JayH

I understand that the Affinity range of products are relatively new compared to the likes of Photoshop, release dates aside, these applications we are told have been in development for many years prior to release, just like most software. Loading times are a major polish to a piece of software - but Serif from passed experience do not appear to have a large development team so I'm willing to give these guys a break and see what happens. I just hope that they focus polish and bug fixing, and not extra features for the time being.
 
Joschi, nice spec PC, but it's not a fair comparison for the majority of us. If I had your specs and Affinity didn't start any quicker I'd be using Photoshop.

Hi again,
It always comes down to this, some users have no problem, they don't complain, other do, but not enough of us complain - some of us are just so glad not to have to have a yearly subscription to deal with, and additionally pleased no doubt that we haven't had to shell out £600 for the privilege. All I can say though is that from my experience on running Affinity Photo on numerous PCs/laptops with various specs, Affinity Photo is slow to start and slow to load compared to the competition. The loading of images isn't that bad, but when you couple with it wanting to do a quick edit which may just be to re-size an image, you end up staring at the screen wondering what's going on under the hood to cause it to take so long.
The beta isn't any better obviously - that's why I'm here ;)
I realise as I've said previously, that it's not as "developed" as Photoshop for example, but I would have expected that after the few years Affinity products have been around that startup times would have improved.
Here is a random PC fresh install with:
Windows 10 64bit - all updates
Internet connection off
4th Gen Intel Core i3
Physical HD, 8GB Ram
Nvidia Geforce card
Default Fonts
 
(Nothing hot, but adequate for most tasks.)
 
Affinity Photo
Cold Start = 35 Seconds
Warm Start = 6 Seconds,
Loading an image when warm that is HD 1920 x 1080/ JPG / 230KB = 1.5 Seconds.
Loading an image when warm that is 4K 3840 x 2160/ JPG / 1.17MB = 2.4 Seconds.
 
Photoshop CS6
Cold Start = 16 Seconds
Warm Start = 3 Seconds
Loading an image when warm that is 1920 x 1080 / JPG / 230KB = Less than 1 Second.
Loading an image when warm that is 4K 3840 x 2160/ JPG / 1.17MB = 1 Second.
 
I could include benchmarks from other software, but you'll probably know the outcome anyway.
Since the release I would have expected some improvements in this area. Perhaps it was even slower on release, I don't recall, but it should definitely be quicker on startup you'd assume by now. Otherwise you would probably expect that there is a problem with something - is there?
After all the hype, has development slowed too?