Lightroom: LR 4 user interface, and Develop slider response very sluggish

  • 296
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 years ago
  • (Edited)
Hi,

I updated from LR3 to LR4.0 yesterday and I observe a significant delay when I move sliders in the develop module. the delay exceeds often one second. It is not possible to use LR4 with this behavior. In LR3 no such delay happened.
I use WIN64 ultra a quad core @ 2.83GHz. 4MB RAM.
Photo of ANdreas KOch

ANdreas KOch

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • extremely frustrated

Posted 8 years ago

  • 296
Photo of Glenn Springer

Glenn Springer

  • 33 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
To the Group:
KWITCHERWHINING

Do you think Adobe doesn't know there are some unhappy people out there? Do you think they're not aware that many of them are in their critical target audience? Don't you think they're working on it?

Don't you think if they had the "solution" they would tell us?

I think this is not a simple issue since it goes across platforms and doesn't seem to be related to how high end the hardware is. We're all hoping that someone in Adobe development will have an "AHA!" moment (or maybe already has) but they're going to make sure before they go out with it because they're gun-shy and don't want to have a recurrence of the same issues.

This has hurt them. How many people have put off buying LR4 because they heard about these problems? More importantly, how many people are holding off buying CS6 because they're afraid something similar is going to happen (me, for one).

By all means, keep the feedback coming to help them solve it, but 3/4 of the posts here are just plain whining.

Just my humble opinion
Photo of Dave Williamson

Dave Williamson

  • 37 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Hi Daniel. I'm just reading sections 6 to 8 of the Lightroom EULA at http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/eu... that spells out what Adobe are liable to do under their warranty. Section 6 says that the Software will perform "substantially" (whatever that means) in accordance with the Documentation for 90 days after purchase (I'm paraphrasing a bit for brevity) then section 7 absolves Adobe from any consequential damages. It's a fairly typical software licensing agreement designed to protect the developer because software is a very complex and tricky beast to master. On top of that, there may be additional warranty provisions granted in the jurisdiction where the purchaser lives or resides in the form of consumer protection laws. When you talk of "legislative contract", which one are you referring to?
Photo of Greg Hunt

Greg Hunt

  • 42 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Isn't a legislative contract a contract that has been made into law by some legislature? I'd be curious to know which legislature did that. Daniel, pomposity does not help your case any more than hysteria did.

If I was Adobe, given the level of angst being displayed I'd be very careful about what I allowed my staff to say publicly about progress or release dates or defect causes or anything. The rhetorical flourishes that I pointed to earlier look more like they will, intentionally or otherwise, shut communication down rather than facilitate it.
Photo of Daniel Bell

Daniel Bell

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you for asking.

As you can see it states there is 90 day warranty with a bunch of conditions Adobe have written in. However they are unable to exclude themselves from the purchasers local consumer protection laws.

I reside in Australia. So I refer myself to the "Consumer guarantees" booklet which can be obtained here:
http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content...

If your from Australia and aren't happy with Adobe I strongly suggest you read that book.
Photo of Daniel Bell

Daniel Bell

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Greg being linguistic doesn't make you look any wiser.
Photo of Greg Hunt

Greg Hunt

  • 42 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
The new act ("fit for purpose" and "acceptable quality" and classes of defects) appears to provide more highly qualified protection than the old one (which talked about goods being "of merchantable quality") did. The option of repair, as I understand it, is more clearly available to the supplier than it was under the old act. But then, I'm not a lawyer and there is a fairly complex web of terms in the act.

To restate my earlier point, if the objective is to get more information out of Adobe, then raising the temperature by talking about laws and contracts and all the rest of it will be counter productive.