iPhoto 5.0.4 Released

[alex_ant]

You two may agree now, but that doesn't stop iPhoto from sucking. I'll bet the 3 programmer interns Apple has working on iPhoto are constantly bickering between their cubicle walls about what would be the best way to do this or that, and that (in addition to their general incompetence) explains the horrible hodgepodge design.

 

[MarkCollette]

All of which are just bits, and handled by the binary patching. I'm not talking about code changes, I'm talking about a system that takes a set of files that are labeled "iPhoto 5.0.3" and another set called "iPhoto 5.0.4" and figures out bit-for-bit what's different. That would catch, well, everything

But in any reasonably large (or cross-platform) application there tend to be separate builds for different architectures or uses, like iPhoto bundled with the OS versus iPhoto bundled with iLife, etc. So there have to be config files somewhere saying which bits get assembled for which target. So the multiple-file-binary-diff process has to tie into that somehow. It's not just a case of diffing everything, it's diffing per target. Plus, as we said before, it's also diffing per original release. So if there are 3 targets and 4 previous releases, then that's 12 diffs. My point before was that with code it's straightforward, but with all the ancilliary config files that differentiate targets, those have to be tracked and handled, which the diff has to have the complexity of knowing about too.

And they won't be handled by full-file patching, anyway. In those cases, it's either a) the installer's job to upgrade or erase them, or b) the app's job to gracefully handle older formats. Either way, it's a separate issue from binary patching.

But they don't use installers for most things on the Mac. You drag and drop the bundle to where you want it, and just run it. If there's some special conversions that have to happen, then they're executed on the first run of the application. It's the patcher that requires an installer. Plus, for the user, it's easier for them to download version x+1 to their desktop and run that side by side with the previous version x for a while, or at least be able to fall back to version x, whereas if you patch, in place, version x to x+1, then there is no easy downgrade path.

Also what happens if there's a power failure part way through patching.

I *hope* they don't have debugging symbols included in those builds! In case they do, though, the name change would only be in one place (the symbol table) and thus only add a few dozen bytes to the binary patch

With Objective-C's message passing by name, if you change the name sufficiently, then its place in the table may well change, and so every referer still changes. It would be the same issue if one called a different method, like going from a shallow copy to a deep copy, etc.

Maybe it would help to think of it a different way: the binary patching would basically just be a more efficient file copy than the file copy that the installer/Software Update performs *already*. Everything else remains identical, it's just that you get a file copy without having to actually download the original file. It could literally be dropped into place without affecting the rest of the entire update utility, very easily. If it were any other way, then it *would* be a QA nightmare and not worth the risk. It's the self-contained, modular, narrow-field-of-focus approach to binary patching that makes it work so well in patching/updating/installing land and keeps the QA and risks to a minimum.

I agree, once the infrastructure is all in place, then it should just work. But QA still has to test every single scenario, whether or not it should work.

Just to keep this back on track wrt. iPhoto, in this case, yes, getting the patch out the door to fix corruption issues was paramount. With a binary patching method in place already, they could've just released the full version to Software Update, then generated the patches afterwards. The initial adopters that *had* to have the update immediately would have to suffer through the full download, but they'd get it ASAP, which is all they care about. Those that waited would still get the patch, but would get the smaller binary-diff patch (once they were done generating), which will make them happy since the time-to-download is a larger (relatively) issue for them.

Very good point.

 

[Mathew Burrack]

But in any reasonably large (or cross-platform) application there tend to be separate builds for different architectures or uses, like iPhoto bundled with the OS versus iPhoto bundled with iLife, etc. So there have to be config files somewhere saying which bits get assembled for which target. So the multiple-file-binary-diff process has to tie into that somehow.

I guess I'm not understanding your point, since I don't see why it would have to. The binary diff replaces a straight file copy; all of the bookkeeping you're talking about, it seems to me, happens at a higher level regardless of how the new files get to where they need to be.

Plus, as we said before, it's also diffing per original release. So if there are 3 targets and 4 previous releases, then that's 12 diffs.

Actually, as I stated before, it only makes sense to go back to one release, so by your math only 3 diffs. Further, are there really entirely separate installs of iPhoto depending on whether it came with the OS or it came with iLife? I thought Apple was better than that (although I can certainly think of some companies that aren't *cough*) If it came with your computer, it should've been just as if you had done a vanilla install of OS X and then installed iLife, which would result in an identical app.

My point before was that with code it's straightforward, but with all the ancilliary config files that differentiate targets, those have to be tracked and handled, which the diff has to have the complexity of knowing about too.

Again, I guess I'm just not understanding your point, b/c in my mind the diff *wouldn't* have to know about them, and thus the complexity doesn't exist.

But they don't use installers for most things on the Mac. You drag and drop the bundle to where you want it, and just run it.

Yes, but we were talking about the specific case of Software Update, which by nature is meant to deliver incremental upgrades to existing software and contains its own internall install routines, which is where the patcher would go.

If there's some special conversions that have to happen, then they're executed on the first run of the application.

They'd happen either way. No change here...

Plus, for the user, it's easier for them to download version x+1 to their desktop and run that side by side with the previous version x for a while, or at least be able to fall back to version x, whereas if you patch, in place, version x to x+1, then there is no easy downgrade path.

Do users have that option with iPhoto 5.0.4? If so, then it's certainly not through Software Update, and thus whatever separate download path they have now could still be made available. Binary patching doesn't preclude that.

Also what happens if there's a power failure part way through patching.

What happens when there's a power failure when running Software Update? Actually, I can answer that one--hosed install. (P.S. Never have guests over while you're running an OS X update, since they might have a tendency to close your laptop while the update is running, thus ruining the entire OS X install. arrrrrgh) My point is that the issue is separate from binary patching and thus has no bearing one way or the other as to whether binary patching should be used. (Actually, binary patching can be *safer*, since you're patching to a copy of the file typically before overwriting the original, so there's a smaller window for corruption to occur).

With Objective-C's message passing by name, if you change the name sufficiently, then its place in the table may well change, and so every referer still changes. It would be the same issue if one called a different method, like going from a shallow copy to a deep copy, etc.

Ah, I didn't realize that. I was still in a C++ mindset. Still, bits moving about in a file, as long as they are in large chunks, are easily handled by a binary diff, as are lots of tiny bits changing. The only time binary diffs start to not be efficient are either when over 75% of the file has changed or in pathological cases (every other byte in the file changed).

I agree, once the infrastructure is all in place, then it should just work. But QA still has to test every single scenario, whether or not it should work.

If we went by what QA *has* to do, they'd never finish, there simply isn't enough time in the world to test every code path and every combination ever. QA's job is to test the most plausible and likely scenarios to make sure they work, in an attempt to catch as many problems as possible. Run a binary patcher through the QA ringer (say, 100 million random files) and make sure it's near-bullet-proof, and the chance of the binary patches being a problem compared to *other* things to test become so small that it's better for QA to spend time testing other things. Will the chance of binary patching having a flaw ever be zero? Of course not, but that's true of *any* software. It's a risk you have to take--the trick is to get that risk as close to zero as possible, so QA can spend their time tracking down more worthwhile bugs.

If I seem overzealous on this topic, I apologize. It's because I'm a firm believer in the theory that if you're going to do something at all, do it *right*, and this seems to be an issue that, at least IMHO, a large portion of the industry still seems to ignore for some reason.

--mcn

 

[stcanard]

You two may agree now, but that doesn't stop iPhoto from sucking. I'll bet the 3 programmer interns Apple has working on iPhoto are constantly bickering between their cubicle walls about what would be the best way to do this or that, and that (in addition to their general incompetence) explains the horrible hodgepodge design.

iPhoto works great for it's target audience. An amateur like me who want to store and organize a few thousand photos.

If you're doing huge libraries then you should really get a professional program.

Whatever stability issues you have would appear to be something wrong with your setup. Its probably worth investigating to find out why.

 

[Applespider]

You two may agree now, but that doesn't stop iPhoto from sucking.

For you... there are many who find it fine. Incidentally, there's been a lot of recent chat on the Apple Discussions about the 'suckiness' of iPhoto being related to the size of a particular xml file in iPhoto. On a 6GB library, it should be around 40MB or less. But there are some people - those with the extreme suckiness - whose version of that file is 300MB plus on a 2GB library. Someone tied it down to particular Nikon and Pentax cameras and their EXIF data which used to be 1 KB a picture and now imports as 40KB per image thus bloating this file.

 

[artifex]

Does anyone else get really excited when their are iPhoto updates? I don't think this really will fix much for me but hey any fixes to iPhoto are just as exciting as Security updates and even OSX updates! Hell iPhoto updates are better then those Mac Mini or iBook updates!

I have yet to open iPhoto (or Garageband, or iChat). But I'm sure to download the updates anyway, because I never know when core components might be updated, and therefore used by someone else's apps. (Core, not Core, I mean... oh, you know what I mean.)

 

[Stormyguy]

I don't know GraphicConverter, but I think iPhoto/Photoshop work extremely well together. I bring everything into iPhoto to start and do light editing there like slight color and brightness tweaking. If it needs major levels, color, roto or other work, I open it Photoshop (which iPhoto makes very easy to do). After I save and close the image in Photoshop, it refreshes in iPhoto.

Sorry if I sound amateur here but how are you working the two programs together like that?? Is there some "option click" or "apple click" to open up the pic you're on in iPhoto in Photoshop?? Again, sorry, but info pls as this would be v.handy to know!

My own opinion on iPhoto?? Well mine is about as slow as you can get - it feels painfully so - and I get the odd random crash, be it on my iMac G4 or my PB. Image rotation takes an absolute age, yet I have pals with PC's with software that is instant for things like this, I wish I understood just why that is.

I've actually taken to using some of the Canon software bundled in with my 20D - it's not half as intuitive as iPhoto but it's quicker and I do get the added benefit of being able to analyse extra data like focusing points and one or two other things.

 

[Applespider]

Sorry if I sound amateur here but how are you working the two programs together like that?? Is there some "option click" or "apple click" to open up the pic you're on in iPhoto in Photoshop?? Again, sorry, but info pls as this would be v.handy to know!

In the iPhoto preferences, there are options for setting whether you want to edit a picture in the iPhoto edit mode, in a new window within iPhoto or to open in an external application (select your choice of app).

Set that to Photoshop and any images you click on will open in Photoshop. When you save them in PS, the amends will be saved back into iPhoto and 'Revert to Original' option remains too. If you've been working in layers in Photoshop though, you do have to make sure that you flatten them before saving back to iPhoto.

 

[alex_ant]

For you... there are many who find it fine. Incidentally, there's been a lot of recent chat on the Apple Discussions about the 'suckiness' of iPhoto being related to the size of a particular xml file in iPhoto. On a 6GB library, it should be around 40MB or less. But there are some people - those with the extreme suckiness - whose version of that file is 300MB plus on a 2GB library. Someone tied it down to particular Nikon and Pentax cameras and their EXIF data which used to be 1 KB a picture and now imports as 40KB per image thus bloating this file.

In other words, iPhoto sucks. That is an absolutely ridiculous problem for which there is no excuse. Do a google search for 'iphoto sucks' - I am hardly the only one of this opinion. That Picasa is FREE and MUCH faster and MUCH less problematic only adds insult to injury.

Btw I don't have a Nikon or a Pentax.

 

[alex_ant]

iPhoto works great for it's target audience. An amateur like me who want to store and organize a few thousand photos.

Once you accumulate a few thousand, I hope you don't take any more after that because if you do, your problems will rapidly multiply.

If you're doing huge libraries then you should really get a professional program.

I have one, it's called Picasa and it's free and a lot faster on a 550MHz AMD K6 with 100,000 photos than iPhoto is on a 550MHz G4 with 2,000.

Whatever stability issues you have would appear to be something wrong with your setup. Its probably worth investigating to find out why.

iPhoto's bugginess and instability is well-known. I don't care WHY iPhoto is so buggy, I am only interested in seeing the bugs disappear.

 

[alex_ant]

My own opinion on iPhoto?? Well mine is about as slow as you can get - it feels painfully so - and I get the odd random crash, be it on my iMac G4 or my PB. Image rotation takes an absolute age, yet I have pals with PC's with software that is instant for things like this, I wish I understood just why that is.

That's impossible. All Apple software is perfect. You must be doing something wrong.

(This post on behalf of the Apple apologists)

 

[Stormyguy]

In the iPhoto preferences, there are options for setting whether you want to edit a picture in the iPhoto edit mode, in a new window within iPhoto or to open in an external application (select your choice of app).

Set that to Photoshop and any images you click on will open in Photoshop. When you save them in PS, the amends will be saved back into iPhoto and 'Revert to Original' option remains too. If you've been working in layers in Photoshop though, you do have to make sure that you flatten them before saving back to iPhoto.

Awesome, thankyou! (Must learn to dig around in prefs a bit more)!

That's impossible. All Apple software is perfect. You must be doing something wrong.

(This post on behalf of the Apple apologists)

 

[Applespider]

(This post on behalf of the Apple apologists)

Hang about...stop being inflammatory. You'll always find more posts on a Google search for something that 'sucks' that something that doesn't since as we all know, it's human nature to complain and only post for help/solutions when you have a problem

I wasn't being an apologist and I'm not saying Apple software is perfect. I'm pointing out that although some people have problems, others are perfectly fine even with several thousand pictures. Since some installations seem to work well while others are 'sucky', there must be something causing the bugs. I was trying to point out that some people have identified some potential causes which might help these bugs get fixed - not that those bugs are perfectly acceptable.

Picasa is impressive although I doubt they'll port it over anytime soon.

 

[alex_ant]

Hang about...stop being inflammatory. You'll always find more posts on a Google search for something that 'sucks' that something that doesn't since as we all know, it's human nature to complain and only post for help/solutions when you have a problem

I wasn't being an apologist and I'm not saying Apple software is perfect. I'm pointing out that although some people have problems, others are perfectly fine even with several thousand pictures. Since some installations seem to work well while others are 'sucky', there must be something causing the bugs. I was trying to point out that some people have identified some potential causes which might help these bugs get fixed - not that those bugs are perfectly acceptable.

Picasa is impressive although I doubt they'll port it over anytime soon.

I'm going to be inflammatory because Apple deserves it here. Nobody is perfectly fine with several thousand pictures in iPhoto - not one single person. They just think they are because they've never used Picasa (because they have a Mac, not a Windows machine) and don't know what they're missing. They think that 20-second startup times are normal, or that context switching should bring the entire app to a standstill while it swaps itself in and out of active memory, or whatever the hell it's doing, or that enabling live folder counts in the preferences should slow down the whole app by a factor of 10. I'm aware of the recommendation to "rebuild my library" or whatever but why should I have to sit there for an hour to let iPhoto rebuild something which it should have never broken in the first place? It's just bad design.

What I absolutely hate is when iPhoto crashes and corrupts my library and people accuse ME of doing something wrong. There is something wrong with it, something very wrong with it, and it's time that after 3 1/2 years, Apple fixed it. I love some of the other iApps, I think they're great, but iPhoto is broken and damaged and designed by idiots who think that, for example, JPEG lossy rotation is fine, it's OK to copy all your photos into some nonsense folder structure, it's OK to use a slow-as-hell XML database, it's OK to cache the ENTIRE contents of your library in RAM even if it eats up an entire GIGABYTE of memory, it's OK to release an update that fixes a bug while creating an even worse one, etc. I used to browse thumbnails in 32MB. If iPhoto isn't the #1 supreme example of software bloat and general developer incompetence, I don't know what is.

Picasa, iView, Extensis Portfolio, QPict, Cumulus, Shoebox, they're all faster and more stable than iPhoto and can handle way more photos. Half of them even cost less. iPhoto works well if you've got maybe 1500 photos and you plan to never take any more after that.

 

[Applespider]

I'm going to be inflammatory because Apple deserves it here. Nobody is perfectly fine with several thousand pictures in iPhoto - not one single person. They just think they are because they've never used Picasa (because they have a Mac, not a Windows machine) and don't know what they're missing. iPhoto works well if you've got maybe 1500 photos and you plan to never take any more after that.

I assure you that if my iPhoto was doing that I'd be shouting 'it sucks' too. But I have 8000 images in iPhoto which take up about 12GB of space. It takes 2 bounces in the dock and then under 5 seconds of 'loading' on a 15" 1.25 Powerbook (with 1.25GB of RAM admittedly). It closes equally quickly (tho I have read about people waiting 5-10 minutes. I've never rebuilt my library and it's been upgraded through iPhoto 2/4/5 - perhaps I'm just lucky!
I don't use that many albums but I have several slideshows and iPhoto books and it works for me.

I agree re the lossy rotation - but I tend to edit using Photoshop linked through the iPhoto prefs. Picasa wasn't out for PC when I had mine but I have used it on a friend's PC and I like it. If it was available for the Mac, I'd probably experiment between the two for a while. Pre-Tiger, the filing system used to bug me. With Spotlight and Automator actions though for finding images when I can't be bothered opening iPhoto to look for a single image to use in another app, it doesn't bother me any longer.

 

[alex_ant]

You HAVE been lucky. Your library will get corrupted eventually, it's only a matter of time. I don't disbelieve that iPhoto works well with 8,000 images in 1.25GB w/ 1.25GHz, but that's a lot of computer just to run a photo album. The Mac laptop version of that computer still starts at around $1000. I would like to upgrade my nearly 4 year old Powerbook, but I can't justify the huge price of a new computer just to run a photo album which shouldn't even need that kind of speed. Everything else I do is tolerable on it. iPhoto could be a GREAT app if only this and that were fixed. I appreciate what it tries to do, which is put my photos in a flexible, easy-to-use database, but there's just no excuse for its problems, and I can't believe they haven't been addressed yet. I want to like iPhoto and the reason I kvetch so much about it all the time is because I think that it's an app that's worth kvetching over.

 

[Applespider]

You HAVE been lucky. Your library will get corrupted eventually, it's only a matter of time.

Yeah... after defending it all this thread, I'll probably open it tomorrow and it will go boom! Touch wood and all that!

I want to like iPhoto and the reason I kvetch so much about it all the time is because I think that it's an app that's worth kvetching over.

True... let's hope that Apple can get it fixed for everyone. It is a great app when it's working properly!

 

[xxxray]

Same here

I'm using Panther 10.3.9 and iPhoto 5.0.3. Can't update to iPhoto 5.0.4. Get same message as you. GarageBand 2.0.2 did update, though. Let me know if you figure it out.

If I go to Software Update it tells me there are no updates I need. I'm still on 5.0.2.

I downloaded 5.0.4 from the Apple site, but it won't install, telling me there is no eligible software in /Applications.

Same for GarageBand 2.0.2 (not that I use it, but I like to keep things up to date).

Anyone else getting this?

 

[manu chao]

You HAVE been lucky. Your library will get corrupted eventually, it's only a matter of time. I don't disbelieve that iPhoto works well with 8,000 images in 1.25GB w/ 1.25GHz, but that's a lot of computer just to run a photo album. The Mac laptop version of that computer still starts at around $1000. I would like to upgrade my nearly 4 year old Powerbook, but I can't justify the huge price of a new computer just to run a photo album which shouldn't even need that kind of speed. Everything else I do is tolerable on it. iPhoto could be a GREAT app if only this and that were fixed. I appreciate what it tries to do, which is put my photos in a flexible, easy-to-use database, but there's just no excuse for its problems, and I can't believe they haven't been addressed yet. I want to like iPhoto and the reason I kvetch so much about it all the time is because I think that it's an app that's worth kvetching over.

The slowest computer Apple sell's has 1.25Ghz (1.2Ghz since last October) and anybody who runs OS X with less than 1GB is a terrible cheapskate (or on a really tigtht budget), so it is not a lot of computer. If you want your Mac to last 3+ years and still run most new programs fine, you have the most high-end version, it has always been like this, I am sorry.

And to 'just run a photo album' which has to handle hundreds of MB while you scroll (thousands of photos at an uncompressed size, and yes to display them they have to be decompressed, of 100 to 200kB) you unfortunately need some processing power, memory and/or a fast harddrive.

 

[Abstract]

I read the 1st page of this thread, and I have now read the 4th/current page.

All I have to add is that iPhoto does suck, and is so flawed that it only takes a little misstep for your Library to be completely unrecognizable by iPhoto. "But you're not SUPPOSED to rename the files/folders, or touch any folders created by iPhoto." Says who? Using iPhoto is like walking in a glass floor --- it's all going to cave in eventually. Nothing in the electronics or computer industry should be making anything that can't withstand a certain user tolerance, because it's users have all sorts of backgrounds in computers. Besides, how many consumer-level apps have directories that can't be renamed? It's so brittle.

And what happens when iPhoto can't find your library? It loses all the titles you spent so much time giving your photos. Maybe if it stuck with the phots rather than being some titling scheme exclusive only to iPhoto, it would be more practical.

Go check the Apple Discussion and Support message board. It's full of Libraries that just don't work with iPhoto anymore, even if they rename it again and give it the same name as before.

 

[andiwm2003]

i didn't read all posts in this thread. sorry if this already came up.

i'm a typical home user of iphoto. i have about 1000 photos and i add about 30 photos a month. so speed and size of the library is no problem for me. i love the intuitve UI of iphoto. i haven't had any problem with iphoto yet.

there is only one thing i don't get about iphoto: why can't i drag and drop pictures from iphoto into mail, photoshop or other programs? i would expect that i drag a picture from iphotos "organize" view onto the PS icon in the dock and PS opens with this pic. same for mail. (I don't want to use ps a standard program in iphoto, so the preference settings is not the solution. it wouldn't help with mail anyway).

the other thing is: i would never put professional pics or even a seriuos hobby collection into a filesystem like iphoto. the more professional systems we use at work for files seem to be a lot more robust.
is there any tool out there that somehow consolidates a iphoto library into a standardized file system with files named like their titles and folders named like the albums? in that case you could burn your library every now and then onto a dvd including the titles and the album structure. it would also help to transfer all your file to a windows computer. i would be willing to pay a reasonable shareware fee for a tool like this.

andi

 

[Lacero]

All I have to add is that iPhoto does suck, and is so flawed that it only takes a little misstep for your Library to be completely unrecognizable by iPhoto.

iPhoto is trying to be all things to all people, so it ends up being a lousy for photo database collection AND a lousy image editing program.

For the serious photo user, try Extensis Portfolio or Adobe Bridge. As far as photo editing, people should just learn to use Photoshop. It is like so much better.

 

[broken_keyboard]

I think iPhoto and Mail were both ruined by their last major version updates.

 

[~Shard~]

The slowest computer Apple sell's has 1.25Ghz (1.2Ghz since last October) and anybody who runs OS X with less than 1GB is a terrible cheapskate (or on a really tigtht budget), so it is not a lot of computer. If you want your Mac to last 3+ years and still run most new programs fine, you have the most high-end version, it has always been like this, I am sorry.

I know many people who would disagree with you. It has not "always been like this". A co-worker of mine runs all the latest apps he needs just fine on his 4-year old 400 MHz PowerBook - upgrading to Panther, and then Tiger, actually made his system faster. All he has ever done to his system is upgrade the memory from 256MB to 512MB. My brother is running Tiger on a G3 iBook just fine, and my sister-in-law runs Tiger on a 800 MHz G4 iMac with 512 MB. She is a graphic design artist and a power user of Adobe CS and the Macromedia suite, and her setup is more than adequate for her. I could go on and on, but I think you see the point.

As for calling people without a GB of RAM "cheapskates", that's not very fair, and there is no need to insult people in this manner. There are a variety of reasons (monetary or otherwise) why people don't have 1 GB of RAM in their machines, plain and simple.

 

[~Shard~]

iPhoto is trying to be all things to all people, so it ends up being a lousy for photo database collection AND a lousy image editing program.

I agree, iPhoto still needs a lot of work in my opinion. And for me, I'm one of those people who cannot justify buying iLife simply because I don't want to pay $70 CAD for iPhoto - iTunes is free, I don't use iMovie, iDVD or GarageBand. So, if I get iLife '07 free with my next Mac in a couple years, great, but I can't see myself paying for it anytime in the near future.

people should just learn to use Photoshop. It is like so much better.

Like, totally better, like!!!