P: Slow UI when using Mac and Custom Display Profile

Andrew: phrases like "Adobe's lawyers would have to kill me, then you" undermine your believability.  If your information is correct, it should be coming from Adobe and makes me wonder why Adobe wouldn't be providing it. You go on to say: "posting here about it will not make the fix come any faster (kind of the opposite actually)", which suggests you really have no idea what you are talking about.  If posting about the problem makes Adobe purposely slow down the fix we have a far bigger problem.  Provide actual information or stick to your knitting.  Thanks. 

Andrew, while it’s nice to hear from you that a fix is coming, this is information that should really come from Adobe.

https://feedback.photoshop.com/conversations/lightroom-classic/lightroom-classic-slow-ui-when-using-mac-and-custom-display-profile/5f91bbf7917fbb3a9935742e?commentId=5fa06f1e72a09d24e1c2b700

From reading the reports here, the bug seems easy to reproduce...

Yup, very easy. IF THE BUG affects you. How many minute's did it take folks affected by the bug to see they were affected by the bug? 

ONE person in pre-release was affected among many more than that number of testers who were not. It's a rare bug, full stop. Rare in terms of the installed based of users and previously within internal and external testing groups. The fix is coming. 

You can roll back to the last version, that's why Adobe provided a catalog backup. Oh, folks updated and didn't keep their legacy catalog or kept working on the new one instead of stopping and considering going back.

You can decide not to update immediately to see if such bugs affect more users after release if you do production work, you're a real pro who can't afford not to have everything working. 

I had made this suggestion a while back. Pull out 9.4 branch, plug in the new camera profiles, perhaps update the catalog format, change the filename of the preferences file to reflect the current version which would allow people to run 2 versions of LR w/o any major issues.

“There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.” -Warren Buffett

First, your suggestion is based on what knowledge of the Adobe code base? You make it sound like a very simple fix, you sure?

If Adobe detects the bug issues to branch as you suggest, why not just fix it? 

How many software packages has your company produced? 

Next, take the teams limited resources to do this IF EVEN POSSIBLE? 

This is pointless but if venting makes you feel better, you'll still be waiting just as long for a bug fix! 

*Ron_Pfister I had made this suggestion a while back. Pull out 9.4 branch, plug in the new camera profiles, perhaps update the catalog format, change the filename of the preferences file to reflect the current version which would allow people to run 2 versions of LR w/o any major issues. Also, export picks/stacks/albums/virtual copies to the xmp so anyone can export those and rebuild a new catalog with any version of LR w/o losing data.

@712389 Rodney  When I was in business, no customer was 'too small'. It's called customer care.

So yes, the shareholders may be happy (for now) but it demonstrates a rotten attitude which in the long run tends to bite back.

Andrew, while it’s nice to hear from you that a fix is coming, this is information that should really come from Adobe. They need to own up to this - we are paying subscribers to a currently dysfunctional product.

Naturally they didn’t introduce this bug on purpose - but that doesn’t change the fact that they did introduce it. From reading the reports here, the bug seems easy to reproduce - it certainly was in my case, starting with a clean OS installation. So they should know by now how this bug is caused...

And even if it is a bug that arises due to underlying issues in macOS, the very least Adobe could do is to create a version of LrC that works around the issue and that is compatible with v.10 catalogues, contact users who have reported here on this forum to be affected by this issue, and provide them with an installer. That’s certainly possible, since v.9.4 was not affected. That would give them all the time they need to work on a real fix while keeping their customers happy. And I think most if not all of us affected by this bug would be happy to work with the v.9.4 feature set if we could preserve the edits we’ve done since upgrading to v.10. Now that would be customer service!

I’ve experienced exactly this kind of attitude with software vendors far, far smaller than Adobe. If they can afford to do that, Adobe certainly can!!

It‘s been over three months without a real fix - that‘s simply unacceptable in my book!

*olga_runciman so if you are listening Adobe please let us know that you were working on it or if not then we can move on.  

They know, they are listening and, a fix is coming. I could tell you a date too, but Adobe's lawyers would have to kill me, then you <g>. 

Look Adobe didn't go out of its way to introduce this. Its really rare and nasty bug and it was difficult to pin down then fix. But again, a fix will come. There are workarounds in the meantime and posting here about it will not make the fix come any faster (kind of the opposite actually). 

Do you have an evaluation of what you mean by "small"?

A  small fraction of the installed user based which (from my conversations with Adobe under NDA of which I can't specifically share) is in the millions. More than a million that I can say, specifically how many more I cannot. 

If you assume even tens of thousands of users have suffered this bug, maybe you can explain why so few of that group has posted about this issue here and on many other such sites. Please attempt to gather say 100 unique customers of such reports if you can. 

Do you have an evaluation of what you mean by "small"?

If you have, please provide it here and provide your reliable source of information.

You mean care about the stockholders first.

The stockholders are super happy because Adobe is making a big pile of money with some many customers. Seems they are doing something right here, even if a small group admittedly deserve bug fixes of which they will get.