Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

281Re: [aperture] Re: Graphics card frustration and 1.1.1 - new member

Expand Messages
  • Stroller
    May 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 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 G5
      > dual 2.0 with a X800XT 256mb card and 3.5GB of RAM.

      I tried Aperture 1.1.1 for the first time last night, having switched
      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
      things.

      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.

      Stroller.
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic