iPhoto04 - No waiting? Yeah, right!

[bensisko]

Okay, so the ONLY thing I wanted iLife 04 for was the speed improvements in iPhoto. I didn't want to pay the $50 for the other programs I would never use, but I did because I wanted the faster iPhoto BAD.

So I install iPhoto 04, and guess what? NO SPEED IMPROVEMENTS!!! I tried dragging all of my images into a new folder, deleteing my old library, and dragging all my pictures back into iPhoto. It STILL hasn't done anything!!!

Can anybody PLEASE tell me if I am doing anything wrong???

Vital Stats:
Computer: Powerbook 12" 867
RAM: 256
System: 10.3.1
Number of Photos: 4,503
iPhoto Version: iPhoto04

[sethypoo]

I'm running the exact same system you are, except I have 640MB of RAM. When you first started up iPhoto after installing iLife did it say "Updating Library"? If it didn't then it didn't install right. More later, got to run!

[Mr. Anderson]

For speed improvements you really need to get more RAM - 256 is only ok - you get 512 you'll notice a significant difference.

D

[~Shard~]

I'll second that - more RAM is essential. If you upgrade to 512 MB you'll notice remarkable speed increases throughout your entire system, not just iPhoto. Definitely an investment you won't regret!

[bensisko]

seth - yeah it updated my librarys the first time around.

Mr. Anderson - The system requirements are 256 MB RAM. I wouldn't expect GB to preform "lightning fast" but that is what iPhoto promised (direct quote in fact).

iPhoto is supposed to be fast on machines qualified to run on Mac OS X. While I would have expected this from an older iMac, it is certinly wrong to be happening on a PBG4. If it is indeed true that iPhoto needs 512 MB RAM to be "lighting fast" then this NEEDS TO BE stated (on the box, the web site, and the promotional material).

I apologize for the tone, but as you can imagine, I'm QUITE upset! :mad:

[Kwyjibo]

I recently made the upgrade from 256- 640mb and i've noticed a more than amazing jump in iphot, i have about 2k photos and the chagne is great.

The problem is that your library is so huge

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by bensisko


I apologize for the tone, but as you can imagine, I'm QUITE upset! :mad:

It's ok, this is totally understandable.

Try www.crucial.com for really, really cheap RAM upgrades.

[benixau]

4000 photos is a lot.

lets make each photo thumbnail 60KB, thats 234MB RAM used JUST for the thumbnails. That leaves just 22MB of RAM for OSX, all its services, any other apps you have running.

On my system (dual MDD 1G) OSX has 90MB of RAM.

You need RAM - iPhoto does run on your system. They never state on the box: "As fast on a PowerBook G4 867 as it is on a G5 2x2.0G" BTW - the G5 has 512MB of DDR400 dual channel. kinda kicks your powerbook doesn't it.

[Mr. Anderson]

I haven't received my box yet, but 256 might be required, however, they might say 512 preferred....

Personally, I'd get a gig :D

D

[yoda13]

Well I have noticed phenomenal speed increases in iPhoto since I installed version 4. However, I have max ram and only 2800 or so photos. But my brother has an old 500mhz iBook and he has noticed noticable speed improvements and he has 4000 or so photos and only 256 mb of RAM. So I think something is going on with you. Did you also upgrade and/or already have all of the software updates installed? I don't have any other ideas, but I think that something must be wrong. More Ram would help, but that doesn't sound to me like the only thing that might be wrong....anyone else have any ideas?

[bensisko]

Originally posted by benixau
4000 photos is a lot.

lets make each photo thumbnail 60KB, thats 234MB RAM used JUST for the thumbnails. That leaves just 22MB of RAM for OSX, all its services, any other apps you have running.

On my system (dual MDD 1G) OSX has 90MB of RAM.

You need RAM - iPhoto does run on your system. They never state on the box: "As fast on a PowerBook G4 867 as it is on a G5 2x2.0G" BTW - the G5 has 512MB of DDR400 dual channel. kinda kicks your powerbook doesn't it.

400 is NOT alot when it states up to 25000 photos. I still have 21000 photos left to go before it should start lagging.

iPhoto doesn't NEED to say that it's as fast on my powerbook as a G5, but the point you're missing is that speed improvements are what the new iPhoto is all about. Nowhere in Steve's presentation, or on the web site, or anywhere else does it say 'you're going to need at least 512 MB RAM to notice the improvements in iPhoto.'

If this is indeed the case, then I would have to make the bold statement that this is flase advertiseing on Apple's part.

[bensisko]

Originally posted by yoda13
Did you also upgrade and/or already have all of the software updates installed? I don't have any other ideas, but I think that something must be wrong.

No, I only installed iPhoto. I don't care for any of the other apps. The only thing I can think of at this point is to delete iPhoto and everything relateing to it, and re-install it.

RAM can't be the only answer. All my other apps (including Photoshop, Flash, InDesign, etc.) are very speedy.

I'll probably take my powerbook back to the Apple store tommorrow and see what they have to say (though I bet it was be the same 'you need more RAM').

Seems a little odd that none of my other apps are lagging (except for Maestro), just iPhoto.

[mikeyredk]

i have around 600 photos and iphoto loads pretty quick in about 5-10 secs with all photos

running g3 800/640
with adium/itunes/safari/other running

[Kwyjibo]

hmmmm i have the same machine you did and comparing 256 to 640 was like apples and oragnes for me ... photoshop is much better with the ram and so is dreamweaver ... previosuly when i had them both open i couldn't have itunes open or it would start to flip out and lag ...

[Kingsnapped]

Generally, System Requirements are what you need to run a program. On my old PC, I met the requirements for games but couldn't play them due to bad lag and dropping frames. I know it's not really kind to the customer, but they don't have to say "xx required, but about xxy to run at your confort level."
Investing on some more ram will do you a lot of good. You may be irate at first that you have to pay for more memory, but over all you won't be able to imagine how you ever worked with so little. I upgraded my PC last summer, doubling the ram. I couldn't believe the improvements. Just ignore the fact that five months later, I bought a mac.

[Engagebot]

yeah, there is a major speed improvement in iPhoto 4

i've been playing with garageband for the last two days, i forgot all about the other apps. i just opened it, and let me tell you, my pics resize just as smooth as Steve's machine at keynote. huge improvement!

1Ghz 15' Aluminum Powerbook
768MB DDR333

[King Cobra]

Originally posted by Kingsnapped
--

*******. As if my "name" didn't get me enough of a noticible reputation...

Originally posted by Kingsnapped
Generally, System Requirements are what you need to run a program....I know it's not really kind to the customer, but they don't have to say "xx required, but about xxy to run at your confort level."

Anybody here try to run OS X on less than 128MB RAM? I did with my iMac 233MHz, and it didn't crash a single time. Then again, I needed the second "x" to work simultaneously with OS 9.

Originally posted by bensisko
Vital Stats:
Computer: Powerbook 12" 867
RAM: 256
System: 10.3.1

Latest OS X software is at version 10.3.2. You might also want to upgrade. (Interestingly enough, I tried to confirm that with Software Update, and got a "Server unavailable" message.)

Also, I wouldn't even bother with the extra RAM, I'd get one of these:

http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/ES/sim_mokei.gif

[edesignuk]

You need MORE RAM, STAT!

[johnnyjibbs]

Originally posted by benixau
4000 photos is a lot.

lets make each photo thumbnail 60KB, thats 234MB RAM used JUST for the thumbnails. That leaves just 22MB of RAM for OSX, all its services, any other apps you have running.

On my system (dual MDD 1G) OSX has 90MB of RAM.

You need RAM - iPhoto does run on your system. They never state on the box: "As fast on a PowerBook G4 867 as it is on a G5 2x2.0G" BTW - the G5 has 512MB of DDR400 dual channel. kinda kicks your powerbook doesn't it.
Yes, but as bensisko already stated, the whole selling point of this new iPhoto is that it is fast however many photos you have, i.e. they have designed the code so as to be generally independant of the number of photos you have in your library. The 25 000 photos is to give an idea of the number it can handle with ease, and quantifies what "large library" means to Apple in this context.

I can't comment on iPhoto 4 yet because it hasn't arrived yet, but I would still hope to see an improvement. I think bensisko's concerns are justified.

[amin]

I have about 1000 photos and 640MB RAM. While I was never unhappy with the speed of iPhoto, I can't say I am noticing phenomenal differences with the new version. Oh well, overall this was easily worth my $50 for GB only. The rest is icing.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
Yes, but as bensisko already stated, the whole selling point of this new iPhoto is that it is fast however many photos you have, i.e. they have designed the code so as to be generally independant of the number of photos you have in your library. The 25 000 photos is to give an idea of the number it can handle with ease, and quantifies what "large library" means to Apple in this context.

I can't comment on iPhoto 4 yet because it hasn't arrived yet, but I would still hope to see an improvement. I think bensisko's concerns are justified.

They may technically be justified, but it is a moot point, because everybody knows that 256mb of RAm raelly isn't enough to get the full potential out of any system. Adding as much RAM as you can afford is the key to making your computer fast and stable. If he would admit he was wrong and load is system with RAM he would soon forget that he ever complained and go on wiht a much better ocmputing experience overall. I don't know why Apple doesn't sell all its machines with at least 512mb RAM installed because otherwise it becomes just a bottleneck on the system.

[cubist]

Originally posted by King Cobra
...Also, I wouldn't even bother with the extra RAM, I'd get one of these:

http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/ES/sim_mokei.gif

What is that, JOOC?

[dukemeiser]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
I don't know why Apple doesn't sell all its machines with at least 512mb RAM installed because otherwise it becomes just a bottleneck on the system.

Because it saves money. And they want you to upgrade it when you order it. Which you shouldn't do, since the prices for Apple's extra RAM are insane, and it is much cheaper to buy your own.

That's the first thing anyone should do after buying a Mac: upgrading the RAM. And don't go cheap and get just 128 MB, go all out and get the biggest size possible. If you go cheap, you'll regret it later.

[SilentPanda]

From the rules:

2) The profanity filter is there for a reason. Do not circumvent it. This is actually becoming my biggest pet peeve.

I have noticed a huge improvement on my iBook with my 900 or so photos... I used to only load up iPhoto if it was absolutely needed... now it doesn't scare me at all. So I'm thinking... more RAM for you.

[kwajo.com]

i noticed a dramatic improvement in iPhoto speed with the new version, but then again I also just doubled my ram the next day. but the combination of the two is working fantastically. If you don't have at least 1 GB ram, go out and get it now! I wouldn't go out and get ram as soon as you buy your machine though, do what I did: enjoy your system stock for maybe 6 months or more, then plop down and max out your memory, it will make it seem as though you got a new computer, but for much less cost. that way you don't have to feel as bad when apple ups the specs on the system you just bought, because psychologically, you just got a new mac.

i'm insane aren't i? ;)

[King Cobra]

[ 1 ]: Abbreviations
[ edesignuk ] --> You need MORE RAM, STAT!
[ cubist ] -- >What is that, JOOC?

Somebody explain STAT and JOOC to me...:rolleyes:

[ 2 ]: That picture
cubist, I'm not too sure what the pic is. I found it here: http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/ES/hardware.html

[ 3 ]: "A$$" is not circumventing the profanity filter.

At one point the word "ass" was censored until conflicts arose with typing the word "classic." It's not censored anymore.

[robbieduncan]

I think the picture is a cuttaway diagram (maybe a model) of the Earth Simulator building in Japan.

The Earth Simulator is the fastest super computer in the world but needed a special building just to put it in!

[7on]

It's defiantly because you still have 10.3.1... probably. iPhoto actually got faster with the 10.3.2 update.

[idkew]

Originally posted by bensisko
RAM can't be the only answer. All my other apps (including Photoshop, Flash, InDesign, etc.) are very speedy.

stop being cheap and but some damn ram! os x is a ram hungry machine. get more ram so you can stop whining to us.

[Kwyjibo]

Originally posted by 7on
It's defiantly because you still have 10.3.1... probably. iPhoto actually got faster with the 10.3.2 update.

I disagree mine is fine/ great on 10.3.1 ... my machine doesn't get along with 10.3.2

[David Lundgren]

Unfortunately perhaps, there has never been and will never be a time when buying the most RAM you can afford will not be the smartest decision you can make. If Apple currently sold these things with 512MB or a gig, people would be hollering about price gouging. You can't have it both ways.

When I bought my Performa 460 in 1994, I think it was, it came with 4 romping, stomping megabytes of RAM and - get ready - a 20MB hard drive! You're NEVER gonna fill that baby up, they said!

Then a month later a friend bought a new Performa that had - gasp - FIVE megs of RAM. He was the envy of everyone in our little Mac society, and there was a bunch of us.

So my current 15" Al PB has 512 - I bought the extra 256 when I got it, and I know that it's only a matter of time till I spring for a gig stick. It ain't gonna change, it's just the way it is with these things.

The improvements in performance are well worth it. For the record, if you've only got one available slot, I wouldn't horse around with another 256 stick but go for 512. You won't regret it.

dave

[titaniumducky]

Upgrade to OS X 10.3.2. Then reinstall the WHOLE iLife 04. Repair Permissions!!! Restart your computer. Any better?

[sigamy]

Well, I'm in agreement with both sides of this argument. I too am running with just 256mb RAM. I do see a good improvement with iPhoto, but it hasn't knocked my socks off.

I'm on a 1ghz 17" iMac with 256mb and 10.3.2.

Scrolling is pretty responsive, but the thumbnails are pixelated when scrolling. Was it always like this? I never noticed it before. Maybe now that the scrolling is keeping up with me I can actually see the pixelation?

Image rotation is a mixed bag. It seems like the first rotation happens instantly but if you rotate an image again the lag is back.

I've been looking to upgrade the RAM in my iMac but adding 512 to get me to 768mb doesn't thrill me. I want one of those 1gb modules that Trans International sells ($400)!

Or I need someone who can get to the factory slot and throw a 512mb module in there, then I can at least get to 1gb.

Anyone in NJ want to come do that for me?

I agree that Apple was a bit aggressive in the advertising. They really need to put more RAM in these machines stock. Also, there is nothing wrong with putting "256mb Required, 512mb Recommended".

256mb was standard 2 years ago. We need to realize that even consumer apps like iLife now require more RAM. Apple should also realize this and put more RAM in the machines and charge market rates for that RAM.

[live4ever]

I agree with titaniumducky and "Upgrade to OS X 10.3.2. Then reinstall the WHOLE iLife 04." make sure this is in the proper order as stated in the readme. You can always delete the apps after you restart and repair permissions.

[iJon]

apple was right, 256 is all you need, and it opened didn it? garageband runs on 256, but throw more than 2 software instuments on there and it will stop playing, even on a g5. go get youself some ram or deal with the speeds, simple as that, apple hasnt lied to you at all.

iJon

[SilentPanda]

Originally posted by King Cobra Somebody explain STAT and JOOC to me...
[/B]

JOOC - Just out of curiosity
STAT - Not sure what it actually means but you hear it a lot on medical shows/movies in the operating room and such that they need something STAT (quickly, right now). Not sure if they say it in a real operating room as I've never been in one... thank goodness..

[bubbamac]

I'm running iPhoto 4 on a PB 667 with a gig of ram.

Faster, yes. But not fast enough for $50, and all the hype. I'm disappointed.

Yes, it's a good app. Yes, it's better. But paying $50 to make an app what it should have been in the first place...

I've been mighty impressed with Apple up 'till now. Let's see if it gets better. I'll bet it will.

[iJon]

Originally posted by bubbamac
I'm running iPhoto 4 on a PB 667 with a gig of ram.

Faster, yes. But not fast enough for $50, and all the hype. I'm disappointed.

Yes, it's a good app. Yes, it's better. But paying $50 to make an app what it should have been in the first place...

I've been mighty impressed with Apple up 'till now. Let's see if it gets better. I'll bet it will.
the problem is that you are a minority. you keep referring to iphoto as 50 dollars. to you it is, but technically its 5 apps that are very supurb and would probably sell at a much higher price if it was brought on.

iJon

[rog]

iPhoto is dramatically faster on my iBook 800 and DP 867. It's finally usable on the iBook, about as fast as the previous version was on my DP. Apple finally got it right.

Why anyone would try to run OSX on 256 MB is beyond me. 512 is the usable minimum, and 1GB the minimum if you want to use it how it's supposed to be used (i.e. multitasking many apps at once, never quiting out of apps unless absolutely necessary, more than one user logged in at a time, etc.).

[Kwyjibo]

Anything at 512 will do you pelnty fine ... you don't need a gig of ram o enjoy osx, i ran it at 256 for a few months and it was fine. I also don't count multipel users as a essential feature of OSX ... seing as its a stolen feature

[rdowns]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
JOOC - Just out of curiosity
STAT - Not sure what it actually means but you hear it a lot on medical shows/movies in the operating room and such that they need something STAT (quickly, right now). Not sure if they say it in a real operating room as I've never been in one... thank goodness..

"Stat" in medical parlance is actually not an acronym; it's short for statim, the Latin word for immediately.

[crenz]

If you really want to keep track of your pictures and need to do a lot of work with them, go and check out iView Media and iView MediaPro. They offer a lot more features than iPhoto, but of course that comes at a price.

[5300cs]

(Un)fortunately one of the things I learned from the wintel world was the system requirements are pretty much the bare minumum needed to get an app working. m$ was "kind" enough to put minumim & recommended system requirements on their boxes. That Apple still puts 128 Ram as a RAM requirement for OS X is pretty lousy; it should be 512. (my 14" 800Mhz iBook crawls along with 256. I can hear the HD grinding away.)

If all other apps are running fine except for iPhoto, I would take it in and say what the Apple guys say.

I'd also buy more RAM just to speed the entire machine up.
I run iPhoto on my 550 TiBook (512RAM) no problem, and my 800Mhz iBook (640Ram) no problem. I'm pleased with it, but I'm sorry that it's not working for you.

p.s. I'm running iPhoto on 10.3 with no updates .. it makes no difference here.

[bensisko]

Originally posted by iJon
the problem is that you are a minority. you keep referring to iphoto as 50 dollars. to you it is, but technically its 5 apps that are very supurb and would probably sell at a much higher price if it was brought on.

iJon


Since Apple is not offering each of the iLife apps seperatly, iPhoto IS $50. If you bought iLife for iMovie, iMovie is $50. To reverse your comment, there are plenty of people who bought iLife for ONE app (weither it be iPhoto, iMoive, iDVD OR Garage Band). In fact, I bet there are alot of people who bought iLife JUST for Garage Band.

The world of these apps has changed. Apple is now charging for these apps, which means that it's longer 'wow, this is a cool app, I just wish it would do this' it's 'I just PAID for these apps so it SHOULD do this.'

Now that I PAID for iDVD, it SHOULD work with non-Superdrive DVD Burners.

Apple should not advertise speed improvements if it won't be noticed on a computer bought off the shelf.

[coolbreeze]

iPhoto 4 is still a dog on my iBook 900. If RAM is the problem, I might as well start looking to spend $2000 on a new Mac, cause my RAM is maxed at 640MB. But I just bought this thing 8 months ago!!!

A disappointment, but it wasn't my $$ so I'm not all that pissed.

Overall, still a disappointment even for a free program.:rolleyes:

[jacg]

Stat means "let it stand" in latin.

[johnnyjibbs]

I used 256MB RAM in my PowerBook 12" 1GHz for 3 months until Christmas. OS X and everything worked fine, even Final Cut Express (even though they reccommend 384 at least).

I'm glad I maxed out at 768 a few weeks ago but I have not seen the dramatic improvement that others have said. But I suppose that is because it ran fine with 256. I do notice the difference the more apps I run though.

I just think that saying "OS X only runs on 512MB+" or "you need at least 1 gig of RAM" is not true unless your expectations are unrealistically high. OS X runs fine on a 256 machine. Apple would not sell machines with 256MB RAM (128 on the eMac) if it did not think it was acceptable.

[bubbamac]

Originally posted by iJon
the problem is that you are a minority. you keep referring to iphoto as 50 dollars. to you it is, but technically its 5 apps that are very supurb and would probably sell at a much higher price if it was brought on.

iJon

I don't think I'm a minority, and iLife '04 is NOT 5 apps. It's 4 (iTunes is free) if you've got a superdrive, 3 if you don't. I find it hard to believe that a "majority" of Mac users will find GarageBand a part of their life/"iLife." While music is a large part of some people's lives, it's certainly not a big part of mine - I just don't have the time to fool around with it.

So I'm down to 2. Movie editing is great - but again, I just don't have the time/hard drive/processor to deal with it (plus, I find we take far more stills than movies). I do intend to play with it, though...

And so that leaves us with iPhoto - which, aside from GarageBand, covered above, was the most hyped part of iLife '04. And, quite frankly, it's disappointing.

My personal thought is, GarageBand should have been a separate release, for, say, $30, with the rest of the updates for $20 or so. Would have made more sense to me, and I wouldn't squawk so much. Oh, well.

In the end, I'm still extremely happy with my TiBook, and Apple in general. I'll certainly continue to tell everyone I know how good Apple is, etc...

[Engagebot]

so what youre saying is:

A: You bought software you do not need, and have no intention of using, and
B: You're dissappointed by a piece of software because it didnt meet your expectations.
C: You're computer meets the min requirements, but the app isnt as smooth as butter.


Well, you knew that you would never use garageband, so I cant help you there. For example, I have no use for Adobe PageMaker. So guess what? I dont buy it.

As for the second one, well you must have not bought a lot of software before (especially video games). 95% of the Game Boy Advance games out there arent even worth turning on, yet they cost almost as much as you paid for the entire iLife set.

And about the last one, you just have to realize whats going on. You can run the program, and thats what min requirements are all about. This is why people buy new machines every two years.

Just to let some of you know, a G3 is the tech equivalent of a Pentium II. Sorry to say that, but check it out for yourselves. You cant be surprised if iPhoto cant scale 10,000 thumbnails fluidly in realtime on a Pentium II. I have a dual 3Ghz Xeon machine as my workstation at work, and it probably cant do that. It has as much to do with you're video card as it does anything, and you cant do much about the video card in a laptop. With a fast enough machine, iPhoto is significantly faster than what it was. Thats all they said, and its true, as long as you dont run it on a lime green clamshell iBook.

[johnnyjibbs]

Originally posted by Engagebot
Just to let some of you know, a G3 is the tech equivalent of a Pentium II. Sorry to say that, but check it out for yourselves. You cant be surprised if iPhoto cant scale 10,000 thumbnails fluidly in realtime on a Pentium II. I have a dual 3Ghz Xeon machine as my workstation at work, and it probably cant do that. It has as much to do with you're video card as it does anything, and you cant do much about the video card in a laptop. With a fast enough machine, iPhoto is significantly faster than what it was. Thats all they said, and its true, as long as you dont run it on a lime green clamshell iBook.
Yes but Apple was selling G3 iBooks up until October. Pentium IIs stopped being sold well before that (1999/2000?)

[crap freakboy]

is 4000 photos really that much?
I've 16000+ over a 2 year period, and pretty early stopped using iPhoto for default due to its 'sluggish' nature.
At every update it was given another chance to impress me but alas not as yet.

iView Media (http://www.iview-multimedia.com/products/media/index.html) does much more than iPhoto IMO, and at lightning fast speeds. I can't understand why Apple can't optimise iPhoto enough to match the speed iViewMedia gives me. Plus, it cant deal with 70 different types of file formats-

"iView Media supports a more than 70 media formats. As most media importers/exporters are QuickTime-based, the exact list depends on the version of QuickTime installed in your computer. Here's some of the formats, iView supports:

Still Images
JPEG, JPEG-2000, TIFF, TIFF-FAX, PNG, Adobe Photoshop (3.x and higher), BMP, Targa, SGI, FlashPix, PICT, GIF, QuickTime Image, GE Medical CRI.

Audio
MP3, AIFF, Windows Wave, Standard MIDI, Compact Disc Audio, Sound Designer II, System Sounds, GSM Audio, AIFC

Animation/Video
QuickTime Movies, Windows AVI, DV (Digital Video), FLC, MPEG, MPEG-4, QTVR Movies, Flash, Animated GIF"

Which is a godsend when browsing media files, having a multitude of QT's, AVI's and Flash movies running in thumbnails at the same time is very handy.

I'd suggest anyone who is thinking of buying iLife 4 just for iPhoto should try the free download (http://www.iview-multimedia.com/products/media/index.html#Media%20Types) before wasting their money.

<edit: oops Crenz beat me to it earlier in the thread, but iVeiwMedia($29) is way cheaper than the Pro version and does all of the above and more :D >

[jelwell]

More RAM is not the solution. I bought ILife 04 (as well as buying last years ILife) and neither solve the speed issue.

ILife 04 decreased the time that iPhoto takes to launch but individual operations, such as changing to edit mode, adding a title, rotating or removing from an album - all take just as long as before. Which is were the real speed issue lies.

I have nearly 8 thousand photos in iPhoto.

My Machine specs:
15 inch Powerbook (Aluminum Firewire 800)
1.25 GHz PowerPC G4
2 GB DDR SDRAM

Ok, is that enough RAM to quell the "you need more RAM" folk? I can't get anymore RAM into this powerbook.

joe.

[bensisko]

Originally posted by Engagebot
Well, you knew that you would never use garageband, so I cant help you there. For example, I have no use for Adobe PageMaker. So guess what? I dont buy it.

As for the second one, well you must have not bought a lot of software before (especially video games). 95% of the Game Boy Advance games out there arent even worth turning on, yet they cost almost as much as you paid for the entire iLife set.

And about the last one, you just have to realize whats going on. You can run the program, and thats what min requirements are all about. This is why people buy new machines every two years.
...
With a fast enough machine, iPhoto is significantly faster than what it was. Thats all they said, and its true, as long as you dont run it on a lime green clamshell iBook.

Sorry to say it, but your comparisons are flawed. Your pagemaker example would have been more comparable if you said you didn't buy the Adobe Creative Suite because you didn't need Pagemaker (this is STILL not entirely accurate because you CAN buy them seperately).

As for your Game Boy comparison, it is also flawed. In this case, Apple is advertising something that they didn't provide.

Telling people to buy more RAM is a copout, epsically coming from Apple. Any app can be faster with more RAM. The fact that they are claiming that their app is "lightning fast" makes Apple responsible for much better response times without having to modify my machine. By saying "Oh yeah, this app is MUCH faster now.... but you have to upgrade your machine to get it."

Bottom line: Don't advertise what doesn't work.

[mactastic]

Don't believe advertisements. It's that simple. Do your research, find out what works from reviews from reputable sources and make your decisions based on solid information, not what advertisers promise. We all love Apple, but I don't let that affect my buying judgement, and I don't pretend that Apple is somehow more moralistic when it comes to truth in advertising.

It sounds like you bought the new iLife without any research on your part other than what SJ told you at the keynote. Sorry, but that's just asking to be taken. If you aren't willing to be a guinea pig, wait until you can get some unbiased reviews and THEN make your purchasing decision. I bet you would have spent your money on another program and been much happier had you waited.

A healthy dose of skepticism is required when listening to vendors hawk their wares.

[Engagebot]

what i meant was that iLife 04 might have just as well been called 'Garageband and stuff'.

you bought a piece of software, the majority of which you never planned to use.

So you have an outdated machine. here's news for you: the computer industry's brand new apps dont necessarily cater to those with outdated systems. You say 'dont advertise what doesnt work', and i'm saying IT DOES WORK, just not with a system that squeezes past the minimum requirements... (you said you have 256MB ram, and might i remind you that that is the min requirement for iLife 04)

I dont try to run Halo on my 266 Pentium II, and i'm not going to be ticked because Bungie didnt work miracles to make it happen.

software development isnt just magic. it takes horsepower to do really big stuff. Scaling thousands of images in realtime on your screen is one such thing.

[7on]

For me iPhoto increased tremendously from the last version. I is ast as fast as it was in the keynote. I can now turn off film roll view now that it opens faster :P

Though I only have 880 photos.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by mactastic
Don't believe advertisements. It's that simple. Do your research, find out what works from reviews from reputable sources and make your decisions based on solid information, not what advertisers promise. We all love Apple, but I don't let that affect my buying judgement, and I don't pretend that Apple is somehow more moralistic when it comes to truth in advertising.

It sounds like you bought the new iLife without any research on your part other than what SJ told you at the keynote. Sorry, but that's just asking to be taken. If you aren't willing to be a guinea pig, wait until you can get some unbiased reviews and THEN make your purchasing decision. I bet you would have spent your money on another program and been much happier had you waited.

A healthy dose of skepticism is required when listening to vendors hawk their wares.

Yessss! :)

I'm glad to see someone thinks about things.

As far as RAM goes, it can do a lot of good. No machine running Mac OS X should be without at least 512MB--the more the better.

Laptop computers have an additional problem--slow hard drives. A lack of RAM compounds the performance issue on a laptop computer because of frequent hard drive access.

I've found iPhoto to be speedier, but at $49 for the iLife package, it's not meant to be the end-all software. It's a bargain and it works well, especially for what it is. All of the iLife applications do.

I can't say that it's wrong to have unfounded expectations, but that doesn't help anyone's reality.

[Horrortaxi]

On my computers (dual 1 gig G4 and 700mhz I haven't noticed an improvement--but I also didn't notice a problem with the previous version. On my mom's 333 iMac (256MB) it's night and day. She can't have more than a couple hundred pictures and doing anything (scrolling, rotating, moving from edit to organize) was painfully slow. Even given the age and specs of the computer it was too slow. iPhoto 04 is great on that machine.

[toughboy]

well.. its worth using it if you dont pay it.. :D

it is really better then iPhoto 2, not the best, but much better no waiting when rotating, less waiting when moving from pic to pic... People should not pay if they only want iPhoto, but thats Apple's game, play it or not..

I dont usually share everything on my "shared folder" in kazaa, but this is worth to share with other people.. thats all I say..

[bubbamac]

Engagebot:

I think you're confusing me with the person that started this thread. I've got a TiBook 667 with 1GB of RAM - far above the minimum requirements.

I knew what I was buying, and what I wasn't. I also knew what I paid for it.

Someone above mentioned that perhaps iLife '04 should have been called "GarageBand and stuff." That's true.

You mentioned that I bought software I had no intenetion of using - that's right. But, Apple didn't give me the choice to just update the apps I needed to, now did they? I do believe I mentioned that in my post above. In fact, had they charged $20 for just the iPhoto update, I wouldn't be unhappy at all. It is faster - just not lightning fast. Even on my older system, which I expect slower performance, and "lightning fast" doesn't mean what it does on a G5.

In fact, I gave serious thought to buying the software that someone mentioned above (iFolder photo? or something like that). But, I do like Apple's product better - and still do. I think they make a fine product, all the way around.


And finally, I'll move towards resolution. I'm not furious, I'm not going to give my PB away and run out and buy a Dell. I simply think that this was a mistake on Apple's part - I wonder if they'll fix it?

[benixau]

Yes but if it was called garageband and stuff what about those who only want iMovie. What apple needs it seperate boxes:

iTunes + Stuff
iMovie + Stuff
iDVD + Stuff
iPhoto + Stuff
GarageBand + Stuff
iLife '04

then just ask the buyer whic box they want. now thats thinking different - oops - wreong campaign - thats 'hip and cool'

[cubist]

Originally posted by benixau
... What apple needs it seperate boxes: iTunes + Stuff...


:D You reminded me of the Benny Hill skit where Benny is the waiter, and the customer says no to the wine, Benny puts another label on it and the customer approves it then.

[Chappers]

Originally posted by toughboy
well.. its worth using it if you dont pay it.. :D

it is really better then iPhoto 2, not the best, but much better no waiting when rotating, less waiting when moving from pic to pic... People should not pay if they only want iPhoto, but thats Apple's game, play it or not..

I dont usually share everything on my "shared folder" in kazaa, but this is worth to share with other people.. thats all I say..

I'm not sure that sharing is the way to go (or at least admitting it) but I generally agree with you (regarding your other posts on this topic in the past).
I'd probably buy single bits of iLife but so much has less function outside the US and costs more.

Simon
ps. Hows the weather in Izmir

[Engagebot]

Man, i'm really ticked off. i bought this new iLife 04 package from apple, and its really good for nothing.

first of all, it wont even install on my Apple IIe (which, might i remind you, THEY sold me only a few years ago...)

i am not a musician, so i have no intention to use this new garageband thing or whatever its called. come to think of it, i dont even like music at all, so i dont know why they assume i want this iTunes thing either. Apple really stinks too because they didnt include a DV camcorder with this $49 package, so i have absolutely no use for iMovie, therefore no use for iDVD.

I dont understand how SJ gets off claiming its so 'lightning fast' when the apple developers cant even invent measley time travel to go back to 1986 and put an optical drive in my mac so i can even install the thing.

i hope you guys get my drift. for somebody who has spent the last several years in college to be a developer, i really just cant stand listening to this stuff anymore. i really dont feel like posting to this site anymore...

[robbieduncan]

LOL

Exactly the correct response. As a fellow developer the general "user" whining that goes on here winds me up to but I wouldn't stop posting. You can still have a good time and learn a lot by hanging out here.

To all those not satisfied: Uninstall it and take it back if you hate it that much. Don't want to do that? Then top whinging.

[bensisko]

Originally posted by robbieduncan
LOL

Exactly the correct response. As a fellow developer the general "user" whining that goes on here winds me up to but I wouldn't stop posting. You can still have a good time and learn a lot by hanging out here.

To all those not satisfied: Uninstall it and take it back if you hate it that much. Don't want to do that? Then top whinging.

Except they won't take it back. We're not whining to the developers, it's more to the marketing people who give you false impressions.

And, despite Engagebot's dive off the deep end, most of us who are complaining are running practically brand new machines. If you 'developers' really want to stop complaining, talk to your marketing departments.

If you really don't want to listen to complaining, don't click on such topics. Why do you think Apple did anything with iPhoto at all (at least in adressing speed)... because people complained!!!

There are three reasons I started this thread:
1) The topmost was to serve as a warning to those, like myself, who are buying iLife just for iPhoto because of the speed increase.
2) To see if people could give me some helpful suggestions.
3) And yes, to blow of some steam. If you couldn't tell by the title of the thread what kind of tone this was going to take, well that's not my fault.

If nothing else, this thread has taught me two things:
1) I am not alone in having problems.
2) Some really good places to get cheap RAM.

To all those who have offered their non-critical and honest advice, I thank you.

[toughboy]

Originally posted by Chappers
I'm not sure that sharing is the way to go (or at least admitting it) but I generally agree with you (regarding your other posts on this topic in the past).
I'd probably buy single bits of iLife but so much has less function outside the US and costs more.

Simon
ps. Hows the weather in Izmir

it has been raining in Izmir for 2 days, and all I hope is that it will not stop until my final exams will be over, so that I'll stay home and work :).. have you ever been here?

I dont know what makes these friends angry, because I dont even have a desktop mac (which would provide a faster harddrive then my 12"PB) but iPhoto4 is much better then its 2.0version.. I had copied all my photos back to my desktop PC when I saw how bad iPhoto2 was, and now I am copying them all back to my mac because it is really worth it.. I have 4000 pics or more and you can move around them with no waiting, rotate'em, edit them in ease.. even rate them!.. All my expectation was carrying around my pictures with my PB, showing them to friends and etc without pain.. and I'm quite satisfied..

I'll say what I said before:
its worth using it if you dont pay it..