Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Aperture 3.1?

ipedro

ipedro

macrumors 603
Original poster
Nov 30, 2004
6,233
8,504
Toronto, ON
I'm wondering what the production cycle is like for Aperture. Isn't Aperture 3.1 due for release any time soon? Does Apple ever release Aperture betas for testing and if so, any indication as to when we can expect a new point update to hit?

Aperture 3 has some serious issues with memory hogging. A top of the line MacBookPro with 4GB has trouble running it with a library of 40,000 photos (in different projects, folder separated). I've tried all the tips in the book and I'm currently running Aperture with Faces off. The application just isn't responsive. :(
 
chrono1081

chrono1081

macrumors G3
Jan 26, 2008
8,456
4,164
Isla Nublar
ipedro said:
I'm wondering what the production cycle is like for Aperture. Isn't Aperture 3.1 due for release any time soon? Does Apple ever release Aperture betas for testing and if so, any indication as to when we can expect a new point update to hit?

Aperture 3 has some serious issues with memory hogging. A top of the line MacBookPro with 4GB has trouble running it with a library of 40,000 photos (in different projects, folder separated). I've tried all the tips in the book and I'm currently running Aperture with Faces off. The application just isn't responsive. :(
Click to expand...

Here's no memory leak in Aperture since the first update. 4 gigs of ram isn't that's much though for doing raw editing.
 
ipedro

ipedro

macrumors 603
Original poster
Nov 30, 2004
6,233
8,504
Toronto, ON
8gb

I updated my MacBookPro with 8GB RAM and 1TB HDD and Aperture 3.1.1 is running blazing fast.

Apple should really up their minimum specs. There's no way 2GB can run this application.
 
chrono1081

chrono1081

macrumors G3
Jan 26, 2008
8,456
4,164
Isla Nublar
Winni said:
Then use Bibble Pro or Adobe Lightroom instead of Aperture -- they're both faster than Aperture and require less system resources.
Click to expand...

Aperture is much more efficient then Lightroom. I use both frequently (almost daily) and Aperture is by far faster. The only reason I also still use Lightroom is because I have a ton of Lightroom libraries (since I used Lightroom since beta) and have requests for reprints and such.
 
CrackedButter

CrackedButter

macrumors 68040
Jan 15, 2003
3,221
0
51st State of America
Winni said:
Then use Bibble Pro or Adobe Lightroom instead of Aperture -- they're both faster than Aperture and require less system resources.
Click to expand...

I use Lightroom now and again and I can't get my head around how it organises my photographs. I've also never noticed a performance increase. I think a placebo effect is in place. It's modular nature is also a limitation.

Bibble Pro however, I've not tried, but will take a look.
 
TonyK

TonyK

macrumors 65816
May 24, 2009
1,032
148
Being a former Bibble Pro user, I cannot recommend them any longer. As a company they made and broke promises on functionality and service.

For over a year, people were locked in to older cameras because Bibble would not update their application while waiting to release the next big thing (v5). People were told to modify their workflows, shoot JPG instead of RAW, etc.

Winni said:
Then use Bibble Pro or Adobe Lightroom instead of Aperture -- they're both faster than Aperture and require less system resources.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom