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: Ian Gregory on 19 Dec 2009 17:14 ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.] On 2009-12-19, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > It can be, but it is a lot of trouble, because when CEED identifies a > CD, the information is often inconsistent and/or erroneous. What is CEED? I thought iTunes got data from gracenote: http://www.gracenote.com/ Ian -- Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
From: Doug Anderson on 19 Dec 2009 18:18 AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> writes: > On Dec/19/2009 12:0350 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > isw<isw(a)witzend.com> writes: > > > >> In article<drache-6C85CB.17250918122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >> erilar<drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> In article<jollyroger-974D11.22503417122009(a)news.individual.net>, > >>> Jolly Roger<jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In article<hgemlt$78i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>> Wes Groleau<Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> AES wrote: > >>>>> (in defense of Finder as a better organizer than iTunes or iPhoto) > >>>>>> The key aspect of my use of a Mac laptop as the core of my personal and > >>>>>> professional life is precisely a file/folder structure which organizes > >>>>>> all the varying topics (professional projects, hobbies, interests) in > >>>>>> which I'm interested -- a structure which I've created myself, so that > >>>>>> I > >>>>>> therefore know exactly how its organized. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have to agree. iTunes insists that artists have albums and albums > >>>>> have songs. Want to keep several versions of the same song together? > >>>>> Nope. Several artists collaborate on an album? Pick ONE. > >>>> > >>>> Couldn't you just as well use the Grouping and Composer fields, or > >>>> playlists, for that? > >>> > >>> I do strange things to "genre" so I get different combinations on my > >>> iPod. Example: I have one playlist labeled "Classical" but within it the > >>> "genre" specifies violin, piano, flute, cello, etc. > >> > >> To the best of my ability to figure it out, if your music collection is > >> nearly all "classical", iTunes is totally incapable of managing it by > >> itself. I use an external structure of directories and subdirectories > >> there, too. And it only barely works. > > > > My music collection is nearly all classical. And yet iTunes manages > > it fine. I want to keep track of composer and performer(s) (most), then > > title of work, date of recording. > > > > iTunes keeps track of all of this, and allows me to search or order by > > any of these things. > > > > I don't make much use of genre (though if I needed to invent my own > > categories, I suppose I could). > > > > In the old days, I had my LPs along shelves in order by composer. > > This worked OK too, mostly, though it is inferior to iTunes > > because it's hard to search by performer (for example) and it was > > unclear what to do with albums that had works by more than one > > composer on them. > > > > This is still how my CDs are arranged. (People who listen to > > classical music still buy CDs.) > > > > Anyway, I'm mystified by why one would assume that a classical music > > collection on the computer can't be organized with iTunes. > > > > > It can be, but it is a lot of trouble, because when CEED identifies a > CD, the information is often inconsistent and/or erroneous. I find it > particularly aggravating that the term "Artist" means 'performing > artist(s)' to some and 'composer' to others. I attribute that to > different meanings for the word "artist" in different languages, but I > don't exclude mistaken interpretations. Just today I imported a 2-disk > opera, disk 1 going into "Compilations" and disc 2 going into a file > starting with the first initial of a singer. It would be a lot easier > to be able to choose "Album" as the first category of > classification. You are correct about that. Any information from CDDB needs to be checked and corrected. For example, I want my composers listed by last name, e.g. Bach, J. S. _not_ Johann Sebastian Bach. But iTunes works quite well - and I distinguish iTunes from the user contributed data in CDDB.
From: Paul Magnussen on 19 Dec 2009 19:31 Doug Anderson wrote: > You are correct about that. Any information from CDDB needs to be > checked and corrected. > But iTunes works quite well - and I distinguish iTunes from the user > contributed data in CDDB. I correct the CDDB data in iTunes as a matter of course. It's ideas of genre are a joke. Paul Magnussen
From: isw on 20 Dec 2009 01:28 In article <drache-EA57B1.15105719122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > In article <isw-A697A2.09462519122009@[216.168.3.50]>, > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > I hope you, or somebody, is scanning (and annotating) those old photos > > before they get too damaged. > > Someone is doing it with the ones that get forwarded to me. My own are > in albums, but many are also on the computer because I scanned them in > to send to my sister. Interestingly, the oldest of the "old photos" my mom left behind are holding up nicely; the B&W ones, I mean. As long as they don't get damp, the paper just turns a bit yellow and brittle but otherwise they look pretty good. The color photos from the fifties, however, are faded almost beyond Photoshop's (and my limited skills) to overcome. Even worse, some of my earliest 35mm slides (despite having been not abused during storage) have already experienced some "emulsion rot" -- around the edges, mostly. But mainly, I have two kids, and whatever I pass along in the way of family "heritage", I want both to have. Hence the scanning and annotating effort. But getting several thoussand photos in shape is *nothing* compared to what it takes to convert VHS tapes (of soccer games, school plays, etc.) to DVD. I can assure you that after I'm done I will continue to take photos, but I will NEVER AGAIN have anything at all to do with video -- it's just too much of a black hole for time. Isaac
From: Jolly Roger on 20 Dec 2009 07:10
In article <isw-F2BE14.10124719122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > 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. Erm... You don't want tons of bug fixes and performance improvements throughout the operating system and various Apple applications? Whatever you say, there, bud. (It seems a whole lot of people just skim right over everything but the silly marketing points when talking about SL - as if Apple just quickly threw in a couple whiz-bang features and then twiddled their thumbs for the release.) -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR |