What is a better program to replace Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: 3-D font programs?
Next: iMail Rejecting Password
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 12:55 In article <hgiso1$70e$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Dec/19/2009 12:0310 AM, isw wrote: > > In article<hghefs$th8$1(a)news.albasani.net>, > > AV3<arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >> On Dec/18/2009 11:4527 AM, nospam wrote: > >>> In article<hgg943$uqe$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 > >>> <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> ... > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> I should have been more specific. I was talking about the originals. > > > > So was I. > > > >> For > >> instance, I wanted to upload a number of family photos to a geneology > >> site, but I couldn't use the "alias" in iPhoto, > > > > I'm not sure what you're referring to, here... > > > This has been cleared up elsewhere, but to be clear here: the name I > give to a picture as filed in iPhoto is not the same name retained by > the original, so searching for the original on the hard disk requires > iPhoto. iTunes files have names that do correspond to their names both > on the hard disk and in the program itself, so they can be searched and > used separately. My problem is the disconnect between iPhoto originals > and their assigned names within the program. Yes, but if you just right-click on the image in iPhoto, the dialog that pops up includes "Show File", or you can do "get info" on the image, which will reveal the filename. > When I have had to correct > an erroneously named iTunes file name, I have to correct both the > original and the name in the program, but the correction sticks. Not so > trying to rename an iPhoto original. Just delete the image from iPhoto (with an external library, this does NOT delete the image file), rename that file, and then re-import. Although (again with an external library), I *think* that iPhoto is not sensitive to the filename (i.e. you can change it without confusing iPhoto). Isaac
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 13:04 In article <191220090051481323%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <isw-898D35.20571318122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw > <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: -- much snippage-- > > I have a high degree of confidence that apps will still > > be available then, on whatever passes for computers, the will be able to > > handle files containing JPGs. > > but will they be able to read the cds and dvds you burned today? can > you read floppy discs you wrote 20 years ago? if you can, do the apps > that created them still work? > > with digital media, you need to migrate both the storage medium and the > format to something current. Absolutely correct. And I have been doing that since I started storing stuff on 8" floppies. And, I have always been careful to store things I wanted to keep in non-proprietary format (plain text, not as "Word" or "Excel" files, for instance). Isaac
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 13:08 In article <drache-2EB16C.10182819122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: -- snip-- > The thought of an iBooks for my thousands of books is simply beyond > comprehension. I'd need one of Asimov's self-aware robots to catalog my > books! Not so much for books (though I think it would probably work fairly well), but for all the other random documents I've acquired over the years, I finally gave up on trying to create (and actually use) a structured filing system, and just let Spotlight take care of it. I can always recall one or two words, or a phrase, to search for that will give me a tolerably short list of documents to look at. Isaac
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 13:12 In article <michelle-1842DE.06092819122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > In article <isw-E4BAF4.19490518122009@[216.168.3.50]>, > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > No. Using the yellow button too many times clutters up the dock. > > Not with Snow Leopard; all you have to do is configure the Dock to minimize > windows into their apps' icons on the Dock instead of to the right side of > the Dock. That's the first thing about SL that sounds positive; most of the rest I've learned makes me pretty sure I don't want it. > > *Most* apps are perfectly happy running with no windows open (IMO, > > that's one of the many advantages of Mac OS over Windows), so it's > > difficult for me to understand why iPhoto doesn't work that way. > > It seems to me that only those apps that can have only one main data window > (e.g., iPhoto, System Preferences) stop running when you close their > windows. That appears to be Apple's philosophy. I agree with you, though; > I don't know why Apple took that approach. Address Book runs with no open windows, as does iCal. I have some third-party apps that give you the choice. Giving users a choice is almost always superior to deciding for them. Isaac
From: Wes Groleau on 19 Dec 2009 15:46
erilar wrote: > The thought of an iBooks for my thousands of books is simply beyond > comprehension. I'd need one of Asimov's self-aware robots to catalog my > books! Each time you read or consult a book, catalog it. If you never touch it, then why do you care whether it's cataloged? -- Wes Groleau Words of the Wild Wes http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW |