# Suggestion: laptop for LR3 ?



## rjalex (Nov 2, 2010)

currently run LR3 on a core duo P86'' @ 2.4GHz with XP 32 bit and 2GB RAM.

there are two areas in which I am "suffering"

a) import. now that I am using a 7D with 22MB RAWs and my typical shoot session is from several dozens to a few hundred shots I am waiting a looooong time with the PC almost totally "hung" during the import (with 1:1 previews which I am starting to suspect are not useful to me).

b) develop module: the lag between using almost any of the sliders and the change in the image is too long (estimate 1 2 seconds at least, sometimes 5 8 seconds).

If there was a good advantage in doing so I'd take the Mac plunge (after 25 years of Windows eh eh eh).

I am aware of the fact a desktop would give me a better price / benefit but it would be important to be able to use LR3 while traveling (travel photography).

At home I have a QNAP RAID-1 NAS for long term storage and a nice large Acer monitor with external calibration.

Thank you very much,
Bob

PS I live in Italy so USA only suggestions are not feasible


----------



## johnbeardy (Nov 2, 2010)

Maybe look at Lenovo and their W series which is targeted at photographers? I was with someone last month who had a W7'1 with (I think) 12Gb of RAM, and it was very impressive. Big though.

John


----------



## Jim Wilde (Nov 2, 2010)

Bob, John's suggestion is quite a good one.....I've been a Thinkpad user for more years than I care to remember, though I have to say that I've had more problems in the last few years than I ever did when ThinkPad was IBM-owned. Maybe Lenovo have some QC issues, or maybe I've just been unlucky.

I don't know what percentage of your photography/Lightroom work is done on the road, but there are plenty of forum members who will have a desktop at home and a laptop for when out and about. Once the workflow is sorted it's a very good way of working....you have all the raw power, disk capacity, multiple monitor advantages of the desktop when at home, with a stripped down catalog available on the laptop as needed. Just a thought. With such a setup could could even stay with Win7 for the desktop and try a Macbook for portable work (as some members do).

Getting back to your current issues, I'm not sure that stopping 1:1 previews will buy you all that much. I suspect the real delay is in shifting the raw data from card to hard drive (do you use an external card reader, a PC Card/CF Card adapter, or direct connect of the 7D)....this will be made even worse if you are also making a second copy on import. XP can be a real resource hog when it comes to moving large amounts of data around, and that is more than likely what's causing the 'hang' effect. Rendering previews happens AFTER the data has been moved, and happens as a Lightroom 'background' activity.....and even standard sized previews of 22mb files will take time!


----------



## johnbeardy (Nov 2, 2010)

[quote author=TNG link=topic=11471.msg77'68#msg77'68 date=12887'344']
With such a setup could could even stay with Win7 for the desktop and try a Macbook[Pro - John] for portable work (as some members do).
[/quote]
Me for example.

John


----------



## Jim Wilde (Nov 2, 2010)

It was you I was thinking of, John!


----------



## rjalex (Nov 2, 2010)

Jim and John,
thanks a lot.
Yes you are correct. I use a CF card reader attached to my Lenovo T4'' laptop. I have used thinkpads since they were born since I work for IBM  Will look into the W7'1 series but will strongly consider a MacBook too.
Other than the delay of data copying this laptop (T4'') is too slow in the edit phase and as I described I have too much of a delay when using the Develop module sliders.
Bob
PS I keep exactly the same catalog (large) on my desktop and laptop since I often do searches on my whole image catalog to verify if I have some images (on the home NAS) that relate to my current traveling project.


----------



## edgley (Nov 2, 2010)

I have a Firewire 8'' CF reader; positively zippy.
As someone who made the switch to Mac a couple of years ago, I would suggest having a good look.

After using various Windows for too many years, the Mac offers more of what I want; less tinkering, more using. Only you know how much time Windows costs you. Plus the MS interface is just too shiny


----------



## rjalex (Nov 3, 2010)

[quote author=edgley link=topic=11471.msg77111#msg77111 date=1288735711]
I have a Firewire 8'' CF reader; positively zippy.
As someone who made the switch to Mac a couple of years ago, I would suggest having a good look.

[/quote]

The very fact I a Canon/Windows person is talking to a Nikon/Mac person is a sign peace and friendship can be reached on this planet ! 

Yes I am looking ! Frankly speaking Win has never caused a lot of grief to me and that you state (tinkering versus using) is exactly the reason I ceased to use Linux after some years.

I think I should give a good look to the applications I use both for photography (seems the basic which are LR, PS, Photomatix, Helicon Focus all are avaliable), and other media (music, video etc.) are either avaialble or if there is a good alternative (for example for music I use EAC and dbPowerAmp to do high quality rips).

Would this Macbook have plenty of RAM, powerful multicore processor and decent hard disk ? If so can you suggest a model ?

Thanks
Bob


----------



## rjalex (Nov 3, 2010)

Just by trying to configure a MacBook and reading around the Internet a lot of conflicting advice I got plenty of questions. All are related to LIGHTROOM not any other application:

a) Does LR benefit from multiple cores ? Is there a limit to how many cores/threads it can spawn ? Some posts around the internet go as far as saying more than a core duo will be wasted

a2) Does LR benefit from using an i7 vs i5 ? Is LR going to benefit noticeably from using higher clocks ? (in other terms while editing what is LR more I/O bound or CPU bound ?) 

b) How much RAM is LR able to use ? Is it true a 32bit OS will be limited to 3GBs and anything over that a waste ? Under a 64bit OS will ALL the physical RAM be addressed ?

c) Is using SSD drives for the OS, LR executables, data going to speed up things noticeably ? What about the reliability and power requireements of SSD vs traditional drives ? If I understand correctly the MacBook can only have ONE hard disk, right ?

Just as a test, the following puppy would transfer almost 29'' Euros from me to Mr. Apple ! :(
# 2.53GHz Intel Core i5
# 8GB 1'66MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2X4GB
# 128GB Solid State Drive
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# MacBook Pro 17-inch Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display
# Tastiera retroilluminata (US) & Manuale utente (Inglese)
# Adattatore Mini DisplayPort-DVI
# Telecomando Apple Remote

Thanks a lot
Bob


----------



## Jim Wilde (Nov 3, 2010)

Bob, trying to answer your questions as a Win7 user who has never owned or used a Mac computer (I have often looked, but usually can't get beyond the shock of the price-tag):

a) Those posters who claim that more than a core duo would be wasted as far as Lightroom is concerned are talking rubbish. I have a 4-core i7 (which with hyperthreading is turned into 8 cores) and LR regularly uses ALL 8. It is apparently a very efficient user of multi-core systems, the more the merrier.
a2) Probably, but you may not notice! Guess it will depend on what you are trying to do....I don't run my system with any monitors permanenetly active, so I can't say it's never happened, but every time I have checked I have never seen my CPU(s) running at 1''% (or anywhere close). Guess it's like lots of things, the more power you have available the less you will stress the machine...so i7 is 'better' than i5, though i5 may well be more than 'good enough'.
b) Can't answer the question in relation to a Mac, but on Win7 64bit the answer is "as much as you can give it". Yes a a 32bit OS will be limited to just over 3gb, with an application limit of 2gb....all of these limits disappear with 64 bit (more or less, I think there's a theoretical limit, 192gb rings a bell but I could be wrong about that). With aggressive use of the cache function by the OS it is not unusual to see all my 12gb of RAM to be utilised.
c) Think the answer is yes, in some areas.....have a look around here, I think there are a few SSD threads and I remember that Victoria has recently started using one on her Mac and found a noticeable improvement in some functions. The only concern I would have, looking at the spec that you put together, concerns having just a single 128gb drive.....SSD or not, that just wouldn't be enough for me, especially if you want to run your whole LR catalog on the Macbook.

Hope this helps.


----------



## johnbeardy (Nov 3, 2010)

Richard Earney (methodphoto) has just replaced his Mac laptop's HD with an SSD and it is very happy with the speed improvement. However, look into buying the SSD and any extra memory from someone other than Apple - you should be able to make significant savings. I doubt 128Gb will be big enough, and bigger SSDs are expensive.

I would have no reservations at all about going to Win7 64 bit. With lots of RAM, it strikes me as as good an experience as using Mac, and I use each every day.
Maybe consider the non-computing reasons why you want the Mac laptop. I need to be able to write / teach with both platforms, so that was the underlying reason for me. But it does help to have a Mac when working with Mac-only types of people - sometimes that's for convenience of being able to plug into their systems but other times it's more to avoid running up against Mac users' prejudices (one friend got a Mac because he pitches to lots of art directors). Take these out of the equation and a good, good-looking laptop is a good, good-looking laptop, whatever the brand. 

John


----------



## rjalex (Nov 3, 2010)

It is uncommon to find so much great common sense when speaking about hardware ! Maybe this is because we are more fans of photography than computers !  Thanks a lot.

So now a last (?) question: laptop screens.

On my Thinkpad laptop screen, the calibration with the Spyder3 and related software has always been quite hard because of the large steps in luminosity of the hardware (IIRC). How do MacBooks screen work in this respect ? I read the antiglare version is a must but some say the screen is too bright (good for watching movies less so for graphics work one poster said). And aside from Apple are there laptop brands/models which have good quality screen which can be calibrated correctly ?

Grazie mille
Bob


----------



## edgley (Nov 3, 2010)

I will give my pro mac rant; but it will have to wait until a bit later as I have some work to do first 
But have a look at the Apple store, down in the bottom left.
On the UK one there is a button for the refurbished store. In there you can get what is the same as a brand new mac, for up to 3'% off. And you want a Matte screen, not a glossy.

http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_pro?mco=OTY2ODcxOQ


----------



## johnbeardy (Nov 3, 2010)

Yes, I got my MacBookPro from the refurb store and recommend that route. You just have to know what spec you want, and wait a little until one comes up. I saved about 25%. Other brands have similar outlet stores.

As for matte/glossy, I instinctively favour matte but I have worked on glossy screens in difficult lighting conditions (trade shows with lots of spotlights) and didn't have the problems I anticipated.

John


----------



## rjalex (Nov 3, 2010)

[quote author=edgley link=topic=11471.msg77137#msg77137 date=1288782441]
I will give my pro mac rant; but it will have to wait until a bit later as I have some work to do first 
[/quote]

My requirement is a portable since my main goal is travel photography.
TC
Bob


----------



## edgley (Nov 3, 2010)

I meant that I will rant positively about mac, not that I would rant about my Mac Pro 

I know W7 does a much better job of using all cores, but OS X seems to be better in this, all my applications make use of all cores, and balancing seems to be occurring evenly.

I have always said the platform is largely irrelevant, its the actual tasks you want to do that matters. If you are one of those that have not had a lot of WIndows problems, a Mac might make less sense for you.

If, for example, when installing a FW8'' card into a PC, you had the whole OS crash, and wipe out a day of working, it might make more sense.

I used to end up re-installing Windows every 9 months or so, and when there was a problem the only fix was a re-install, and all the apps.
With the Mac, I can just stick in the CD, it reloads, all my applications are still there; or it can see the TimeMachine backup and restore from that, all with me doing nothing.

But hay, you can read why Mac is better / Windows is better anywhere on the net


----------



## ukbrown (Nov 3, 2010)

@tng, 





> I can't say it's never happened, but every time I have checked I have never seen my CPU(s) running at 1''% (or anywhere close). Guess it's like lots of things, the more power you have available the less you will stress the machine...so i7 is 'better' than i5, though i5 may well be more than 'good enough'.



This does not actually follow, if you can feed the engine with enough instructions it will execute them and use as much CPU as possible. Your sampling interval may prevent you from seeing this but at sometime your CPU will be running as fast as it possibly can. No point having one if it doesn't  

"Good enough is good enough" - Jerry Pournelle.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 3, 2010)

[quote author=TNG link=topic=11471.msg7713'#msg7713' date=128877488']I remember that Victoria has recently started using one on her Mac and found a noticeable improvement in some functions. The only concern I would have, looking at the spec that you put together, concerns having just a single 128gb drive.....SSD or not, that just wouldn't be enough for me, especially if you want to run your whole LR catalog on the Macbook.
[/quote]

I did indeed, and liked it enough to swap the hard drive in my MacBook Pro too (which was easy as pie!). I've kept the 5''gb drive that I took out of my laptop and slipped that into an external casing, so I have the benefit of a wonderfully fast boot and program launching, but still have access to decent hard drive space too. For laptops, particularly with limited RAM, SSD's are lovely as you can close programs to free up RAM and then not have to wait long to launch them again. For the desktop, I still like it, but it's less important IMHO.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Nov 3, 2010)

[quote author=ukbrown link=topic=11471.msg77172#msg77172 date=1288813173]
...if you can feed the engine with enough instructions it will execute them and use as much CPU as possible. Your sampling interval may prevent you from seeing this but at sometime your CPU will be running as fast as it possibly can. [/quote]

Of course....but as you say "if". All I was saying is that I have never knowingly observed that happening, I never said it hasn't happened.


----------



## ukbrown (Nov 3, 2010)

You are maybe one of the few people who need a really fast disk setup to feed your massive amount of processors with something to do. You actually could have a hard disk bottleneck. Are you saying that during an export operation of say 1'' photos your cpu's don't max out???? (make sure task manager update speed is set to high).

I think my theory/logic of you possibly having a bottleneck is sound in principle. If an export drives my CPU's to 1''% then it should do the same on everbodies computer as long as they can get data to the cpu quick enough. Or is that logic flawed??? . 

Cpu speed is only relevant in that the same processors running twice as fast as mine takes half the amount of time, over the time period that I am exporting it is half as busy. Over it's export time it is still 1''% busy.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Nov 3, 2010)

Well, I suppose it's possible that I have a hard disk bottleneck, though I'd be a bit disappointed if that were the case. The thing is, I don't as a rule spend much time analysing the performance of my PC using system monitors unless I "feel" that something is not right.....I've been using PCs long enough to generally recognise when things aren't running as sweetly as they normally do, which is when I'll start looking "under the covers". To date that just hasn't happened on this desktop, so in fact the only time I'll start the Task Manager is generally when I'm trying to see what happens on my PC in relation to another poster's issues.

So, if I DO have a bottleneck, it really isn't one that I'm either aware of or particularly bothered by. I do remember some months ago being involved in a discussion with others about export timings and doing some extensive timing tests (4''+ images from my 5DII to fullsize, full quality JPEGs, took about 3' minutes at about 4 seconds per file....and CPU not maxed out). Have just run another test, this time of 1'9 images with Task Manager running, between 3 and 4 seconds per image, screenshot attached. You can see the there are spikes at 1''% across all cores, but nothing like being "maxed out" (which I take to mean flatlined at 1''%). Honestly I really don't think this constitutes a "bottleneck"....yes it might be possible to slightly increase CPU utilisation and thus slightly reduce export time if I had my pictures/ACR cache on SSDs....but then I'd be paying a lot of money to fix a problem that I don't feel that I've got. 

We're drifting off topic....


----------



## ukbrown (Nov 3, 2010)

OK, bit behind in the processor specs, 4 core, hyper-threaded. Think it is the hyperthreading that is giving the illusion of not being maxed out. You are quite right about speed only worry if it does not seem fast enough. Interesting to me (I am sad :fi_lone_ranger: ), over and out.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Nov 5, 2010)

[quote author=ukbrown link=topic=11471.msg77183#msg77183 date=1288819978]
I think my theory/logic of you possibly having a bottleneck is sound in principle. If an export drives my CPU's to 1''% then it should do the same on everbodies computer as long as they can get data to the cpu quick enough. Or is that logic flawed??? .[/quote]

Sound thinking, but incomplete. Not only to do you have to feed the data to the CPUs, but you need to be able to write out the results fast enough. Writes are generally slower than reads, usually don't benefit from cache, and usually block if waiting on the storage subsystem.


----------



## ukbrown (Nov 5, 2010)

Good point, the bottleneck could be getting data in or the out of the CPU.


----------

