My first impressions are (after 3 days of using El Capitan) that in general the new OS is a bit quicker. However, LR is not - I'm using an iMac (2013) and LR6.1.1; it's slower to load, slower to switch between modules. It wasn't great before installing El Capitan so I don't think this is all Apple's fault; in fact I'm very underwhelmed by LR6 in general. Here we have a new version which is not compatible with many graphics cards (why wasn't it tested properly before release?), and seems to have lots of other problems especially for PC users. I'm getting tired of seeing Adobe staff constantly suggesting resetting preferences, using Terminal to manually disable GPU, uninstall and reinstall etc. It suggests that LR has some major bugs or incompatibility problems and to expect paying customers to solve these problems via the methods suggested is unacceptable. In my view that is Adobe admitting that LR is not of 'marketable quality'; it should not be necessary to constantly reset prefs (something I'm doing about once every fortnight) or reinstall the application.
LR6 would be great if it worked properly, I like the features in it. However, it seems to me that there are sufficient numbers of people reporting problems to indicate that it wasn't ready for release. Each new version seems to be more flaky than the previous one. Switching to other software like Capture One seems increasingly attractive right now as I feel Adobe doesn't give a s**t about its customers any longer and is more interested in maintaining its cashflow. They should return to the practise of issuing a free Release Candidate of the next version if they want customers to find the bugs - at least we wouldn't feel we are being conned!
Apple must be kicking themselves for abandoning Aperture as they might have attracted Mac users over from LR if this state of affairs continues.
Martin Rosindale wrote:
which is not compatible with many graphics cards (why wasn't it tested properly before release?),
How many graphics cards do you think are out there? They'd never release another version if they had to play catch-up with every old/current/new card out there; and if they were able to resource that much testing, Lr would cost us thousands.
Wow -- is it really this bad! Now I can't say I'm happy with LR6/LRCC, but I've learned to cope. I have a pretty powerful rig (Mac Pro 2012, the last of the real Mac Pros, with decent graphics, loads or RAM, SSDs left and right), but I feel LR has been getting slower and slower since LR3. I realize working with RAW files (which is my workflow) is demanding, but waiting 3-5 seconds for the photo to display at full res is frustrating, especially when you need to process 200+ photos a day (and I'm not even a pro -- just a casual shooter). I'd be willing to pay $500 for LR if this could be cut down to 1 second! Was hoping the issue was some low level stuff limited by the OS, but seems that is not the case.
There are precious few graphics cards that Adobe needs to test under OS X. Windows graphics card support is another issue.
Does your monitor have more pixels than back when you used LR3? Every pixel’s value must be computed individually, either by the CPU or the GPU, so if the monitor has a higher density or larger size there will be more pixels to compute.
Sorry Keith, but I don't buy that argument. Some of the incompatible GPU's are in common use in PC's and I find it hard to believe that Adobe was unaware of that; they should have tested LR6 on some of them more thoroughly. If they were unaware I feel that's sloppy practise.