P: Slow UI when using Mac and Custom Display Profile

Welcome to the club! Who will draft the charter? It’s about time after four months... 😉

@Rikk I have the same issue on my Mac Pro with a custom color profile. Switched to a provided sRGB profile and performance is adequate again.

System:

- Mac Pro 5,1, 2x 6-Core 3.46GHz X5690 Processor

- Radeon RX580, 8GB

- 40GB RAM

- All data on NVME and fast SSD

- Mac OS Mojave, latest Lightroom

Let me know if I can help by providing more information or profiles.

As a wise man said (or perhaps a woman who didn't get credit), ignorance is bliss and they wallow in it.

That's a keeper Bill, thanks. 

Andrew, it doesn't do any good to reply to those who don't understand and don't do any research. Educate and abandon their nonsense replies. Their brains are closed. 

Just a few months ago, they were blasting Adobe for memory leaks in Lightroom. Turns out that this was a macOS bug (fixed in 11.1). Have they apologized for ignorant rants? Of course not.

As a wise man said (or perhaps a woman who didn't get credit), ignorance is bliss and they wallow in it.

And now he's engaging in defamation of Datacolor.

The colorimetric data speakes for itself; I've simply linked to it. 

Not sure why I should care more about Texans or Americans.  After all they largely bought it on themselves....

Defamation of Texans or Americans.

Please see Rikks post about personal attacks.

Not sure why I should care more about Texans or Americans.  After all they largely bought it on themselves....

But more to the point I'm not sure why Adobe moderators tolerate Mr Rodneys never-ending trolling and provocations, where all evidence suggests he enjoys upsetting people who already see their work or hobby drastically damaged by this epic bug.

And now he's engaging in defamation of Datacolor.

He behaves like this everywhere, not just here.  I think he should seek professional help.  I also would request he be banned from this forum. 

Maybe the compiles and testing have been Windows focused? The Mac situation, at least on my modern Mac, has been as discouraging as Mountaingoat's post above reflects.

*Victoria Bampton I understand that you've been told that, but we're just not seeing it.  I've also used LR since 1.0, and in the past have been under NDA for beta versions too.  Let me walk through what we're seeing, but from the perspective of the SDLC.

Requirements/Design:  The slideshow module broke a few versions back - previously it would use cached previews, but no longer does.  That makes rendering a slideshow extremely slow.  Recently we've been told that they changed it to use the embedded preview in DNG files instead of the cached previews.  That assumption - that we're going to covert all images, including TIFF and JPG files into DNG - shows a disconnect from the real world.  As much as I'd hoped DNG to replace proprietary formats, it never did, and converting an entire library over to it makes no sense (you lose the ability to use other tools, and embedding the original file doubles storage space).   That module is completely useless at the moment.

Development:   They may be attempting performance fixes, but we've seen only performance hits...well, they partially mitigated the 16" performance issue, so I'll give them that, but it's still slower than LR 8 on my 15 (even without this bug).  I purchased an egpu last year to try to improve performance (especially scrolling the library), but it made essentially no difference so I plan to sell it shortly.   This current bug may actually reflect what you're describing - new staff inexperienced with the code base.

QA: Clearly there is a lack of regression testing, especially as regards to performance.  Both the slideshow and this defect should have been caught before release.

Program management:    They communicate that performance is their priority, yet apparently don't include performance in regression testing, and when defects that make performance worse arise, they fail to detect them, revert them, or fix them in a timely manner.  Releasing a new version without this fix was just bad form.  The focus appears to be exclusively on new features (to be fair, love the texture slider).  But while new features are nice, but if the system is unusably slow, they're kind of pointless.   If they really have added staff and are cracking open old code, then having really good testing and a solid reversion (or quick fix) plan is absolutely essential.  

So forgive me if I'm frustrated.  Lightroom has been almost useless for months.  The last update on this breaking defect was more than a month ago, and they continue to release code without this fix included.  The workarounds available either aren't viable (reverting to version 9 and losing all edits) or cost time and money (breaking and then reestablishing an effective color management workflow).  We can't even judge if the risk/cost is worth it because of the lack of communication from Adobe.

As far as the bigger picture fixing this bug would be a good start.  Having a library module that scrolls smoothly would be a good next step.  Until then, well, I'm not from Missouri, but we need to actually see some improvements.

I assume you are right, and oh, I hope you are. But from my perspective this sucks so badly and has been crippling for months. Thank you for all you do for the LR community Victoria.

@photostudiotnk Adobe product managers have publicly said performance is their priority for Lightroom Classic, and if you were to evaluate the feature improvements and bug fixes over the last year or two, you'd be able to see for yourself that they're touching stuff they haven't touched for years. I've worked with the Lightroom team since LR1, so I'm looking at what's happening with benefit of experience. That's about as much as I can share without breaking NDA's, but I hope it helps.