"Sluggish" response of AP/Windows Beta

[dougkerr]

In my early tests with AP/Windows Beta 1.5.0.35, I find it very "sluggish" in response.

 

I am running AP under Windows 7 Professional (SP1) on a system with an Intel Core Duo CPU (2.66 MHz clock) and 4.00 GB of installed RAM. The display system is an NVIDIA GeForce 210.

 

The results I describe here were obtained while there was no other foreground application running.

 

Last night I started some exercises that involved creating a selection. First I created a rectangular selection with the Rectangular Marquee Tool. I moved the mouse at a moderate speed. I found the marquee creation to be very "jerky", with the marquee jumping to catch up with the mouse position.

 

Later I tried to make a selection matching a certain object in my image, using the Selection Brush Tool. Again, the response was so "jerky" that I just couldn't really do the task.

 

I have also noted that AP seems to take a really long time to load a modest-sized JPEG image file.

 

Of course, it is always possible that my system has some type of infestation that leads to this performance problem by AP.

 

I note that in my several other graphics programs (with the exception of Photoshop), I get problem-free creation of selection marquees and the like. Of course, some of these are very old, so we might expect them to be more responsive. (How ironic is that!)

 

UPDATE

 

I just downloaded and installed AP beta 1.5.0.37. I sense that the problems I describe above are now less severe! I will report back after further testing.

 

Doug

 

 

[lenmerkel]

In my early tests with AP/Windows Beta 1.5.0.35, I find it very "sluggish" in response.

 

I am running AP under Windows 7 Professional (SP1) on a system with an Intel Core Duo CPU (2.66 MHz clock) and 4.00 GB of installed RAM. The display system is an NVIDIA GeForce 210.

 

I think that to get the best out of a processor/memory-intensive program like AP, you might want to treat yourself to some hardware upgrades. The Intel Core Duo, while it has a reasonably fast 2.66 GHz clock, only has 2 physical cores. Most modern photo editing apps thrive on having multiple cores available. Upgrading to a 4-core processor with hyper-threading would help. Undoubtedly though, your system performance is mostly constrained by RAM. 4 GB just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. I would think that 8 GB would be the absolute minimum for memory-intensive apps like AP. I would personally recommend 16 GB for more "wiggle-room" - AP would certainly benefit from that. I'm not familiar with your graphics card, but be aware that AP will pefrom best when it can take advantage of the processor and RAM in the card. The faster the GPU in the card, and the more card memory, the better your overall experience will be. Just my 2 cents.

 

Len

[SrPx]

Len, I slightly disagree, I recently read some experiments and benchmarks made for performance in Photoshop in the matter of multi core and single core. Curiously, it does not benefit so much from it. It does for some gaussian and other filters, but not in many core operations. Is more about the speed. Also, that cpu is way les optimized than a today's i7 6700k, or even an i5 6600k. Both quite good processors.  

 

So, imo, it's mostly about single thread "brute" speed in PS. But in AP, I certainly have no idea.  That is, a cpu reaching ~ 4 ghz like that i7 and i5 do, would be a great fit, imo. Of course, with only two cores, there's the fact that the full system is probably using quite of that power for the antiviurs, background operations or even just a browser streaming some music.

 

But agree fully on the ram (and the ram from those times was quite slower, too). I have 8 and it's already a problem in many of the tasks I need to accomplish in all my 2d/3d activities. IMO an ideal minimal would be 16 gb, these days.

 

And... I have a very strong suspect that with AP the card power (and maybe video memory (and the difference of DDR3 and ddr5 memory, for example)) is quite important. The 210 is a very, very under powered card. The only thing is that it tends to be very silent, and I love that. A user here reported no lag when starting a brush stroke at all, and is the only one. He has a GTX 970 (being now replaced by Pascal generation, the 1070, quite more powerful but 970 really a good card). That card if I 'm not mistaken now, has 4gb of video ram, but also, is quite fast in every task, works great with Adobe Premiere (yep, in video editing you get an amazing benefit of a good card, as well as multi cores, an i7 even better if is a 6 core, like those in the x99 platfom), so i t has quite some memory, and is quite powerful.  If AP uses the card as much as I believe it does, it could be another factor why the experience is being worst there, with a very low card. (not saying this to make you feel bad, of course, but s a fact that this hardware can't do much with today's software. Is surely very similar the machine my mother has, and I know what it can do and where it has some serious problems. )

 

That and IMO, the more ram, the better. And if it is fast type of memory (ddr4..), and low latency, great. (But IMO if in doubt, is way better 16gb of 1600mhz ram than 8gb at 2400hz. Being ddr4 and having low latency is more important, but imo the most important matter is the amount of memory)

[SrPx]

(with the exception of Photoshop),

 

 

Actually, PS does little use in what matters, of the graphic card. But IMO a low powered card here will surely damage performance in AP. If PS goes slow too with normal operation, I'd blame it more to the low ram and poor processor than the card. Even so, a dual core is a machine with which I have done -with a pair of family computers- quite some advanced stuff, even more resources hungry than PS. So... yes, in your shoes I would also review if there's some malware or misconfiguration in your system, as some of the things that you are describing, imo don't match so much with those specs... although I don't know what sort of exact dual core it is ! For example, these days you can purchase a "pentium" (yeh, they like to mess with us using suddenly old  names)  that is a dual core, or worse, a celeron, also dual core, which can be way less powerful than a core i3 6320, which I believes comes near 3.8 ghz in speed, and has more features. (and all of these low gamma cpus, still way more powerful than my mother's or your dual core...). These low end new machines, with about 4 or 8 gigabytes, together with a new mini tower, would be more powerful than your setup, for around 250 $.  (I'd go for an i5 (6600k ), 8gb ram, and a GTX 750ti or 950, at least.)

 

Sometimes though, one has a process (I mean, apart from the malware possibility), or several, in the background about which you are not aware, and disallowing those from loading in init might give the pc a bit of a boost.

 

Edit: "I have also noted that AP seems to take a really long time to load a modest-sized JPEG image file."  <-- This can be also due to slow disk. Some user reported having amazing loading times with large images, and he actually had two  (I believe) paired SSD disks, which is amazingly faster -at least in Windows- loading files in most softwares than when what you have is a mechanical HDD. (still, am one of those resisting to change and still preferring ye good old HDDs, but at a minimum of 7200rpm. If yours goes at the typical low cost disk they armed in low end pcs years ago, 5400rpm, that is a very noticeable difference when working with files. )

[PaulAffinity]

While I understand the issues over Disk, CPU and RAM I am a little concerned over the way that SERIF has approached the marketing and initial Beta Windows release.

 

IMHO folks who are unwilling to spend £8-£40 per month (on various CC packages) are less likely to have an i7 with a 1Gb SSD and 32 Gb of RAM.....?

 

MY main driver (if I were SERIF) would have been primarily that at every level (AMD, Pentium, Celeron...i7 etc.) EVERY jpg/RAW/PSD opened faster in AP than PS-CC.

 

That first impression (which I believe is critical) when you open AP and it takes 2-3 times longer to open a file gives you a feeling of disappointment... And that is something that ADOBE-fan-boys will point to for starters.. That would have scared ADOBE from the get-go.

 

Just my opinion, but, unless it is addressed it may be a show-stopper, for many, me included...And I loathe ADOBE!

 

P

[SrPx]

Fair point on user base not having hardware of the level a gamer would have. Video editors do have better hardware, usually, though (indeed, they prefer hexa cores, while a gamer doesn't need that) and many have same graphic cards, actually.  But yep, I have the slight impression that photography hobbyists rarely are fans of wasting a lot in computer software and hardware, from what I've been reading last years.

 

As a ps 'fan boy' ;) I'm actually worried about performance in any 2D package, as I mostly work for print, lately. But it is that I have this feeling that things (no idea, I do not work there) might work like in every other beta testing I have helped at : first is a bit of building a base, core features, optimizing goes improving organically as it all takes shape...

[Ablichter]

MY main driver (if I were SERIF) would have been primarily that at every level (AMD, Pentium, Celeron...i7 etc.) EVERY jpg/RAW/PSD opened faster in AP than PS-CC.

I believe this is very hard to achieve, 'cause PS has an excellent memory handling in combination with their use of scratch disks. We won't notice it with the smaller images, but the lag comes with sizes or already used memory.

 

A 1.98GB PS (uncompressed) takes 4.5sec to open in PS (drag and drop from a SSD). But it takes 20sec for Affinity. The same file, but compressed (1.10GB) takes 35sec to open with Affinty and 21sec for PS.

Saving it out respectively export it again as PSD to a SSD takes PS 14,2sec (as uncompressed) and it takes Affinty 4min 1sec! Whereas the file saved by Affinity is compressed; so far I couldn't find a possibility to export an image to as an uncompressed PSD.

[PaulAffinity]

Dear Ablichter,

 

Regarding - 'I believe this is very hard to achieve, 'cause PS has an excellent memory handling in combination with their use of scratch disks. '

 

If Adobe can do it it is not rocket science - then it is achievable by SERIF. If an ADOBE user wants to switch (from a £10 a month subscription) but needs to invest £500+ on a new machine or upgrade the benefit of Affinity just vaporizes....

 

Cheers, Paul

[SrPx]

Adobe has had time to polish their main application during *decades*. I remember yet the 2.0 I used at a company in '95. This mega company has an enormous financial strength, structure, influence, and last time I checked an amazing army of developers. Yet though, it has had quite unstable and buggy versions (and even today, their code is not really using well the multiple cores of today cpus), which I very well remember and suffered while working at companies, and those issues did put in risk my plate of food more than once (to be sincere, some 3D applications did put it in more risk). Today is way way better. But they have had quite some time for that ! . Now compare this to an application that is new, that is aiming to a lot of capabilities, and an excellence only possible in years, they're getting there in months (but IMO, a lot of people do not know what a beta is...), and that, if I remember well a recent post, the company for this counts on just 20 developers for all the beta applications. The comparison is WAY in favor of Affinity. I'd say they're more similar to the 300 from Sparta, just that they are only 20.  ;P . Is not convenient? Heh, then feel free to enjoy a subscription model, with no competition and with price able to be raised at any moment desired, as the market will have been kept dominated. I dunno, I see the situation crystal clear... And don't get me wrong, I absolutely like PS. But despite the several intents to make some competition, the future looks dark with those, as, mostly are not providing the exports, specs and features that professionals need to even consider the tools. I know a pair of free tools that are uber fast, but they are unable to allow delivering with certain professional specifications. That's the highest barrier, and IMO, the Affinity applications are nearer than other alternatives to be able to play in that game. May I be wrong in these thoughts, but am afraid that I'm not by too much...

 

Also, the better machine would benefit many other uses of the machine, plus, anyway, the machines of a 10 years age, IMO, will be sooner or later needing an update (other applications will force it, or just the OS updates). Even a low end purchased today (no need for 500 pounds, unless you are also changing the monitor... ) is way better than what was average or high 10 years ago. And even more, that after a more building stage, I'd expect many performance optimizations. Even today PS is having huge optimizations ! but first you get the functionality, or so has been for any development that I have had the honor to see while working in several software developing companies.

[PaulAffinity]

I understand the issues with a small s/w co. trying to fight a behemoth - I used to work for one in SF!!

 

Remember 'polishing their application for decades' has been a double-edged sword for Adobe. It meant the more they invested the harder it was to redesign from scratch..

 

The MAJOR benefit SERIF had was the opportunity to define a flexible Technical Architecture that is 'scalable' or usable by users on legacy kit and 'scales up' to super-users. I do not doubt the drive, motivation and ambition for SRIF ( I bought several pieces of their software in the PLUS range) - just sometimes I feel maybe techies drive the marketing not vice-versa?

 

I just hope that Affinity Windows V1.0 will be something usable for me on my old cheap kit, as I am sure many folks here hope...

 

cheers, Paul

[SrPx]

maybe....refining or investigating better where your bottle necks are, maybe just purchase some particular pieces, only (I believe one still can purchase, even second hand, old RAM memory) , maybe some second hand better cpu, older nvidias of 4 years ago might mean a huge jump in your machine. Those purchases I'd recommend tho to do with reliable sources, friends, etc, as a priority... But I'd be to think is yet too early to determine that the very final version of A. Photo is not going to run well in your machine for your purposes. It'd be the first time in my life where I see a beta version of anything running at its top of performance already while in its beta stage. The main objetive for an alternative here is to become a real one for a bit more massive markets, thinking on the future, as a company, in its sustainability and growth...

[Herbert123]

Well, when we are discussing system requirements - I remember the days Deluxe Paint IV ran in 2MB!

 

I installed Photo on an older i5 system with 4GB ram, and it runs quite slow indeed. Adding a curve adjustment slows things down to a crawl, although that might be a beta issue. The competitors all run at an acceptable up to good pace in comparison on the same machine. Then again, Photo is still in beta, and it is still a young fledgling compared to the competitors.

 

One more thing I noticed is Photo's (and Designer's) heavy installation footprint: around 600GB per application, and that is excludes the .NET framework required to run both. The installation files are a hefty ~250MB. I am aware storage space is inexpensive nowadays, but still.

 

Adobe's competing products are much worse though: a ridiculous 3GB of space is required for each. Insane. I read somewhere that a major reason for the size increase over the years is the GUI: GUI frameworks require a lot of resources.

 

Which is why I find it surprising that one other competitor's installation file weighs in at a paltry 22MB, and only requires 50mb for its installation - and can be run from a portable pen drive. It even runs on Windows XP(!) and MacOS 10.6. Yet is on par with functionality.

 

I blame all those heavy (GUI and other) frameworks developers tend to rely on nowadays.

[SrPx]

 I remember the days Deluxe Paint IV ran in 2MB!

 

 

Me too... And some other of the like.  Deluxe Paint Animator, Autodesk Animator and Animator Pro...and so on... much later Corel Draw 1.0...

 

600GB per application

 

 

I think you meant mb...Still, that's totally unimportant to me. If one tool is going to be my main everyday tool, I don't care if it even takes 5 or 10 GBs if it works well. I have a fine disc and two externals... Needed these days if just for security.

 

Today's tasks are WAY, way more complex than back then (and than from just 4 years ago). I had some friends who indeed could make an AAA game by the times (80s -90s) among 3 people, and be a total national hit. 

[Ben]

I believe this is very hard to achieve, 'cause PS has an excellent memory handling in combination with their use of scratch disks. We won't notice it with the smaller images, but the lag comes with sizes or already used memory.

 

A 1.98GB PS (uncompressed) takes 4.5sec to open in PS (drag and drop from a SSD). But it takes 20sec for Affinity. The same file, but compressed (1.10GB) takes 35sec to open with Affinty and 21sec for PS.

Saving it out respectively export it again as PSD to a SSD takes PS 14,2sec (as uncompressed) and it takes Affinty 4min 1sec! Whereas the file saved by Affinity is compressed; so far I couldn't find a possibility to export an image to as an uncompressed PSD.

 

Are we talking about .psd files?

 

All my testing on Mac shows that we load PSD files about the same speed as (and in some cases faster than) Photoshop.

 

As other have said, that could be related to disk hardware - our Macs tend to be built with fast hybrid storage.

 

One thing to note - load times over USB or network storage will always be affected by the initial data transfer to intermediate cache.  Remote files will always be cached in some way by the system, and the initial data transfer is always slow compared to opening on local storage.

If anyone has a particular file that is slower in Affinity, upload it to DropBox and we will investigate further.

[Ablichter]

Are we talking about .psd files?

How exactly do you create an uncompressed psd file?  Photoshop does not give users control over how the PSD file is compressed.

Right Ben, not how, but if a PSD gets compressed. In CS5 it was possible to disable compression via registry entries respectively by a plugin, in CS6 the user can disable compression in the settings.

As Chris mentioning in the last link, this compression only affects 16/32bit multilayer PSD.

 

The compression method is only dependant on the bit depth of the file - RLE for 8-bit and predicted Zip for 16 and 32-bit.

 

All my testing on Mac shows that we load PSD files about the same speed as (and in some cases faster than) Photoshop.

 

As other have said, that could be related to disk hardware - our Macs tend to be built with fast hybrid storage.

As said I did the timings by loading the PSDs from a SSD, whereas OS's TEMP (and the other stuff) is on another SSD in case this matters.

 

One thing to note - load times over USB or network storage will always be affected by the initial data transfer to intermediate cache.  Remote files will always be cached in some way by the system, and the initial data transfer is always slow compared to opening on local storage.

If anyone has a particular file that is slower in Affinity, upload it to DropBox and we will investigate further.

This is not file related. To be honest almost any non-JPEG file (TIF/PSD) > a certain size is loading slower. For example: a 72MB 16bit TIF, 0.44sec with PS, 1.86sec with Affinity - a 644MB 16bit PSD 1.5sec with PS and 4.9sec with Affinity.

 

Today timed on a different computer (yesterday it was on a AMD, today i5 3.3Ghz) loaded from a mapped iSCSI LUN and draged and droped to freshly started PS / Affinity. The differences are so obvious that it does not need to time them.

 

Also Affinity is not freeing memory (heap), this was after stacking three 24MP JPEGs to an HDR and closing the image without saving:

 

ps

Talking about compression timing is a matter of CPU not necessary where the media is stored on, right? A fast HDD RAID or single SSD with 250MB/sec won't help much if the CPU only is able to compress at 70MB/sec.

[Ben]

ps

Talking about compression timing is a matter of CPU not necessary where the media is stored on, right? A fast HDD RAID or single SSD with 250MB/sec won't help much if the CPU only is able to compress at 70MB/sec.

 

Yes and no - it depends on the bottleneck.  It may be faster to compress/decompress data in memory based on the amount of data transferred and the computational overhead of handling decompression.

 

Some people argue that using uncompressed files is the key to faster performance, but only if the transfer from storage outperforms the time taken to decompress.

 

It all depends on the data format and how it is organised.  From my own testing, applying predictive Zip compression to 8-bit data can give speed improvements.  Strangely, the PSD format specification supports Zip for 8-bit (or more specifically makes no mention that it is not allowed), but Photoshop doesn't use it... and most third party apps will also not support it.

[Ben]

Having had a talk in our team, I've been reminded of one issue with PSD importing.

 

We handle compound vector objects differently to Photoshop.  Photoshop performs compound boolean summing in pixel space, whereas we produce a boolean result of the vector geometry. We are a true vector based app, unlike Photoshop where everything is done in pixel space.  Essentially, we use our vector compounds when importing vector content from a PSD that requires vector boolean ops to allow for the imported geometry to remain editable as compound curves.  Whether this is then baked into a single vector layer or kept as a compound won't make a difference as we still need to perform the boolean ops to create the end geometry for rendering.

 

The process of clipping vector geometry to perform the boolean ops can be costly as it is done through subdivision.  We set the subdivision tolerance at a value that balances between accuracy and performance.  This is a very inexact science.

 

So, for a PSD that contains a lot of vector geometry where the paths have multiple curves, we will have to do a lot of clipping to produce compound paths. This can greatly affect import times.  Once imported, if you save out as an Affinity file, load and save times should then be much lower.

 

I would expect that PSD files that contain only pure raster data should load in comparable times to Photoshop (at least that has been what our testing has shown to date).

[Ablichter]

I would expect that PSD files that contain only pure raster data should load in comparable times to Photoshop (at least that has been what our testing has shown to date).

Unfortunately not. Even a simple 8bit single-layer 1,1 MB compressed PSD consistent pure black takes notable longer, 1.2 sec. PS needs - see yourself:

 

But let's not talk about loading times only. This thread faded or better was highjacked from the OP incl. by my own distribution. What about the sluggishness while moving a selection? I can't reproduce this behaviour, but this shouldn't happend even when the OP is runnung a W7 system with only 4GB RAM.

[SrPx]

selections move uber fast here, (.37 beta) , windows 7, 8gb, old i7 860, old gtx 275.

I can even make a video capture of it without slow down while moving selections. (the only place I notice lag is when starting a brush stroke, but that sounds more of a way of how an specific thing is internally done, rather than a general hardware prob)

 

Also, if a psd loads faster in ps, even a few seconds.. is that such an issue  ?  :blink:   I'm really asking, as is not an issue for me...is also a native format for PS...i'd expect to load faster in it... Also, has been mentioned application loading times.. PS or any similar package tends to take more time in loading, quite more.

[PaulAffinity]

I think, bottom line is that the expectations for a new product like Photo are high. Users expect functionality AND Speed....

P

[Ablichter]

I think, bottom line is that the expectations for a new product like Photo are high. Users expect functionality AND Speed....

P

Excatly. It might be okay when "just" a new editor with some new features is developed. But if the marketing strategy is to be a competitor to PS and this not only because of the price, than speed sooner or later is getting a matter.

[Ablichter]

Also, if a psd loads faster in ps, even a few seconds.. is that such an issue ? :blink:

I believe timings are critical for professional / enterprise users.

At the moment its not only a few seconds. Often - depending on the file size, bit depth and number of layers - PS is ten times faster. And not only with PSD, this was just a first example - load time of a TIF 72MB: 0.1 sec PS 1.1 sec Photo. Opening a DNG 19 sec for AFphoto, 2.3 sec for ACR - this are huge differences.

 

I might be not critical when loading a single image, but as soon some does batch processing it will. Can't test that at the moment, because Photo crashes when clicking on "new batch job".

And you have to take into account, that saving a project or exporting to certain file formats takes almost the same amount of more time, except when saving JPEG; but who is serious editing JPEGs?

 

But Affinity has potential and this is a betatest, so I expect it to get faster soon.

 

I'm really asking, as is not an issue for me...is also a native format for PS...i'd expect to load faster in it... Also, has been mentioned application loading times.. PS or any similar package tends to take more time in loading, quite more.

When PS needs more time to load than because (but not only) of plugins, which needs to be "parsed". The lesser plugins some uses the faster PS loads. Guess we will see that with any app.

Something might be wrong with my computers where AFPhoto takes double as long to start and images loading takes multiple times than it does with PS. ;)

[SrPx]

Have they said so?   :o

because IMO, what is in the mind of a bunch of people, specially among those of us already getting jobs in the industry, we know how hard is to compete feature per feature with Something like Adobe PS or 3DS Max, with decades with an army of 2500 developers (that was the staff in adobe many years ago, dunno know, don't want to even make a calculation) , so, even if you read it somewhere (heck, even if the authors would have said that, which I doubt, but haven't got solid data about it) , with experience, you know that can't be possible, and for sure, not expectable in the first months of beta testing in a new OS for the applications.

 

IMO all people having handled deeply PS, and working in the industry, or being very experienced hobbyists with a high level of image editing will know that the deal here is getting a quite good tool, that allows you to do the tasks, just needing to deal with the logical inconveniences of a company not having an army and an amazing funding behind... This is the part a lot of people seem very wrongly to be skipping. The software is going to cost what, 50 $, 60$ ?  Purchaseable, not subscrition, you own your license, yo don't have to keep an internet connection in that machine and a huge etc. the money, btw, paid in renting goes no where, you loose it. The money gone into a machine, is a machine that is for you for ever and will help in many other tasks in your home. That in case you really really need to buy one, which I doubt is the case in most situations. I don't know why waiting some seconds has become such an issue for indies these days... I for one was used to larger probs back in the days in the 90s...

 

I gotta resort to posting something that is needed to remember every time a steal of a price like this is set and people still complain about top quality, this famous triangle:

 

 

Thing is, you can't even buy the expensive, anymore. only rent. having the bucks does not even allow you to go for  it. Only renting. But hey, you have your seconds of gain.. That said, PS is a hog of hardware resources. I strongly doubt -actually, I absolutely know- these computers will work well in heavy tasks in PS. I do know that pretty well. And IMO is logical, operations are heavy...  And you keep thinking the beta performance is the final performance, also... Which i can't understand, if you have worked in development at some point...  No offense intended in any way, but I can realize some global perspective is being totally missed, here...

[SrPx]

 

When PS needs more time to load than because (but not only) of plugins, which needs to be "parsed". The lesser plugins some uses the faster PS loads. Guess we will see that with any app.

Something might be wrong with my computers where AFPhoto takes double as long to start and images loading takes multiple times than it does with PS. ;)

 

Actually, in every company I have been at, when was not the case of sharing the seat with some other artist or graphic worker, ie, like him/her working in the mornings, me in the afternoon/evening/night, where I had to use whatever setup they had, I very much avoided installing plugins, as I prefer to generate everything, every effect by hand, to avoid the "made with a plugin" thing in the first years, and later on as I generated everything with core PS features, so no need to deal with some crashy plugins, or some fixed workflows. Even so, the loading times with PS I remember them in all versions longer than this of AP in my old machine, now. But then again, this is not a fact that worries me a single bit. Am of the kind of guy that loads the whatever the apps (one or two) to work in the day at first hour in the morning, rarely closing them, and  only close them if one of the task is really demanding (what actually brings the matter that this old i7 is actually a good machine, or that i configure stuff and do workflows to avoid bottle necks, or a mix of it...)

 

but as soon some does batch processing it will.

 

 

Yes, that I mentioned. Probably the youtube videos, or whatever social media, has brought here lots of photographers. I don't know their workflow, to be sincere. I have needed to work with images all my life (photographs included) but i recon is a very different and specific world. Indeed, if batch operations and opening many files is in your every day workflow I can see how any loading gain is important. Still, IMO not as important as the subscription model problem or the big cost of cs6, to what you could add it will be left obsolete by Windows OS system at some point, like any software that stops developing.  :s

 

I maintain the "magic triangle"  reasoning...But probably am alone here with that, sadly.

[Ablichter]

Have they said so? :o

What do you mean with this? If you refer to "Users expect functionality AND Speed...." by PaulAffinity than he is right. As a beta tester for the Topaz Suite from almost the beginning and of IMatch, I can confirm that; I would put speed even before functionalties. And I am not pointing to starting or loading speed only. If (aside this) the use of brushes etc. is sluggish, the user acceptance will drop dramatically.

But fullfilling user demands has to stop somewhere - for example it IMHO does not make any sence to develope an app like Photo as a 32bit application anymore. It just don't pay of.

 

I gotta resort to posting something that is needed to remember every time a steal of a price like this is set and people still complain about top quality, this famous triangle:

 

GOOD-FAST-CHEAP (1).jpg

This triangle seems to be a derivate from the wellknown process management triangle:

whereas Speed/Fast and Cost/Cheap are aspects of a project itself and they are in no direct relation to the (running/loading) speed of the end product, which later is or is not an element of "Quality". For a project like this "Quality" should be the primary target, even when it takes longer until the software can be released and/or cost more to get to this point.

Whereas "Cost" - in relation to the developement costs of PS - should be much smaller, because Affinity make use of lots of free libs and other software, like Exiftool, Zlib, Tifflib, RAWlib, etc. pp.

 

Anyway, it's not you who has to convince me / potential customers, it's the software. ;)