P: Slow UI when using Mac and Custom Display Profile

We can't all afford multiple multi-thousand dollar high gamut reference displays, so we rely on the best our budget can handle.  So how about, instead of highlighting your 'insider NDA knowledge', demeaning other users and dismissing entirely legitimate frustration, why not write a blog post showing the easy to execute workaround and link to it?  That'd be much better advertising for your book than, as another poster put it, bad manners and snark.  

We are frustrated with Adobe because of a long history of performance and quality problems with Lightroom.  It got vastly better through 8, then with 9 and 10 it's back to horrible again.  This situation, with a mission critical piece of the software, is due to an introduced defect in the code that was not caught (and should have been) in regression testing prior to release.  It's been months without a fix.  Downgrading isn't a viable option because that reverts to a version with other performance defects.  Changing our entire calibration approach means having to spend time and money both to change to a band-aid approach, then time and money to change back to the right one, and that assumes it doesn't destabilize the camera-to-print process that's currently producing excellent results.  All that work because Adobe can't fix a bug they introduced in a timely manner. 

Yes, if you have a very expensive reference display, that's mostly true...

Do tell us, how untrue with a dE value it isn't. 

You own such a display system? 

Mid-range IPS panels don't have that capability

It does. And it's about the software used to target to (in this case) sRGB. But if you wish to throw up your hands and assume it's not possible, fine with me. 

$150 on a Spyder. 

And there's your biggest limitation; a POS as colorimetrically shown here:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103094.msg1004707#msg1004707

IF or when you want to actually attempt to calibrate to sRGB so you can use the sRGB profile, OR you want other suggestions to use both your original calibration and profile along with the sRGB profile, you can ask. Maybe someone will help guide you to those kinds of additional solutions UNTIL the bug fix comes. 

Yes, if you have a very expensive reference display, that's mostly true (though still not as accurate as an external calibration).  Mid-range IPS panels don't have that capability - and rather than spend $1500-2000 on a 30" display, I spend $800 on a good one and $150 on a Spyder.  All about budgets.

Complaining is childish, reporting a problem is useful. Once reported, as it was quite awhile back, a mature person will wait for a solution. 

In the meantime, you have been given workarounds to help you be productive. That you don't appreciate the assistance is comment about you and not about the people on this forum who have been trying to help you. 

Lastly, ALL software has defects. Some are quick to resolve, some take some time and others are never resolved. That is just a fact of life. 

Go try some other photo editing program and see if it is perfect. I've not found one so I live with the occasional inconvenience of Lightroom and folks on this forum have provided solutions that have been useful to me. Not always the way I wanted something to work but then I gave up expecting the world to revolve around me a long time ago. 

And as I said in a prior post, at least Adobe's defects won't kill you. If you think their testing is insufficient, go buy a Tesla. They don't even to pretend to test. Ours has tried to kill us several times after "an update" and this is without any of the automatic driving features activated. 

It's a matter of perspective. 

We'll agree to disagree on this one.  Even with individual RGB sliders (which are few and far between) and a colorimeter it'd damn hard to get it even close, and trying to do it with with other sliders (color temperature, hue, saturation, brightness) or visual matching is, well, remember the black knight from Monty Python?  Thinking it's color balanced doesn't mean it is.  

Now if your target output is images for SRGB on mobile devices or the web, it might be good enough.  But when you're printing 11' x 4' (my current project), well, no.  The workflow for that piece took massively longer than it should have because of this and the other 16" performance bug (it seems to be an exponential curve - 2x larger file is 4x worse performance).  Downgrading to 9.x isn't an option either, because the 16" performance is much worse in the older versions (though it's still not fully fixed).

The big issue here is that it has worked since 1.0, and then something broke and wasn't caught in QA, and now it's taken months to get a fix out.  It really does seem as if classic isn't a priority anymore.

If that's Adobe's business decision, to abandon the large file/large library/high performance market in pursuit of a consumer/prosumer/small file/small library user base, fine.  Then just let us know and we'll start making plans to migrate to a new platform.  They gave us years notice on Flash....we'd like the same if LR is also on its way out.

English is my mother tongue and I can't make neither head nor tail of Rodney's cryptic witticisms either.

And using a term like 'capeesh' to someone who is not a native English speaker is condescending verging on insulting. Good manners cost nothing.

You may have a non-disclosure agreement with Adobe but as far as I know, there is no non-disclosure agreement between Adobe and their customers. 

I am perfectly calm by the way (even in the face of passive-aggressive comments) but don't feel I should have to ask a third party for workarounds involving 'more work' to a problem which should never got past the first round of quality control in the first place.

Finally, complaining is not pointless as without it Adobe would not be aware of the extent of the problem let alone be stirred into doing something about it.

A true color managed workflow in lightroom isn't possible without accurate monitor and printer profiles.  Full Stop.  All it takes is comparing the custom profile to the stock one, and it's completely obvious how far they are off (and my two monitors are off indifferent ways!). 

They don't have to be and one can calibrate the display to sRGB target and use Adobes sRGB profile (or on a wide gamut display, Adobe RGB (1998) )till the bug fix. Result: true color managed workflow. That is one workaround. 

A true color managed workflow in lightroom isn't possible without accurate monitor and printer profiles.  Full Stop.  All it takes is comparing the custom profile to the stock one, and it's completely obvious how far they are off (and my two monitors are off in different ways!).  The only color-managed workaround option is to do all your edits in Photoshop/CR, which kind of defeats the purpose of lightroom.  If I just wanted a DAM tool, I'd have one.

There's been a suspicion that Adobe has shifted most lightroom resources towards the consumer/cloud version of the product and that classic isn't getting much love.  Unresolved performance issues (it's slower than 8 on my 2018 MGP, even with a stock profile), broken slideshow module, delays in camera support, and now this color management all point in that direction.

We should have guessed about the future when it was renamed 'classic' instead of 'desktop'.  Classic implied out of date, legacy, and destined for the scrap heap.  Unfortunately for anyone with a library or images at any scale, cloud simply isn't an option, nor will it be for a long time in the future.  Ubiquitous uncapped fiber to the house (and hotels in remote locations) remains a pipe dream.  

At some point the friction caused by all this will drive me (and a lot of other users) to find an alternative.  Until then, we're stuck.