281Re: [aperture] Re: Graphics card frustration and 1.1.1 - new member
- May 8, 2006On 8 May 2006, at 10:22, Thomas Tukker wrote:
> For me 1.1.1 works great, no problems at all. My system is an older G5I tried Aperture 1.1.1 for the first time last night, having switched
> dual 2.0 with a X800XT 256mb card and 3.5GB of RAM.
from Aperture 1.0 when Lightroom Beta 1 came out.
I have a dual 1.8 G5 with 3gig of RAM and the ATI Radeon 9600 XT
video card, and the worst thing is straightening images. I have to
click on the image, move the pointer and then wait seconds to see the
image rotate. If I get impatient I eventually find the image see-
sawing clockwise & anti-clockwise as it tries to follow my movements
with several seconds' of lag. Honestly, at this, Aperture makes my G5
feel like a 486! I have not felt like I had a computer this under-
powered in nearly a decade.
Other functions are not so snappy, but still usable - when I was
trying the auto-levels buttons I thought initially they made no
visible difference to the image. Then a few seconds later the image
would update to reflect the changes. That's a lot more manageable
than the rotation problem, tho', because the delay is _after_ the
button click, rather than _while_ I'm holding the pointer.
I notice that when I'm waiting for Aperture to perform these tasks
the CPU & memory usage in Activity Monitor is quite reasonable -
Safari often is more demanding when it has a few windows open! - so
the problem is surely with the graphics card.
I'd really like to try Aperture properly at full speed, because right
now I'm not getting along with it at all - Aperture's controls seem
far more complicated & less intuitive than those of Lightroom. I can
open Lightroom, make my changes & in only a couple of minutes have an
image that I'm happy with - right now this is usually impossible for
me with Aperture. Hopefully at full speed I would get the opportunity
to actually learn Aperture & appreciate it.
The reason I moved back from Lightroom to Aperture is that Lightroom
does some stuff in its library that I'm not happy about. In ~/
Lightroom/Photos I have a number of directories, each named for one
of my projects (or "shoots" as Lightroom calls them); I like this
"open" approach to the library, but not enough to forgive its
failings. I import from my 350D using the Canon utility, which dumps
all the images in a folder named "2006_05_08"; when I then import
into Lightroom the shoot name will default to "2006_05_08" and a
folder will be created in Lightroom's library by this name. If I
rename the shoot in Lightroom, the folder name in the Library remains
unchanged however, and if I transfer the images to another shoot then
I find that the empty directory remains in the Lightroom library. So
the upshot of this is that after a dozen or two imports I am unable
to accurately locate images in the library based on the "shoot" in
which they're located in Lightroom, even though it would appear at
first glance that I should be able to do so. So at the end of the day
I tend to prefer Aperture's closed library which doesn't try to fool
me into thinking I should be able to determine where it's keeping
Other things I prefer about Aperture are its ability to handle dual-
screens so well and its stacks feature. Stacks just seems to be an
entirely logical way of working.
Undoubtedly Lightroom will improve with later releases, and I'm
blaming neither Apple nor Adobe for my annoyances - they're both
trying to produce innovative software in an untested market segment
and it's obvious that both products are improving rapidly. It's just
frustrating being a user who wants a tool he can use _now_. If I
wasn't new to digital photography in January then I'd probably have a
workflow already established, probably involving Finder or Bridge &
Photoshop; if had a workflow like that established for some time then
- considering my current hardware - there would be no reason for me
to change it.
Right now, I'm dying for the release of the Intel PowrMacs - I don't
want to spend money on a graphics card for this machine when I hope
the Intel PowerMac release will be so soon. I play games
occasionally, would do so more if I were able to boot into XP, and
also work with XP for my job quite a lot, so the upgrade might make a
lot of sense. This depends on price, of course, and there's a bit of
me that says "wait until the second generation Intel PowerMacs as
they'll be cheaper", but I really don't want to spend a lot of money
on a graphics card for a machine I really want to replace within a year.
For those of you concerned about the StrangeDogs cards then I advise
you not to be. I have my beefs with those guys but they seem to be
responsible enough to ensure that the drivers for the cards they sell
on eBay are mature enough for consumer use. At the end of the day,
fitting an incompatible graphics card is not going to toast your
computer and the worst case scenario is that that the card is buggy
or doesn't work with OS X quite as you anticipated. In this case you
could easily fit the card in a PeeCee, flash it back to the original
firmware and you have a card you can resell to a PeeCee user for 75%
of what you paid for it. Yes, this 25% is a "risk" but betting 25% of
a couple of hundred dollars against the retail price of a top-of-the-
range Apple-certified cost is worthwhile, IMO.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>