Lee Jay wrote:

 

hamish niven wrote:

 

Lee

 

Laws of returns -

 

 

how many 787 planes fly?

How many lightroom users?

 

Probably 100's to 10,000's more LR users, so properly coded and bug free software for the mass market should be viable.

 

 

 

 

So your justification is flawed

 

You don't know what you are talking about.  The pace of software development for the mass market is dozens to hundreds of times faster as well, and it has to be to meet the demands of customers.

 

The Shuttle software was 420,000 lines and was maintained and slowly developed one feature at a time over 4 decades by a staff of more than 200 people.  LR is over a million lines and is developed many features at a time over a period of a few years by a staff of a few dozen (total - including QE, marketing and management).  The former has to be essentially bug-free and that's why it's developed the way it is (slowly by a huge staff).  The later cannot be bug-free given the orders of magnitude of reduced time and resources combined with the increased complexity.

 

All consumer software has a large bug list.  The processor in your computer has a huge team developing it and I assure you it has a long errata list as well.  This is the nature of complex rapidly-developed consumer equipment and software.

This is a great moment for a LOL. For a start, mass software is not produced 100% from scratch. It is usually produced using libraries already programmed and available from others or from the same company. LR4 had from LR1 - LR3, don't tell me that suddenly they forgot how to program and produce this piece of ... The shuttle software has to be developed like that because there were no shuttles before and it needed to be developed practically from scratch. I mean... it is seriously laughable to even justify that this doesn't work the way it should. We are not talking about small bugs that usually happen, we are talking about major flaws on the software.

To claim that "ALL consumer software has a LARGE bug list" is a very bold statement that cannot hold its own anywhere. So, please, take a minute or two and think about it, compare LR4 with ALL the consumer software and we can talk again to see if what we are seeing in LR4 is common or not.

And about comparing planes and stuff... well, does that mean that it is ok for a car maker to go easy on the design/testing of the cars? in the end it is for the masses right? I mean, give me a break. I could find so many examples of how your statement is, well..., wrong. These kind of things really make me upset, when people try to justify what simply has no excuse. This is the time to say. "We dropped the ball, this is the solution, I hope you guys move forward with us and we'll make our best to not let this happen again".

Instead we have silence and a group of Adobe fans that no matter what, will think eveyrthing is ok and everything is the way it should be.

@andreas603, the last time I tried to get people on the bug forum and explained that talking here is not an official way to report a bug, well, they asked me to leave this forum and go back to the other one.

So.... My guess is that logic is not a common thing around here or maybe we are all very full of ourselvelves

"Sorry to be rude but for the 100th time ADOBE DOES NOT MONITOR THIS FORUM!!"

Ah, BS - I quote directly from John Nack's blog this am (refering specifically to installer issues but I read it as a general observation):

PS–Engineering manager Eric Wilde says, “Please ask people to reach out to us on the forums if they have trouble. There’s lots of engineering folk reading our forums daily.” (emphasis mine)

Nuf said...

Yesterday Bob Frost made a post listing a whole bundle of files to delete - catalogues, data, etc.

Following a request from me he posted a web address where Lightroom listed what was where. I called up that URL and whilst I was looking at it I was offered 'live help'. I had never been offerered or tried the Adobe support so I thought I'd give it a go.

In the end the Adobe helper said I needed to wait for LR 4.1. He'd been through all the suggestions of creating new catalogues, etc that we have rehearsed and repeated ad nausiam here.

However, one thing he asked me to do and which I have never heard suggested here is to create a Desktop Shortcut to the Lightroom Preferences folder in the depths of Appdata. I don't think it made one iota of difference but thought it might be worth mentioning here in case anyone around (a) understands why he asked me to do it and (b) feels it might be a clue to getting a more responsive LR4.

We are all clutching at proverbial straws. Could this be a pointer to a life raft?

Tony

Sorry I agree in principle. Adobe is nothing more than revenue generating with this sloppy piece of software, and no I don't believe they give a flying hoot about the customers complaining.

I tried to get a refund on the abysmal piece of trash tha is Lightroom4, and was flat out refused.

OK they got my money this one time, but I'll never buy it again and I am currently triallign  a couple of alternatives.

Fed up with the never ending greed of big companies like Adobe and I encourage people to stop whining, and vote with your wallet.

If you're not prepared to stop buying Adobe products, stop whining when you realise they're poor quality.

Over and out.

Divide and conquer...

We are all fighting to sort of impose our view on those that don't share it with us. And this User-to-User forum has become a User-vs-User one.

In the meantime : LR4 still doesn't work. Adobe has our money. Our work is delayed (and has become a burden to do instead of a joy to do).

Let's put aside our differences and focus on the most efficient way to demand from Adobe a solution and get it rather fast.

As I point out before. A class action. I know where in different locations however if we could muster a group to meet at the headoffice at each head office location. To demand for answers for Adobe it's sure to shove the stick up Adobe.

At the moment were pack of ants which Adobe is standing over. Form a group and I think Adobe would then take action. How els

Heck I'd take them to court if I had people willing to joing me from Sydney in Australia..

I got a record phone call from managers in Adobe breaking the law refusing a refund which is illegal given the Software user license agreement Adobe supplies which cannot exclude the local legislations. It's simple really Adobe state they offer a 90 day limited warrenty NOT excluding local legislation where you bought the product. My local legislation "clearly" states if the product doesn't do what it was labeled as doing or you wouldn't of purchased it if you had of known the fault you are entitled to a REFUND.

Heck when I was on the phone to their support and they were viewing my screen via remote assistence I showed them this forum and put it to them. Their just full of umm and arr's and didn't know which way to run. The fact is, with the evidence of contact, them admiting their name on the phone and their position and my phone clearly showing Adobe head offices number I would hope I have enough evidence to put it to Adobe that they are "illegally" refuting a refund.

Hi guys, new to the Adobe Forums!

I want to share my experience from upgrading my LR version 3.6 to the LR 4 release version that I purchased a few weeks ago.

Firstly, I use the following system:

27" iMac 2011

i7 3,4 GHz

16GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6970M, 2GB RAM

2TB HDD, 7200 rpm

OSX 10.6.8.

Now to the program itself, I am running 4.1 RC2

I'll admit that I'm not that much of a in-depth user, so when it comes to cache, preview sizes and that sort of thing, I never touched anything but the cache which I changed to 20GB's and left everything else just the way LR3 / 4 had it preset.

So I read a lot about the performance issues that users were having, but for imaging you always want to be on the newest level of software to enhance your creative workflow and give you new tools, and I liked what LR 4 offered. So I went ahead and got a copy and went through the process of installing it and then upgrading the catalogue. I was worried that I

would have to set everything up again but instead LR4 loaded up just like 3.6 did with all my presets, watermark, custom logo etc. In the Library module i did not really run in to any problems. Neither in the Develop Module, everything was just as snappy as it was in LR 3.6.........and then I updated some images to PV 2012 to edit them individually, Imported new

photos directly with the new PV 2012 and these are the things that I found where LR 4 gets sluggish / laggy or locks up my computer for a few seconds:

- Compared to PV 2010, zooming into an image and then dragging it around with the mouse seems fine at first. As soon as I make a few adjustments with PV 2012 to the basic panel, tone curve and some things such as defringing, sometimes some denoise and sharpening, sometimes leaving the detail panel untouched completely -->

things seem to go south. With that I mean the zooming becomes more laggy and then moving the image around whilst zoomed in is very laggy. While dragging the cursor the image hiccups, refreshes very slowly and in few cases I get the little beachball.

- What really blew my mind or what I can't get my head around is the detail panel. Some people recommended switching it off and then working on the image to make it more speedy due to the way LR 4 renders noise. BUT: Once I turn off the detail panel, it takes about 5 seconds for the deactivation to take effect and then LR 4 becomes

completely unuseable. It freezes, trying to move the image around results in huge hiccups and the beachball pops up. It does move after a while but remains completely unuseable until i swith the detail panel back on (all LR standard values) and it's back to normal. CPU activity also skyrockets during the swith off, both system and user.

What's really weird is if i swith back to PV2010 and play with that switch, it is instantaneous and speedy, no problems with slowdowns or lag. Just like a lightswitch.

- Denoise in general takes longer to take effect. It wasn't the fastest in 3.6, I would say both noise and sharpening took longest to take effect there, but this is slowed down considerably in PV2012 making monitoring suble changes completely useless.

- Other sliders seem to be almost the same when compared to PV2010, perhaps with a few milliseconds more lag on some of them, depends on the amount of work I have done to an image as per the previous bullet point.

That is all I have to add so far and when it comes to exporting and such I can't really say that I found any problems with that. I find it strange that even some people here in the forums with higher spec machines have "worse" problems such as lag that lasts for multiple seconds and so on.

Well I hope this can help some of the folks at Adobe working on the update. I tried to explain exactly where I am experiencing slowdowns. Should I feel lucky though? I feel as if while still have very annoying issues with the software, it could be far worse from what I have read, even with machines that cost 2-3 times more than mine...

Hope this helps and coincides with some of the things that other users have experienced. Any feedback?

Cheers,

Max

I've done what you suggested Bob and I see no difference.

EDIT. I thought this would appear against the Bob Frost message about deleting all catalogues, previews, etc. That is what I am referring to.

Sorry.

Tony

well I found the solution I think.... On windows machine go to edit, preferences, camera raw cache settings and make sure it's not anymore the 4G. Mine was set to 100 and as soon as I put it down to 4 everything worked great.. worked for me hope it works for everyone else!

John Carter from Mars wrote:

 

...hope it works for everyone else!

It won't. - but it will (has) worked for some.

There are multiple bugs - some people are being bit by few, others many...

Thanks,

Rob

John,

Did you happen to check to see what your actual usage was before reducing the size? Mine is running well now so I don't want to mess with anything, but I do see that I have about 6,5 Gigs in the cache. Mine is set at 35 Gb, probably way more than I need with a 16 Mb camera. I could imagine a correlation if you had a huge amount in the cache just as there might be if there was not enough room allocated.

Gary

John Carter wrote:

On windows machine go to edit, preferences, camera raw cache settings and make sure it's not anymore the 4G. Mine was set to 100 and as soon as I put it down to 4 everything worked great.. worked for me hope it works for everyone else!

 

Did you happen to check to see what your actual usage was before reducing the size? Mine is running well now so I don't want to mess with anything, but I do see that I have about 6,5 Gigs in the cache. Mine is set at 35 Gb, probably way more than I need with a 16 Mb camera. I could imagine a correlation if you had a huge amount in the cache just as there might be if there was not enough room allocated.

 

You can easily work out how much space you need in your ACR cache as each of the new xxx.dat files is about 500KB in size on average (my 55K  of .dat files take up 30GB of space in the cache. All 1:1 previews rendered). If you make it smaller than it needs to hold all the xxx.dat files it simply works on deleting the oldest .dat file to make space for a new one. These .dat files only  get changed when you delete and image or render a new image.

Bob Frost

I didn't check.. I was just brainstorming the tweaks I had done when setting up LR4 and had remembered that I changed the cache size 'more is better' haha.. not necessarily! checked it today, running great on raw files.. curious to see if it will slow down again. That's kind what happened after setting LR up, it progressively got slower to the point I wanted though the whole system out the window. One thing that I did find a bit useful was running CCleaner a file registry cleaner did help for 4 or 5 photos then it was useless.. well, sorry it didn't help to many of you.. Probably going to be a combination of factors unique to each system.

For every problem on a computer someone suggests defrag, change cache, cleaning the registry etc etc. This problem is affecting people on Macs and PCs of all kinds of specifications. It is affecting Lightroom 4 but not their other applications. Logic? The problem is not the computer but with Lightroom. Doh!

The other 'solution' is to get upgraded hardware, as if that solves a problem. The best you can hope for if you are having a problem with a computer three years old is to double the speed, lets say quadruple it. With the speed of Lightroom as it is, you will spend thousands of pounds/ dollars/ Euros and end up with a previously unusable speed which in now unacceptable. My computer if easily capable of intensive video editing. If it is not able to run LR satisfactorily, that is a problem with LR, is it not?

Leave the silver bullets and the feelgood solutions. This is a problem with Lightroom that Adobe must solve. They don't give anyone much confidence by refusing to acknowledge the problem exists but if it is not to affect long term Lightroom sales, they must do something soon.

Rule number one in crisis management is to acknowledge the problem.

I had to bite the bullet, costly silver one that is, and built a new computer today. i53570 cpu and H77 motherboard, windows 7 64 bit and 8 gig ram. Whereas lightroom 4 was totally unuseable on the old ?E6750 core 2 duo with vista 32 bit so far on this new machine it flies.I have only imported one CR2 image to work on but its the same image I had so much trouble with on the old machine.Almost instant responses to the sharpening and noise sliders. I hope it keeps going like this.

So for me Lightoom 4 has only cost the upgrade price plus the A$850 for the new bits.

Here is something interesting. Started LR an hour ago. It starts to load then a dialog box opens up saying (as close as I can recall) "There is a problem with your catalog. Lightroom will check the integrity. This may take some minutes". I clicked OK, then the dialog appeared a second time. I thought, 'here we go' but no worries because I always have two completely up to date back ups on other disks, NAS and USB3 portable disk. Lightroom then closed itself down.

I then re-opened Lightroom to see what had happened. First thing I noticed was that my second monitor was refreshing instantaneously. Second, I tried the adjustments. They are operating at the same speed as I recall LR3 doing, though when first clicking on the (say) blacks slider, it hesitates for a couple of seconds, lagging behind the pointer. On catching up, it them operates in real time. Slide it up and down and watch the effect as you do it. Ditto the others.

I have no idea why this dialog box came up since I am working with the same catalog I always do. In fact, I only have one. The dialog box that came up I have never seen before. The odd thing is that deleting and renewing the catalog doesn't appear to speed things up......

I'm very glad I didn't spend £700 on a new machine, I must say.

The answer is A. It doesn't need help from a new machine. It is running very nicely.

I make money with my computer and therefore wish to keep my profit margin as high as possible. I have computers in England and France since I come and go between those countries. The fastest computer (bought and installed a month ago, all mod cons) is in France. A video render which takes 4 hours on my old machine in England takes 2 on my France machine. That is no difference at all, since I set it going when I am doing something else. Drinking the local wine, for example

All my video editing and other work is done at satisfactory speed on both computers. Why would I change them, simply because one program, Lightroom, is performing badly? In fact, as I explained, Lightroom was a dog on both machines but, miraculously, now is working very well. It is not slow. I am entirely happy personally even if Adobe leave it as it is.

If I have a problem, I prefer not to just throw money at it. I prefer to thnk it through. I have no need of ultra cheap video cards since I already have expensive ones, though they make little difference to LR. A huge difference to flight sims, though.

I used to buy new computers every year or so but I now find that a 4 or 5 year cycle is more financially sound with upgrades if useful. Ditto cameras. The technical advances being made with computers now benefit games players more than anyone else. The advances to cameras, again, are of more benefit to technically minded amateurs than professionals in general.

I have been following this blog since I loaded LR 4 and RC2 - 4.1, I realIy like LR and the new features so followed the early advice to renew the previews etc and whilst performance is now generally OK it is slower with 2012 process.  I have noticed something strange when I went to check the Adobe Camera raw cache size. I have plenty of room with it set to 100gb - however I noticed that using develop module with the current version 2012 no new cache files were being created. A bit of experimenting showed that old pictures still with the old 2010 process would create cache files when opened in develop module - however any pictures already in 2012 process or converted to the 2012 process would not develop a cache file. I have tried to find out whether the 2012 process uses the cache differently but cannot find any details. Is this part of the reason why the 2012 process is slower because it doesn't use the camera raw cache or am I missing some settings somewhere?

Yes - I purged the cache and then monitored the folder to see when it was populated.

PV2012 with Sony .arw files- I see a .dat file being created, but only when I scroll from one image to another in either the Library or Develop Modules.