# Issues With Lightroom 3 - Will More RAM Solve??



## christianjstewart (Jun 12, 2010)

I have gone from taking about 2 hours or so to edit / crop / export etc. sets of 3''-4'' sports images with LR 2.7 to taking at least double or triple that time with LR 3 beta and now the trial version. I will list the key time killers below but please let me know if these will be solved by adding more RAM (I have a "old" 2.8 GHz HP Pavilion with 2GB RAM XP system) or if there is some other solution.

1. When zooming in on an image in Develop module to check focus etc. it can often take 45 seconds to over a minute for the image to render and the "Loading" icon to go away and the image to focus properly. This is similar even if I create 1:1 previews. Speaking of which if I go to generate these it take hours to do so and thus is not an option.

2. While the sliders respond very well and move smoothly, the corresponding changes to the image (eg increase in exposure, blacks, etc) take a few seconds to respond on the image and it is difficult to make accurate adjustments because you do not see them immediately and often overcompensate. I know there were threads on this re the beta but it seems only slightly better in final release.

3. Crop Tool glitch - Often I like to leave the crop tool open while switching from image to image so I can make quick adjustments to each image and minimize the number of mouse clicks that are needed by turning it off and on for each. When I do this and switch to another image, the image and tool go all glitchy and the image often enlarges and stretches itself to distorted dimensions and gets blurry. If you move the image a bit it pops back to normal, but will recur. Also, the response of the crop box when you make adjustments (like the sliders mentioned above) is very slow and takes a few seconds to respond.

4. Export - Another huge time killer. I have just sent 124 images to Export to JPEG and after 45 minutes or so it is 4'% complete and is estimating another 66 minutes to go or so. Surely this should not take this long??

I am loving the new features and especially the Noise Reduction, but the slowdown in productivity for me when I am on deadlines and need to process images in a hurry is a huge problem for me. Even if I could get the speed of LR 2.7 and be able to use the new NR I'd be happy, but right now I am not and am looking for solutions.

Thanks
Chris


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 12, 2010)

Welcome.

More RAM will not help unless you can see your system is paging out. 2GB RAM is probably not quite enough. I have 4GB seems to work well.

I would suggest you optimise the catalog to start with.
You could also try removing the previews.lrdata file and the re-rendering the standard previews.


----------



## clee01l (Jun 12, 2010)

I have run LR with 3GB on a 32-bit dual core Vista system. It was comfortable to use. I would say that you might also benefit from a newer OS, yours is 3 generations behind and 9 years old. Dogs don't live much longer than that. You will be amazed at the improvements in memory management and performance when you finally get yourself off of XP.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 12, 2010)

Hi Christian, welcome to the forum!

I'm sorry to say you are sat on the minimum spec there, and although it'll officially run, it's probably more accurate to say it'll walk. The new tools - noise reduction, lens corrections etc. are very processor intensive. I would suggest that if time is important for you, it may be time for a newer machine.


----------



## ukbrown (Jun 12, 2010)

in XP check task manager, how high is the CPU staying while you are in lightroom. HAve you used more ram than you have got, check the peak figure botton left.


----------



## HatMan2K (Jun 14, 2010)

I'm actually experiencing a very similar issue and am certainly not at minimum spec for hardware.

As a sports shooter, I will typically shoot 1'''+ images a day during a race weekend. Last night I imported all the images from my memory cards (12''+) and LR3 stuck at rendering previews at 3'% although it didn't crash. I finally ended the rendering task after several hours.

The second part of my workflow is to rate the images 1, 2 or 3 so I can delete the 1's edit and crop the 2s and retouch the 3s if necessary. With the CAPS LOCK on to speed the process, I type away. LR3 takes easily twice as long to switch to the next image and after between 4'-8' images slows to a point where the entire computer and even the mouse stops responding.

My system is based on an AMD Phenom X4 processor with a decent nVidia card (and latest drivers) and 8GB ram running Vista Business 64-bit.

I have opened task manager to watch the stats and when this happens, LR3 suddenly doubles the amount of memory it uses (from around 1.2GB to over 2.5GB) but the system becomes so sluggish it never shows that it goes any higher than 25% processor usage... This only happens with LR3 and only after tagging images. I'm going to try flagging and a few other tricks to see if they work any better,

I've gone back and tried exactly the same exercise with LR2.7 and this does not happen, even after importing the same files... At this rate, LR3 will take days to filter through the 25''+ images from this past weekend. :(


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 14, 2010)

It might be that you are running into I/O issues.....how are the various Lightroom components organised in hard drive terms? Do you have any separation by HD of program files, catalog, ACR Cache, Picture Folders? How much free space is available of the hard drive(s)? Have they been defragged lately?


----------



## quantum (Jun 14, 2010)

*Me too XP*

RE win XP 32 bit
I am seeing a slowing down of import and some other functions. However the grid view is certainly better. I think you may run into the same problems I face - that is the maximum usable RAM is 2GB, no matter how many strips you put in (I didn't know this when I asked my pc guy to put 4gb in mine and he didn't bothre to tell me!)

Looks like an upgrade to windows 7 is on the cards... I forsee woes.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 14, 2010)

[quote author=quantum link=topic=1''52.msg68327#msg68327 date=127652821']
RE win XP 32 bit
I am seeing a slowing down of import and some other functions. However the grid view is certainly better. I think you may run into the same problems I face - that is the maximum usable RAM is 2GB, no matter how many strips you put in (I didn't know this when I asked my pc guy to put 4gb in mine and he didn't bothre to tell me!)

Looks like an upgrade to windows 7 is on the cards... I forsee woes.
[/quote]

Think you'll find that the maximum addressible RAM on XP 32 bit is something weird like 3.25mb, so you SHOULD be getting some mileage out of a 4mb setup. Whilst extra RAM is useful, 4-6mb seems optimal, the biggest performance boost would almost certainly be from a faster CPU (quad core if possible) and some faster I/O which allows seperation of LR elements as I posted earlier.

Re upgrading to Win7, think you'll find that most people who have gone down that route (myself included) found it a very painless exercise. Of course a lot would depend upon your current hardware spec if you are not upgrading it.


----------



## quantum (Jun 14, 2010)

Really? not what I understood. Anyway I'm using dual core 2.66 GHz. 2 + years old I think. Not sure what I/O means can you explain?
If you could list a moderate upgrade in specs for me I'd be grateful. Not highest but affrdably high!
I'm only moderately techie so I'll just hand the list over to my buider and see what he comes up with.
I've always gone down the intel chip route, any ideas there?

Cheers

John


----------



## quantum (Jun 14, 2010)

Victoria - have the recommended specs gone up with the new release?

Ta 
John


----------



## Studio2401 (Jun 14, 2010)

Is it worth to have a look at memory leakage ?

Earlier this evening lr3 was using over 1Gb RAM for a simple export operation. After shut down and restart about 5''k for the same .. 

The information below seems not to be correct:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/systemreqs/
  * Intel® Pentium® 4 processor or equivalent
  * Microsoft® Windows® XP with Service Pack 3; Windows Vista® Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (32 bit and 64 bit); or Windows 7 (32 bit and 64 bit)
  * 2GB of RAM
  * 1GB of available hard-disk space
  * 1,'24x768 display
  * CD-ROM drive


----------



## ukbrown (Jun 14, 2010)

Memory used is not necessarily a leak. Apps use as much as they can to make things faster.


----------



## Studio2401 (Jun 14, 2010)

[quote author=ukbrown link=topic=1''52.msg6834'#msg6834' date=1276533'46]
Memory used is not necessarily a leak. Apps use as much as they can to make things faster.
[/quote]

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The point is that 1Gb sounds excessive.


----------



## ukbrown (Jun 14, 2010)

I Open lightroom, slide preview 1.6GB used in 6's.
xp, windows 7 especially try to give as much RAM to an app as possible

Why wouldn't you?, say you paid for 6GB RAM and windows only ever used 2GB, you have just wasted your money.

XP has a limit of 2GB per process in it's 32 bit guise, so LR could use 2GB Max.
Windows 7, esp 64bit version much more aggressive in using RAM to try and speed everything up. If it's not used by an app it's used for cacheing.


----------



## Studio2401 (Jun 14, 2010)

[quote author=ukbrown link=topic=1''52.msg68351#msg68351 date=1276537155]
I Open lightroom, slide preview 1.6GB used in 6's.
xp, windows 7 especially try to give as much RAM to an app as possible

Why wouldn't you?, say you paid for 6GB RAM and windows only ever used 2GB, you have just wasted your money.

XP has a limit of 2GB per process in it's 32 bit guise, so LR could use 2GB Max.
Windows 7, esp 64bit version much more aggressive in using RAM to try and speed everything up. If it's not used by an app it's used for cacheing.
[/quote]

I don't know. Got a message that there was not sufficient memory. 

Victoria, HELP


----------



## gilwen (Jun 16, 2010)

I'm using a quad core with 4Gb of memory. Trying to go through a batch of 2'' images to rate and label and it has slowed down almost to a stop. Checked the memory use and its stopping at about 1.5Gb. There's no way a piece of software needs to use this amount. Its gradually grabbing memory as you go through tasks without ever clearing it, and I'm a programmer so I know what I'm talking about. This has been a problem on all versions of lightroom and has been raised over and over again. I'm suprised that Adobe keep releasing software with this sort of error built in, the same is happening with content aware fill on cs5. Perhaps listening to beta testers might be a solution.


----------



## Studio2401 (Jun 16, 2010)

[quote author=gilwen link=topic=1''52.msg68532#msg68532 date=1276693476]
I'm using a quad core with 4Gb of memory. Trying to go through a batch of 2'' images to rate and label and it has slowed down almost to a stop. Checked the memory use and its stopping at about 1.5Gb. There's no way a piece of software needs to use this amount. Its gradually grabbing memory as you go through tasks without ever clearing it, and I'm a programmer so I know what I'm talking about. This has been a problem on all versions of lightroom and has been raised over and over again. I'm suprised that Adobe keep releasing software with this sort of error built in, the same is happening with content aware fill on cs5. Perhaps listening to beta testers might be a solution.
[/quote]

Thank you Gilwen,

I fully agree with you.
I have 25+ years of IT experience and I think I know enough to ask for measurements rather than theory. [modified to take out ambiguous text]

Adobe should review the published "hardware requirements for running lr3" and the code for new modules. My system was unable to export 1 (one) picture after I had used the new module for lens corrections.



I say it again: Victoria [please] HELP.


----------



## gilwen (Jun 16, 2010)

I'm with you on that Studio24'1, I've just been monitoring memory useage, when in the library module and just scrolling through image to image without any other actions, memory usage increased from 22',''' to 1,75','''K. When I moved from the library module to develop and carried out some work usage dropped to 6'9.727K which just doesn't make sense.

In the library module it was almost stopping my machine altogether, I couldn't switch to another program, and as I say that was only scrolling from image to image.


----------



## ukbrown (Jun 16, 2010)

gilwen, your machine maybe has other issues than just LR3. Where did the out of memory message pop up?, what OS are you running? and is it 64 or 32 bit? A task manager screenshot of the services tab (sorted in memory used) and the performance tab would be useful


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 16, 2010)

I have to disagree with you about the memory usage. I work in IT, I have designed hardware and software and currently look after huge databases for a bank. I am regularly involved with performance and stress testing.
An application using up "what appears to be" 1.5GB is not an issue. Memory is managed by the operating system - not the application. A memory leak in the application would keep grabbing memory until the machine ran out, this is not the case here.

Lightroom needs a fair bit of RAM to work with as it constantly has to create images on the fly from sets of instructions. It needs to keep copies of these and thumbnails, metadata etc. for performance purposes and undo purposes. Lightroom uses a database which requires a lot of memory to sort and index and cache data. Much of the memory you see can be reused once the operating system puts it back into the free pool. Operating systems vary in the way in which they manage memory but invariably they try and use as much RAM as they can as this gives the best performance to the end user. Much of the RAM you see as being used has actually already been released by the application, the OS has not returned it to the pool as it is not required yet as we still have plenty free. Eventually the OS will clean up and the free memory will appear again.

I have put this in incredibly simple terms as the real way it works is much more complicated and also involves I/O caching on top of this. But Lightroom does not have a problem with memory management in its current versions 3.' and 2.7.

[quote author=gilwen link=topic=1''52.msg68532#msg68532 date=1276693476]
I'm using a quad core with 4Gb of memory. Trying to go through a batch of 2'' images to rate and label and it has slowed down almost to a stop. Checked the memory use and its stopping at about 1.5Gb.[/quote]

The issue is clearly not RAM, you have 4GB and only 1.5GB is being used.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 16, 2010)

[quote author=Studio24'1 link=topic=1''52.msg68533#msg68533 date=1276694192]
I have 25+ years of IT experience and recently retired as a senior IT manager of one of the largest multinationals. But, what can I do after the totally unhelpful comments made earlier ?
[/quote]

Most of the people on this site are only trying to help you. I don't know your skill level but several questions have been asked about systems and settings and you have failed to respond with any useful information. The more info we have the easier it is to narrow down the problem.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 17, 2010)

Apologies to Eli (Studio24'1) if my last comments were a bit harsh.

I would suggest that Lightroom quite simply works better if you have a reasonable amount of RAM. I find it usually uses between 1.5GB to 4GB on my system and I'm probably a fairly average user. I also think this is is reaonable amount of memory for this type of application to use (yes it is a fair bit). The operating system and any other applications you have open at the same time will also require memory. A system with only 2GB RAM will under-perform when using in LR in my experience. (your experiences will vary)

I have 8GB RAM at present so there is plenty for my OS to play with which is why my LR usage can go up to about 4GB sometimes. If asked by a friend I would recommend a minimum of 4GB RAM to use LR comfortably.

Memory is not the only resource that can under perform of course, CPU and I/O also need to be considered. As does the interference from other processes like Virus checkers.

Were you using LR2 before version 3 ? Was that OK ?


----------



## Studio2401 (Jun 17, 2010)

[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=1''52.msg68588#msg68588 date=127671898']

Most of the people on this site are only trying to help you. I don't know your skill level but several questions have been asked about systems and settings and you have failed to respond with any useful information. The more info we have the easier it is to narrow down the problem.
[/quote]

I don't know what I can add to systems information in addition to what is already visible under my avatar. However I merely confirmed that there might be an issue. Admittedly, it could be a freak problem as I could not reproduce it. I had reported more details to Adobe, but this what I did and what happened:

I was working on a NEF file using the new lens correction module. Then I tried to export at a modest max 8''px size. Then I got a popup window telling me that there was not sufficient memory to do so.
Apart from Firefox there were no other user-applications,nor virus scan active. If it happens a gain I will take a screen copies.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 17, 2010)

Were you using any plug-ins during export ? I'm sure there was a memory issue when exporting with a plug-in recently. maybe someone else with a better memory could chime in.


----------



## christianjstewart (Jun 12, 2010)

I have gone from taking about 2 hours or so to edit / crop / export etc. sets of 3''-4'' sports images with LR 2.7 to taking at least double or triple that time with LR 3 beta and now the trial version. I will list the key time killers below but please let me know if these will be solved by adding more RAM (I have a "old" 2.8 GHz HP Pavilion with 2GB RAM XP system) or if there is some other solution.

1. When zooming in on an image in Develop module to check focus etc. it can often take 45 seconds to over a minute for the image to render and the "Loading" icon to go away and the image to focus properly. This is similar even if I create 1:1 previews. Speaking of which if I go to generate these it take hours to do so and thus is not an option.

2. While the sliders respond very well and move smoothly, the corresponding changes to the image (eg increase in exposure, blacks, etc) take a few seconds to respond on the image and it is difficult to make accurate adjustments because you do not see them immediately and often overcompensate. I know there were threads on this re the beta but it seems only slightly better in final release.

3. Crop Tool glitch - Often I like to leave the crop tool open while switching from image to image so I can make quick adjustments to each image and minimize the number of mouse clicks that are needed by turning it off and on for each. When I do this and switch to another image, the image and tool go all glitchy and the image often enlarges and stretches itself to distorted dimensions and gets blurry. If you move the image a bit it pops back to normal, but will recur. Also, the response of the crop box when you make adjustments (like the sliders mentioned above) is very slow and takes a few seconds to respond.

4. Export - Another huge time killer. I have just sent 124 images to Export to JPEG and after 45 minutes or so it is 4'% complete and is estimating another 66 minutes to go or so. Surely this should not take this long??

I am loving the new features and especially the Noise Reduction, but the slowdown in productivity for me when I am on deadlines and need to process images in a hurry is a huge problem for me. Even if I could get the speed of LR 2.7 and be able to use the new NR I'd be happy, but right now I am not and am looking for solutions.

Thanks
Chris


----------



## Studio2401 (Jun 17, 2010)

[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=1''52.msg68625#msg68625 date=127675'923]
Were you using any plug-ins during export ? I'm sure there was a memory issue when exporting with a plug-in recently. maybe someone else with a better memory could chime in.
[/quote]

Straightforward lr export, with copyright option disabled.


----------



## gilwen (Jun 17, 2010)

"An application using up "what appears to be" 1.5GB is not an issue."

According to Adobe it is. They just called to say they'd had a lot of issues like this reported and they're looking into it!


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 17, 2010)

That is odd as Lightroom has always used that amount of RAM in my experience. Maybe under some circumstances it is using too much too soon. Its hard to tell when you are used to seeing figures around that size. It may well be I don't notice it as my system has more RAM to start with.

Did Adobe point you to a support reference so that we can all share in the issue at hand ?

This is a 3.' (zero) release there are bound to some bugs and issues that need ironing out but in general I would say 1.5GB of usage in Lightroom is not something most experienced users would consider to be an issue. If I start LR3 up and just nose about it uses about 1.3GB of RAM. LR2 is about the same...

I do think Adobe's minimum hardware spec is pretty tight though.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 17, 2010)

To be honest, I would be a little surprised to hear that Adobe are receiving lots of complaints along the lines of "LR3 is using 1.5gb of RAM and I don't think it should". On the other hand, I would NOT be surprised to hear that Adobe are receiving lots of complaints along the lines of "Have just upgraded to LR3 and the performance sucks in comparison to LR2.x". Two different issues which may or may not be related.

For the record, having spent over 3' years in IT, I am realistic enough to realise that applications and operating systems and cameras and just about everything else will nearly ALWAYS keep pace with the advances made by the engineers.....so as they cram ever more RAM or disk capacity or microprocessors into ever more smaller spaces, along will come applications to make use of it (otherwise, what would be the point?).

You are concerned that LR uses 1.5gb of RAM because you think that's too much....I on the other hand, having paid for 12gb of RAM in my new PC, would be incredibly disappointed if LR3 *ONLY* used 1.5gb of RAM and I found the performance was hopeless.

Yes of course in an ideal world LR3 would absolutely fly using 256mb of RAM.....but those days are long gone. With capacities going up, and prices coming down, it's inevitable that developments will expand into that new capacity.....and if that means new functions (as is the case with LR3) then that's entirely reasonable IMO.

I think the real issue here is that Adobe may have pushed the envelope beyond their stated minimum specs and may need to address that. Hopefully they can tweak LR3's performance to improve things in that area...


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 17, 2010)

Jim, I think you hit the nail on the head there !

The U2U forums also seem to agree with that judgement.


----------



## gilwen (Jun 17, 2010)

Jim
If you read my initial post, it wasn't the fact that it's using 1.5Gb of memory that bothers me, it's that it stops itself and everything else from working, and that is a problem. And that is probaby why you say that performance "sucks" in LR 3 compared to 2. I've been using LR eversince it came out, and I don't have these problems with 2. I think I can probably top you in years experience in IT as a graphics programmer with an MSc and PhD, including work and testing for Adobe and on photoshop and lightroom and substantial work on AutoCad. So I don't think its a question of experience that is important here, what is at stake is the usability of a piece of software, as you rightly say lots of people are complaining about performance and that is what I have spoken to Adobe about. My reference to the amount of memory being used is that it can be increased merely by scrolling through a folder of raw images without any other actions being taken.

Richard


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 17, 2010)

Hi Richard,

Just for the sake of clarity and to clear up any confusion, I was really referring to the fact that in a couple of posts you seemed to suggest (or at least I inferred) that utilisation of 1.5gb of RAM was too much, and I was just trying to make the point that, based on what I have seen happen in my years in IT, I did not feel the same way. If that isn't your main concern then fine, let's move on to address that. BTW, I think there are folks on this site who can probably outdo BOTH of us in terms of their IT longevity. 

On the overall LR3 performance issue, to be fair I did not say that performance "sucks" in LR3 compared to LR2....I said that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that other people have reported that. As I have consistently reported throughout the beta and into general release, I have noted some performance differences between the two, and for sure in some areas/functions I do find LR3 to be slower than LR2....but acceptably so (to me at least) given the additional functions.

I have also consistently said that I feel the minimum system specs for LR3 now appear too optimistic, as clearly some people here ARE reporting unacceptable performance degredation with LR3 (as indeed was happening throughout the beta)....so Adobe either need to amend them OR make some changes to improve things for those people with systems at or near the line.

Not sure I understand the point you are making in your final sentence, i.e. are you saying you think that's right, or wrong? I would instinctively have *expected* LR's memory usage to increase when scrolling through images in the Library module, as I would expect the previews to be loaded into memory _but with that memory allocation not being released when I move onto the next image._ Unless the memory is needed elsewhere, why release it? That way the scrolling backwards and forwards becomes even quicker. That is exactly how it behaves on my system at least. What I can't explain is why your memory utilisation dropped way down when you switched into Develop....that doesn't seem to happen on my system, so am puzzled as to why it happens on yours. Have you had any further thoughts about that?


----------



## ukbrown (Jun 17, 2010)

Without any more information I cannot offer any more advice.
 If you answer the questions and provide the information we might be able to help. I like a lot of people here have been working with PC's for a very long time, since 198', too long.

I asked for this and it was not forthcoming, can you provide?

gilwen, your machine maybe has other issues than just LR3. Where did the out of memory message pop up?, what OS are you running? and is it 64 or 32 bit? A task manager screenshot of the services tab (sorted in memory used) and the performance tab would be useful


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jun 17, 2010)

The smartest man I ever knew in person created:
Scoggin's Law: "Whenever there are advances in hardware, software will piss them away in a week."

*Puts on moderator hat:* You folks are welcome to argue this topic all you want, but we won't tolerate it, should it descend to name calling and the like. ( You can use the Adobe U2U for that.  )

Personally, I'm approaching 4' years of IT experience, absolutely none of it developing Lr. I abstain.


----------



## riwa (Jun 19, 2010)

It's not that comforting, but It appears I'm not alone in experiencing a massive slowdown in tasks using LR3. I have no IT experience, but am a photographer who had no problems or issues with speed using LR2.7. Nothing has changed on my 2''9 MacPro quad-core Nehalem, OS1'.5.8, 8 GB RAM, nor any changes in software/computing habits. Since upgrading to LR3, for the very first time in LR, the "spinning beach ball" now consistently appears--and sticks around awhile--when performing routine tasks in both Library and Develop. I never experienced this in LR2.7 with similar files.
Any suggestions for temporary workarounds for us Mac users would be appreciated, but it sounds like an Adobe problem - hope we hear back from them very soon.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 19, 2010)

I have had very little issue with regards to performance and LR3. I did however remove my previews and re-render them. I have seen several examples of people with performance issues that have seen improvements after doing so.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jun 19, 2010)

I'm thinking the following thoughts on performance of LR3

1) Verify any AV/malware s/w is not real time scanning any of the Lr components. (New folder locations may have invalidated any previous 2.x exclusion settings.)
2) It seems that for some folks, both local adjustments, and lens corrections can be significant cycle users. See if that has any impact, and perhaps work around by doing these last.


----------



## ukbrown (Jun 20, 2010)

the original poster had an AMD processor, that appears to be cropping up in performance problems quite a bit


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 20, 2010)

I pointed out the AMD commonality in a couple of posts. Not sure if it is a real issue though but it is possible.


----------



## hania (Jun 20, 2010)

[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=1''52.msg68777#msg68777 date=1276911222]
I have had very little issue with regards to performance and LR3. I did however remove my previews and re-render them. I have seen several examples of people with performance issues that have seen improvements after doing so.
[/quote]

May be a very silly question - but where can I find the preview folder to remove it? I have looked for preview.lrcat but can't find it.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 20, 2010)

Hi Hania, it sits next to your catalog (looks like a file on a mac) and called &lt;cat name&gt;Previews.lrdata


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jun 21, 2010)

And I believe specific CPUs can actually matter in this. There was an XMP related bug in a legacy version, (don't remember whether 1.x or 2.x) which affected only certain AMD CPUs. Of course, it was fixed in a dot-release. This is one reason the Lr team favors such a broad beta release process, to get exposures to a wide gamut of system configs.


----------

