The only thing that might convince me otherwise would be this: If Skylum were to publish a minimum specs for a Windows 10 PC to run Luminar 4 AND make a money-back guarantee that Luminar 4 would go from nothing to functioning in 60 seconds or less.īeing that ACDSee Photo Studio only takes 19 seconds to load, I think I am being more than gracious in my expectations of how long it should take Luminar to load, be it Luminar 3 or Luminar 4. Regardless of the path for current users to Luminar 4, I cannot see the value of throwing more money at Skylum. That app took about 19 seconds from nothing to functioning. (The processors are about 4 Ghz and I have 16 GB of memory.)Īs a comparison, I loaded my copy of ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2019. But the simple fact is this: I ran the test on the machine that will I would be using for photo editing and it is NOT underpowered. Now, I do understand that the times for other Windows users might be shorter, and for others it might be longer. I updated my Luminar 3 yesterday to see if it was usable yet.Īfter updating and restarting a couple of times for various reasons, I started Luminar 3 this morning and ran a stopwatch to see how long it took to load from nothing to functioning. I remain unconvinced that Skylum's approach to the Windows version is NOT to make a poor-quality port of the functioning Mac version rather than code a parallel version for Windows. To be bluntly obvious, that first release was Alpha quality, not even Betaware-but features were scheduled to be released during the following 3 months to bring it up to what it should be.Īnd so my disappointment with Skylum/Luminar began as target after target was late or not met at all.Īnd startup times on my Windows machine got slower and slower. I have hung with Skylum, kind of, since the very first version of Luminar for Windows PC was offered in November, 2017.

Luminar ai forum