thanks for the cost clarification posts. puts things into perspective for me."Lightroom might choke......"
Considering LR struggles with even very small files because of the resource hog it is, I would tend to agree. However that's more of an issue for the software designers rather than a problem with the computer or high pixel count image files.
I've always considered good computer code as code that manages to achieve the object using as little computer effort as possible. LR seems to have been written by people who think otherwise.
LR is so incredibly slow for me, its unbelievable. As much as the UI on DPP sucks (as does the workflow), performance just seems easily 3x faster in it. Ive actually started doing initial sorting (ratings, removal flags) in DPP now, and then I import to LR after that.. just cuz its so much faster that way.
Generating thumbnails is just a problem for LR. Ive set LR to use lower quality thumbnails in hopes to speed it up, but not much result. DPP has higher quality thumbnails and its fast. Its a mystery why LR couldnt do that.
Considering all the things that LR does, storing absolutely every edit in it's db as well as all the metadata capabilities, I consider it resource intensive but not a hog. It NEEDS ram and a fast disk and I expect no less. I own both CS5 and LR3 and I have no problem running both simultaneously on either my laptop or my desktop. To get LR to perform, make sure you max out available RAM, I have 8GB in my laptop & 16GB in my desktop. Put your catalog(s) on an SSD and store your raw files on separate 7200 RPM HD, the larger cache available on the more expensive HDs is definitely helpful. While I have a RAID config on my desktop, I don't find it absolutely necessary to get great performance out of LR.