get Info. Uncheck the default 32bit box.
Thanks. I'm running OS X 10.4.11 and it doesn't give me that option. Must be a 10.5 feature.
Logged
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My

budjames

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 956
    • http://www.budjamesphotography.com
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2008, 07:00:57 am »

If you have enough RAM and you are running Mac Leopard OS, try unchecking the "Open in 32 bit mode" in the "Get Info" box for the LR 2 app. This allows the program to run in 64 bit mode natively.

I'm still exploring the new features and interface changes in LR 2.0, but on my MacPro 8-core with 12GB RAM, LR2.0 in 64 bit mode ROCKS!!!!

I upgraded my MacBookPro 15" 3GB RAM to LR 2 as well. This is my travel and work computer. I'm taking this with me next week on my family vacation to Alaska for 2 weeks (Denali Park for 5 days followed by a cruise down the coast to Vancouver). I'm looking forward to playing along the way.

Cheers.
Bud James
Logged
Bud James
North Wales, PA [url=http://ww

Per Ofverbeck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
    • http://elgfoto.se
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2008, 09:20:09 am »

OK.  Downloaded LR2 a few hours ago; after reading this thread, I selected the 64-bit mode (a bit unintutitve that the Info panel doesn´t say explicitly what the alternative to 32-bit mode is, but that´s Apple, not Adobe..).

Works well; seems faster than 1.4 on my setup (MP 2x2.66, 7 GB RAM, 10.5.4), but haven´t made any comparisons (more eager to try the new adjustment brush than sitting with a stop-watch....).

Three funny things since switching to 64-bit:  1) In Activity Monitor, the LR process is named (null) for reasons unknown (the icon is there).  Can live with it...
2) Spaces don´t work well with Lightroom.  A nuisance; I´d liked to have one space reserved for LR full screen.
3) I use a third-part utility called FinderPop (has been around ever since OS 9 or so; great time-saver) that gives custom drop-down menus and contextual menu additions.  LR 2 is the first app that gets FinderPop to crash (luckily FP can be set to exclude LR 2, which fixes the issue for all other  apps).

These may be curiosities in themselves, but it does seem that the OS works differently with 64-bit apps in several ways.  Anyone having seen any more serious anomalies than these?
Logged
Per Ofverbeck
My

mminegis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
    • http://www.marifotografia.com
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2008, 12:14:37 pm »

I'm eagerly waiting for some kind of reassurance that on my Mac 10.4.11, LR2 can run OK (I don't expect to be that fast as LR1.4 wasn't fast either... but that may be due to my lack of segmenting the catalog or the lack of memory). I've got LR2 video, but not LR2!!
Logged
[span style='color:blue'][url=http://www

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13769
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2008, 01:01:49 pm »

Quote
I'm eagerly waiting for some kind of reassurance that on my Mac 10.4.11, LR2 can run OK (I don't expect to be that fast as LR1.4 wasn't fast either... but that may be due to my lack of segmenting the catalog or the lack of memory). I've got LR2 video, but not LR2!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why don't you download the 30-day trial version and see for yourself? Your LR 1.x catalog is duplicated and converted to LR 2 format, so all your original work with LR 1.x stay untouched.
Logged
Francois

mminegis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
    • http://www.marifotografia.com
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2008, 02:59:48 pm »

I downloaded the trial and installed it 5 minutes ago... looks like it's running as steady as my LR1.4... yay! But I'm cautiously NOT running CS2 nor LR1.4 simultaneously - no need to strain my laptop on sunday! (mine is probably the LEAST potent G4 around on this forum, so if you are hesitating, go for it   )

Now, if I want to purchase LR2 as an upgrade, will I get the license number and can transform the trial into a paid version, or do I have to delete them all and do the install all over again?
Logged
[span style='color:blue'][url=http://www

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13769
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2008, 02:54:05 am »

Quote

Now, if I want to purchase LR2 as an upgrade, will I get the license number and can transform the trial into a paid version, or do I have to delete them all and do the install all over again?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The demo is the full featured application but you can use it for 30 days. Once you enter a valid SN, it becomes the "real" stuff.

If you still have LR 1.4 installed on your computer, just enter the new license number and you're all set. If LR 1.4 is not installed, then you'll need to enter LR 1.x license number along with the new one.
Logged
Francois

Andrew Fee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
    • http://
LR 2.0 Seems Slower Than 1.4.1
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2008, 04:54:01 pm »

Quote
2) Spaces don´t work well with Lightroom.  A nuisance; I´d liked to have one space reserved for LR full screen.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lightroom was actually fine with Spaces until 10.5.2 (if I remember correctly) when Apple changed the way it worked and added a new option to the preferences. Since then, it no longer switches to the Lightroom space when selecting it, and if I then manually switch without selecting another program first, it ‘breaks’ spaces on my system until I log out and back in. (it doesn't let me bring up the all spaces view)

Just did a quick test on my machine comparing the speed, as I wasn't sure whether to be running in 64-bit mode or not. I'm running 10.5.4 on a 2.33GHz Core2Duo MacBook Pro with 4GB RAM, and tested by creating a new catalogue in Lightroom 1, Lightroom 2 in 32-bit and 64-bit modes and then importing 102 JPEGs (that have been edited) and rendering standard previews.

Lightroom 1, 32-bit—3:40
Lightroom 2, 32-bit—3:02
Lightroom 2, 64-bit—3:34

So it looks like you should only enable 64-bit if you are running with more than 4GB RAM in your computer even if you have a 64-bit processor etc. (it's what I expected, but I wasn't sure if that was the case or not)

Editing seems noticeably quicker in Lightroom 2 as well, though I haven't done any specific testing.


If Lightroom 2 is running slower, I would try optimising your catalogue to see if that helps.

Preferences > General Tab > Catalogue Settings > General Tab > Relaunch and Optimise.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up