Prev: A question about Glulx in browsers
Next: Citation manager
From: D.M. Procida on 30 Apr 2010 10:15
Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Aperture's main strength is how well it integrates into the
> system via things like the media browser, iTunes etc.

Also, don't forget Adobe is the new - no, hang on, that's not right.

Daniele
From: Andy Hewitt on 30 Apr 2010 10:21
Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2010-04-30 10:59:47 +0100, Duncan Kennedy said:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just installed, no issues so far. Sliders seem a bit better as an
> >> initial check.
> >
> > Useful, thanks. I'm about to take the plunge. Without starting a war,
> > any thoughts on Aperture 3 v Lightroom? My needs are not particularly
> > demanding (lot of photos for both pro and personal use and some
> > adjustments etc.) and it may be that either would do but are there
> > special strengths for each?
>
> I think one main one is Lightroom is less demanding of the system. I've
> had to stop switching Aperture 3.X to full screen because it takes so
> bloody long on my MBP!

I'm still puzzled by these performance issues that many are reporting
(some say many seconds for an adjuster to operate). Just about
everything works as expected on my plain vanilla MB with its onboard GMA
graphics, yet many much higher end machines seem to be struggling.

> I think Aperture's main strength is how well it integrates into the
> system via things like the media browser, iTunes etc.
>
> My view is once you've got a few thousand images in either the prospect
> of switching and migrating just gets really scary.

Indeed, 36000/130GB here.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Steve Hodgson on 1 May 2010 14:09
On 2010-04-30 15:21:31 +0100, Andy Hewitt said:

> Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-04-30 10:59:47 +0100, Duncan Kennedy said:
>>
>>> Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just installed, no issues so far. Sliders seem a bit better as an
>>>> initial check.
>>>
>>> Useful, thanks. I'm about to take the plunge. Without starting a war,
>>> any thoughts on Aperture 3 v Lightroom? My needs are not particularly
>>> demanding (lot of photos for both pro and personal use and some
>>> adjustments etc.) and it may be that either would do but are there
>>> special strengths for each?
>>
>> I think one main one is Lightroom is less demanding of the system. I've
>> had to stop switching Aperture 3.X to full screen because it takes so
>> bloody long on my MBP!
>
> I'm still puzzled by these performance issues that many are reporting
> (some say many seconds for an adjuster to operate). Just about
> everything works as expected on my plain vanilla MB with its onboard GMA
> graphics, yet many much higher end machines seem to be struggling.

It does seem odd. 9 seconds to switch from a single image to full screen!

In 2.X I would happily work full screen for most operations but not any more.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

From: Andy Hewitt on 1 May 2010 14:11
Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2010-04-30 15:21:31 +0100, Andy Hewitt said:
>
> > Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2010-04-30 10:59:47 +0100, Duncan Kennedy said:
> >>
> >>> Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Just installed, no issues so far. Sliders seem a bit better as an
> >>>> initial check.
> >>>
> >>> Useful, thanks. I'm about to take the plunge. Without starting a war,
> >>> any thoughts on Aperture 3 v Lightroom? My needs are not particularly
> >>> demanding (lot of photos for both pro and personal use and some
> >>> adjustments etc.) and it may be that either would do but are there
> >>> special strengths for each?
> >>
> >> I think one main one is Lightroom is less demanding of the system. I've
> >> had to stop switching Aperture 3.X to full screen because it takes so
> >> bloody long on my MBP!
> >
> > I'm still puzzled by these performance issues that many are reporting
> > (some say many seconds for an adjuster to operate). Just about
> > everything works as expected on my plain vanilla MB with its onboard GMA
> > graphics, yet many much higher end machines seem to be struggling.
>
> It does seem odd. 9 seconds to switch from a single image to full screen!
>
> In 2.X I would happily work full screen for most operations but not any more.

I reckon on no more than half that. Strange indeed.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Rowland McDonnell on 1 May 2010 15:01
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:

> Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think Aperture's main strength is how well it integrates into the
> > system via things like the media browser, iTunes etc.
>
> Also, don't forget Adobe is the new - no, hang on, that's not right.

Tsk.

Say it, why don't you.

Adobe is the new black.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: A question about Glulx in browsers
Next: Citation manager