I wish that they would stop trying to put new features in and spend a release seriously improving performance.
I get new features are great to sell an upgrade, but I would buy an upgrade with no new features but a massive performance improvement. Perhaps that year they would not sell many upgrades but it would pay dividends the following year with new features.
I’ve been saying this for some time but - in fairness - PL10 does seem to run relatively well on my aged system (at least not any worse than PL9) with the exception of DeepPrime XD3 images which take 2.5 minutes per export in PL10 where they used to take ~30 seconds in PL9.
That said, you’ve summed up the problem with focussing on performance only - it’s not a great way to sell the next version of something. A well optimised, enjoyable-to-use product is the kind of thing we might (rightfully?) expect for free, since we already paid for PhotoLab etc. in the first place.
But I don’t think they should overlook optimisation and the user experience and only try and fit in new functionality year on year. It feels like many are already finding performance “acceptable” rather than “great”.
Indeed in competing editors, performance is “great”. Something to aim for?
Agreed, but that is why it will never happen.
To me performance is fine in PL10, (Ryzen 5800X, RTX 5060TI, plenty RAM) but I feel a rework of the user interface is needed. And maybe a way to have all the controls available for masks.
Fine performance is not really good enough though for so many releases. I mean you cant have high quality preview and deep prime enabled and actually work on the image. I get deep prime might not want to be enabled when editing but quality preview should be.
Even browsing photos is horrible if you compare it to something like FastRawViewer which is lightning fast looking at the same images on the same location.
The only real reason I and I suspect others put up with performance is because you can own it outright and the denoise is top notch. If for example you could get another package at the same price with the same features but one preformed much better you are not going to choose the Fine performing one.
The only reason they stay relevant is because of the denoise and the fact you can own it at a reasonable price.
Anyway must get off my soap box now I am getting dizzy 
DxO Pl 9 running on Win11. Performance is good enough. Running on Linux would be a performance booster. Until this will come I prefer to get more powerful features.
Maybe a better approach would be to put out performance improvements periodically to the current version, and release new features in the next full release.
I am running PL 10 on a Windows 10 machine from 2016 with an i7-6700 processor and 24GB ram. It has been updated with an RTX 4060 graphics card and WD Black 2 TB SDD replacing the original 128GB SDD C drive.
I have both ‘Enable high quality review’ and ‘Enable DeepPRIME rendering’ selected all the time and have no significant issues with performance on this old machine. However, I am editing 24.5 mp full frame raw files from my Nikon Zf. If you are editing files with a significantly higher megapixel count I can see how it might slow down rendering depending on your hardware. Would you share the specs of your computer and the mp count of your raw files?
Mark
Great Idea. ,….,…………,
well for macos
M1 Max Studio 32gig ram
Windows
Ryzen 9 9900X 32gig ram, RTX5060TI 16gig
so its a little better on the Window machine as I would expect but it should also be fine on the M1 Max.
If you disagree that will be great, as I can justify a new Mac with the wife and use this as proof 
I not see any reason to expect ‘performance boost’ under Linux. I think the performance ‘edge’ not exist - if it was even ever existed. Especially for desktop applications.
I am not disagreeing with you at all. I was just commenting on the age of much of my hardware, the size of my raw files and the general performance I am seeing. While it is not a speed demon, overall I am very content with the performance of PL 10. on my computer
Mark
Aww, Mark, you just blew away the case @MardyMarvin was going to put to his Management for buying a new Mac 
yep I was gutted when Mark did not disagree with me.
Even on my underpowered laptop (AMD Ryzen 7 5700U without a graphics card), PL10 runs smoothly and stably while I’m editing.
Of course, I haven’t enabled either “high quality preview” or “deep prime.” Just to clarify: I still see the same high-quality preview image, just with a slight delay; to be honest, I didn’t even notice this delay as a problem.
As I already mentioned in the thread about performance, PL10 is a big step up from PL8, and I can’t complain about any lack of performance:
Most Apps running faster in Linux than win. However, pl9 in win11 is running fast, but in Linux i expect an additional perf boost plus privacy.
Sorry. I am sure my response was painful to you. Perhaps you can charm her to get the upgrade without any help from me. In any case, my experience with an older Windows processor will have no bearing on your experience with an older Mac.
Mark
Exactly... Not only is it sluggish, but it’s still quite buggy—especially when applying masks to a batch of images. Response times deteriorate, and you even have to restart the software to get decent speeds back. I don't understand, for instance, why export times are so much slower when using animal masks. Compared to all the issues in V9, this Version 10 seems like a joke.