Aperture 3 vs Iphoto 09 in terms of SPEED

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robg54, Jul 12, 2010.

  1. Robg54 macrumors member

    Jan 27, 2008
    I know that Aperture 3 is by far the more full featured of the the two, but when I did the free trial of Aperture 3, it seemed to move so much slower then my iPhoto to the point where I said "forget it."

    I have a library of about 50 gigs of pictures. I am not talking about the crazy long period of time it took to turn my Iphoto library into an Aperture Library, but the time it took to actually open up Aperture 3 and use it after I got it all set up.

    I just gave up and uninstalled Aperture 3.

    Has anyone else noticed a similar slowdown in performance for Aperture 3 vs iPhoto?
  2. macrumormonger macrumors 6502

    Sep 22, 2009
    Los Angeles, CA
    Same boat here

    After months of giving A3 a try, it just became a chore to edit, launch, and organize because it was sooo slow. Update after update, there's been no change in speed. I am migrating my photo stuff to Lightroom 3. I'm keeping A3 around because I have used Aperture's photo edits for almost all my pics when it was A2. I also prefer A3's Flickr uploading function over LR3s gimpy one.
  3. mtbdudex macrumors 68000


    Aug 28, 2007
    SE Michigan
    So I'm not alone with the "need for speed" in Aperture 3!
    I have latest iMac with i7 processor, 8GB RAM, 2TB HD, and still Aperture 3 is slow at times.....I'm hoping some upgrade in near future will fix. I'm just getting to know the PP abilities of Aperture, quite powerful actually.
  4. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem


    Feb 19, 2005
    A3 is great for me but I have 16GB ram, using an SSD as my boot drive and I have an 8 core MP ... if A3 were a dog on this I'd throw the software out the window and learn how to manage with LR.

    However, this also speaks to the fact that A3 is slow on many machines and almost not worth it so if I had to do it all over again I may have decided to go with LR. I held off on LR due to the way it handled originals (their idea of a vault was laughable). I felt "safer" with A3. Nowadays I believe LR has really grown and has become a huge contender.

    What's my damn answer? Go with LR ... :eek:
  5. ManhattanPrjct macrumors 6502

    Oct 6, 2008
    You need to check these plug-ins out: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies

    It's not too late to come over to the dark side. LR manages things similarly to Aperture (maybe better).
  6. mtbdudex macrumors 68000


    Aug 28, 2007
    SE Michigan
    Just more $$'s
  7. emorydunn macrumors 6502


    Jun 5, 2006
    Austin Texas
    I think Aperture 3 is a bit slower than iPhoto but at the same time I really haven't found Aperture to be all that slow on my machine. I'd be more than happy if it were much faster but it's not terrible.

    And for reference I have a MBP with a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM.
  8. mousemd macrumors member

    Nov 21, 2002
    I guess it is somewhat slower than iPhoto IMO as well, but then again a really didn't notice that much of a difference. Overall, I am happier with A3 than iPhoto and the simple editing that I do with it is more than enough for this amateur that I don't have to go to photoshop for more extensive editing.

    Then again it could be my machine iMac 27 with 12 mb ram, but it doesn't really seem that much more different than your machine. I haven't played with l3 to really compare the two however. Good luck with whichever pogrom u use
  9. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Apr 14, 2001
    Sendai, Japan
    Aperture works very differently from iPhoto and Lightroom in the sense that it renders all RAW files anew. That's why Apple introduced a preview mode with Aperture 2 where the thumbnails are shown by default. You toggle between preview mode and full mode via pressing P.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that Aperture needs a lot of RAM and if you have `only' 4 GB RAM, it's better to quit RAM hogs such as Safari before playing with your pictures.

    If you avoid having projects with too many pics, you will also need less RAM to store all the RAW files and previews in it.

    BTW, when I was playing with the various versions of Lightroom on my old machine, it didn't feel faster than Aperture to me. Mostly, because I guess I had so little RAM that both apps had to wait for my harddrive to complete all the page-outs. ;)

Share This Page