Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

[laurencec]

Hi

I just upgraded from lightroom 2.7 to lightroom 3. I then proceeded to import my old catalog. this all went fine but lightroom is so slow, the thumbnail previews take forever to load if I manage to have the patience to wait  for them.

is there a quick solution?? How can it be sped up?

thanks

Laurence

Message title was edited by: Brett N

[JayS_In_CT]

LydellPhoto wrote:

Dan, please don't take this the wrong way, cuz I'm just asking.....If Adobe really wanted to get as broad a response as possible, why couldn't a survey be sent out to all registered users....surely that would hit more than those who are just on this forum, and would give you a chance to get a response from users who aren't having any issues and collect data on what systems they are using - perhaps knowing what IS working would be as much help as just hearing from those of us who are having problems....

just my .02...

Good thought, but that's like the old line about annual surveys at work, "Are we paying you enough for the job you do?". 

1. No, I'm underpaid (99 44/100 % answer this way)

2. Yes, and in fact you're overpaying me..  (the .56 who accidently didn't hit option 1).

Ask all the registered users if they're happy with the performance and they'll always want it better I'm thinking.

Dan,

There is some truth though here in that, at least within this forum, if you have an idea of what you'd like, coming from you or Melissa carries more weight than one of us.  I tried to start one while you were on vacation, and it never took off, as you recall.  There may be the same effect of everyone wanting more speed, but hopefully there would be some level here in the forum of truth.  After all, folks do frequent here for a reason.  Hopefully good.

Jay S.

[Guest]

Jay - I see your point, but realistically that has more do to with the fact that a poorly written question will get a poor response.

Finely crafted and specific questions that force a response that is meaningful make better surverys. for instance, you'd never ask something as general as an "are you happy/satisfied" question.

But if you ask specific questions on what thbeir system is, and then ask for specific answers on performance you might get something they can work with. Couple it with an offer for a couple free presets (or something that rewards their participation...) and you could get answers that mean something.

Or is there some sort of a system test that could be develope3d and downloaded that would let everyone run it on their system and generate a report that would have consistent reporting? Again, I don't  know if this is feasible, but everyone is reporting here on how their system is responding, so if we're serious about helping solve the problemn, then we need to find a way to have consistent reliable testing and reporting that would help pinpoint what is causing the problem...

[Gavin Farrington]

Hey there Dan,

Is the Lightroom team located in San Jose where Adobe's headquarters are?  I assume you're still having trouble replicating some of these issues?  I'd be willing to drive my system over so you guys could have a look at the software's behavior.

Specifically my machine behaves like there's a nasty memory leak.  I'm not seeing the other issues being brought up here.

PM me if this sounds useful to you.

[Guest]

DanTull wrote:

I want the data as much as anything for my own prioritization and understanding. To understand in better empirical how big these issue are across the user base, how it correlates with (very roughly) machine configuration and area of the app, etc.

This thread has provided a lot of clues, a bit of data, and a lot of chatter (speculation, rants, forum feature help, etc). What it is very short on is a more solid statistical sense of the breadth and specificity of the problem. Even a survey is going to suffer from a great deal of participation bias, but it should be one step more structured and thus informative in direct proportion to how effectively the survey manages to reach a representative sample of Lightroom 3 users as a whole.

That is, don't read in too much, I'm just a scientific sort, so I want to make sure we're looking at things right.

DT

   Again, reading between the lines of Dan's response, it sounds like they really do need help in establishing the breath of the problem and the specific configurations, etc involved.    Until that can be established to help Adobe, I wouldn't count on too much from 3.1, 3.2, etc.  Just ranting and waiting for some "magic bullet" from Adobe will probably not suffice.

    As an analogy, the only realistic way that the political process will allow this country to address our national debt issue will be to grow out of the problem by getting the economy exploding again and overpower it.  It will be death by a thousand cuts otherwise.  In the same vein, the Lightroom 3.0 current performance problem will disappear as new generations of hardware overpower it, unless we help Adobe to focus in on specifically where the bottleneck is with concrete statistical evidence.

    If the problem is not perceived by Adobe to be widespread, and is not surfaced as a priority problem for Adobe, I am afraid we will just grow our way out of it over time by upgrading hardware.  And we all know, as 50 years of software shows, many new software systems were perceived as pigs initially, but magically became reasonable performers once the hardware state of the art caught up. In many cases, it was a design decision to position the software product for the future.  I don't have a clue if that is the case with Lightroom 3.0, by the way.

   Those of you with a pressing need to get Adobe moving need to take a lead in coordinating a statistical response, and hope that provides a path to a solution without the need for hardware upgrades.

   I can attest that an appropriately configured modern system can be blazing (and I mean blazing) fast with Lightroom 3.0.

   12 GB core i7-975, with 4 TB Raid HDD for photos, 10K RPM 150 GB WDC Raptor for 64 bit Windows 7, and 100GB SSD for critical database indexes and Lightroom cache requirements.

    By the way, are any of you guys experienceing severe problems with reasonably competent harware in the san Jose area?  Maybe we could entice Dan or some other engineer to visit you to see first hand an example of the problem?

    Great minds!  ( I just got the post where Digihotaru volunteered to drive over!)

Best Regards,

Sherlocc

[Jim Stamates]

I must be insane because I keep reading these posts hoping to find insight. (repeat the same thing expecting different outcome=insanity)

Growing into the software is unacceptable because that is not what Adobe promised or advertised. Their credibility is on the line. I'm a big fan of Adobe and Mac, didn't buy Aperture because of my loyalty to Adobe. But no company can afford to lose or alienate a small segment of their customer base because they missed. Adobe needs to fix it, not wait until, or expect me to, buy a new Mac.

A survey would acknowledge there is a problem, corporations hate to do that. Opens a can of worms for those that are happy, so don't expect a survey anytime soon, or ever.

Finally, as I read the post, that I get by email, most of it is just more of the same ranting and personal comments. Let's stay focused on what we/you are experiencing so we can find a common thread/solution if there is one. The rest of it is just BS and takes up too much time.

I am giving an introduction to Lightroom talk this week to a local group. What do I say? Great program if it works?

[goodlux7]

Buying a new mac won't help anyway, or at least it didn't in my case.

Adobe needs to fix it, not wait until, or expect me to, buy a new Mac.

[JayS_In_CT]

Jim Stamates wrote:

I must be insane because I keep reading these posts hoping to find insight. (repeat the same thing expecting different outcome=insanity)

Growing into the software is unacceptable because that is not what Adobe promised or advertised. Their credibility is on the line. I'm a big fan of Adobe and Mac, didn't buy Aperture because of my loyalty to Adobe. But no company can afford to lose or alienate a small segment of their customer base because they missed. Adobe needs to fix it, not wait until, or expect me to, buy a new Mac.

A survey would acknowledge there is a problem, corporations hate to do that. Opens a can of worms for those that are happy, so don't expect a survey anytime soon, or ever.

Finally, as I read the post, that I get by email, most of it is just more of the same ranting and personal comments. Let's stay focused on what we/you are experiencing so we can find a common thread/solution if there is one. The rest of it is just BS and takes up too much time.

I am giving an introduction to Lightroom talk this week to a local group. What do I say? Great program if it works?

Jim, Lydell, Goodlux,

I agree 100% with all three posts, and as I said to Dan earlier, I tried starting a "please provide your system specs if your having issues" thread on Dan behest, and it went no where.  So I'm fresh out of ideas, perhaps start "specific" threads e.g. previews, imports, exports, etc., like the Rendering one this is going.

One would hope that some of what's in all this thread has a corelation to what coming in via the support channel.  Again, I don't expect Adobe to share that with us, just hoping.

Jay S.

[DavePinMinn]

Jim,

I think you have to tell the truth.......  The same as I've been to all the photographers that have asked me......  "Based on the perceived quality of Beta 2, I purchased Lightroom 3 and transitioned all my catalogues.  Unfortunately, the released version has NOT lived up to the promise of earlier releases.  I recommend you to NOT purchase this program."  In a couple weeks the photography clubs I belong to will start their new year.  And I'll get asked by a lot more people about CS5 and LR3.  How I answer will depend on whether or not the problems I've seen are fixed.

So far, 100% of the people I've talked to - all current LR users - have decided not to upgrade.

This is the problem of having a significant minority of users encounter a set of problems of this magnitude.  An old sales axiom went something like
"A happy customer will tell 3 others. An unhappy one will tell 10."  That was in the pre-Internet days.  Now, the word gets out to tens of thousands instead of just a few.

We're now FIFTY-SIX days into this (since the topic was opened on 6/9).  Looking at the last week's posts, it seems like the onus has now been pushed from the vendor to the users - "do a survey", "give us specs", "we're a small group", etc....  There are a ton of system specs in here.  There are many posts stating specific operations that are slow.  There's no need for a survey to know there's a problem.

If Adobe wants to quantify speeds and problems, and honestly aren't ALREADY aware of where the problem areas are, they should provide a version of LR with the timing instrumentation.  AND a script to follow.  I"m sure a LOT of responders would take the time to run the script and get the timings.

[Guest]

Dave, I would absolutely take the time, as I'm sure would others who are on this thread. So even if only some of us did - say 500 - wouldn't that give enough iinfo for someone at Adobe to start with to try and narrow down where the major bugs are coming from to start on at least a .1 update?

And I agree - 56 days without some sort of "official" response from Adobe really starts to give the impression that those in upper management don't really care. Dan & Melissa - I'm not talking about you, but those over you - the ones with the power to loosen up the purse strings to put resources into helping you find a solution.

I've reported this as a bug, as have many others. Really, at this point what else are we supposed to do? Someone at Adobe, this is your chance to stand up and show us you really care about us as users...

[MelissaJ.G.]

Everyone, deep breaths

We gathered (and are gathering) info. We found some issues. We fixed some

issues. We are still working on it.

At some point (I can't give specifics), there will be a dot release that

fixes some of the issues. (again, I can't give specifics). Rest assured,

work has started on this. And has been ongoing on this for a while.

Remember - Adobe employees don't make public statements about what is being

released without specific direction.

There are 4-5 issues being tracked in this thread, all with different causes

- this makes this thread very difficult to do any diagnostics in.

Not everyone, in fact not even a majority of users, are running into the

slowness - but if you do, its very annoying. (also, think back to the

upgrade from Beta 1 to Beta 2 - we had similar threads there, where people

said Beta 2 was faster, and others said Beta 2 was slower than Beta 1 -

there's something very subtle going on)

The issues I see from here are:

1) Moving from image to image in Develop can be slow.

2) Moving from image to image in Library can be slow.

3) Using Local Adjustments can be slow

4) using the spot tool can be slow

5) Exports can be slow

Silence from Adobe here does not mean we don't care. It may be that our

hands are tied from saying much publicly.

-melissa

[JayS_In_CT]

MelissaJ.G. wrote:

Everyone, deep breaths

We gathered (and are gathering) info. We found some issues. We fixed some

issues. We are still working on it.

At some point (I can't give specifics), there will be a dot release that

fixes some of the issues. (again, I can't give specifics). Rest assured,

work has started on this. And has been ongoing on this for a while.

Remember - Adobe employees don't make public statements about what is being

released without specific direction.

There are 4-5 issues being tracked in this thread, all with different causes

- this makes this thread very difficult to do any diagnostics in.

Not everyone, in fact not even a majority of users, are running into the

slowness - but if you do, its very annoying. (also, think back to the

upgrade from Beta 1 to Beta 2 - we had similar threads there, where people

said Beta 2 was faster, and others said Beta 2 was slower than Beta 1 -

there's something very subtle going on)

The issues I see from here are:

1) Moving from image to image in Develop can be slow.

2) Moving from image to image in Library can be slow.

3) Using Local Adjustments can be slow

4) using the spot tool can be slow

5) Exports can be slow

Silence from Adobe here does not mean we don't care. It may be that our

hands are tied from saying much publicly.

-melissa

Melissa,

I don't know if it is related to performance or not (e.g. fall into the rendering as you move from image to image), but the rendering issue in develop after an adjustment on higher resolution displays (greater than or equal to 1920x1200).  There is another thread going, and it has been reported.  Thanks for the update.

Jay S.

[goodlux7]

Also moving from and image in library to an image in develop is slow.

And cropping an image is slow.

Imports are also slow.

The issues I see from here are:

>

1) Moving from image to image in Develop can be slow.

2) Moving from image to image in Library can be slow.

3) Using Local Adjustments can be slow

4) using the spot tool can be slow

5) Exports can be slow

>

[DavePinMinn]

Melissa,  this definitely is NOT a "you" thing. I, and I hope everyone else in here, believe the developers want this product to work - I know from personal experience, NO ONE with any personal pride wants to create software that doesn't perform as advertised/needed/desired.

>Remember -  Adobe employees don't make public statements about what is being

>released  without specific direction.

This one is the one that I believe may be causing some of the frustration and angst and users going out in search of puppies to kick.....

I KNOW you and the other people doing the work can't make statements (we never were allowed to either).  BUT, in this case, as in any case where a product engenders such a response for such an extended period, having SOMEONE (as I said earlier, someone from a room with a door on it that CAN make a statement) stand up and say "WE'RE FIXING IT, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE THREE MONTHS" would help some.......

>Not everyone, in fact not even a  majority of users, are running into the slowness - but if you do,  its very annoying.

Do you (Adobe) have empirical evidence of this, or is it simply that only a minority of users are using this forum or the bug system to report problems?  If there IS evidence from a majority of people (and by people I mean actual, real users that are doing real work with the tool, not just staring at rows of thumbnails in their 500 image catalog) that there is no problem we need to know what they're doing differently.  Or how their configuration differs from those in here. In my case, I dumped an ADDITIONAL $300 in an already over-spec'd system to go to 12GB of memory and an ATI 5770 video card.

I always figure one person reporting a problem exemplifies hundreds or thousands that are HAVING the problem and don't report it.  They just badmouth the product, stop using it, or don't use the product to do those things that don't work.

>Silence  from Adobe here does not mean we don't care. It may be that our hands  are tied from saying much publicly.

Understood, and there shouldn't be anybody chewing on you or your folks for that.....  The chewing should be reserved for the corporate mouthpieces that COULD provide updates so we aren't sitting out here in the dark.

[goodlux7]

Thank you for raising this point. Where is the data? I keep hearing Adobe

cheerleaders saying that everything is A.O.K. for mostly everyone. How are

they convincing themselves of this? Or is this just a divide and conquer

strategy for dealing with this toxic software spill?

Clearly Adobe doesn't have all the facts straight or they wouldn't have

released this in the first place...unless they intended to use their paying

user base as Beta testers. I don't think they would do that, but you have to

wonder.

Could it be that that someone over there is misinterpreting user acceptance

and that is why they are OK with the product as released? Maybe they are

holding the chart upside down.

How can they possibly say that most users are having a positive experience?

Where's the hard data to support this conjecture? They should post that data

to this thread so we all know for sure that we are just the vocal minority.

Clearly something is wrong, because this is the third version of this

software that has been a horrible experience out of the gate. I really hope

they make an effort to do something differently for version 4.0, even if

that means a slower release cycle. They need to hold themselves to a higher

standard. Many people count of this software to work as advertised, and

don't have hours and hours and hours to "try to fix it".

They really need someone over there at Adobe to say "No Way! We are NOT

going to release crappy software to our photographers!"

Where is that voice? Who has that role at Adobe? If there isn't anyone

specifically doing that role, or they don't have the power to make change,

or they have a different agenda, then there clearly is a problem with the

development/release process.

As a buyer, your best option is to return the software by simply clicking

the appropriate link your account or making a 5 minute phone call...and

DONE.

Do it today.

Do you (Adobe) have empirical evidence of this, or is it simply that only a

minority of users are using this forum or the bug system to report

problems? If there IS evidence from a majority of people (and by people I

mean actual, real users that are doing real work with the tool, not just

staring at rows of thumbnails in their 500 image catalog) that there is no

problem we need to know what they're doing differently.

[Guest]

davepinminn wrote:

Melissa,  this definitely is NOT a "you" thing. I, and I hope everyone else in here, believe the developers want this product to work - I know from personal experience, NO ONE with any personal pride wants to create software that doesn't perform as advertised/needed/desired.

>Remember -  Adobe employees don't make public statements about what is being

>released  without specific direction.

This one is the one that I believe may be causing some of the frustration and angst and users going out in search of puppies to kick.....

I KNOW you and the other people doing the work can't make statements (we never were allowed to either).  BUT, in this case, as in any case where a product engenders such a response for such an extended period, having SOMEONE (as I said earlier, someone from a room with a door on it that CAN make a statement) stand up and say "WE'RE FIXING IT, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE THREE MONTHS" would help some.......

>Not everyone, in fact not even a  majority of users, are running into the slowness - but if you do,  its very annoying.

Do you (Adobe) have empirical evidence of this, or is it simply that only a minority of users are using this forum or the bug system to report problems?  If there IS evidence from a majority of people (and by people I mean actual, real users that are doing real work with the tool, not just staring at rows of thumbnails in their 500 image catalog) that there is no problem we need to know what they're doing differently.  Or how their configuration differs from those in here. In my case, I dumped an ADDITIONAL $300 in an already over-spec'd system to go to 12GB of memory and an ATI 5770 video card.

I always figure one person reporting a problem exemplifies hundreds or thousands that are HAVING the problem and don't report it.  They just badmouth the product, stop using it, or don't use the product to do those things that don't work.

>Silence  from Adobe here does not mean we don't care. It may be that our hands  are tied from saying much publicly.

Understood, and there shouldn't be anybody chewing on you or your folks for that.....  The chewing should be reserved for the corporate mouthpieces that COULD provide updates so we aren't sitting out here in the dark.

What other statements than the one from Melissa do you need? They are working on it. They have some issues already fixed. Some issues might still be not reliably reproducable. There might some issues where other parties are responsible for, which they can't disclose. She said that they could reproduce some of the reported problems. What would an official management statement help? Nobody has adviced yet that another hardware purchase is necessary or recommended or that particular devices or drivers are problematic . So if people invest in higher spec stuff and that does not help, it is not Adobe's problem.

Instead of meaningless management statements, which are inspected by the company's lawyers for any problematic wording (they would never dislcose timeframes for providing fixes anyway), I prefer the particpation of staff members in threads like this.

In comparison, the participation of Adobe staff in a thread like this, is more than I expierence with other vendors, where stability and performance issues occured after the first release of a new major version.

And I cannot understand people recommending to photoclub members not to upgrade. There are a lot if people (likely the silent majority), at which Lightroom 3 works very well as advertised. It is as always: before upgrading to a new version test drive it, then purchase.

We are now 56 days in this thread, that's right. However, 56 days is nothing to reproduce and fix such complex issues reported here not to speak of testing for side effects and other stuff. We should also not expect that everything will be fixed in the next dot release.

Kind regards

Thomas

[DJ-G]

Melissa, thank you for your feedback and updates. They are much appreciated.

DJ

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

MelissaJ.G. wrote:

The issues I see from here are:

1) Moving from image to image in Develop can be slow.

2) Moving from image to image in Library can be slow.

3) Using Local Adjustments can be slow

4) using the spot tool can be slow

5) Exports can be slow

Melissa,

As just reported above:

"Using LR in smaller window (size)1600x1200 =  huge gain eg screen update 5x faster"

I've seen this one myself and had personal reports from friends of the very same thing.  So, I'd add that one to the list.  I don't know if this is a NR on/NR off thing or not but even if it is, that choice and implementation could, IMHO, use some work.  For example, in some cases where NR is not applied, I think just color NR would do the trick (and intermediate state between on and off).

Lee Jay

[JayS_In_CT]

Lee Jay wrote:

MelissaJ.G. wrote:

The issues I see from here are:

1) Moving from image to image in Develop can be slow.

2) Moving from image to image in Library can be slow.

3) Using Local Adjustments can be slow

4) using the spot tool can be slow

5) Exports can be slow

Melissa,

As just reported above:

"Using LR in smaller window (size)1600x1200 =  huge gain eg screen update 5x faster"

I've seen this one myself and had personal reports from friends of the very same thing.  So, I'd add that one to the list.  I don't know if this is a NR on/NR off thing or not but even if it is, that choice and implementation could, IMHO, use some work.  For example, in some cases where NR is not applied, I think just color NR would do the trick (and intermediate state between on and off).

Lee Jay

Lee Jay,

Just to add a little to some of what you're saying, the screen res. issue of not re-rendering in Develop is not related to 2010 Process.  That issue happens in both 2003 and 2010 process models.

Jay S.

[getho]

DanTull wrote:

I want the data as much as anything for my own prioritization and understanding. To understand with a better empirical basis how big these issue are across the user base, how it correlates with (very roughly) machine configuration and area of the app, etc.

This thread has provided a lot of clues, a bit of data, and a lot of chatter (speculation, rants, forum feature help, etc). What it is very short on is a more solid statistical sense of the breadth and specificity of the problem. Even a survey is going to suffer from a great deal of participation bias, but it should be one step more structured and thus informative in direct proportion to how effectively the survey manages to reach a representative sample of Lightroom 3 users as a whole.

That is, don't read in too much, I'm just a scientific sort, so I want to make sure we're looking at things right.

DT

Great!  I'm all for empirical data. A survey would be great.

In the meantime how about a table people can copy and paste to start structuring the info you're getting; look I'll start it, can you edit it, delete whatever is irrelevant and add what you need to know.

I've just added example info.

Issue	Data (NT=not tested)
System info (delete serial number)	Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000] Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition Version: 6.1 [7600] Application architecture: x64 System architecture: x64 Physical processor count: 8 Processor speed: 2.6 GHz Built-in memory: 12279.0 MB Real memory available to Lightroom: 12279.0 MB Real memory used by Lightroom: 1454.4 MB (11.8%) Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1814.9 MB Memory cache size: 1845.4 MB System DPI setting: 96 DPI Desktop composition enabled: Yes Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1600x1200
Files used for testing - DNG/ RAW	DNG
From camera:	Canon 7d
MP	18MP
Issues experienced:
The slow loading of grid thumbnails issue
Excessive memory consumption (to the point of swapping) issues,  especially on 64-bit	NT
Issues where the cursors for tools (spot  and localized correction  brush, IIRC) are slow even if no adjustment is  being applied.
General Develop slowness	Slow sliders, slow grad tool, slow screen update
Excessive CPU usage (preview  building?) that doesn't readily idle down.
Perfomance
Build 1:1 previews no develop settings	2-3 secs
Build 1:1 previews complex develop settings	7-8 secs
No develop settings: move exposure slider (screen updates/sec)	2
No Develop settings: rotate grad with no settings (screen updates/sec)	2
Effect of...
Using LR in smaller window (size)	1600x1200 =  huge gain eg screen update 5x faster
Switching off antivius	NT
Turning off panels in develop mode	None
Smaller/larger images (also JPEG versus Raw or  different raws).	4MP jpegs = no difference
Automatically write XMP on/off.
Disk indexing software on/off.
Digitizer tablets  enabled/disabled.	NT
Reproduce the issue in the most minimal catalog you can.	YES (500 images)

[JayS_In_CT]

DanTull wrote:

You guys should start such a survey.

I've been voicing the same thought internally. I'd have a couple more questions, but I'd want to keep it very short to avoid any friction against participation.

DT

Dan,

What are the other questions you'd like to see beyond what Sherlocc has proposed.

Jay S.

[Keith Reeder]

sherlocc wrote:

This thread has had 36,230 posts by 726 people.

Uuummm... no.

36k+ views, 700+ posts, many by the same few folk.

Just saying...

But these figures further serve to make your point - the complaints on here cannot be taken with any certainty as being representative of the overall user experience out there: and bear in mind too that some of us have posted in this thread to say that all is well in Lightroom Land for us - and I'm not really what you'd call a "Bleeding Edge" user either.

[Guest]

If Dan has some questions for a survey is anyone going to take the lead to find out what they are and incorporate them into a new thread? If so, a link to that thread should be posted here so those of us who are following this discussion can go take part in it and help get the ball rolling.

[goodlux7]

"But these figures further serve to make your point - the complaints on here

cannot be taken with any certainty as being representative of the overall

user experience out there: and bear in mind too that some of us have posted

to say that all is well in Lr land for us."

You should start a post "OMG. I can you believe how SMOKING FAST lightroom

is!?!?" Then we'll have an apples to apple comparison.

[Keith Reeder]

goodlux7 wrote:

You should start a post "OMG. I can you believe how SMOKING FAST lightroom 1s!?!?" Then we'll have an apples to apple comparison.

Oh give a rest, will you? We get it - you're not happy. Get over it.

I have zero interest in persuading you or anyone else that Lr is fine on my machine, and could not care less if you have a problem accepting it.

[goodlux7]

"Oh give a rest, will you? We get it - you're not happy. Get over it."