Aperture so slow

hi and sorry if this is answered somewhere else - can't find it if it is
i'm thinking of changing my iMac as i find Aperture slow and when CS2 is open at the same time [editing] it almost grinds to a halt so my question is...
i currently run a lot of photo intensive stuff on my iMac G5 2.1GHz with 1Gb of RAM, running CS2 and Aperture mainly, will i notice a huge difference if i change to the Intel iMac 24" 3.06GHz? i'm still dithering slightly but Aperture particularly runs at a very slow speed?
ant help, thoughts, ideas etc would be great
cheers

Your current iMac is at the low end of acceptable boxes for Aperture. It does not have particularly good video and I am surprised that Aperture runs at all with only a single GB of RAM.
Aperture runs on any MacIntel with at least 2 GB RAM, but do be aware that laptops and iMacs are limiting to Aperture; one needs to accept that there will be performance limitations with such boxes. IMO those of us running a lot of photo intensive stuff are much better off with Mac Pro desktop boxes rather than iMac desktop boxes (RAM being the biggest reason). If you do stay with the iMac form factor rather than the much stronger Mac Pro buy the strongest available iMac and max out the RAM.
Hard drives start slowing down as they reach 50% full and can get unstable or even crash above 85% full, even though some may work (albeit slowly) even at 97% full. 70% full is a good maximum to try not to exceed. If you shoot DSLR it is pretty easy to quickly overfill the single internal drive of a laptop or iMac.
Overfilling drives will cause slower performance. When you find that you need another hard drive you should plan use of Referenced Masters. I recommend a large Firewire 800 external hard drive (never USB2, which is slow on Macs).
Steve Weller, builder of the excellent <http://www.bagelturf.com/index.html> Aperture website, discusses speed improvements here:
<http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1273934&tstart=75>
If you run into performance issues, work to dial in on each of the performance tweaks he discusses.
Good luck!
-Allen Wicks

Similar Messages

  • Why is aperture so slow

    for me aperture is slow to start, slow to operate and slow to shut down?  Am about ready to go back to iPhoto.

    In addition to the reasons Corky02 listed (how much RAM and what kind of processor do you have,BTW?) Aperture may become slow, if your hard drive fills up - keep more then 20% of your hard drive free.
    How long have you been using Aperture? If you are just starting to use Aperture and doing the initial setup of a large library, Aperture still may be busy with the initial processing of thousands of images. It will be much more responsive when this initial processing and indexing has been done.
    You may wish to turn on Aperture's  "Activity" viewer while you observing an an natural slowness - so you can see what tasks are performed and watch the progress. You also may pause tasks (indexing Faces, creation of previews), that you want to postpone and rather run over night. The Activity viewer can be started from Aperture's main Applications Window:
         Window -> Show Activity
    Two more diagnostic utilities (from Applications -> Utitilities) are useful: the "Console" and the "Activity Monitor". These will show you if any processes are crashing or logging diagnostic messages, and also how much processsing time Aperture  is using, or if other processes are competing with Aperture for processing time.
    Apart from the initial import of a large library Aperture may show slowness if you have a serious problem with your library:
    You may have imported a corrupted, incompatibable image
    or your library got corrupted (maybe by using a drive not formatted MAcOS X Extended, or by Force Quitting Aperture).
    Then the Aperture First Aid Tools may be able to fix this: Try to repair the permissions and to repair the library, as describe here:
         Aperture 3: Troubleshooting Basics: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3805
    Report back, if this does not help.
    Regards
    Léonie

  • Aperture horribly slow on retina 16gb

    Since a few days i am using my new macbook pro retina i7 2.3 16gb ssd. and i am surprised how slow aperture is.
    i used it on a ssd macbookpro 13" i5 with 8gb for 2 years and always was ligtning fast.
    its not useable at all right now. when i scroll to photos (without preview mode) each photo takes up to 1/2 seconds which is just to slow. when i dodge and burn cursor gets choppy, and when i adjust levels it takes 2/3 sec to take any effect.
    Just noticed that when i only browse the cpu goes up to 113%+
    Since i just used it as temp library (later i will import that in my full archive) the library is only a 2.000 to 4.000 images large.
    Here some other information
    Macbook Pro 2.3 i7 16gb ram and 265GB SSD.
    Clean new install mountain lion (only adobe suite, chrome, aperture, dropbox and skype are installed)
    Turned off faces, and geo location in aperture, and also set previews to quality 6 and half size. no other apps running.
    by the way not only aperture gets slow, but when i just did some changes to a image and i command tab into a other app. its slow as well..
    getting crazy
    current activity monitor stats
    ram 12.7 gb used 3.2 free
    1.8 gb swap used
    disk activity small peaks of around 900kb so nothing exciting here
    network almost not used. (so no backup or anything is on
    for cpu with a idle aperture in the background is just normal
    93% idle
    skype uses some 3%
    chrome 2%
    photoshop 1.2%
    my other system is a i5 8gb macbook pro 13" with 8gb of ram and also a SSD and a lot of **** on it, and harddisk for 95% full and that one is lightning fast.
    so im really stuck here :-(

    I did a couple of things to resolve this issue and it was very succesful for me from what I can tell so far.I would like to share this information with everyone. For the record, I recently bought a standard MBP with the i7 2.6GHz CPU, discrete GT650M GPU with DDR5 1GB, and the Hi-Res AG screen. I dropped in 16GB RAM from Crucial and a Samsung 830 512GB SSD. So technically, my MBP with the exception of the retina screen should be pretty identical to the tech inside the rMBP. The SSD I installed also uses the same ATA controller as the Apple OEM NAND in the rMBP.
    Thanks to Linc Davis I used his suggestion to look for memory leaks within the Aperture application and my findings so far seem to dictate that he's probably right. I did some comparison with other editing software that I use and none of those exhibited the same behavior. The leaks detected with the "Aperture" process were exponentially higher than say "Photoshop" or "Elements." I think Apple has some code repair to do with Aperture. They rushed 64-bit and Retina support and somewhere the code got sloppy. As Linc also stated, it's tough to track a memory leak, but I find it strange that Aperture reports more leaks than other similar applications?
    After doing quite a bit of research, because I do like Aperture a lot as a workflow engine, I had to try my best to fix this. Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with our hardware. Everyone on this thread has the maximum amount of memory supported by their MBP's, so there's not much more that can be done here. Also, the rest of the tech is high-quality IMO. The problem I believe is the order that things have flowed with OSX updates, released, the most recent Aperture update, and the move to 64-bit forced by Mountain Lion. That said, here's what I suggest:
    Make sue that you have all of your updates for OSX, Aperture, and iPhoto if you're using a shared library.
    Backup your machine with TM. When this is done, moved on to #3.
    Download "Rember" and test your RAM just to make sure it passes all the checks.
    Check SMART status and make sure your SSD is not reporting any I/O errors. If all is good, continue.
    Download and install the latest version of ONYX 2.6.7.
    Using ONYX, go to the "Cleaning" tab and do a generic cleanup of all the crap on your machine.
    Using ONYX, go the "Maintenance" tab and repair permissions, run all the Scripts, and most important - rebuild Launch Services and the DYLD shared cache.
    Reboot your machine.
    Start Aperture holding down the OPTION and COMMAND keys. You will get prompted to REBUILD the database. Do this, not REPAIR (that does't really help). After the rebuild is complete, launch Aperture.
    Within Aperture, go into PREVIEWS tab, and set "Share previews with iLife and iWork" to NEVER.
    Go ahead and try... what do you think? For me, it runs much better, more reliable for sure.
    Now for the last and most controversial topic that has to do with TRIM. Problem is, people with an rMBP can't disable TRIM support on their SSD from what I can tell. Maybe I'm wrong? However, call me crazy, but when I had the TRIM hack enabled for my SSD, I saw some screwy things happening with I/O during Aperture use. According to everything I read from extremely knowledgeable people of the subject, TRIM is one of those uncertain grey areas. In theory the tech sounds logical, but in reality, I'm not sure if it's impacting I/O by making it unreliable? After all, those commands between the OS and the ATA controller have to be perfect in every way possible - otherwise it will create problems. In the case of Apple usage with there OEM NAND, it seems to be engineered. Can't say the same for Trim Enabler?? Just use caution IMO. Like I said, for me, I saw some weirdness, mainly beachballs. As soon as I disabled the TRIM patch, they went away. If you have a quality SSD like a Samsung or Intel, just rely on the firmware's GC. Do what I do, just let your system sit at the login prompt idle once a week.
    Another suggestion; use the PMSET command and change the default values for 'standbydelay" from 1600 to 86400 (24 hours). This will tell your MBP to stay in standby mode longer and only after 24 hours will it execute 'Standby' mode (which will write memory contents to the SSD - this just burns NAND P/E cycles unnecessarily). Don't know about you, but who the **** leaves their MBP in stanby mode for 30 days (based on Apple's logic)? I use it daily, so 24 hours fof sleep for me is fine. And, the MBP battery is great and can easily stay in sleep mode for at least 7 days untouched. Point is, less hibernation is better. The command is >>
    > sudo pmset -a standbydelay 86400
    Good luck!

  • HT4007 Aperture is Slow - What do I do?

    Almost everything I do in Aperture is slow and it's gotten worse over time.  This doesn't happen with other applications it's specific to Aperture.
    Clicking the import tab takes several seconds.
    Clicking to a project causes a beach ball
    My library is huge. 35,000 pictures
    The Vault requires 178GB.
    I'm running Aperature 3.5.1 on an imac 2011 with 8GB of RAM. Everything is updated.
    What should I do to improve performance?
    Will breaking down the library in to parts help? How do I do that?
    Thank you for your help!
    Bob D. in Huntington Beach.

    My library is huge. 35,000 pictures
    The Vault requires 178GB.
    Is your library on an external or the internal drive? How full is the internal drive? Do you have at least 20GB free on your System drive?
    Do you use plug-ins? If yes, have you checked, if they are compatible?
    When did the slowness start? After updating software or installing new software? After importing new images?
    Will breaking down the library in to parts help? How do I do that?
    The library size alone cannot cause the slowness, so spliting it will probably not help.
    Try to narrow down the problem;
    You may have imported media, that cannot be processed;
    Your library may need fixing,
    your user account may have wrong settings,
    or you may have a system wide problem.
    To check for corrupted media in your Aperture library, launch Aperture, while holding down the Shift key. Is Aperture still slow?
    To check if the library is causing the problem create a small test library - just use the command "File > Switch to Library > Other/new" and create a new library; import a few images and test.  Do you see the same slowness?
    If even a new library does not help, repeat the experiment, but while working in a different user account. Is Aperture more responsive, if you are using a different account?
    Then post back, with the results of your experiment.
    Léonie

  • Running Aperture and Slow Performance on MacBook Pro

    I am running a MacBook pro w 4 GM interal memory, lost of HD space, and OS 10.8.4.  Often when working with Aperture system performance seems very sluggish to the point of becoming unuseable.  Export of 20 images to mail can take 10 min.  It just becomes so slow as if strangled for memory.  I find I shut down other apps but don't think this should be necessary with current OS technology.  Any suggestions?  Thanks

    Have you checked what it going on, when Aperture becomes sluggish?
    I'd recommend to launch some diagnostic tools, if you have not already done so:
    Aperture's own "Activity Viewer": From the main menu bar: Window > Show Activity
    This will tell you, how Aperture is spending its time : rendering, previews, scanning for faces or places, raw processing. Inparticulur, check, if Aperture is hanging while processing one particular image or video over and over again.
    The Console window: Launch it from the Utilities folder in the Applications folder. Look, if you see error messages or warnings in this window, when Aperture starts to hang.
    The Activity Monitor: Launch it from the Utilities folder in the Applications folder. This window will tell you, which processes are using the cpu, the RAM, and doing page outs to the disk. You can see, if other processing are competing with Aperture and slowing it down, orif Aperture is starved for memory.
    How large are images? Do you have very large raw files or scans, or are your photos moderately sized?
    Is your library on the internal drive or an external drive?
    Do you see this slowness only with your main Aperture library, or also, if you create a new, small library with a few test images?
    Regards
    Léonie

  • Downloading Aperture has slowed down photo editing on my iMac.  Should I delete iPhoto?

    Downloading Aperture has slowed down photo editing on my iMac.  Should I delete iPhoto? 

    So it was only the initial preprocessing after an import of a complete library. If your system drive is nearly full, you should expect performance problems. Try to free at least 20% of your drive.
    I would try to keep your iPhoto Application - it is only 1.1 GB and you may need it later; but you can safely delete the iPhoto Library once you are sure, you imported it successfully. iPhoto can do some things Aperture cannot - e.g. greeting cards, calendars. And it is always nice to have a second application for testing purposes, if something should go wrong.
    But make a backup copy of the iPhoto Library, just in case. Sometimes you will notice years later that a single image not imported correctly, and then you will be glad you still have a backup of the original iPhoto library.
    Regards
    Léonie

  • Mac Pro with Aperture - very slow

    Why, why couldn't it be faster?
    I've been reading about the Mac Pros since they were announced last week. The local Apple store finally got one and I went to go see it. And there it was -- 42 lb glory, standard configuration, driving a 30" screen.
    I launched Aperture... and it's slow. I mean really slow, spinning pizza wheel slow. Granted I'm trying to bring up full size raw images that are ~16-18 meg each. But come on -- this is a workstation class machine! The "fastest Mac ever"!!!
    Showed it to the guy working there. He said they installed the box today with a brand new disk image and sometimes the image is bad. "Ben" promised he'll call their engineers to see what's up.
    So what's going on here? Some ideas:
    * Aperture is very Core Image intensive, and the standard GeForce 7300 card isn't that fast. I plan to upgrade to Radeon X1900XT - people say that will likely make Aperture faster.
    * The photo files were huge, 16 to 18 mb each. Raw images my camera takes are 6 meg. At least until I upgrade my camera.
    * The box had 1gb of memory - standard configuration. Would more help?
    * Maybe there really is something wrong with the box or the disk image.
    Disappointing...
    Mac Mini   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  

    I dont really post very often here but i think it is yet time to give again out a few pointers about Mac performance ...
    1) Whatever the configuration ... Ram is essential and shall never be ignored .
    2) Whatever the hardware platform your machine is running on check your software version and keep up to date , that goes 20 times for anything Universal Binary.
    3) When treating high volume files Hard drive space is ESSENTIAL and not only necessary and frankly setting up a raid from a Mac is still seamless and fast.
    If you all made it through to this point then your mac is becoming a powerhouse never slows down and really smiles and keeps on coming ... i have been running G5 machines for a long time on mac os X servers since the G5s came out and before that were yet G4s . First thing you need when dealing with large files is RAM second drives and third software versions.
    I would not dream running anything with 512 mb of ram at all that is a constant on all macs , you have a memory expansion capability to 16GB mmm that shall really help .
    Further you have 4 bays for drives ... may i dare think they are here for some reason such as treating high volumes files ?
    Third and foremost when using nvidia cards dont expect superb performance on a 30" screen when using the FX4500 card since nvidia cards have a really bad record on that matter with the G5 .. would you deal with massive 3D open GL etc etc etc ... ATI is it plain simple and really outperforming it has always been the case for macs .
    Yes, ATI X1900XT are rare now because of delays but the cards are no slugs on a mac and they mean business when running on 30" screens . A pci-x X800xt radeon card running on a previous dual processor machine kept kicking the Quadro running off a PCI-e on a quad machine ... we then tested with a X1900xt prototype and again the world changed .. all the things the nvidia card could not deal with the X1900xt just smiled at and kept on chomping non stop .
    I did not still get aperture since i have yet little need for it but my educated guess would be that with a little ram a nice set of raid array (you dont need 15k rpm drives unless you treat live HD solely on a internal array) and or an Xraid setup the machine would just scream in performance. If you use the machine for production processing power of the chip is just a tiny part of the whole performance equation thinking about streamlining your pipelines and data flow takes your setup to whole new grounds.
    A quad running 4D server Maya some data backups mysql and about 103 processes is occupied about 10 percent load averages .....
    secondly regarding disk images and apple installs errr please take the time to install everything from scratch i am guessing aperture you just have seen running might be using rosetta and is just a transfer from a G5 that would explain performance issues . 18 Mb a picture is not huge ... we use about 100Mg images on PS maya strata etc etc etc and frankly image size with a bit of ram never has been an issue.
    G5 Quad 2.5 7TB xraid 16GB of ram.   Mac OS X (10.4.7)   Mac os X server 10.4.7

  • Aperture feels slower. Is there a maximum recommended library size

    What would you recommend as a maximum size for an Aperture 3 library? Is there a way to keep it running faster or safer?
    I have basically 2 big groups of photos (divided in folders with projects and albums inside), GUIDING-FISHING and FAMILY, it sounds ovious to divide it in 2 libraries, but I have mixed albums to upload photos to my iPad....
    How should I proceed If I decide to move all the photos related to GUIDING-FISHING to a new Library?
    Thank you! Regards, Pablo

    Hi Terrence and Kirby, Thanks for your quick response.
    My MAC is a MacBookPro 15" (model 8,2) with a 2.4GHZ Core i7, 8GB RAM and  a 750gb HD.
    I have about 95 gb free in my HD.
    It shown in the mac information that 133gb belongs to photos and the Aperture library weights 66,56 gb
    So Kirby says it can take 1 or even 2TB, that's not the problem....
    Do you think I need to adjust any preferences to make it run faster?
    I will reed the info and directions about basic mantenience on the library and get back to you.
    Have you ever used that macKeeper app that you get adds all over the internet? never even downloaded it, but you get adds all the time... is your mac running slow??...
    Thank you!

  • Aperture - Too slow to be really efficient?

    I have been thinking about whether Aperture might be a way to go for me as far as working with my photographs. The ads etc. seemed like it offered some great features and I don't like the Nikon software that has come with my cameras. iPhoto is OK for my family snapshots, but I want more capabilities for my more serious stuff.
    So I when i got an email mentioning the 30 day trial I figured that was a great opportunity to check it out. I was hoping I'd be pleased enough over that 30 days that spending the $300 dollars to buy it would be justified despite the fact that I have Photoshop CS2 and a few other way to organize my photos. Thus far $300 seemed way too steep simply to duplicate capabilities I already have and doesn't come close to offering the capabilities of a full blown image editing app like PS.
    So my question is this. Is this thing really supposed to be as slow as it is? The app is running so slow on my Mac G5 dual 2.5 with Radeon 9600 with 2gb of Apple installed RAM that I can't see suffering through using it long enough to even see if it does some of the things I hope it does. I certainly couldn't see using it rountinely as an app for PRODUCTIVITY. There's nothing productive about an app that takes a good 5 seconds merely to remove a master from the library. Even clicking on an image to look at it takes way too long as the preview refines it's resolution.
    I did a quick search on this issue and saw lots of stuff out there. I have waded through some of it and some of it is enlightening and some just adds to the confusion. Apparently there may be an issue when running dual monitors. Am I understanding that correctly? Seems to me that most Pros and heavy duty amateurs run 2 monitors (and for good reason - most of the apps these days need to screens to display all the neccessary palattes etc.) So if 2 displays hurt performance, I can't see how this is an app that is going to work for me. I certainly don't want to go reconfiguring my Mac simply to go through the latest batch of pics. It also seems to me that a large library could also be an issue - while I don't have huge numbers of images, I do have a couple of thousand that I keep active on my machine (and a ton more on backup DVD).
    So anyway, I'd like to hear from people with a similar setup to mine . . . from your experience is trying to use this app on such a system (which is by no means a slow and incapable Mac at all - I push heavy pixels doing HD work in After Effects and Final Cut all day long and never feel like the apps are too slow to even use)? I am not going to run out and buy a new system simply to run Aperture since. Even if all the bells and whistles are what they seem, they aren't enough to justify it. I also don't want to waste any time using this trial version and learning it's ins and outs if going In know the app won't run efficiently enough.
    So am I crazy? Is this thing really as slow as it seems? Are there really as many speed issues as a search of the forum reveals? Is there something I am missing?

    So am I crazy?
    I have no such evidence.
    Well, give it time.
    In my personal experience, for all practical purposes
    it's unusable on my configuration. A Mac user since
    1986, I purchased my Mac Pro configured specifically
    for Aperture, including an upgraded video card. The
    outcome has been underwhelming.
    As I can't buy a faster computer, I can only assume
    Aperture is suited to hardware yet to be released.
    Aperture is the lowest point in my experience as a
    Mac user.
    I am actually hearing that sentiment more than I would like to as I ask around. Too bad. On the surface it looks quite good. I findit odd that the company that has taken on such great things as it has in the video world can't make this a more efficient piece of software. Perhaps they see much bigger money in the volume that comes from focusing on phones with video and computers for your TV and thus don't really care about an app like Aperature which would really just appeal to dedicated photographers at it's current pricing and probably doesn't rpresent enough revenue - even amongst photogs with cash to burn.
    I'm evaluating Aperture (which I have purchased at
    full retail price) alongside the beta of another
    professional photo app which is yet to be released.
    The jury is still out, but growing restless.
    Yeah, I have played with the Beta from one of the "Others". It was interesting. It was a while ago and that version didn't seem as potentially "robust" as aperture did. But I think it may be time to go back and take another look.

  • Aperture sometimes slow import slow reaction on highligts and shadows

    1. Aperture sometimes, one out of three times perform a slow import from a compactflash card. Normally 10 images (nikon d-200 10 mb) in less than a minute. Sometimes the same ammount takes more than 5 minutes. Reconnecting the cardreader on the front usb connection solves the problem.
    2. Using the sliders on highlights and shadows, the adjustment of image takes a little time, no instant reaction.
    3. Aperture is installed on a 250 gb hd (first) (standard installation version 1.5.2). The data is installed on a second 500 gb internal drive. Drives never go to sleep. 4GB internal ram. Video card 7300 GT.
    I have talked to different people about this performance issue and got different answers, which range from:
    a. This is the best performance with aperture with the current system. If you want more buy a better video card.
    b. Your video card is bad, mainly the vram. Replace the video card (warrenty still applicable).
    Any views and advice from this forum?
    Regards
    iemke

    Mac OS X 10.4.9 to boost image import speeds
    By Prince McLean
    Published: 09:35 AM EST
    Apple this week dropped yet another pair of pre-release Mac OS X 10.4.9 builds on its developer crowd, inching the software closer to a public release.
    The diligence with which the Cupertino-based company has been refining the software may signal that Mac OS X 10.4.9 will be the final maintenance update to Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger before attention is drawn solely to Leopard.
    As was the case with prior seeds, developer notes accompanying the latest builds -- 8P2132 (Intel) and 8P132 (PowerPC) -- are said to reflect no known issues with the software.
    People familiar with the latest pre-release say Apple notes just one significant change since builds 8P2130 and 8P130 were issued last week, specifically a bug fix to ImageIO that was affecting image import speeds.
    This is from Apple Insider.
    Jeff

  • Aperture running slow on my macbook Pro

    Hi,
    I have a 2.0 GHZ macbook Pro with 2G of ram and a 7200RPM hard drive. Processing runs smoothly when I first start Aperture, but gradually, the computer starts to slow down (the CPU gauge jumps), and the computer actually pauses for several seconds. It gets to the points that the changes are no longer in real-time, that is, when I adjust the saturation (or make curve adjustments), I have wait several seconds before the changes make it to screen. There are no other programs running while Aperture is running, and the files are RAW files from my Nikon D200.

    This is my experience as well. Aperture is somewhat snappy at first then, over time, slows down and becomes very sluggish.
    I'm currently using "only" 1 GB of ram and am considering adding a second gig. But your experience seems to indicate that 2 GB of ram does not resolve the situation.
    What file sizes are you working with?
    I'm primarily working with file sizes of 60 to 70 MB.
    Wondering if Aperture, in general, has trouble handling larger file sizes.
    MacBook Pro   Mac OS X (10.4.7)   Aperture Version 1.1.2

  • Aperture 3 slow to import

    Why is Aperture 3 so slow to import! It can take five minutes to recognise just a few images on the Desktop and the fan whirls. This must be a bug!

    Has anyone successfully migrated back to Aperture 2? Or would be going to Lightroom 2 be easier. I have by this point wasted too much of my life on Aperture 3. I have been using Aperture 3 on both Leopard then Snow Leopard on a very high-end Mac configuration (over 10 TB disk, for example) and I've seen it take 30 minutes to import 3 images from an iPhone. And that's not unusual – over the past few weeks I've grown to expect that. Also, is it just me or is Faces terrible at differentiating faces? It's great at figuring out what a face is, but it makes ridiculous guesses about whose face it is. It doesn't seem to work nearly as well as iPhoto when it first got face recognition technology. I think Apple needed to publicly beta-test AP3 like Adobe has done with each LR release. AP3 is completely pathetic and disappointing. Any professional user would be out of business by now.

  • Aperture very slow loading the next image...

    OK, I've trawled the forums but I can't find a specific answer.
    Firstly, I'm using a low spec iMac (2007 2.4GHz C2D with 4GB RAM, Radeon HD 2600 - 256MB VRAM on 10.8.2) but I'm not convinced this is the issue.
    When I navigate through photos (Sony Alpha and Canon EOS RAW) there's a major delay of up to 20 seconds when the image shows "Loading" with a spining gear wheel-thing (not a colour wheel).  The delay is worse on the 17Mpixel Canon files.
    I've check what the activity monitor is doing during this and the memory seems fine, I still have over 1GB free and no pages in/out or RAM activity of any kind.  The CPU goes ballistic - 180% on Aperture - it's really working.  Given the file size/delay difference, I'm assuming the image is being generated with adjustments composited etc.
    I thought the previews were supposed to address this by providing a cached image so my question is; is there any way of checking the previews are being accessed?  I've deleted the previews from a selection, re-generated using a couple of size setting in prefs, they've been generated but still no speed-up.
    I've also done a permissions repair both in disk utility and cmd-option launch of Aperture. No difference.
    Thanks for any help in advance, Dave

    I've also done a permissions repair
    If you have a corrupted library the permission repair alone may not suffice. Have you also repaired or rebuild the library?
    Repairing and Rebuilding Your Aperture Library: Aperture 3 User Manual
    if that does not help, check, if you have incompatible video codecs installed:
    Aperture 3: May be unresponsive or have slower performance with third-party video codec
    Regards
    Léonie

  • Aperture very slow

    Has anyone come across this issue when the MAC just freezes up or runs very slow when aperture in use? its like the things is running on solar energy an its night time! can someone help please? any quick fixes? i run a MAC OSX version 10.7.2, 3.06Ghz core 2 duo, 2GB 800mHz DDR2 SDRAM
    Any insights appreciated
    M

    With only 900 MB that doesn't surprise me.
    You need to seriously look into either deleting or moving a bunch files.
    OmniDiskSweeper will point out the files and folders that are taking up the largest amounts of disk space.
    Running with such a small amount of free space has greatly increased the cahnces that your hard drive is corrupt. So after you free up space, you really should boot from another device and repair the disk with Disk Utility.
    Allan

  • With all these resources why is Aperture so slow?

    Since the last update Aperture 3.0.2 is running slower that before. When I check Activity monitor at times it will have 145% of the CPU over 36 threads using a gig and a half of ram and just sit there being in an almost hung state. I say almost hung because I can still move my mouse and do things like close and open windows in Aperture even navigate between views, yet my image is hung waiting for a retouch or skin smoothing to take effect. After several minutes I end up closing Aperture and starting it back up again only to have the same thing happen again and again.
    I realize I don't have the biggest baddest MacBook on the block, but geez I do have a 2.4 core duo with 4 gigs of Ram.

    Thanks, I will give those options a try. I have already turned off faces and when I first loaded version 3 I did let the laptop run for a couple days to do all the background processing it needed. It doesn't appear to be doing anything when I open it and just let it sit there now, so I think it is done.
    As far as the resources are concerned, I can understand the times when I have it maxed out and it is slow, but why does it just sit there and never complete the task I just did when the CPU is only at 2% and I am running nothing else on the laptop? At times like that is should be as fast as lighting. This is not a hardware issue, but a bug in the software somewhere.
    For the example of the 2% CPU usage and the application just sitting there doing nothing here is a screen shot of the image and the adjustments it has. It was the last one, the skin smoothing I had just completed on her face that was sitting there doing nothing. Since I have rebooted it seems to have applied, but I haven't tried do to anything else yet to this image.
    www.vensland.com/wp-content/gallery/blog-photographs/screen-shot-2010-04-18-at-1 0-14-16-pm.png

Maybe you are looking for