Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

[BCormier]

Anyone else notice that lightroom 4 is slow? Ligtroom 3 always ran fast on my system but Lightroom 4 seemlingly lags quite a bit.

My system is:

2.10 ghz Intel Core i3 Sandy Bridge

8 GB Ram

640 GB Hard Drive

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit

Message title was edited by: Brett N

[andreas603]

WTF!!!??  As anecdotal as it might be, its pretty factual- you were in the room and you saw this being demonstrated....I'm befuddled.  I'm assuming he was conneted to an external display source..likey via VGA...maybe I should trade my MBPretina in for this one!  argh.

[DavePinMinn]

Yup, he was running through a projector and the whole thing was at least eight feet wide on the wall right in front of us...  His startup times, load times, image switch times, and other operations were AT LEAST as fast - and generally FASTER - than what I get on my i7-920, 12GB, 4-7200 rpm drive, desktop running at just under 4GHz... 

[Todd Shaner]

davepinminn wrote:

I have NO DOUBT there are a number of people experiencing problems with LR4, but I suspect it's going to get increasingly difficult to interest Adobe in the severity...

Last night, at one of the Lightroom User group meetings I asked the following question:  "For those of you that are using LR4, who previously used an earlier version of Lightroom, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE PERCEIVING ANY DECREASE IN PERFORMANCE WITH LR4."

The room contained approximately 50 Lightroom users, running both Windows and various Macs.  Of this ENTIRE group, only TWO people raised their hands.  A further inquiry on my part STILL elicited no additional users who admitted to having performance issues.

This pretty much confirms the analysis I did of the 'Views' versus 'Replies' for this post:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4801433#4801433

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: the actual number of LR users with significant performance issues is probably no more than 1.7% to 3.3%.

Two people raising there hands in a group of 50 LR users represents 4.0% for this small but very valid sampling group. At all the user group meetings I've attended (not specifcally Adobe's) the highest turnout were always the "complainers" and the "praiser," strongly indicating there aren't that many people (by-the-numbers) with major LR4 issues.

[DavePinMinn]

trshaner, I think the one area I disagree with you is that in my mind 1.7% is a huge number.  I don't know whether every user that admits to problems represents 10 or 100 or 1000 others that don't know they've got issues (they just think the software is lousy and slow), don't use it in a way that exposes the problems (AT THIS TIME), or are disgruntled and have moved to other software, but to me it's still a significant number of unhappy customers. 

Admittedly, if it IS 2%, I can see where Adobe would prefer that those people go away, find something else, and don't ever complain.  BUT, in this day of widespread communications, a single unhappy user can tell a LOT of other people and possibly influence purchasing decisions... 

I know that in the initial stages I was here relating my performance issues with LR4, but after seeing all the other replies, measurebating, and discussion, I became read-only and simply put up with the performance 'cause the 800 pound gorilla isn't going to be rushed to fix problems.  Hopefully, as version upon version gets released, eventually the vast majority of issues will be ameliorated enough that most users are happy, but I suspect it'll mostly be that memories of how LR3.6 ran will fade, we'll largely get used to the poorer performance, we'll throw hardware at the problem to hopefully help (I can see sales of SSDs and faster CPUs spiking for LR users), or just give up and assume this is as good as it's going to get... 

BUT, when the time comes to drop LR5, I suspect there'll be a lot more skeptical users and a lot fewer people willing to plunk down a credit card on day one.

[Todd Shaner]

davepinminn wrote:

trshaner, I think the one area I disagree with you is that in my mind 1.7% is a huge number.  I don't know whether every user that admits to problems represents 10 or 100 or 1000 others that don't know they've got issues (they just think the software is lousy and slow), don't use it in a way that exposes the problems (AT THIS TIME), or are disgruntled and have moved to other software, but to me it's still a significant number of unhappy customers. 

Admittedly, if it IS 2%, I can see where Adobe would prefer that those people go away, find something else, and don't ever complain.  BUT, in this day of widespread communications, a single unhappy user can tell a LOT of other people and possibly influence purchasing decisions... 

If you go to the post I linked to you will see I said the following concerning the small percentage of LR users with serious performance issue, so in fact I do agree with you.

"From a LR end-user perspective this is still totally unacceptable, since in most cases LR4 is virtu...

[Keith Reeder]

Some excellent investigative work here into Lr's use of multithreading, which also leads to a comclusion that if you want to see an immediate performance improvement, do your NR as late as possible in your workflow...

[Pete.Green]

Hi all,

We have put together a technote containing several less traditional suggestions for optimizing Lightroom's performance that we hope will help.

http://adobe.ly/LRPerformHints

Let us know which of these suggestions are helpful to you. Thanks everyone!

[Bob_Peters]

How about starting a new thread with this as the lead article?  Your comments are going to get lost in this monster.

[bmphotography1]

Done all of these Peter,

Still no dice. I desperation, I just threw a grand at a 3930K and OC'd it to 4.5. Performance is slightly better but hey I'll take what I can get.

Until you can explain to me why LR uses less threads/cores threads for the noise slider when shadow or highlight are <> 0 and why it is that all threads/cores light up using the noise slider when shadow/highlight = 0  then I dont think I am going to be very happy (i.e. why does LR use less resources when there are more calculations to do).

For a IB-E 3930K to be sitting at about 50%CPU capacity when the program is clearly struggling to update the screen is beyond me.

[Guest]

Hi,

I have been very critical regarding LR 4.x performance in almost all my previous posts but I am coming today with news that I still want to be cautious about.

I installed Lightroom 4.3 Beta and I finally feel that I can work again. I am not experiencing any of the problems I had before. (I got once the black rectangles of evil but it hasn't showed up again.

Before I would get in troubles after simply 15-20 mins of working in LR. I have put multiple sessions of several hours each and Lightroom has performed properly. I only had a bit of a slowdown during an exporting session but to be fair, I was running several things at the same time (including watching a video online)

I still want to be cautious, but whatever it was, it got either fixed or greatly improved in LR 4.3. I recommend the rest of you having troubles to install 4.3 and give it a go.

Having said that, and without the intention of "see, I was right" just wanted to say that it was a fix in LR and not on my system what made it work. I did absolutely nothing (except to installing a new antivirus -upgrade from the same company- that seems more happy into checking absolutely everything I do. My internet is a bit slower since I did (install the AV) but LR is good. (I did added several exclusions to the AV regarding LR, like some file extensions and some programs) I am not saying that applying some of the optimization steps mentioned in this thread by users and staff wouldn't help, but they are just that: a tune-up, not a solution. 4.3 Seems to be the solution to my problem

Again, after having troubles for almost a year, I am still cautious of "declaring" it a solution (to me) but so far, it is working very nice.

Good luck!

[areohbee]

uphotography wrote:

I just wanted to say that it was a fix in LR and not on my system what made it work.

It's still true that you probably could have done something to your system that would also have made it work normally, before Adobe did it via Lightroom code. You see, it's not an either-or deal:

e.g. "The problem is either in my system, or it's in Lightroom" - that kinda thinking is just *WAY* too simplistic to cover it.

It can be very tricky to make code run well in all cases on all machines due to the variety of conditions on said machines.

Want some good advice? (if it's still not working well for you):

If you have the expertise (and time/energy/money...) to figure out why it's not running well on your machine, then do it - try to race Adobe. Otherwise, just wait for Adobe - every dot release fixes more people's problems...

R

[Guest]

Oh Rob... Why do you insist, I don't know.

I did absolutely NOTHING. One day I had LR 4.2, the next I had LR 4.3 RC. One day I could not work on Lightroom, the next day I could. I didn't even do a restart. One day I had LR 4.2, send it to sleep (the PC), the next day I have LR 4.3. It worked.

I don't know if I can make this any clearer, I did nothing else. I tried many things with LR 4.2 and erlier but didn't work, I installed 4.3 and did absolutely nothing and it worked. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that. I understand that most of the times it is a combination of user/software what makes something not work. But, for the 100th time, 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 none worked, not even doing many of the "solutions" given here. I install 4.3 and it works.

It was LR, not my system.

Like I said, the only thing that changed was that I installed a new AV and that was actually after I installed 4.3

You want to  keep saying that it was something I did and not just 4.3, go ahead. Be happy. We all need to be right. Our truth is always bigger than the truth of others. That won't however, change the fact that LR 4.3 works on the same system that 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 didn't without me doing anything special for the last release.

[areohbee]

==========================================================================

Warning: there is nothing new in this post - feel free to ignore unless you are a glutton for punishment...

==========================================================================

uphotograhy,

You've made your point.

But somehow I think I'm clearer on your point, than you are on mine.

Yours: the problem was Lightroom, since it was fixed by new code, not a system change (understood/clear. - no argument).

Mine: a system change might also have improved the self-same situation, in like fashion (understood?).

Conclusion: you can fix it yourself, we know that, because the problems are system dependent, and some people (with same base hardware/OS) aren't having them, and of those people who are or were having problems, some fixed them before Adobe released the version which may also have done it, but we'll never know.

Or, you can wait for Adobe to fix it, because eventually they probably will (find the rubs and smooth 'em out, for lack of a better way to put it).

Clearer?

This all seems obvious to me, and probably to you too, since none of this is unique to Lightroom (i.e. potentially true of any software), and since I've been going on about it ad infinitum. If it's still not sitting well with you, then perhaps it's because of some inferred implication - i.e. something is being read from between the lines that wasn't put there - e.g. some alterior motive is being assumed...

The only reason I ever bring it up, is for the sake of readers who might otherwise jump to a false conclusion.

If somebody comes on and says: "there is nothing wrong with Lightroom, since it works fine on most machines", I would challenge that - it's not true, and it may mislead people who are trying to decide what to do.

Likewise,

If somebody comes on and says: "see: the problem wasn't with my machine at all, since the new version of Lightroom fixed it", I would claim that is also overly simplistic, and might mislead people...

Dunno how many more times I'll try to make this point - hopefully not too many...

Bottom line: computer programs are extremely complicated, as are the number of permutations of stuff they'll encounter when running. Most problems can be fixed by coding around obstacles in various machines, but also those with various machines can often re-arrange things to remove the obstacles - admittedly, if you have only limited computer skills (or maybe even if you don't), then you may find yourself at the mercy of Adobe, despite your attempts.

PS - I just had a performance problem which I fixed - had me extremely worried - thought I would have to see whether I would be able to take my own advice - every time I touched a slider, Lightroom would stall for several seconds. I'd had finicky behavior like this before, but it was always short lived. This time however, it wouldn't go away. I fixed it by disabling real-time anti-virus checking. I did nothing to cause this unhappy performance degradation (that I am aware of) - maybe it was an anti-virus update, or maybe it was an OS update, or maybe something else. What's my point? - no point, except that this is just one of a multitude of different cases where something in a system caused Lr to perform badly. There are also a multitude of reports by people who've done nothing except install a new version of Lr and all was well after that. That's just how things are in this biz: both things happen - not either-or...

Another (more specific) example:

If the Lr preferences are wonky - usually due to a bug in Lr, could have been planted as far back as Lr1 - laying in wait..., or could be due to a disk hiccup - doesn't matter, if code is not robust enough to weather the pref snafu, Lr may set some variable wrong, and then all performance hell breaks loose. For that problem, there are 2 potential fixes:

1. User deletes the preferences file.

2. Adobe robustens the preferences error detection and handling code.

Either action fixes the same problem.

Final note: None of this is purposed to place (nor divert) blame - that's not my thing. It's all about getting it working - no particular solution is sacred...

Sorry for all of this,

Rob

[rpavich1234]

The problem with assuming the the user's machine is at fault is that the job of the software dev is to iron out the problems on common hardware. It's ludicrous to say..."well..it works fine on a commodore 64...your problem is that your hardware is at fault...it's not a commodore64..

No...I realize that no software works perfectly on all hardware...but there is a reasonable expectation that software will be functional on common setups...not so buggy that like-machines are behaving 100% differently.

If you bought a car and the brakes were mushy you'd not expect the dealer to tell you that you're partially at fault, that you should start stopping earlier and not be in such a rush...would you? (though it would "fix" the problem...you'd be able to stop in time, it's not the ROOT of the problem is it? It's the brakes...not you or the way you use the brakes...you EXPECT brakes to behave in a certain way

IF my other software programs can get this simple thing right (I can't REMEMEBER the last time I had a conversation like this over software) then certainly LR should be better than it is.

I use Photoshop CS5 on the same machine and it's got TONS of more capability than LR and it runs like butter....

[areohbee]

rpavich1234 wrote:

...

rpavich1234,

I essentially agree with you, and I am most certainly on your side here: Lr should be robustened and optimized so it doesn't have all these problems...

But there still seems to be a cricital point you are missing, as evidenced by this statement:

rpavich1234 wrote:

it's the job of the software dev to iron out the problems on common hardware.

While I agree with this (I have been a software dev since the beginning of (computer) time).

Adobe did iron out all the problems on common hardware before releasing Lr4 (as a beta that is). I assume this based on experience - I have no inside info about it. No self-respecting engineer would certify it, and no reputable company would force it from the hands of the engineers without such certification (even if informal). If you think Adobe knew it was cr@p and didn't care, and shipped cr@p because they had the users by the ball sack or whatever - you are being way too cynical. - it may seem like that, but things are rarely exactly what they seem to be.

I mean, I'm sure they were aware of some bugs when they shipped, but if Lr was performing poorly in their lab (or in their small circle of alpha testers) the way it is (or was) for some people in the field, they wouldn't have shipped it (Adobe is a respectable company with a reputation to uphold, despite the fact that profit is the primary business motivation).

Don't get me wrong: plenty of beta testers reported problems and they shipped it anyway, but I'm really glad they did: I've been happily using it for almost a year now. The deal being this: knowing that some people have problems is often insufficient info for finding a solution: very hard to fix if can't reproduce in lab.

Maybe you do understand that - dunno. I mean, your point is well-taken: they should have tested it better. Dunno if my point is being taken - so far there has been no indication that I've been understood.

My machine runs very well, in general - most apps, including Lightroom. I do have some other apps that don't work as well on my machine as they do on other people's machines - go figure.

Food for thought: if you are one of the people having problems, then such problems seem more prevalent than if you are one of the people not having such problems.

For the record:

rpavich1234 wrote:

The problem with assuming the user's machine is at fault...

I have never ever thought that, nor said that.

But this is a user forum, and none of us has any control over the software, which I consider to be a given (in mathematics terms: a constant, not a variable) - your mission should you choose to accept it, is to try and get that lousy piece of ______ working as well on your machine as it possibly can. - this post will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

Rob

[rpavich1234]

But this is a user forum, and none of us has any control over the software, which I consider to be a given (in mathematics terms: a constant, not a variable) - your mission should you choose to accept it, is to try and get that lousy piece of ______ working as well on your machine as it possibly can. - this post will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

Rob

Agreed

I also note you you hinted at something in your post that's a risk for companies releasing software:

Model 1:) Release with ultimate amount of testing aka no bugs.

Model #2: ) Release early, release often.

Both have their merits and one reason that Adobe is taking heat is they've chosen model #2 as a release philosophy...it's part and parcel of the process to have lots of complaints.

[areohbee]

rpavich1234 wrote:

Model #2: ) Release early, release often.

one reason that Adobe is taking heat is they've chosen model #2 as a release philosophy...it's part and parcel of the process to have lots of complaints.

No argument .

~R.

[Geoff the kiwi]

And one of the reasons for the model used is constant camera updates - who would want to wait 12 months for a new camera to be supported, there are enough complaints already!!

- sent from China!

Re: Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

created by Rob Cole in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion

[Guest]

Rob,

I get your point. I agree that if someone decides to read only my post out of the 1625 published so far through the 41 pages of the longest LR thread in Adobe forums they might think that they need to wait until Adobe releases an update that fixes their problem. I said "might" because I even mentioned trying out all (or almost all) the solutions given before. And, to be honest, if somebody decides to pick my post, that specific one regarding LR 4.3, doesn't read anything else and doesn't even have the curiosity of browsing through the pages to find what those other solutions might be, and instead sits and waits for an update from Adobe, well, you know... "good for them". I might feel adventurous and a bit pretentious as to say that it is psychologically expected from anybody reading my post to at least read the rest of the posts in the same page and even go back 1 or two pages more.

But for the sake of it and for that unique reader that might read this "out of context":

- I still think that there was something in LR 4.x where x<3 causing major performance issues on my system. I did try most of the solutions suggested here and find them to be useless for the previous versions (that is my personal experience as others found some improvement using some of them. I didn't but that might have been due to the "severity" of the problem in my case.

- I still think that even after installing 4.3 (and if it solves your problem) it is advisable to check some of this solution because they might improve LR's performance a bit more (I see most of them as tune-ups and not as a solution to the bug I was experiencing - for a new reader, please try to find the video I posted several pages ago showing the performance issues I experienced with LR 4.0, 4.1 & 4.2)

And last, but not least, we need to understand that not everybody is computer savvy, so many, many users expect something to work "out of the box". Darn... I like using car simile: Can you imagine buying a new car, finding out it doesn't run well and then trying to tune, fix it yourself? How many people would actually do that? How many would just simply return it or contact the maker to fix the problem for them? How is this any different?

It is still my opinion that LR 4.0 was a faulty release, we, have users can do a bit to make it work better but it was Adobe's responsibility to fix it (which they after 8 months finally did - for me anyway... maybe there are some others still having problems). So even when the problem is not 100% on ours (users) or theirs (Adobe) shoulders, I also think it is not 50/50.

What are the implications of all these for people? I don't know, but I can tell you what the implications are for me:

1- Stopped converting to DNG

2- Got aware of all the competition out there and some of their pro's and their con's

3- Got afraid of touching anything on my computer at the moment. I feel like I am on a metastable equilibrium. (I have 4.3 RC, and I'm not sure I want to go to the official 4.3 when it's available or any future update/release.

4- Had to increase my final product delivery time from 2 weeks to an "uncertain" 3-4 weeks. (Although I might be able to revert this thanks to 4.3 RC

But, I am more relax now... LR 4.3 RC is still workin Let's enjoy that while it lasts!

Happy holidays everybody!

[areohbee]

uphotography wrote:

And last, but not least, we need to understand that not everybody is computer savvy, so many, many users expect something to work "out of the box". Darn... I like using car simile: Can you imagine buying a new car, finding out it doesn't run well and then trying to tune, fix it yourself? How many people would actually do that? How many would just simply return it or contact the maker to fix the problem for them? How is this any different?

Same in some ways, different in others.

Difference:

Very few lemons come out of car plants these days - a particular model of car works about the same for each person, assuming it's being driven on a similar road.

Same:

People who don't work on cars wouldn't know what to do if the car didn't work right when they got it. - wait for the dealer to fix it, find somebody else to work on it, or get rid of it in favor of a different car would be their recourses...

Please don't misunderstand the purposes for my posts.

This is *NOT* the purposes for my posts:

* To excuse Adobe, or divert blame from them, or to suggest Lightroom was plenty well tested, and has few problems...

(nor is it to blame Adobe, or criticize, or suggest Lightroom was not plenty well tested, and has a lot of problems...)

None of that - it's not my thing.

This is the primary purposes for my posts:

* To supply ideas for brainstorming, in case they might help someone have better performance, while Adobe is simultaneously fumbling for fixes.

* To share experiences I've had which may be helpful toward the same end.

(that's it - just tryin' to help - no judgement of Adobe, no judgement of users, no assumptions about machines, none of that...)

Summary: I'm really not here to argue about who's fault anything is, nor to proclaim how things would be different if I were the boss of the Lightroom project, nor try to convince any one of any thing, unless I think it might ultimately help them to get Lightroom working better. I'm not saying I stick to that 100%, but I try.

I confess I get tired of hearing the continued re-statement of the sentiment that Adobe should have done better - that really get's old. But I'm sure plenty of people get tired of my going on and on too, so I guess it all evens out in the wash... - nobody has to read any post they are not interested in.

To put it another way: I'm not a defender, but I'm not a slammer either... - I assume they do the best they can, and I am grateful for it, even though I too get frustrated with it's shortcomings sometimes. But I can not change Adobe, I can only change the computer their software runs on. Still, I very-much appreciate that not all users would know how to cope should Lr not work well out of the box - plenty have stuck with Lr3 or jumped ship - I don't blame them.

Rob

[rpavich1234]

This is *NOT* the purposes for my posts:

* To excuse Adobe, or divert blame from them, or to suggest Lightroom was plenty well tested, and has few problems...

(nor is it to blame Adobe, or criticize, or suggest Lightroom was not plenty well tested, and has a lot of problems...)

None of that - it's not my thing.

This is the primary purposes for my posts:

* To supply ideas for brainstorming, in case they might help someone have better performance, while Adobe is simultaneously fumbling for fixes.

* To share experiences I've had which may be helpful toward the same end.

(that's it - just tryin' to help - no judgement of Adobe, no judgement of users, no assumptions about machines, none of that...)

Summary: I'm really not here to argue about who's fault anything is, nor to proclaim how things would be different if I were the boss of the Lightroom project, nor try to convince any one of any thing, unless I think it might ultimately help them to get Lightroom working better. I'm not saying I stick to that 100%, but I try.

I confess I get tired of hearing the continued re-statement of the sentiment that Adobe should have done better - that really get's old. But I'm sure plenty of people get tired of my going on and on too, so I guess it all evens out in the wash... - nobody has to read any post they are not interested in.

Rob,
I'm not slamming you when I say that this is far from apparent when reading through this thread (I've participated some during the last few months)...this is the first clear cut, unambigious statement that I've noticed from you on this particular subject. You probably have said it in other ways before but I'm talking about PERCEPTION and not reality....your answers (while you are trying to be helpful; and are helpful) come across as a fanboy-defender, even if that's not your intention.

I'm posting this comment not to start something with you but to clarify how many of us PERCEIVE this situation.

Again...It's appreciated that you stated this outright...I understand your intentions mubh better now...:)

Bob

[areohbee]

I get accused of being a slammer by the defenders and accused of being a defender by the slammers! - makes me laugh some days , and on other days it just makes me cry... .

Survey

=====

Do you believe:

A. Adobe are idiots, and Lightroom is cr@p.

B. Adobe is beyond reproach, and Lightroom is nearly perfect.

C. Something in between.

D. None of the above.

I think you know where I stand (hint: 'C').

Extra credit:

---------------

Do you also know somebody who would answer: 'A'? (it seems like some people truly believe this)

How about 'B'? (I'm not sure anybody actually believes this, but there are certainly people who seem to want you and me to believe it - maybe they have stock in Adobe...).

Rob

[Todd Shaner]

bmphotography wrote:

Done all of these Peter,

Still no dice. I desperation, I just threw a grand at a 3930K and OC'd it to 4.5. Performance is slightly better but hey I'll take what I can get.

Until you can explain to me why LR uses less threads/cores threads for the noise slider when shadow or highlight are <> 0 and why it is that all threads/cores light up using the noise slider when shadow/highlight = 0  then I dont think I am going to be very happy (i.e. why does LR use less resources when there are more calculations to do).

For a IB-E 3930K to be sitting at about 50%CPU capacity when the program is clearly struggling to update the screen is beyond me.

Have you tried turning off hyper-threading in the BIOS?  I'd also try LR4.3 RC both with and without HT.

[bmphotography1]

trshaner wrote:

bmphotography wrote:

Done all of these Peter,

Still no dice. I desperation, I just threw a grand at a 3930K and OC'd it to 4.5. Performance is slightly better but hey I'll take what I can get.

Until you can explain to me why LR uses less threads/cores threads for the noise slider when shadow or highlight are <> 0 and why it is that all threads/cores light up using the noise slider when shadow/highlight = 0  then I dont think I am going to be very happy (i.e. why does LR use less resources when there are more calculations to do).

For a IB-E 3930K to be sitting at about 50%CPU capacity when the program is clearly struggling to update the screen is beyond me.

Have you tried turning off hyper-threading in the BIOS?  I'd also try LR4.3 RC both with and without HT.

Yes, firsth thing I did. I thought I saw a slight improvement but nothing that made me want to keep it off. LR 4.2 + 4.3 tried. sudo renice had less of an impact on this platform than it did on the 4-core which is interesting - to me it says that it doesnt matter how much extra time the CPU gives it.  Havent got the windows partition back on it yet but so far the problem is basically same so I have no reason to doubt that it will be any different in Win7. The improvement that I have seen is in line only with the extra horsepower, changing platform has not yielded the miraculous light vs day improvement that I was hoping for (but not expecting).

Its not all bad though because the machine is so quick on everything else it really is a joy to use. All other aspects of Lightroom fly like the proverbial coming off a shovel, its just that one aspect of noise management that continues to cause me a problem. The six-core has at least pulled the problem back to just within the realms of workable - barely.

Have heard rumours from people that Win8 offers some benefits but that will have to wait. Im sufficiently skeptical now to put the problem on the shelf for a couple of weeks, at least I can work now but I have 4 weddings and 4 albums to get through, this whole thing has cost me a lot of time.

B

[areohbee]

Thanks Pete - I think that page is a pretty good start. Far from comprehensive though...

Regarding graphics adapters:

Usually, if graphics adapter is being a stinker, the latest driver update is best thing to try. Sometimes however, one actually needs on older driver. Why? Because for every half-dozen problems fixed, a new problem is induced. So, odds are best with newest driver, but if your problem is one of those "unlucky six", an older driver would be required. I've had this happen more than once in my life. Most often, the older driver works for all, but I've also had the experience of having to switch graphic driver back and forth to satisfy different apps. Usually this only lasts for a few months or a year or so, but sometimes problems get induced that are never fixed... - so it's always worth trying a new card too, even if your present card seems pretty-much OK.

Note: the fancier and higher performance the system and graphics card, the more potential for problems. Consider trying mainboard graphics if you have it, to avoid having to purchase a new card to try. And for completeness, the same is true of system firmware/bios and low-level device drivers, although much less often - and a real headache to resolve should you have such a case - usually best to buy a new motherboard or computer should this be your trouble.

The usual disclaimer/reminder:

======================

This quote was made about me (above):

|> "You want to keep saying that it was something I did and not just 4.3".

I have never ever thought that, nor said that - if you think I did, then you have misunderstood.

Problems with Lr's handling of graphics may be solved by Adobe in a future rev, but until then, there may be something you can do, to your system, to work around those problems.

Rob