Lightroom performance if I'm going from PC to Mac

  • Thread starter Thread starter aspkara
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aspkara

Guest
I don't want to spark any kind of fierce debate about PC vs Mac ( :D ) - basically, my entire life I've been a loyal PC-ist, but I am growing frustrated with the jamming, freezing and ridiculously slow performance I'm getting as my workflow volume increases. I'm a wedding photographer, and I shoot 3'-4' weddings a year, with a Nikon D3, yielding around 3'''-4''' RAW (roughly 1'MB each - not sure exactly) images per shoot.

I use Lightroom 2.4, alongside Adobe Design Standard CS3 with Windows XP Home, 4GB RAM, nVidia 66'' graphics card, dual-core 3Ghz processor. Despite reformatting only 6 weeks ago (and installing minimal additional software) I spent (no joke) 8-9 hours yesterday simply picking/rejecting about 1''' images out of 2''' RAW files - I had to keep restarting Lightroom every 4 minutes or so, and it nearly drove me to tears. And that didn't even incorporate importing - that was something I did last week. So, just hitting 'P' for Pick and 'X' for Reject sent Lightroom into a choking fit.

Anyway, this - combined with other increasing performance issues - has prompted me to consider converting to a Mac system. I'm about 75% convinced that this will be a good solution - I've spoken to some local photographers who have assured me that "I'll never look back" but this statement in itself does not completely encourage me to drain my wallet of thousands of dollars. And if I do listen to them, the question is: iMac vs Mac Pro? Will the extra $$$ provide me with a marked improvement in performance with Lightroom?

I have these questions:

[1] Who out there uses a Mac with Lightroom? How do you find the performance?

[2] I have a feeling the iMac might not be a good solution due to the lack of expandability (RAM, HDD, etc). Would the 4GB RAM iMac be a sufficient system for the type of editing work I do? (I usually also have Outlook, Photoshop and Firefox running in the background as well).

[3] If I were to consider a Mac Pro (either quad-core or 8-core) will Lightroom actually utilise all of the cores? If I were to purchase a Mac Pro for the cores alone, would it be an investment from which I would see a remarkable difference in speed and stability with Lightroom?

[4] Does anyone ever encounter extreme slowness/issues with Lightroom on a Mac? If so, what are the specs of your system?

[5] Given that my PC is dual-core, 3Ghz, 4GB RAM - and the top-of-the-line iMac shares pretty much identical specs - can the potential performance of that system be compared "apples for apples" (no pun intended :D ) or are we talking an entirely different level of performance here?

While I haven't fully made up my mind about the transition, I am reaching the point where SOMETHING must be done, else my upcoming wedding season will send me into a nervous breakdown. At this stage, I am edging toward the Mac - but rather than just hearing "you won't look back" or "Macs are awesome" or "PCs suck" I just need some concrete proof/reassurance.

If anyone can help me with practical experiences, insights and examples, it would be much appreciated!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I have to say I struggled with performance issues like you with a similar spec PC. A recent upgrade to i7, 6GB ram, Vista64, Lr 64bit, and all drives SATA, has made me a much happier camper. I recently finished a busy week of near-on 9''' shots. I have to say, not once was I waiting on Lr. The only disappointment is occasional pixelation in grid when scrolling quickly.

Nothing against Mac, started out personal computing with Apple, in fact worked as a Visicalc consultant, but my corporate life was all Wintel. Hard to forgo that sunk investment in experience.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I switched from a PC to a MacBook Pro recently and both have similar specs with almost identical CPUs and 4GB of memory. My catalog is not that big (about 3'K photos) and I don't see any difference in startup times between the PC and the MBP (still slow) but I find that the MBP is just a tad more responsive than the PC while working with LR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are some things you can do to help the speed on your current machine - rendering previews in advance and then culling in Library module rather than Develop are the most obvious for that kind of speed issue. A high end PC, with W7 64-bit, should be able to run at a similar speed, so don't make that your only factor in your decision.

Honestly - I switched from Windows to Mac 3 years ago, and I've joined the camp of 'I'll never look back'. I didn't believe the 'it just works' hype, and some programs have their moments still, but I will admit I have less headaches with this, and my Macs now seem to be breeding.

Mac Pro vs. iMac - if you can afford it, go with the Mac Pro. Disk speed is one of main bottlenecks for LR at least, so internal drives in a Mac Pro are a major advantage. Unless you heavily multitask, or you plan on video editing, 4 cores would be perfect mix of performance vs. cost. 4gb of RAM would do, but you might find yourself adding more in the future, especially to get the best out of LR.

At the end of the day, it's a tool, and both tools can do the job. I just enjoy using this tool more, which, for me, is worth the financial cost. YMMV
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Questions about your current performance:
Are you using USB external drives? They're notoriously poor performers , particularly if there's a bad acting (or old spec) device on the same USB bus.
How about Antivirus/Malware detection? If that's examining your Lr files in realtime, that's another killer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No need to go the expense of a Mac, simply upgrade your current box or buy a new one. I have an i7 92' processor, 12 GB Ram, and a high end video card running on Vista 64 bit for about 1/3rd the cost of a Mac Pro at most. LR, PS and everything just flies. No breakdowns, jams or any other problems, a very, very fast and very stable system.

Plus I don't have to convert/rebuy my software.

If you decide to go Mac, stay away from the iMacs as they're essentially laptop components and perform like it, according to those I know who have them. Plus the glossy screens leave a lot to be desired for photo editing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=disottawa link=topic=7724.msg52855#msg52855 date=1252'9'852]
If you decide to go Mac, stay away from the iMacs as they're essentially laptop components and perform like it, according to those I know who have them. Plus the glossy screens leave a lot to be desired for photo editing.
[/quote]

I use an iMac and it runs Lightroom & Photoshop at the same time without any problems. They use very few laptop type components, memory for instance but that is about all. The bus speeds and hard drives are all full sized and fast like tower PC's etc. It certainly out performs any laptop I have ever tried, including the expensive Mac Book Pro's.

The glossy screen argument has also lost traction amongst most that have tried them, Including me. iMac's are midrange and the next step up to the Mac Pro is quite a big jump, that is where I would expect you to be buying a professional monitor.

Please don't post hear-say when people are trying to make important decisions about their purchases, stick to the facts and help each other constructively :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=7724.msg52865#msg52865 date=1252'96924]
[quote author=disottawa link=topic=7724.msg52855#msg52855 date=1252'9'852]
If you decide to go Mac, stay away from the iMacs as they're essentially laptop components and perform like it, according to those I know who have them. Plus the glossy screens leave a lot to be desired for photo editing.
[/quote]

I use an iMac and it runs Lightroom & Photoshop at the same time without any problems. They use some laptop type components like memory for instance but that is all. The bus speeds and hard drives are all full sized and fast like tower PC's etc...

The glossy screen argument has also lost traction amongst most that have tried them, Including me.
[/quote]


Next I suppose you're going to tell me that you don't have to pay a lot more for the same performance. In deference to the OP's request not to turn this into a debate about PC versus Mac, I will say no more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chill guys..........
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=disottawa link=topic=7724.msg52867#msg52867 date=1252'975'3]
Next I suppose you're going to tell me that you don't have to pay a lot more for the same performance. In deference to the OP's request not to turn this into a debate about PC versus Mac, I will say no more.
[/quote]

No, as I said, I will stick with the facts. I use Windows and Macs and like both for different reasons. I'm sorry if my last post touched a nerve and led you to second guess my opinion, I was not starting a debate about Mac v PC at all, just correcting some information.

As for advice to the OP, I would say upgrade what you have if you want to get the most bang for your buck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree with Victoria and other similar comments on the machine simply being a tool. Everyone has different preferences for different reasons. I'd recommend looking at your core requirements (cost, ease of use, required maintenance, ramp-up time on new systems, etc.) and make a decision based on that.

As to my vote - like a few others in this thread, I recently upgraded my PC to an i7 processor, 12 GB RAM, etc. for a bit less than $15'' and will never look back :). Seriously, the i7 processors are crazy fast.

Just my .'2.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Switched to a Mac, last year after 15+ PC years; wont be going back.
Without knowing how big a hit the price difference for you its hard to recommend a model.
I use a Pro and a MBP, the Pro is way faster. One of the amazing things is that any programme seems to make use of all the cores. I had problems with the PC getting it to use the second. With the release of SL the multicoring should just get better.

Disks are the slowest thing, so if speed is important look at SSD and an external FW8'' disk.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I use both PC and Mac, Vista and Snow Leopard, Laptop and Desktop. I find little to recommend one over the other. It is all about specing the proper components inside the machine. The GUI and the logo mean very little in the scheme of things-especially with regard to Lightroom.

Disk Speed-processor speed-RAM are the keywords here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top