Have Adobe gone mad?

Started Jul 31, 2010 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Class A
Regular MemberPosts: 132Gear list
Like?
Have Adobe gone mad?
Jul 31, 2010

Many people have all sorts of issues with Lightroom 3 (LR3) performance (slow import, local edit tools become unusable after a while, etc.).

Adobe actually have managed to ship a product that performs worse than the "beta 2" version that was available for testing before.

There is a "Why is Lightroom 3 so slow?" thread at the LR Adobe forum which currently has 688 replies and 34,958 views. (forums.adobe.com/thread/656635?tstart=0]) That's a lot of traffic compared to the other threads on this forum.

Do you think Adobe might be embarrassed to have shipped a product -- having marketed it as improving performance, indeed claiming that performance has been the top priority -- that often becomes is virtually unusable because it is so slow?

This is software targeted at professional photographers but the quality control has been nowhere near professional.

One of the quality "engineers", Dan Tull writes on the Adobe forum quote,

"The point I'm trying to make here is that the Lightroom team is a small one and that while these reports are important to us, they're not our only priority (there have been some important bugs other than performance ones and those take time, too) and our bandwidth is limited." (-> forums.adobe.com/message/3012666#3012666])

Pardon me?

There is a huge number of users asking whether they can get a refund because they want to revert back to LR2.7 because of LR3 performance issues but the response is "we have worse problems"? :eek:

Indeed, LR3 is full of bugs. Not little things you don't notice until you do strange workflows, no bugs that are in your face when you use the product in a normal way. Still the embarrassment of inflicting a memory leaking, error spewing ("assertion XYZ has failed"), crawling (molasses is a F1 car against spot removal and adjustment brush applications) mess on to professionals should be a bigger problem than the (admittedly high number of) bugs.

The sluggishness of LR3's user interface, for those affected, is a real shame because the ACR portion of LR is excellent, the image quality is really, really good. Unsurprisingly, ACR is developed by different people.

Granted a number of users have no performance issues but there are too many to make this a non-problem. Note that many of these affected users have very powerful machines, there is clearly something very wrong with the software.

What has the extensive beta testing period been used for? On what grounds do the quality "engineers" call themselves "engineers"?

In my book, being an engineer implies a minimum of professional standards. Real engineers have an education which has been accredited using the so-called "Washington Accord" agreement. I suggest that some professional engineering body demand that Adobe remove the preposterous "engineering" label in the LR3 credits screen.

What a disastrous release from Adobe and it irks me no end that there seems to be a common understanding that one cannot expect better from software these days.

If you are affected by LR3 performance issues please make a post at the "Why is Lightroom 3 so slow??" thread to show Adobe the extent of the problem.
-> forums.adobe.com/thread/656635?tstart=0
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/class_a/

 Class A's gear list:Class A's gear list
Pentax K-5 II Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow