Lightroom - speed on PC vs Mac

photogmomma · March 4, 2008

Can anyone give me any indications of the speed differences I'll be looking at if I move from PC to Mac with equal qualifications? Just roughly is fine....

One of the reasons I'm really considering a Mac is because my 3.4 GHZ machine with 2GB ram just craters from time to time. LR will slow to a crawl and almost lock up - and will come back 30 seconds later and then just plug along like nothing happened. It's incredibly irritating! (It's like this on my laptop, too, which is not quite as fast, but still a good machine.)

Any thoughts on that?

Thanks!

gluwater · March 4, 2008

Check out this thread. I think it's the closest thing you'll be able to find.

claudermilk · March 5, 2008

I don't think that test is really relevant. I've read many times that LR performance on PC is sub-par while on Mac it's supposed to be ok. Of course, since I don't use it, I'm just going by watching discussions over time.

jww · March 5, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

I don't think that test is really relevant. I've read many times that LR performance on PC is sub-par while on Mac it's supposed to be ok. Of course, since I don't use it, I'm just going by watching discussions over time.

I would agree it is not totally relevent since there are no LR specific tasks.

...however personally, I've never had any performance issues in LR once I built my new pc last year.

It flat out screams...

photogmomma · March 5, 2008

gluwater wrote:

Check out this thread. I think it's the closest thing you'll be able to find.

Thanks, but I think that LR and CS work different. LR is database driven while PS is more processing so I'm guessing that they don't work quite the same way....

I've found a LOT of things that say LR is much faster than aperture... And I'm guessing that LR would run as well or better on Mac because of the way it processes, but haven't been able to find anything solid on it.

Thanks, all! Appreciate the feedback!

photogmomma · March 5, 2008

jww wrote:

I would agree it is not totally relevent since there are no LR specific tasks.

...however personally, I've never had any performance issues in LR once I built my new pc last year.

It flat out screams...

I've been goign through and removing a bunch of thigns from my machine. one thing i didn't realize was installed was Google Desktop, which seems to love indexing everything. i've noticed that I'm not running into the same slowdowns I did before.... So I'm starting to wonder if that's been my problem.

I am just really debating a Mac, but don't want to make the jump unless it's necessary - at least right now.

Thanks, all!

jww · March 5, 2008

photogmomma wrote:

I've been goign through and removing a bunch of thigns from my machine. one thing i didn't realize was installed was Google Desktop, which seems to love indexing everything. i've noticed that I'm not running into the same slowdowns I did before.... So I'm starting to wonder if that's been my problem.

I am just really debating a Mac, but don't want to make the jump unless it's necessary - at least right now.

Thanks, all!

I don't want to sway your decision at all... I would just hate for you to spend money that you could use elsewhere!

..one thing that choked my old pc was windows indexing service. While it is supposed to make finding stuff easier on your pc, it can be a cpu hog and at the worst times. ...that and Norton Security can be quite a CPU hog as well..

photogmomma · March 5, 2008

jww wrote:

I don't want to sway your decision at all... I would just hate for you to spend money that you could use elsewhere!

..one thing that choked my old pc was windows indexing service. While it is supposed to make finding stuff easier on your pc, it can be a cpu hog and at the worst times. ...that and Norton Security can be quite a CPU hog as well..

Yeah, I switched to McAfee because of Norton... Haven't touched the indexing service.

There are a lot of issues I'm having and they're not new. I know computers, I know how to clean them up and keep them running well, but there are just some things that aren't responding like I'd expect. And after seeing my hubby have so few issues with his Mac... well... We'll see where this leads us!

Thanks again!

dmmattix · March 5, 2008

No personal experience with it (I only use the PC) but Uwe Steinmueller of Outbackphoto.com says in his RockyNook Lightroom book that using the latest version they could not see any performance differences between the PC and Mac version in their experiences and that they used both versions quite a bit. This was Lightroom V1.2.

Just a bit of a different opinion than what has been posted here...

DonRicklin · March 5, 2008

I have had reports from both PC and Mac users of increased speed with the current version, 1.3.1. Some do use both platforms.

Don

eoren1 · March 5, 2008

One other thing to consider with antivirus programs is that some of them are too aggressive in their 'always-on' scanning. I added cr2 (canon raw) files to the safe list as well as jpgs and saw a huge improvement.
Also, you can never go wrong with a clean Windows install.
I'm running it on a desktop now with 2 gigs ram and a decent CPU and it runs very fast. I was even able to reenable the 'automatically write xmp data' which had been the achilles heel of LRs speed in the past.
I don't see any difference in LR between my Vista PC and my Macbook for what it's worth.
E

W.W. Webster · March 5, 2008

photogmomma wrote:

I've found a LOT of things that say LR is much faster than aperture...

That's the truth!

CatOne · March 5, 2008

W.W. Webster wrote:

That's the truth!

It was more true with Aperture 1.5 and earlier than it is with Aperture 2. Aperture 2 is pretty quick... REALLY quick if you use the quick JPEG preview mode (which is what LR is doing in many cases when you're in the grid or loupe views).

jeffreaux2 · March 6, 2008

This will not answer your original question....but

I was having stability problems awhile back. BIG stability problems. My machine has photoshop CS, CS3, Premiere Elements, and PS Elements installed......along with bridge. I had to do a reformat, and experienced the problems afterward. The machine was quite stable before I reformatted. I ONLY had problems with Adobe applications. I tried swapping RAM around, moving scratch disks around etc. Lastly, I uninstalled my adobe software and reinstalled it, but put everything in seperate directories. All is now well.

Giphsub · March 6, 2008

Can't compare with my old pc, because I only used PS on it, but LR runs perfectly on my macbook. No slow down at all

SloYerRoll · March 7, 2008

I may get flamed for asking this. But why are you running anti-virus ware?

No need to answer the following. But I think I already know the answers. (in a good way)
Do you go to shady websites? Do you blindly click OK to install Active X if a website asks you to? Do you open suspicious attachments from email of people that you don't know?

The virus thing is way overplayed. With todays browsers internal security. Unless your doing illegal things at shady websites. i.e. serial number cracking sites or bit torrent apps that leave open ports for hackers to get into**.
The anti-virus companies are preying on what they know everyone is afraid of. The unknown. That there might be a hacker across your street right now spending all his time trying to ruin your computer

I don't run any anti virus on my system and have never had a remote issue. I installed NOD about 3 months ago and let it check out my drives. Nothing there!

So if you keep your nose clean. Turn off your antivirus and just don't do anything that you may regret (or at least do it on an old crappy laptop

) and you'll see your performance increase drastically.

I'm sure there are horror stories out there. But a majority of the time. Plain ol common sense and a bit of maintenance will keep your computer running like a top and germ free.

**BTW:Both Windows & Mac both have at least 20 open ports at any given moment. So hacking is always an option as long as the person is talented and motivated enough. The thing is, the talented hackers could care less about your computer. They're trying bigger and better things than busting into a home network.

Scott_Quier · March 7, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

I may get flamed for asking this. But why are you running anti-virus ware?

No need to answer the following. But I think I already know the answers. (in a good way)
Do you go to shady websites? Do you blindly click OK to install Active X if a website asks you to? Do you open suspicious attachments from email of people that you don't know?

The virus thing is way overplayed. With todays browsers internal security. Unless your doing illegal things at shady websites. i.e. serial number cracking sites or bit torrent apps that leave open ports for hackers to get into**.
The anti-virus companies are preying on what they know everyone is afraid of. The unknown. That there might be a hacker across your street right now spending all his time trying to ruin your computer

I don't run any anti virus on my system and have never had a remote issue. I installed NOD about 3 months ago and let it check out my drives. Nothing there!

So if you keep your nose clean. Turn off your antivirus and just don't do anything that you may regret (or at least do it on an old crappy laptop) and you'll see your performance increase drastically.

I'm sure there are horror stories out there. But a majority of the time. Plain ol common sense and a bit of maintenance will keep your computer running like a top and germ free.

**BTW:Both Windows & Mac both have at least 20 open ports at any given moment. So hacking is always an option as long as the person is talented and motivated enough. The thing is, the talented hackers could care less about your computer. They're trying bigger and better things than busting into a home network.

I have to

with a lot of what's said here. McAfee and Norton are very resource intensive applications. There are smaller (and free) options that are just as effective and that require a LOT less CPU to perform their mission (I use Avast!).

That having been said, I set up a POS laptop with Win2K and no anti-virus - mostly because I didn't want to consume the CPU cycles. I will say, though, that I burned an ISO image of the machine before I put it into production with the intent of re-imaging the laptop on a more or less regular basis (20 minute job:D).

This machine is used strictly for web browsing and e-mail. Had it up for a couple of months now and, at the last test, no creepy-crawlies. But, that may be because I don't do bit-torrent or software downloads to it, or visit sites I would not want my mother/wife/daughter to see, etc - Just web-mail (though that can be a problem sometimes), DGrin, POTN, etc.

jww · March 7, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

I may get flamed for asking this. But why are you running anti-virus ware?

...I would tend to agree and have read a few articles suggesting the same. I have often thought of just shutting it all off, but I get tons of files from folks that aren't quite as PC savy. ..and as I provide a bit of web and other software to folks in my spare time, I feel I need to at least have an extra eye out. I've found way to many surprises in the least likely places including an install cd from a software company. ..some upgrade huh?..

I used to like norton Waaaaaay back when you could just turn off all scanning except for email and removable media. Hit GRC.com every so often to check my ports etc.. I was happy.. The current trend in Norton and McAfee is just too intrusive... you really don't need all that.

..I'm trying CA (computer associates) antivirus this time around and it isn't too bad actually.. non intrusive, and I've used their system products for years and know them to be reliable.

I also recommend adWare from LavaSoft for spyware as well as adWatch that you get with the plus and pro versions for pop up as well as reg hack protection.

It may be a little over the top, but I guess I am more content locking my car than just feeling secure from parking in safe neighborhoods.

DonRicklin · March 7, 2008

I don't run a PC, but from all I've read in the Fora around this issue can't you have McAfee or what ever ignore LR and what it is doing while it checks emails and downloads?

Didn't think it was an all or none situation, but, as I say, I'm on a Mac and don't have this issue.

Don

claudermilk · March 7, 2008

Some of what SloYerRoll said is true, but IMHO not running any antivirus is foolish. We all make mistakes, and sometimes a virus shows up where least expected--then it's too late.

I run Avast & it's pretty non-intrusive. Worlds better than Norton (now a disaster) or McAfee. The price can't be beat, either.

Another good thing to do is to run a harware-based firewall in a router. Most of us are on DSL or cable now & sticking a router between the modem & PC is now a cheap, easy thing to do. You can have it lock down all those ports. For example, n mine, nothing comes in that I don't specifically ask for unless you're hitting my web server, and ONLY that machine's local IP address is open, and ONLY on port 80. As far as the outside world is concerned there is only one machine with only port 80 at my location if you go pinging around.

DonRicklin · March 7, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

Some of what SloYerRoll said is true, but IMHO not running any antivirus is foolish. We all make mistakes, and sometimes a virus shows up where least expected--then it's too late.

I run Avast & it's pretty non-intrusive. Worlds better than Norton (now a disaster) or McAfee. The price can't be beat, either.

Another good thing to do is to run a harware-based firewall in a router. Most of us are on DSL or cable now & sticking a router between the modem & PC is now a cheap, easy thing to do. You can have it lock down all those ports. For example, n mine, nothing comes in that I don't specifically ask for unless you're hitting my web server, and ONLY that machine's local IP address is open, and ONLY on port 80. As far as the outside world is concerned there is only one machine with only port 80 at my location if you go pinging around.

The hardware idea is great. WHen I upgraded my Wifi router (I'm on DSL) I gave it to my Dad (Cable), not just because my BRo and I wanted to use our LAptops at his house, but because he is on a PC and he gets better protection with it.

:ivar

Don

SloYerRoll · March 7, 2008

I second the hardware investment.
Unless you a bit of a hack, you can never know if all your ports are sut down unless you have hardware based firewall. (depending on the model, it can be very easy to set up as well)

@Don, just remember that Mac's have just as many open ports at any time as MS.
There are just less reasons to create Mac virus's since MS still hold the lions share of the puter market (hovering around 88%).

It's common knowledge in the unix world that the OS X framework would be in just as much trouble if the roles were reversed and Mac's were dominant.

Maybe the "get a Mac" comments will die down if it gets up to about 50% market share and virus's start popping up?

DonRicklin · March 7, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

I second the hardware investment.
Unless you a bit of a hack, you can never know if all your ports are sut down unless you have hardware based firewall. (depending on the model, it can be very easy to set up as well)

@Don, just tremember that Mac's have just as many open ports at any time as MS.
There are jsut less targets for Mac virus's since MS still hold the lions share of the puter market hovering around 88%. It's common knowledge in the unix world that the OS X framework would be in just as much trouble if the roles were reversed and Mac's were dominant.

Mabey the "get a Mac" comments will die down if it get's up to about 50% market share and vireus's start popping up?

I do use Hardware (router) firewall and Privoxy (Any OS shareware) for software firewall.

I am aware of what you say. However many are moving to Mac for speed and ease of use, as well.

Don

SloYerRoll · March 7, 2008

LRmvcDonR wrote:

I do use Hardware (router) firewall and Privoxy (Any OS shareware) for software firewall.

I am aware of what you say. However many are moving to Mac for speed and ease of use, as well.

Don

I agree w/ the ease of use aspect. It's almost like magic!

Not arguing w/ you at all Don. I like Macs.

Not so sure about the speed thing though... I'll race a MacPro any day.

CatOne · March 7, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

@Don, just remember that Mac's have just as many open ports at any time as MS.
There are just less reasons to create Mac virus's since MS still hold the lions share of the puter market (hovering around 88%).

It's common knowledge in the unix world that the OS X framework would be in just as much trouble if the roles were reversed and Mac's were dominant.

Maybe the "get a Mac" comments will die down if it gets up to about 50% market share and virus's start popping up?

SoYerRoll, you're 100% incorrect here, and this shows you're not that aware of the Mac platform.

The default configuration of Mac OS X is to have ZERO (other synonyms include none, nil, nada, etc.) services listening. Which means there are ZERO attack vectors via internet ports. You could get a Mac, configure your account, and plug in a naked RJ-45 plug into the Ethernet and it would never be compromised. It's like yelling a a deaf person whose back is turned to you... good luck with that. Yes, if you go to the "sharing" pane and turn on file sharing, desktop sharing, internet sharing, web sharing, etc., you are exposing ports and services... but by default there's nothing listening at all (as shipped from the factory).

On your other comments about "common knowledge in the UNIX world..." I'm dying here. It's just not true that the ONLY reason Macs have fewer viruses is because nobody can be bothered to write something for such a small market share. Yes, market share and potential impact is one thing, but the other is the "built in" versus "bolted on" aspect of security. The whole WINSOCK/WFW/NETBIOS infastructure was never really designed as secure and has had to be shored up over the years... where UNIX was designed as Internet-enabled and secure from the start. Apple is the first UNIX kid on the block -- but it does benefit from a lot of good things that have been learned and coded for security over the last 30 years.

SloYerRoll · March 8, 2008

Whatever you say.

CatOne · March 10, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

Whatever you say.

You're free to check my work. OS X includes a utility (Network Utility) which can do a port scan. Use it from one Mac to check another, as scanning the local host doesn't make sense.

Don't take it personally; I'm not attacking you. I'm just not overly fond of mis- (or dis-) information.

SloYerRoll · March 10, 2008

Didn't think you were attacking me

.
I'd be thinking to highly of myself if I thought anything in this forums is intentionally aimed at me.

The fact of the matter is (to me) that humans developed this software and the same way it can be built, it can be torn apart.
The reason so many PC attacks have been created is (besides idiots that live in their moms basement) the public sector (most open source programmers) hate MS and everything it stands for. They'd like nothing better than to see the Monopoly called Microsoft be brought to it's knees; since MS is going after market value and not the collective good of computer users.

In the private sector, you have developers that only care about a fat paycheck (nothing wrong w/ that:D) and could care less about open source and look down on it as a blight to the software industry. So they are not going to waste 5 minutes trying to exploit anything that doesn't have a return on investment.

Open source developers take a certain level of pride in showing how they can blast through anything that is created for profit. They are much more emotionally and mentally invested in going after MS.

I've run port scans on 3 different friends Macs and have seen open ports all over the place on all 3.

As a disclaimer, I didn't know what they were running, but to see open ports on a machine that's supposed to be so much more secure.. I did the math..

I've never run a port scan on my Mac since I use a dedicated firewall and if a hacker gets past that they deserve the few design files and bits and pieces of data that's useless to them. So while your machine and many others may be locked down. To say that Macs collectively don't run w/ open ports is a blind statement aimed only at users that either they know what their doing, or are cautious enough to not install things that they don't 100% know the intentions of the developer.
And how many of us have installed something that looked really cool (and benign) from a company we never heard of? I'd say more than less.

If the tables were turned and Unix/Linux based OS were to grab a decent part of the world market share. I think you'd be surprised on how many open source developers would turn on that specific OS.

Why? Because in order to make it user friendly enough to please the masses that are essentially computer illiterate (not a dig, just the truth), it has to have bloatware installed. Or it has to be ridiculously priced to pay the fat paychecks of talented developers, so they can actually create an OS without being pressured to get it out the door so their company can stay current.

To sum it up:
I don't argue for a split second that PC are more vulnerable than Macs out of the box.
But:
A system is only as secure as it's handler.
You can get a Mac just as foobar'd as a PC if your negligent to it.

In the same way you're not overly fond of mis-statements. I'm not fond of comments that lead people to believe that a Mac has some ethereal qualities that will protect them from all badness. I understand your not one of these people. But I didn't aim my comments at you either. At this point it's just a matter of where the passionate developers allegiance lies. And right now, they don't care about Mac's since it is based on their framework.

All the best,
-Jon

0atony · July 6, 2008

The historic reason for Macs being better for graphics in general is because of the early partnering between Apple and Adobe. The Apple Mac was the first platform to use Postscript, which then meant that it could be used for digital typesetting and layout work. This led to folks who professionally put things out on presses to move into the digital realm with Macs. You'll notice that most of the big applications from Adobe often come out for the Macintosh platform first, because Macs make up a proportionately bigger share of their market. Lightroom for Mac's public beta was up a few months (iirc, which I probably don't) before you could get it on Windows.

CatOne · July 7, 2008

0atony wrote:

The historic reason for Macs being better for graphics in general is because of the early partnering between Apple and Adobe. The Apple Mac was the first platform to use Postscript, which then meant that it could be used for digital typesetting and layout work. This led to folks who professionally put things out on presses to move into the digital realm with Macs. You'll notice that most of the big applications from Adobe often come out for the Macintosh platform first, because Macs make up a proportionately bigger share of their market. Lightroom for Mac's public beta was up a few months (iirc, which I probably don't) before you could get it on Windows.

I'm not sure this is so true with "most" applications. Certainly the whole Creative Suite comes out on both platforms simultaneously.

Lightroom is certainly an example of the Mac product coming out first (in beta form). That's mainly because the initial R&D was all done on the Mac -- most of the Adobe folks and the associated ecosystem use Macs. But LR shipped as 1.0 on Mac and Windows simultaneously. And there are some other products that Adobe has had as Windows only (Premiere, e.g.) at least for some of their lifespan. I think the strength of the Adobe/Apple relationship comes and goes.

Pupator · July 7, 2008

CatOne wrote:

I'm not sure this is so true with "most" applications. Certainly the whole Creative Suite comes out on both platforms simultaneously.

Wow - being quite the contrarian in this thread, aren't we?

Lightroom - speed on PC vs Mac

Comments