3 ms·
The last LR version I used was LR3 and performance was really not a problem. That was 2010, mind you. On an even then outdated dual-core AMD system with the ima
by dom0 9y ago
The last LR version I used was LR3 and performance was really not a problem. That was 2010, mind you. On an even then outdated dual-core AMD system with the images and the catalogue on some old hard disk.
So, am I correct to understand that Adobe managed to botch LR so badly that PCs with vastly superior processing and IO to what I used back then struggle on basic tasks?
Woah.
- StavrosK 9y agoYeah, it's not terribly performant nowadays. I haven't gotten many crashes, but it feels pretty slow in general, even on a beefy machine.
- kk_cz 9y agoOne explanation can be that they managed to botch it the other can be that size of RAW images increased significantly in the meantime. I had no problem running relatively recent LR on i5 with 16gb ram. (I had problem with their pricing though, so I switched to another (non-OSS) SW that is performing similarly for ~1/3 of the price)
- a012 9y agoTalking about their licensing practice, I was about to buy a license for LR but their website prohibited me because I'm from their no- support/blacklisted country, so I can't buy. thanks for piracy and FOSS as well.