iPhoto04 - No waiting? Yeah, right!

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by bensisko, Jan 17, 2004.

  1. bensisko macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    The Village
    #1
    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
     
  2. sethypoo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    #2
    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!
     
  3. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #3
    For speed improvements you really need to get more RAM - 256 is only ok - you get 512 you'll notice a significant difference.

    D
     
  4. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #4
    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!
     
  5. bensisko thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    The Village
    #5
    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:
     
  6. Kwyjibo macrumors 68040

    Kwyjibo

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    #6
    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
     
  7. sethypoo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    #7
    It's ok, this is totally understandable.

    Try www.crucial.com for really, really cheap RAM upgrades.
     
  8. benixau macrumors 65816

    benixau

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #9
    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
     
  10. yoda13 macrumors 65816

    yoda13

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    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?
     
  11. bensisko thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    The Village
    #11
    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.
     
  12. bensisko thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    The Village
    #12
    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.
     
  13. mikeyredk macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    #13
    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
     
  14. Kwyjibo macrumors 68040

    Kwyjibo

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    #14
    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 ...
     
  15. Kingsnapped macrumors 6502a

    Kingsnapped

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Engagebot macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Location:
    LSU - Baton Rouge
    #16
    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
     
  17. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #17
    F***. As if my "name" didn't get me enough of a noticible reputation...

    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.

    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:

    [​IMG]
     
  18. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
  19. johnnyjibbs macrumors 68030

    johnnyjibbs

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #19
    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.
     
  20. amin macrumors 6502a

    amin

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #20
    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.
     
  21. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #21
    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.
     
  22. cubist macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #22
    What is that, JOOC?
     
  23. dukemeiser macrumors 6502a

    dukemeiser

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Iowa
    #23
    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.
     
  24. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #24
    In relation to the topic subject...

    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.
     
  25. kwajo.com macrumors 6502a

    kwajo.com

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Bay of Fundy
    #25
    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? ;)
     

Share This Page