LR 4 beta1 is a big fat dog :(

[kirbinster]

I loaded this up on my "little" PC today after seeing a video about it and thought I would give it a try - but it is almost unusable it is so slow and doggy. Hopefully this is just a beta issue and the final release will be ok. My LR 3 catalog has over 60,000 pictures in it and is quick and responsive and only uses 260megs of memory when it first loads. This one grabbed like 600megs with a catalog that has 8 photos and after a few edits it was using 2 gigs of memory and was very very slugish. My poor little pc is an i7 with 12 gigs of ram running Win7 x64.

[sk66]

Bummer....

[doctorjames]

i did worry this would be the case.....
LR3 certainly runs a little slower than LR2. I really cant remember what my system specs are, but its at least 3 years old now, with 4gig of RAM on win7.

Its been such a long time since anything has run slow, that I havent really had to think about upgrading the hardware..... well perhaps that wont last for long

[kirbinster]

I assume this is because it is a beta and probably has a bunch of diagnostic stuff built into it. LR3 runs much faster on my box than LR2 did.

[XxkmoorexX]

I'm having the same issue. I hope it's just the beta. It's useable but uncomfortably lagging.

[MindyRaeL]

Yep, same here. I downloaded it just to play with it, but it's so slow it's pretty much unusable!

[CBabcock]

I downloaded LR4 Beta, and it wouldn't even install. I'm running LR3 on my mac and don't have any issues with it. I guess I'll wait and see if LR4 is worth the upgrade.

[jdepould]

LR 1 beta had huge memory leaks. It'll probably get cleaned up before release.

[kirbinster]

Memory use after just a few small edits on one picture -- see attachment

[nickbedford]

The beta tag is there for a reason. They would have also enabled much of the debugging code which adds logging and diagnostics into the program's operations. This makes it slower. I would hold off until the final version is released before worrying.