Switching from PC to Apple for big file processing

[SdeGat]

Yes, my motherboard supports the M.2 SSDs with 4 lanes.

I just need to find a Windows/LrC guru then.

I wouldn't upgrade the SSD before I found out that it was what was causing the issue.

I can't tell what's wrong, but it's clear that something is not right.

Agreed. I just cannot find what is wrong.

I don’t think I need to upgrade my SSDs as all three are already M.2.

 

[JimKasson]

Yes, my motherboard supports the M.2 SSDs with 4 lanes.

I just need to find a Windows/LrC guru then.

I wouldn't upgrade the SSD before I found out that it was what was causing the issue.

I can't tell what's wrong, but it's clear that something is not right.

Agreed. I just cannot find what is wrong.

I don’t think I need to upgrade my SSDs as all three are already M.2.

Have you tried running benchmarks that test various parts of the machine?

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[SdeGat]

Yes, my motherboard supports the M.2 SSDs with 4 lanes.

I just need to find a Windows/LrC guru then.

I wouldn't upgrade the SSD before I found out that it was what was causing the issue.

I can't tell what's wrong, but it's clear that something is not right.

Agreed. I just cannot find what is wrong.

I don’t think I need to upgrade my SSDs as all three are already M.2.

Have you tried running benchmarks that test various parts of the machine?

Yes, I have. A while ago… It’s been like that for a couple of years now.

 

[jjcha]

Have you tried running benchmarks that test various parts of the machine?

Yes, I have. A while ago… It’s been like that for a couple of years now.

I can only share with you my personal experience, as I don't claim expertise in technical matters. But I think I know what you mean by your problems with LRc, with delays switching modules, delays while selecting and switching from photo to photo, etc. It's very, very frustrating.

I agree that if the delay is "many seconds" it seems there is something very wrong with your current system.

Having said that, I've found with Windows, there are meaningful delays even with clean, well functioning laptops running well, and with desktops they still seem to lag Apple just a tiny bit (not enough to matter). Here is what I have experienced in your shoes:

My old 2019 laptop (same as your current 9th generation i9, but the laptop version, so that's slower, but with 32 gigs of ram, which is enough): It definitely "feels very slow", but not "many seconds" slow.

Changing modules, switching from GFX100RF photo to photo in the library, feels like 4-6 seconds when the system is running optimally (i.e., nothing else is open, nothing is happening in the background. LRc isn't doing something in the background like, I dunno, processing previews or something.

My new mid-tier "$900 MacBook Air" wannabe (AMD Ryzen AI 9). It "feels slow, but less so", maybe 3-4 seconds. Note, this is how it feels, I'm sure it's actually not that slow. But man it feels bad, especially when you're working with dozens of files.

The new top-tier $2.8K "creator" laptop (also AMD Ryzen AI 9, but more ram with better thermals and a discrete GPU which doesn't matter for the things we're talking about). It "feels okay". Disappointingly you can feel that it still takes 2 seconds or so - there's a delay which is really surprising. It's okay working with dozens of files, but it doesn't feel great since it's supposed to be "top of the line".

My new top-tier desktop (different AMD desktop 9 chip, 9950x). It "feels very fast" but sometimes there's as split second delay. Almost instantaneous but maybe a split second delay you can just kinda notice. Not a big deal but there.

MacBook Pro M4 Max. Everything feels snappy and instantaneous. Sometimes there might be a split second delay but it seems rare and not really noticeable, while on my desktop it seems to be there.

I don't know what to tell you. I think your desktop should be at least somewhere around where my new mid-tier laptop should be. Slow, sure, but "many seconds" sounds obviously wrong to me. But having said that, it might be time for a CPU upgrade given you're asking that chip to handle, I assume, your GFX100RF images. I've just noticed how those files blow up to gigabytes of data once you open them up to PS and start processing them with layers and the like, and the CPU chugs along at 100% while doing the simplest in LRc.

 

[SdeGat]

First of all, thank you for the detailed answer jjcha.

Have you tried running benchmarks that test various parts of the machine?

Yes, I have. A while ago… It’s been like that for a couple of years now.

I can only share with you my personal experience, as I don't claim expertise in technical matters. But I think I know what you mean by your problems with LRc, with delays switching modules, delays while selecting and switching from photo to photo, etc. It's very, very frustrating.

I agree that if the delay is "many seconds" it seems there is something very wrong with your current system.

About 5 seconds. If you have a series of selection to make, it's not workable. When hitting "P" for pick, it could be 5 to 7 seconds. :-(

Having said that, I've found with Windows, there are meaningful delays even with clean, well functioning laptops running well, and with desktops they still seem to lag Apple just a tiny bit (not enough to matter). Here is what I have experienced in your shoes:

(...)

I don't know what to tell you. I think your desktop should be at least somewhere around where my new mid-tier laptop should be. Slow, sure, but "many seconds" sounds obviously wrong to me. But having said that, it might be time for a CPU upgrade given you're asking that chip to handle, I assume, your GFX100RF images. I've just noticed how those files blow up to gigabytes of data once you open them up to PS and start processing them with layers and the like, and the CPU chugs along at 100% while doing the simplest in LRc.

While I have started to "play with" my GFX100RF pictures, I've had the same problem with my Z9 and A7RV files. I agree with you (and Jim) that my machine should give me better performance. It may not be the machine at all. Likely somekind of config. Maybe I should try with Adobe support again...

 

[JimKasson]

While I have started to "play with" my GFX100RF pictures, I've had the same problem with my Z9 and A7RV files. I agree with you (and Jim) that my machine should give me better performance. It may not be the machine at all. Likely somekind of config. Maybe I should try with Adobe support again...

Have you tried Adobe Creative Cloud Cleaner Tool?

https://helpx.adobe.com/download-install/apps/troubleshoot/download-failure/cc-cleaner-tool-installation-problems.html

 

[SdeGat]

While I have started to "play with" my GFX100RF pictures, I've had the same problem with my Z9 and A7RV files. I agree with you (and Jim) that my machine should give me better performance. It may not be the machine at all. Likely somekind of config. Maybe I should try with Adobe support again...

Have you tried Adobe Creative Cloud Cleaner Tool?

https://helpx.adobe.com/download-in...re/cc-cleaner-tool-installation-problems.html

Yes, I have. A few times.

It does not look like it is cleaning LrC (classic). It helped me clear Adobe Creative Cloud app issues a few times though.

 

[Thomas Guenther]

This is not strictly medium format related, but many folks here have struggled with some types of photo processing of the big files that our MF camera produce. I do a lot of layering, stacking, stitching, and other kinds of computer-intensive processing of my MF files, so speed and capacity is important to me. Others may benefit from hearing abou7t my recent transition from Wintel to ARM-based MacOS.

I was pleased to see Apple messages on my Macs, and it’s great to be able to compose messages with a real keyboard.

Except that the Return key sends the message typed to that point instead of adding a paragraph break as expected. And has done so for several major OS upgrades. C'mon Apple!

.. but this is an "old MS problem" - CR (carriage return: 0x0D) AND LF (line feed: 0x0A) in ONE MS command. That weird concastenation produces more problems and errors in core services like EDI/EDIFact etc. It is a hard job - even nowadays to taught hardcore MS users that that two commands in on (MS) command is a problem.

 

[Rich42]

This is not strictly medium format related, but many folks here have struggled with some types of photo processing of the big files that our MF camera produce. I do a lot of layering, stacking, stitching, and other kinds of computer-intensive processing of my MF files, so speed and capacity is important to me. Others may benefit from hearing abou7t my recent transition from Wintel to ARM-based MacOS.

I was pleased to see Apple messages on my Macs, and it’s great to be able to compose messages with a real keyboard.

Except that the Return key sends the message typed to that point instead of adding a paragraph break as expected. And has done so for several major OS upgrades. C'mon Apple!

.. but this is an "old MS problem" - CR (carriage return: 0x0D) AND LF (line feed: 0x0A) in ONE MS command. That weird concastenation produces more problems and errors in core services like EDI/EDIFact etc. It is a hard job - even nowadays to taught hardcore MS users that that two commands in on (MS) command is a problem.

Well, using MS in the first place in any manner is the source of all destruction of joy . . .

(ducking and running . . .)

 

[Truman Prevatt]

This is not strictly medium format related, but many folks here have struggled with some types of photo processing of the big files that our MF camera produce. I do a lot of layering, stacking, stitching, and other kinds of computer-intensive processing of my MF files, so speed and capacity is important to me. Others may benefit from hearing abou7t my recent transition from Wintel to ARM-based MacOS.

I was pleased to see Apple messages on my Macs, and it’s great to be able to compose messages with a real keyboard.

Except that the Return key sends the message typed to that point instead of adding a paragraph break as expected. And has done so for several major OS upgrades. C'mon Apple!

.. but this is an "old MS problem" - CR (carriage return: 0x0D) AND LF (line feed: 0x0A) in ONE MS command. That weird concastenation produces more problems and errors in core services like EDI/EDIFact etc. It is a hard job - even nowadays to taught hardcore MS users that that two commands in on (MS) command is a problem.

Well, using MS in the first place in any manner is the source of all destruction of joy . . .

(ducking and running . . .)

What's the old saying, "Windows, an 8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor by a 2 bit company."

 

[paulraphael]

Hi,

Next up: Windows, originally just a GUI for DOS on a 286, and Mac's version and the Big Court Case for Infringement. Which was that they *both* blatantly copied the GUI from Xerox for a system that was killed off early.

Well ... I don't think it went down quite like that.

Xerox's executives weren't interested in using their PARC division's interface innovations. So they allowed the Steves at Apple to take the technology ... in exchange for Apple stock. Xerox probably got a good deal!

In the Apple vs. Microsoft case, Msoft freely admitted taking Apple's IP. But they claimed it wasn't theft, because Apple had given them all the source code without any restrictions.

The claim was true. And was grounds for the judge to dismiss the case.

How did this happen? In Apple's early days, the enemy was IBM. Microsoft was just another fledgling tech company run out of Gates' parents' garage. Jobs needed applications (like Word) for the Mac in order to be competitive, and saw Gates as someone who could make it happen. So Jobs just handed Gates all the Mac OS source code. He was too green to know you don't do this without a battalion of paranoid lawyers drafting contracts and NDAs. Probably not a mistake he made twice.

 

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

And then my monochrome display original PC has a lightpen. No one mentions those any more.

As a CAD guy, reading that made my arm hurt. I hated lightpens - my arm fatigued holding the pen in the air. Digitizers were much better. In many ways, the mouse was a step backwards.

But the combination of the 486, Windows NT (32-bit), mouse and CD changed the CAD world. Instead of buying a PC and adding accessories to run CAD, every NT486 PC just worked. When the AMD 64-bit processor arrived, it doomed the Unix workstations. I was an Apollo, SGI, HP-UX guy and sort of miss those machine and sort of don't.

Started on a GE mainframe. Most people don't know about the GE.

 

[JimKasson]

And then my monochrome display original PC has a lightpen. No one mentions those any more.

As a CAD guy, reading that made my arm hurt. I hated lightpens - my arm fatigued holding the pen in the air. Digitizers were much better. In many ways, the mouse was a step backwards.

But the combination of the 486, Windows NT (32-bit), mouse and CD changed the CAD world. Instead of buying a PC and adding accessories to run CAD, every NT486 PC just worked. When the AMD 64-bit processor arrived, it doomed the Unix workstations. I was an Apollo, SGI, HP-UX guy and sort of miss those machine and sort of don't.

Started on a GE mainframe. Most people don't know about the GE.

Or the BUNCH. Or Bendix. Or RCA. Or SDS. Or Cray. Or Apollo, Prime, Wang, Computervision, BBN, Encore, Gould, etc.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I am currently struggling with LrC's performance

Windows11 Machine Specs:

Norton 360

Antivirus Enabled

That's one of the first places I'd check. Disconnect from the internet, then shut down Norton (everything Norton-related). Now try LRc.

I use to be a sysadmin at a 150,000 user network. Norton and McAfee were alway a performance suspect.

 

[SdeGat]

I am currently struggling with LrC's performance

Windows11 Machine Specs:

Norton 360

Antivirus Enabled

That's one of the first places I'd check. Disconnect from the internet, then shut down Norton (everything Norton-related). Now try LRc.

I use to be a sysadmin at a 150,000 user network. Norton and McAfee were alway a performance suspect.

Thanks Ken, it’s one of the first things I checked based on a few recommendations like yours. I actually de-installed Norton altogether and ran my computer without it for a few days and saw no noticeable difference. I also entered exceptions for photo directories and drives in Norton antivirus (I still have those).

I’m pretty desperate honestly.

 

[Thomas Guenther]

I am currently struggling with LrC's performance

Windows11 Machine Specs:

Norton 360

Antivirus Enabled

That's one of the first places I'd check. Disconnect from the internet, then shut down Norton (everything Norton-related). Now try LRc.

I use to be a sysadmin at a 150,000 user network. Norton and McAfee were alway a performance suspect.

Thanks Ken, it’s one of the first things I checked based on a few recommendations like yours. I actually de-installed Norton altogether and ran my computer without it for a few days and saw no noticeable difference. I also entered exceptions for photo directories and drives in Norton antivirus (I still have those).

I’m pretty desperate honestly.

Another hint: Maybe it is a problem with the FS (File System).

On Mac, APFS is the actual FS. The former one was HPFS/HPFS+.

On Linux systems extFAT the common used.

On former Windows system use(d) FAT32 - Windows 11 uses NTFS. This was the standard FS on Win NT 3.51. We are again in history

APFS/HPFS performs best with large files > 0,5 to 0,75 GB, but struggles with smaller files and performs worse as compared to ExtFAT or FAT32.

RAW files perform much better using ExtFAT/FAT32. Usually "too small".

Besdes the FS the applications might be a second bottleneck, because it might be that e. g. LR on Mac uses "the wrong FS" with respect to RW speed.

Same strange behaviours are known on Norton/Symantec products as well.

Test/Solution:

Try the following: Take a stick and format it using Disk Utility

1. with ExtFAT - copy 100 pictures to it, check the time

2. Open LR using the ExtFAT device and check speed while using/accessing/edit files

now do the same, using the same stick, but formatted with APFS and check times and performance.

If you detect the better performing FS consider to change the FS of your "data drive.

The Mac OS partitions (internal SSD/HD) need to run with APFS - DONT CHANGE THE FS of your SYSTEM!

I had similar problems using COne - it performed ⅓ better on external drive using ExtFAT compared to running the same under APFS.

--
some lenses - some bodies

 

[SdeGat]

Thomas, I will try that but would this issue have an incidence on the delay when I hit « p » for pick? (for example)

And, can I run APFS in a windows machine?

I am currently struggling with LrC's performance

Windows11 Machine Specs:

Norton 360

Antivirus Enabled

That's one of the first places I'd check. Disconnect from the internet, then shut down Norton (everything Norton-related). Now try LRc.

I use to be a sysadmin at a 150,000 user network. Norton and McAfee were alway a performance suspect.

Thanks Ken, it’s one of the first things I checked based on a few recommendations like yours. I actually de-installed Norton altogether and ran my computer without it for a few days and saw no noticeable difference. I also entered exceptions for photo directories and drives in Norton antivirus (I still have those).

I’m pretty desperate honestly.

Another hint: Maybe it is a problem with the FS (File System).

On Mac, APFS is the actual FS. The former one was HPFS/HPFS+.

On Linux systems extFAT the common used.

On former Windows system use(d) FAT32 - Windows 11 uses NTFS. This was the standard FS on Win NT 3.51. We are again in history

APFS/HPFS performs best with large files > 0,5 to 0,75 GB, but struggles with smaller files and performs worse as compared to ExtFAT or FAT32.

RAW files perform much better using ExtFAT/FAT32. Usually "too small".

Besdes the FS the applications might be a second bottleneck, because it might be that e. g. LR on Mac uses "the wrong FS" with respect to RW speed.

Same strange behaviours are known on Norton/Symantec products as well.

Test/Solution:

Try the following: Take a stick and format it using Disk Utility

1. with ExtFAT - copy 100 pictures to it, check the time

2. Open LR using the ExtFAT device and check speed while using/accessing/edit files

now do the same, using the same stick, but formatted with APFS and check times and performance.

If you detect the better performing FS consider to change the FS of your "data drive.

The Mac OS partitions (internal SSD/HD) need to run with APFS - DONT CHANGE THE FS of your SYSTEM!

I had similar problems using COne - it performed ⅓ better on external drive using ExtFAT compared to running the same under APFS.

 

[Thomas Guenther]

Thomas, I will try that but would this issue have an incidence on the delay when I hit « p » for pick? (for example)

And, can I run APFS in a windows machine?

I am currently struggling with LrC's performance

Windows11 Machine Specs:

Norton 360

Antivirus Enabled

That's one of the first places I'd check. Disconnect from the internet, then shut down Norton (everything Norton-related). Now try LRc.

I use to be a sysadmin at a 150,000 user network. Norton and McAfee were alway a performance suspect.

Thanks Ken, it’s one of the first things I checked based on a few recommendations like yours. I actually de-installed Norton altogether and ran my computer without it for a few days and saw no noticeable difference. I also entered exceptions for photo directories and drives in Norton antivirus (I still have those).

I’m pretty desperate honestly.

Another hint: Maybe it is a problem with the FS (File System).

On Mac, APFS is the actual FS. The former one was HPFS/HPFS+.

On Linux systems extFAT the common used.

On former Windows system use(d) FAT32 - Windows 11 uses NTFS. This was the standard FS on Win NT 3.51. We are again in history

APFS/HPFS performs best with large files > 0,5 to 0,75 GB, but struggles with smaller files and performs worse as compared to ExtFAT or FAT32.

RAW files perform much better using ExtFAT/FAT32. Usually "too small".

Besdes the FS the applications might be a second bottleneck, because it might be that e. g. LR on Mac uses "the wrong FS" with respect to RW speed.

Same strange behaviours are known on Norton/Symantec products as well.

Test/Solution:

Try the following: Take a stick and format it using Disk Utility

1. with ExtFAT - copy 100 pictures to it, check the time

2. Open LR using the ExtFAT device and check speed while using/accessing/edit files

now do the same, using the same stick, but formatted with APFS and check times and performance.

If you detect the better performing FS consider to change the FS of your "data drive.

The Mac OS partitions (internal SSD/HD) need to run with APFS - DONT CHANGE THE FS of your SYSTEM!

I had similar problems using COne - it performed ⅓ better on external drive using ExtFAT compared to running the same under APFS.

I never tried to access APFS drives from windows because I don't use Windows besides customers systems, and upon this I'll never do tests for my own

So my post relates to MacOS and the FS being applicable on this platform.

In former times it was necessary to have SAMBA installed to be able to mount NTFS drives from Mac.

My experience is to use ExtFAT with Windows systems.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

I use the double frame from a GE computer for a rack for my instruments in my electronics lab. That required a little reworking (as opposed to using a pair of HP instrument racks) but it wasn't all that hard of a job.

One nice thing about it is they have sizable cage wheel blowers in the very bottom. With nice intake filters. That is very cool. Literally.

Stan

 

[JimKasson]

Hi,

I use the double frame from a GE computer for a rack for my instruments in my electronics lab.

Were those EIA-310 compatible racks?

That required a little reworking (as opposed to using a pair of HP instrument racks) but it wasn't all that hard of a job.

One nice thing about it is they have sizable cage wheel blowers in the very bottom. With nice intake filters. That is very cool. Literally.

Stan