I have no experience with that.
I'm running Lr 4.3 and it's not slower than Lr3.
I remember some people have said they would want to switch back to Lr3, but don't know if that helped.
Have you read through this humongous thread: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/971581?start=0&tstart=0
It has over 300 posts - all about speed.
And here is another one saying that Lr 3 is slow: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/656635?start=0&tstart=0
How many hard drives have you got?
The bottle neck with today's computers is the reading and writing to and from the hard drive. If there's only one drive in you book, that's probably where the bottle neck is.
Keep in mind that Lr continuously reads from and writes to the catalog. When you are in the Develop Module, each step is written to the catalog and immediately it and all the previous steps are read back. As an aside: That is probably the reason why clearing the History helps performance, particularly with the Clone Tool.
I have just the one drive HDD (7200rpm) but now seriously considering ditching the optical drive and getting an SSD installed. I did this in my Mac Book Pro and it does fly - due to LR reading/writing from the SSD not the HDD.
I have run LR4.3 on my MBP and it's a bit faster but still very sluggish compared to 2.6. So that counts out read/write speed in my mind.....leaving what? A software issue.
I just dont get why there would be such a huge difference in performance from 2.6 to 4.3....sure there are all those tweaks and patches but why do we need them in the first place?! C'mon Adobe - an upgrade should be an UPGRADE in all areas, especially speed. It shouldnt be the beginning of several hours trawling through forums trying to find answers.
I'm about to run a trial version of LR3.x so will see if it can read my 5DmkIII raw files and if it's any faster.
Here are the system requirements for Lr 4.3. Does your book qualify?
- Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support
- Mac OS X v10.6.8, 10.7, or v10.8
- 2GB of RAM
- 1GB of available hard-disk space
- 1024x768 display
- DVD-ROM drive (if installing from DVD)
- Internet connection required for Internet-based services*
I can now report from both sides of the fence. Up until yesterday, I had a four-year old Core2Duo system, 8GB, that had the dreaded slowness. Not as bad as described above perhaps, but there was clearly something not working as it should. Using matrix-based monitor profiles and updating video card drivers relieved some of the symptoms, but the disease was still there.
At the same time I used an i5 16GB system that was much better. Not good (as in instantaneous), but acceptable.
This morning I fired up my new system for the first time and sent it on its maiden voyage. Naturally the first thing I did was open Lightroom 4.3, and...yes. So that's how it's supposed to work! Snappy, immediately responsive, switching images like nothing ever happened.
Now this is a pretty high-spec'ed machine, i7-3820, Asus P9X79 pro, 32GB, SSD. Let's not hope these are the real requirements for good Lightroom performance. But I did reuse the old video card, an ATI 6670 running the 12.8 driver, and it works just fine.
At the moment it's a pretty lean setup: Aside from mobo and video drivers I've only installed Lightroom, CS 5.5 Design Premium and Eizo calibration software. Anti-virus, mouse and keyboard drivers, file synchronization software, font manager and Office remain. I'll keep a close look at how Lightroom behaves as these are added.
Bottom line, and there's no doubt about it: Brilliant as it is, there is sickness in the Lightroom code somewhere. For some people, the unlucky ones, the symptoms are bad. Most people get away with a mild flu, and some are immune.
Yep that's what I reckon - and I think it SHOULD work for all users and no way I counted on having to upgrade my computer just to use the software!
Here's another things I've tried: converted all the mk III raw files into DNG (it's fairly quick) and then imported those into LR 2.7. Performance: fast as I was used to!! So that tends to rule out computer issues right?
It doesnt rule out the way my computer can handle LR4 or the demands LR4 puts upon it (that LR2.7 doesnt). I guess that's what 21 mentions above and why there is such variation in user experience (fast vs slow) - the performance of LR4 varies from user to user depending on "something" to do with their set up.....but it's nothing too obvious to the average person, however I would like to think Adobe could figure it out and fix it up.....PLEASE?!
Obviously SSD's, more RAM, a new fast CPU computer, a nulcear powered mouse etc, will increase the performance but why shouldnt LR4 work on the same system with good speed as LR 2.7?!
Well, the thing is that process version 2012 that Lr 4 uses is more CPU-intensive than previous versions. There is just a lot more math. So process version matters, and a faster processor will make a difference.
But these i5 and i7 CPUs aren't slouches to begin with. They should be able to handle most of what's thrown at them. This sluggishness just doesn't happen elsewhere - not in video, not in any of the CS apps.
I'm more or less done setting up the machine, and now Lightroom is even faster (cache and previews fully populated I suppose).
Everything I do now is absolutely instant. This is flat-out crazy. I'd never thought this kind of speed was even possible with Lightroom 4. This must be what they're seeing in San Jose.
Yep tried all those things on that list.....which is the only help I got from "support" as well. Has anyone been able to downgrade back to 3.x with any improvement in speed?
Don't forget you can continue to use Process 2010 (as in LR 3.x) in LR 4. Just select Process 2010 in the Calibration panel and ignore the update ! that appears against these images. Should be faster and you get to use the other features in LR4.