As expected (apple computers/OS/software)

[Mystic]

As expected Apple is going to abandon its professional photo editing program Aperture and even abandon iPhoto. They will have a new program combining the two which will be called Photo or Photos. I think they are supposed to come out with this new program this fall.

For me this means there is really no reason to continue to use Apple Computers. I can run Adobe Lightroom on a Mac but I also can run it on a Windows computer and the Windows computer is cheaper.

Unless this new Apple program is any good I will transfer photos to my Windows computer.

I am actually glad they are doing this because it makes my future decisions easier.

 

[jrustles]

The big problem with PCs is Microsoft. Is it really worth it?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
The big problem with PCs is Microsoft.

It's only a problem if you insist on turning it into one.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: jrustles
The big problem with PCs is Microsoft.

It's only a problem if you insist on turning it into one.



/thread

 

[Mystic]

I will make a decision on whether to sell my Mac or not depending on whether this new Apple program (Photo or Photos, whatever they call it) is any good or not. I don't really expect it to be much but if I am surprised I will keep my Mac.

Most people who were loyal users of Aperture have already switched to Adobe Lightroom. Apple was not keeping up with Lightroom advances such as lens distortion corrections.

Microsoft MAY do a good job with Windows 9 and make Windows 9 useable for desktop users and make it useable for tablet computer users.

If Apple continues to trash their professional software I wonder how they expect anybody to buy a Mac Pro.

Of course many people who post in this computer section have no understanding of all of these considerations if they do not edit photos in professional software.

But we live in a world where texting is considered advanced computer use.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
For me this means there is really no reason to continue to use Apple Computers. I can run Adobe Lightroom on a Mac but I also can run it on a Windows computer and the Windows computer is cheaper.

Unless this new Apple program is any good I will transfer photos to my Windows computer.


Mystic, if I may be so bold as to levy some advice at you:

1) Try out the new application. Apple is certainly moving its professional applications in the "dumbed-down" direction in the last few years (think Final Cut X), and that is concerning, but you never know: Maybe the stuff they've removed in order to dumb it down was stuff you did not require. If it ends up sucking and you must migrate to Lightroom...

2) Install Lightroom on the Mac you currently own. There is no need to go and throw more money at your problem than necessary. Use that Mac until she gives out and *then* you might evaluate whether or not you'd like to switch platforms. By the time you tally up the horsepower you'd need in a Windows system to render some of the things you need to do (in a timely manner) you may find the prices to be a bit closer than you think.

As an aside, Mystic, I know several people who make a very considerable living in graphic design and layout using versions of QuarkXpress that are long-since unsupported. They have never upgraded. For an application like a photo processor and manager, your only real concern, as times marches forward, is whether or not you will someday find yourself incompatible with a new version of RAW images from an as-yet unreleased camera you may come to own in the future, or are unable to export to some fancy new image format that comes along after Aperture is no longer supported.

My understanding, though, from the small handful of professional photographers that I count among my friends is that Lightroom was, as you pointed out, beginning to outpace Aperture anyhow. Most had already switched over by the time this announcement was made; so if there is a undeniable sea change in the de facto standard application for this purpose, there might be something to be said for switching sooner than later.

Good luck with your research!

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
As expected Apple is going to abandon its professional photo editing program Aperture and even abandon iPhoto. They will have a new program combining the two which will be called Photo or Photos. I think they are supposed to come out with this new program this fall.


Quite honestly, this is why I went back to a PC platform after trying a Mac for about a year and a half. That is, not professional photo-editing software in particular, but Apple's apparent lack of ability to focus on a certain endeavor and see it through. It seems like they'll try something for a while, only to give up on it later if they get bored with it or if it didn't go how they wanted it. This happened with their first cloud service, MobileMe or whatever it was called. They got rid of that and moved to iCloud. If you were a MobileMe user, you couldn't just keep using it. No, they turned it OFF, and you had to either migrate to iCloud or use something else. And iCloud isn't particularly good in my opinion, and I have no confidence that they'll continue to use that into the future.

I felt the same way about iWork. It largely replaced many of AppleWorks' functions, but simply discontinued some of them. The newer versions are criticized for dropping key features and the new version of iWork only runs on the very latest version of OS X, orphaning many users of Lion and Mountain Lion.

I certainly applaud Apple for continuing product innovation, but the rate at which they adopt new technology (and subsequently orphan users of the old) is concerning, and gives me little confidence that what I use today will be supported tomorrow.

 

[Mystic]

Yes, Apple has a bad habit of not listening to users and abandoning older hardware and abandoning software that people rely on with little regard to how that affects their users.

One good thing is that Adobe has said they will make it easy to transfer photos from Aperture to Lightroom. I have thousands of photos in Aperture.

I am sick and tired of the way Apple treats its customers. Some photographers will continue to use Apple Computers and just switch to Lightroom. That is certainly an option. But since I can also run Lightroom on a Windows computer that costs less and I can upgrade whenever I want to its makes little sense for me to stay with expensive Apple Computers.

There is some (slim) possibility that this new Apple Photos program might be worthwhile. I am actually using Adobe Lightroom most of the time anyway and I have an important plugin that I use in Lightroom.

I will say this: Aperture could have been a great program. With a few improvements like lens distortion correction it could have been a better program than Lightroom. In my opinion Aperture had a better GUI and it was a joy to use. It just was not updated and became outdated compared to Lightroom.

I have no clue who would buy an expensive Mac Pro unless they were into professional quality video or audio. There is little reason in my opinion for a photographer to buy a Mac Pro. I am not into professional quality video but many people complained about changes Apple made to its professional quality video software also.

I think Apple is making a big mistake. They have already dropped prices for their iMacs by about 200 dollars. Apparently they are not selling so well. Apple is sitting on a huge amount of money and they easily could update their professional software.

Not everybody in the world is texting, using Facebook, using Twitter, and just using the internet for email and search. There are still a lot of people using computers to get things done. I think few really good photographers will be satisfied with photos taken with an iPhone camera.

 

[hypervish]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Yes, Apple has a bad habit of not listening to users and abandoning older hardware and abandoning software that people rely on with little regard to how that affects their users.

One good thing is that Adobe has said they will make it easy to transfer photos from Aperture to Lightroom. I have thousands of photos in Aperture.

I am sick and tired of the way Apple treats its customers. Some photographers will continue to use Apple Computers and just switch to Lightroom. That is certainly an option. But since I can also run Lightroom on a Windows computer that costs less and I can upgrade whenever I want to its makes little sense for me to stay with expensive Apple Computers.

There is some (slim) possibility that this new Apple Photos program might be worthwhile. I am actually using Adobe Lightroom most of the time anyway and I have an important plugin that I use in Lightroom.

I will say this: Aperture could have been a great program. With a few improvements like lens distortion correction it could have been a better program than Lightroom. In my opinion Aperture had a better GUI and it was a joy to use. It just was not updated and became outdated compared to Lightroom.

I have no clue who would buy an expensive Mac Pro unless they were into professional quality video or audio. There is little reason in my opinion for a photographer to buy a Mac Pro. I am not into professional quality video but many people complained about changes Apple made to its professional quality video software also.

I think Apple is making a big mistake. They have already dropped prices for their iMacs by about 200 dollars. Apparently they are not selling so well. Apple is sitting on a huge amount of money and they easily could update their professional software.

Not everybody in the world is texting, using Facebook, using Twitter, and just using the internet for email and search. There are still a lot of people using computers to get things done. I think few really good photographers will be satisfied with photos taken with an iPhone camera.


They didn't drop the price. They introduced a cheaper iMac with lower specs.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Yes, Apple has a bad habit of not listening to users and abandoning older hardware and abandoning software that people rely on with little regard to how that affects their users.



Apple does whatever strikes its fancy, and loves planned obsolescence. This has been their MO for a long time. It's not necessarily a bad thing, as plenty of people are content to put their trust in Apple to focus on the 'right' things.

 

[simple_gifts]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: jrustles
The big problem with PCs is Microsoft.

It's only a problem if you insist on turning it into one.


Seemed to be one, when Metro was the UI people needed to use.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: jrustles
The big problem with PCs is Microsoft.

It's only a problem if you insist on turning it into one.


What does that even mean?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: jrustles
The big problem with PCs is Microsoft.

It's only a problem if you insist on turning it into one.


What does that even mean?

Many people don't find that Microsoft is a problem with PCs. If you find it to be a problem, then it is YOUR problem.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: jrustles
The big problem with PCs is Microsoft.

It's only a problem if you insist on turning it into one.


What does that even mean?


Something that simple should be obvious to anyone.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Many people don't find that Microsoft is a problem with PCs. If you find it to be a problem, then it is YOUR problem.


Popular opinion doesn't say anything about me. But sometimes it does. Do most people really like Microsoft? I doubt that's unanimous by any stretch.

I have problems with Microsoft products because I use the OS HARD. I'm not doddling around checking my hotmail, I'm doing several tasks at once. Something Microsoft has real trouble with due to [censored] poor memory management, inept tasking and thread management and a tendency to idiopathic degradation leave plenty to be desired.

I've been using this same installation of XP for over EIGHT YEARS. Have you ever seen a workstation install of XP last eight years of virtually 24 hour diversified service (not ABM software or other one trick pony workstations)?? Let alone with no firewall or AV software? In fact the lack of those, and disabling pervasive and widely distributed thread/memory hog and bloatware garbage built into XP, is probably the reason why it's still going. Not to mention pouring over the registry for years.

Yeah, it takes a bit of work to keep it going. What bothers me is that it still fails repeatedly- BSOD- but never regularly, always unpredictably.

Is there a reason why the GUI will only load 500thumbnails at a time and then just not do it anymore?

Is there any reason why moving files will not update the move sometimes in the GUI- when it's decided "oh, too many files hur durr".

I could go on, but would rather not. Dont start me on the pagefile thrashing, I have the pagefile on it's own dedicated partition FFS! It's just a real hassle. And I will not upgrade to more bloatware that looks even shinier, or new spin off taskbars- and good thing too because Windows Vista and on have all been rubbish.

I still only use it because I have so much invested in this OS and have not gotten a Mac yet. Mac's not innocent either, but at least they have their stuff together and don't cripple the CPUe and thrash hard disks for ten minutes as soon as you bring an app window into focus.

 

[Mystic]

I have not had a BSOD on a Windows computer in years. And at least Microsoft Windows has good hardware and software compatibility. I was able to use the same scanner and printer with several versions of Windows.

I have however had a Kernel Panic on a Mac that I pushed too hard.

If this Apple Photos program is no good I am done with Apple as soon as I can transfer my photos. I will not wait forever for this Photos program to become half way decent. I don't have the time to wait. If I do leave Apple Computers (after all of these years) then for me they are ancient, forgotten history. I will never go back.

 

[Subdued]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Many people don't find that Microsoft is a problem with PCs. If you find it to be a problem, then it is YOUR problem.


Popular opinion doesn't say anything about me. But sometimes it does. Do most people really like Microsoft? I doubt that's unanimous by any stretch.

I have problems with Microsoft products because I use the OS HARD. I'm not doddling around checking my hotmail, I'm doing several tasks at once. Something Microsoft has real trouble with due to [censored] poor memory management, inept tasking and thread management and a tendency to idiopathic degradation leave plenty to be desired.

I've been using this same installation of XP for over EIGHT YEARS. Have you ever seen a workstation install of XP last eight years of virtually 24 hour diversified service (not ABM software or other one trick pony workstations)?? Let alone with no firewall or AV software? In fact the lack of those, and disabling pervasive and widely distributed thread/memory hog and bloatware garbage built into XP, is probably the reason why it's still going. Not to mention pouring over the registry for years.

Yeah, it takes a bit of work to keep it going. What bothers me is that it still fails repeatedly- BSOD- but never regularly, always unpredictably.

Is there a reason why the GUI will only load 500thumbnails at a time and then just not do it anymore?

Is there any reason why moving files will not update the move sometimes in the GUI- when it's decided "oh, too many files hur durr".

I could go on, but would rather not. Dont start me on the pagefile thrashing, I have the pagefile on it's own dedicated partition FFS! It's just a real hassle. And I will not upgrade to more bloatware that looks even shinier, or new spin off taskbars- and good thing too because Windows Vista and on have all been rubbish.

I still only use it because I have so much invested in this OS and have not gotten a Mac yet. Mac's not innocent either, but at least they have their stuff together and don't cripple the CPUe and thrash hard disks for ten minutes as soon as you bring an app window into focus.

hey guy you might want to check out Windows 7...ALL of the memory management nonsense has been fixed.

 

[Mystic]

Yes, I don't know why anybody would still be using Windows XP. I can't even remember how many years it has been since I used Windows XP. I used Vista for about three years, Windows 7 for I guess about two or three, and I have been using Windows 8/8.1 for quite a while. So I guess it has been something like seven years since I have used Windows XP (except at work before I retired-we were still using Windows XP for some purposes but most desktop computers were using Windows 7).

Windows 7 is an excellent O/S. I like Windows 8.1 as long as I can use Start8. Sometimes I wished I had stayed with Windows 7 but Windows 8.1 is very good with Start8. I hope Windows 9 is good. I think Microsoft got rid of most of the dizzy executives who messed up Windows 8. Business users keep Microsoft on an even keel.

I think Apple should forget about ever entering the business world in a big way. Businesses would never tolerate the lack of dependability. Professional quality software being simply abandoned, hardware not supported after a new operating system comes out, lack of support for previous O/Ss, etc.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I am actually glad they are doing this because it makes my future decisions easier.


Mystic, I'd suggest that [Insert random Garak Linux diatribe/derailment here].

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
I have the pagefile on it's own dedicated partition FFS!


Having it on its own partition isn't going to help. Its own drive; and preferably on its own SATA channel would help if you really run into trouble; but having it on a partition where the HDD also houses the OS and/ or the user files is not lightening the load of the SATA channel at all. In fact, forcing the read/ write head to skip all over the place to a different partition to mess with the page file might even theoretically slow tihngs down a bit.

I haven't used XP in several years but when I did it was running a recording studio. I had massive HDD throughput requirements and needed a boatload of RAM. I had the OS on a smallish 5,400rpm SATA drive, the audio (upwards of 24 channels of 24 bit, 96KHz audio going in both directions) on another SATA drive (7200rpm: I was always amazed that it never faltered) and the swap was a 4GB SCSI drive (10,000rpm). I found that having all of that HDD activity on entirely separate subsystems was the least of all evils.

Also, I found it necessary to specify the minimum and maximum sizes of the page file to be identical so Windows would not up and decide to resize a multi-GB file while I was recording someone's irreplaceable magic. I set it to a few MB shy of the SCSI HDD's capacity and, on the rare occasions when I sat there and monitored how often and how hard Windows hit it, it didn't seem to be too terribly active.

If you want to prevent Windows from moving kernel or driver files to the pagefile, go (in the registry) to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management and set the DisablePagingExecutive registry entry to 1. I have never conducted any remotely scientific tests on my system to see if that improved things but it makes sense to keep that kind of stuff in physical RAM.

Linux features a parameter called "swapiness" which regulates how aggressively the kernel hits the swap (page) file. Linux always requires the swap file to be on a separate partition with its own unique filesystem, and I do not know whether that is an improvement upon Windows' model. With systems coming loaded with 4, 8 and 16GB of RAM I am surprised that swap/ page files are still considered a necessity to a kernel for anything but emergencies.