Lightroom Performance on Older Machines

[86047]

Hi, I have an iBook G4 (1.33Ghz) with a gig of ram in it.
Lightroom's specs say
Mac OS X v.10.4
PowerPC® G4 or G5 1GHz processor or Intel® Core™ Duo processor
768MB of RAM (1GB recommended)
1GB of available hard-disk space
1,024x768 screen resolution
All of which I have, yet I find lightroom's performance unacceptable, especially with so many people saying how it runs beautifully on their 800 mhz powerbooks.
Maybe it's the fact that the ibook only has 32mb of Vram? Adobe didn't post graphics card requirements, and I figured it wouldn't be as tolling on the graphics card as aperture, as it doesn't rely on core image? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is there any way I could decrease the graphics usage? Any preferences in lightroom I could set to downplay the eyecandy a bit so it will run smoother? I'm editing 8mp jpegs, not raw files, so performance should not be so slow, no?

 

[86047]

It's just extremely dissapointing because of the fact I don't have enough space to edit each photo individually in photoshop and save it with a new name. I like lightroom's method of editing, but the taxing on a 3d card is not necessary for a photo editing program.
ugh
I don't have the money for a new mac
this is so annoyingly stupid

 

[Abstract]

I don't think it's the graphics card. Lightroom doesn't make use of the graphics card as much as you think. Aperture does, but Lightroom doesn't.

I think you need more RAM.


Also, it's not really such a stupid situation. You can't expect the newest software to run well on your old machine, can you? Technology progresses on, and it's an expensive game. Believe me, I understand that.

 

[86047]

I don't think it's the graphics card. Lightroom doesn't make use of the graphics card as much as you think. Aperture does, but Lightroom doesn't.

I think you need more RAM.


Also, it's not really such a stupid situation. You can't expect the newest software to run well on your old machine, can you? Technology progresses on, and it's an expensive game. Believe me, I understand that.

Yeah, it kind of reminds me of that commerical
i can't go to college because i don't have enough money
i don't have enough money because i don't have a good job
i don't have a good job because i didn't go to college
i didn't go to college because i don't have enough

I mean i love photography, but it's so difficult to post process with the open in photoshop > save new file method
Isn't there a workflow application that doesn't need top of the line hardware?


I'm trying my best to save for a macbook/imac or if I'm really lucky a mbp, but that's a long way off

I have almost no money, maybe photography isn't the best hobby to get into lol

BTW my ibook maxes out at 1.5 gb I think. Will lightroom benefit from 512mb more ram?

Photoshop runs fine, it's just lightroom and aperture (of course) that I'm having problems with, so I was trying to narrow down the problem. I figured photoshop is even more memory hungry, so I thought that couldn't be the problem.

And the problems with lightroom seem just about the drawing of the previews, switching panels, scrolling, so seem graphics related, just like when I am trying coverflow in itunes, or trying to watch streaming video online. That's why I suspected the graphics card.

It is expensive. Why can't I be a normal stupid teenager just happy with a computer that will work with myspace? (of course my ibook has trouble drawing css transparency too, ugh)

 

[86047]

I don't think it's the graphics card. Lightroom doesn't make use of the graphics card as much as you think. Aperture does, but Lightroom doesn't.

I think you need more RAM.


Also, it's not really such a stupid situation. You can't expect the newest software to run well on your old machine, can you? Technology progresses on, and it's an expensive game. Believe me, I understand that.

I see from your profile you have a 1GHZ powerbook.
What do you use for your photography?

 

[Abstract]

I forgot to change my profile.


I used to use iPhoto on it, but that was before I ever considered using Aperture (it sucked badly when I still owned the 12" PB), and before I really heard of Lightroom.

 

[86047]

I forgot to change my profile.


I used to use iPhoto on it, but that was before I ever considered using Aperture (it sucked badly when I still owned the 12" PB), and before I really heard of Lightroom.

ugh not promising
i think i'v erealised

for our own convenience we need these things
could i use phtooshop u bet
but it's not convenient
we buy stuff for advancement and therefore convenience,a nd our entertainment
screw it, everyone should just be using the same stuff on dual g4s and be happy
and manufacturers purposely make stuff harder to run on older hardware, so you'll buy new hardware
what a stupid stupid world
i think i'm converting to communism

 

[bousozoku]

I used the Lightroom beta on my 1.33 GHz 15.2 inch PowerBook and it seemed okay at editing but sluggish in the file browser, but I only had 768 MB of RAM at the time. Then again, Photoshop version 7.0x and Photoshop Elements 4.0x are somewhat sluggish, too.

 

[ChrisA]

I have almost no money, maybe photography isn't the best hobby to get into lol

And the problems with lightroom seem just about the drawing of the previews, switching panels, scrolling,

Photography CAN be inexpensive. But DIGITAL is not inexpensive. When I was about 13 I shot black and white film. It was cheap even for a kid and it still costs about what it did then. A few bucks per roll. But today film is even better because the price of film camera is so low. Good Nikon SLRs are selling at $100 or less. Compare that with the lowest price DSLR. Also film still wins big time in terms of image quality. No I'm not selling my Nikon film bodies.

Slides are chaep too. For a while I was shooting Velvia transparencies, processing them E6 in a hand tank then mounting the few good shots and scanning the slides. About $5 per roll. Much cheaper than a DSLR.

LR runs well enough on my G4 mini. It's not unlike a PB. Just don't run to much at once on it. I think the bottle neck is the bandwidth between the processor and the graphic card. To change an image all those pixels have to be moved between system RAM and VRAM. On a slow bus this can take a second or two.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

Lightroom is borderline painful on my G4, but only when working with medium and large image files. And forget RAW: be prepared to wait.... But my mom doesn't see the need to upgrade the family's computers anytime soon, so I'm stuck running it on what I have for now. I don't have the $2,000 for a new machine myself, so until college, I think I'm out of luck.

Oh well, Photoshop and Illustrator still run fine. And Lightroom least runs (compared with Aperture)... I'll deal.

 

[srf4real]

So Lightroom 1.0 demo runs on a g4? The Apple link says g5 or higher.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

So Lightroom 1.0 demo runs on a g4? The Apple link says g5 or higher.

Yeah. it runs on a G4.

 

[kodiak]

i find it reasonable on my imac G4/1.25 with 1gb ram, 1800 images, about 50/50 jpeg/raw

however, or course 1 persons reasonable, is anothers excellent, is anothers rubbish...

just a few things i have found
i.generating the (standard) previews is worthwhile
ii. becareful which panels you have open when browsing
iii. similarly care with which view options you are using
iv. try to select only the set of photos you need, using the numerous filtering options.

i know these, are specific to editing, but it seemed pretty snappy on editing a single file for me... remember first time you select develop it generates the 1:1 preview, unless you did this in advance.

basically, i dont expect to be able with my machine to be able to have all bells and whistles, but like you - turn some off to get 'adequate' performance.

also, have to remember its v1.0 (yes, it was in beta for ages... but even so)
i can remember iphoto wasnt that snappy in previous versions with larger libraries... and i can see that lightroom has not been tuned for this this yet
(e.g. it still tries to display every thumbnail, when scrolling thru the library)

has anyone got performance tips? still early days i suppose...

 

[86047]

i'm saving for a 2.16 Ghz 20" imac core 2 duo with 2GB of ram and a 256mb of Vram X1600 video card. With my education pricing, this comes to around $1600. Already have $300-ish Let the saving begin!

of course by the time i get the money, the lines will be updated (but all the better) I may want to go with a 13 inch mbp if they come out with it, but i already have my ibook for portability (won't be editing photos on the road) so why compromise power (also into other processor intensive stuff).