Is iPhoto 09 any faster than 08?

I'm switching to Mac from PC and iPhoto, while it may be a useable program for keeping track of pictures, is so Godawful slow on my 2.4GHz iMac with 3 GB and a 7200 RPM 500GB drive that it makes me want to start smashing my iMac with a stick every time I open it.
I mean, S L O W !
If you've ever used Picasa or ACDSee on a PC, you know what I mean. These progams are quick and responsive, sports cars compared to the clunker that is iPhoto.
If 09 is no better than o8, please suggest some fast Mac photo management tools.
Thanks--

I've found that '09 is about the same as '08 until you add places - that seems to slow it
If you turn off item counts, sharing and set web sync to manual you should see a substantial speed improvement
LN

Similar Messages

  • Encore   cs6  not any faster than 5.1

    Encore   cs6  not any faster than 5.1
    I opened up a cs5.1 project in cs6 and did a "Preview from here" of a motion background with 8 motion thumbnails...running 40 secounds. Each version of Encore took 2 minutes to render the motion menu so i could preview it.
    A little dissappointing. 32 bit vs 64. Same speed:-(
    I have 32 gigs of ram. i7-980

    heres a test. try importing a single 42gb timeline of 1080p into encore cs5, and now do the same thing for cs6. rendering may or may not be faster for menus, but you can get right to work on your project in cs6, while it processes in the background, vs cs5 having to stare at the yellow status bar for 90 minutes (it seemed, lol)

  • I just upgraded my Internet service to 12 MPS. It doesn't appear to work any faster than the 3MPS I had before. The AT

    I just upgraded my Internet service to 12 MPS. It doesn't appear to work any faster than the 3MPS I had before. The AT&T guy said it may be the computer rather than the connection. I have an iMac intel core 2 duo, running OS 10.5.8. It has 1 GB of memory. I have plenty of memory left. Is there something I can check on the computer to see if it's capable of running faster with this new Internet upgrade?

    You certainly are going to see improvements if you download big files, i.e. Apple updates, or watching trailers also at higher resolution.
    You won't see much difference if you use peer to peer download.

  • Is the apple tv being sold now any faster than the 1st generation ones?

    I have a working Apple TV (40gb) that I purchased the 1st month it came out. Lately it appears to be acting real sluggish and I was wondering if the units they are selling now have better hardware specs?
    Thanks

    I agree that apple has not acknowledged any change in the hardware. HOWEVER, in my experience, I have 3 aTV (bought Sept 2008, Nov 2008 and Feb 2009) and the most recent one is the snappiest and is the least affected by the sloppy video problem discussed in this thread: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2199517
    The oldest one is also the one that takes the longer to sync: although all 3 aTV have the same set-up, the two most recent always finish first (at least 5 times faster).
    Once they are all out of warranty, I will open them all and check by myself if the hardware has changed or not...

  • Can speed be any faster than it already is??

    Good Morning,
    here are stats from the router:
    ADSL STATUS
    This page shows information about your ADSL connection if applicable.
    Status
    Configured
    Current
    Line Status
    SHOWTIME
    Link Type
    Fast Path
    Operation Mode
    Automatic
    G992.1(G.DMT)
    Data Rate Information
    Stream Type
    Actual Data Rate
    Upstream
    448 (Kbps.)
    Downstream
    6592 (Kbps.)
    Defect/Failure Indication
    Operation Data
    Upstream
    Downstream
    Noise Margin
    25.0 dB
    6.1 dB
    Line Attenuation
    22.0 dB
    35.5 dB
    Indicator Name
    Near End Indicator
    Far End Indicator
    Output Power
    11.9 dBm
    19.9 dBm
    Fast Path FEC Correction
    0
    1
    Interleaved Path FEC Correction
    NA
    NA
    Fast Path CRC Error
    315
    14
    Interleaved Path CRC Error
    NA
    NA
    Loss of Signal Defect
    0
    0
    Fast Path HEC Error STR
    176
    4
    Interleaved Path HEC Error
    NA
    NA
    Error Seconds
    143
    0
    Statistics
    Received Cells
    12094124
    Transmitted Cells
    1600718
    The kitz checker says the following:
    Downstream
    Attenuation
     dB
    Approx
    Line Length
     km
    dslMAX (20CN)
     kbps
    IP Profile
     kbps
    and a speed test done at http://speedtest.btwholesale shows only an IP Profile of 5.5mbps and a line rate of 6.59mbps:
    1. Best Effort Test:  -provides background information.
    Download  Speed
    5.58 Mbps
    0 Mbps
    7.15 Mbps
    Max Achievable Speed
     Download speedachieved during the test was - 5.58 Mbps
     For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 0.6 Mbps-7.15 Mbps.
     Additional Information:
     Your DSL Connection Rate :6.59 Mbps(DOWN-STREAM), 0.45 Mbps(UP-STREAM)
     IP Profile for your line is - 5.5 Mbps
    My question is can the speed be improved anymore or made faster in any way. 
    I would appreciate some help on this please.
    Many Thanks,
    Dominic.
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    you stats look ok with noise margin at normal 6db.  are you conencted to the test socket - if you have extension sockets that may give a small speed increase also removing the bellwire may also help 
    bellwire removal
    an increase of about 300/400kb would be enough to get profile to next band giving 6mb
    If you like a post, or want to say thanks for a helpful answer, please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side of the post.
    If someone answers your question correctly please let other members know by clicking on ’Mark as Accepted Solution’.

  • Compilation: SunOne any faster than Forte 6U2?

    Hi,
    We have Forte C++ 6 update 2 and find compilation is very slow (7-90 seconds per file) compared to the NT platform (second per file). Is the new version (SunOne) any better?
    Patrick

    I am using a SUN Fireblade 100 with a single 450 MHZ processor and 1GB RAM. What worries me is that on the thread 'Re: Build/Complie times extremely slow...' from February 2002 mentions that a Wintel box will significantly outperform an ultrasparc (see that thread for details).
    Yes, pch is turned on on windows.
    We use Boost.build (a jam derivative) as our make tool.
    Running CC with -xtime shows that the compilation process is mainly cpu bound.
    Patrick

  • Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

    Hey,
    Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
    Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
    iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
    About 20-100 layers
    A combination of vector and bitmap layers
    Many of the layers use layer styles
    On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
    This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
    So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
    Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
    Thanks for your help!

    BOILERPLATE TEXT:
    Note that this is boilerplate text.
    If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
    such as your platform (Mac or Win),
    exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
    your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
    the type of file you were working on,
    machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
    what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
    what error message(s) you receive,
    if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
    if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
    etc.,
    someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
    a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
    Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
    Thanks!

  • I have bought a 2nd hand late 2008 macbook air and can't install iPhoto as it requires update 10.9 or higher i can't seem to update any further than 10.7.5 help???

    I have bought a 2nd hand late 2008 macbook air and can't install iPhoto as it says it requires update 10.9 or higher i can't seem to update any further than 10.7.5 can anyone help please???

    Thankyou for your response... being new to this i have had a look and it says the following
    This system can run the last version of OS X 10.8 "Mountain Lion" as well as the current version of OS X 10.9 "Mavericks," but does not support the AirDrop, AirPlay Mirroring, or Power Nap features. It is not supported booting into 64-bit mode when running Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard." It does support "OpenCL" and Grand Central Dispatch introduced with Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard."
    Please note that OS X "Lion" 10.7 and subsequent versions of OS X, like Mountain Lion and Mavericks, are not capable of running Mac OS X apps originally written for the PowerPC processor as these operating systems do not support the "Rosetta" environment. To run PowerPC applications on this Mac, it will be necessary to use Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" or earlier
    what do i do next
    Thankyou once again for your reply
    Gaz

  • Any Program to sort by keywords faster than CS-PS6-Bridge For Keyword Search?

    To sort by keywords in (CS-PS6)-Bridge  one has to group all your folders under one overall folder. Then when you search by keywords (CS-PS6)-Bridge opens up all the photos in Bridge which take  avery long time. Since Lightroom Smart Previews open up smaller files will it open up all ones pictures faster? and then can it sort by keywords.
    I am assuming Lightroom  smart preview opens up a larger size file than CS6-PS-6-Bridge and thus is even slower.
    So the question becomes are there Any Program to sort by keywords faster than CS-6-Bridge For Keyword Search? i.e A program that doesn't have to open up a file to look at keywords or a way to open smaller thumbnails in Bridge?

    Really?
    You mean you can't just click on the Magnifying Glass in the Search Box like I can?
    Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
    And then Select Rating?
    Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
    And then click on the Third Dot and it will become a Star?
    Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
    Or even use a Smart Album? File -> new Smart Album: My Rating -> is -> And there's click on the third dot to make it a star trick again?
    Regards
    TD

  • I read on the website that the update 4.0 was supposed to work faster than the last but I that since I updated (2 days ago) my work in firefox has become quite sluggish. Any suggestions?

    Hi there. I upgraded to firefox 4 on Monday (two days ago) since I saw that the new version was supposed to run faster than firefox 3 that I was using. However, since I've started using it, I wait longer for a page to download than I had to before and the whole browser just is sluggish to respond. Any suggestions?

    Sounds like it either believes that there are headphones plugged in, or the switch is broken.
    Why in the world would you take it to Best Buy for service? Take it to an Apple Store. They can replace it on the spot if it's defective.

  • Hi, I have an iPhone 5s, recently its been a lot hotter than usual, also the battery life is going down a lot faster than usual, and it takes absolutely ages to charge up. There must be a serious problem with the battery, any ideas? thanks

    Hi, I have an iPhone 5s, recently its been a lot hotter than usual, also the battery life is going down a lot faster than usual, and it takes absolutely ages to charge up. There must be a serious problem with the battery, any ideas? thanks

    Apple can replace the battery for $79 US.
    http://support.apple.com/kb/index?page=servicefaq&product=iphone

  • Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word.

    Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word. Sample Editor playback sounds like Alvin on a meth binge. Spoken phrase is generated from Textspeech. Textspeech can export files as WAV files or MP3 files. Perhaps a clue?:   When exported Textspeech WAV file is dragged and dropped into track in arrange area of new project, it exhibits same supersonic speed. When Textspeech file is exported as MP3 file and dragged and dropped in arrange area track, it plays at correct speed.

    Thanks Erik,
    If nothing else, this huge list of updates and fixes, shows clearly that the Logic Dev team is working hard on fixing and improving LPX to a major degree.... and from the list of fixes done.. show they do read the bug reports submitted!
    As an aside....
    I recall how all the 'naysayers' prior to LPX (and in some cases, since...)  were proclaiming how Logic was dead, the team was being disbanded, we won't see any further development, the Dev team doesn't listen or care... and so on....... I wonder where those people are now?

  • What can I do if script runs faster than network?

    I've written an inter-application script that moves from InDesign, where it starts in AppleScript, to Photoshop, where the AppleScript runs a JavaScript to perform various tasks.
    It runs beautifully on my laptop at home where I do my development. Yesterday, using myself as guinea pig, I tried it in the office.
    On about the third run, I was horrified to see the ExtendScript Toolkit pop up with an error message (about as welcome as seeing an AppleScript inviting the user to open the Script Editor and fix a script).
    The error message was that app.bringToFront(); was not a valid function.
    This was true in InDesign, which has a different activation function, and I realised that even though my AppleScript had called for Photoshop to activate I was still in InDesign.
    The JavaScript app.bringToFront had been called as well because I had enclosed my code in the Tranberry template.
    So I pressed the stop button on ExtendScript, went back to InDesign and ran the script again. This time it worked as usual.
    Occasionally on our network we spend some time beachball-watching as some communication goes on in the background. So I imagine that the time the error was thrown was on one of those network slowdowns.
    The switch from InDesign to Photoshop did not happen fast enough, but the script ran on and issued a Photoshop JavaScript command while I was still in InDesign.
    In AppleScript such unfortunate communication with users can be avoided using "try... on error" blocks.
    Would there be any error-handling equivalent in JavaScript which would enable me to avoid them being thrown into ExtendScript Toolbox and would give them a friendly message apologising, explaining what had happened and inviting them to try again?

    Also AppleScript has a default timeout of 60 seconds before it wants to execute its next command. If in you case the opening and processing of the image in JavaScript takes any longer than this wrap your call out to Photoshop in a timeout block thus extending the alloted time to whatever you think may be suitable? Like so:
    tell application "Adobe InDesign CS2"
    activate
    tell active document
    set This_Image to image 1 of item 1 of rectangle 1
    set Image_Path to file path of item link of (item 1 of This_Image) as alias
    my Call_Photoshop(Image_Path)
    delay 1 -- same as sleep(1000);
    update item link of (item 1 of This_Image)
    end tell
    end tell
    on Call_Photoshop(Image_Path)
    with timeout of 180 seconds
    tell application "Adobe Photoshop CS2"
    activate
    set display dialogs to never
    open Image_Path
    set ID_Image to the current document
    tell ID_Image
    -- do my stuff
    close with saving
    end tell
    end tell
    end timeout
    end Call_Photoshop

  • New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

    So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
    I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
    Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally.  I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC.  Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
    And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
    I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

    That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
    I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
    Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth.  It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
    Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
    This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively).  Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

  • Threads to keep the CPU faster than the disk?

    Greetings,
    I hope this is the correct place to post a question like this - I did not see a forum specific to C/C++ programming on Solaris.
    I'm currently writing a data conversion program and would like to get better performance. The programming language is straight C, Solaris 10, E25K with 8 CPUs and 16G RAM allotted to my zone. I do not have admin on the box. I am compiling 64-bit with lots of compiler options for performance.
    The process is very linear and most of the optimization examples I find are for making loops run in parallel and such. Well, I don't have any loops. I'm moving a lot of data from a set of source files, doing some transformation and validation, then writing to the appropriate target file. No recursion or matrix math here...
    I wrote my initial test program which would basically spin through the source files and write empty target files. Doing this I was able to process about 70,000 source records per second - which was acceptable and on par with the speed of simply copying the disk files from one place to another.
    Once I started adding logic, the records per second started to drop drastically. I expected this to some degree, but adding just the basic initial logic cut the records per second in half, and after that the performance dropped in a pretty linear fashion as I added transformation logic. Mind you, most of the logic is moving source to target and space padding the target, validating a date range, etc.. Nothing complex by any stretch of the imagination, there are just a lot of fields.
    Before I spend a lot of time trying to multi-thread the application, I wanted to see if my expectations are realistic. My thinking is that 8 CPUs should be able to keep up with the disk subsystem and that my conversion should not take any longer than the amount of time it takes to simply copy the data from one point to another. Possible?
    Currently I'm processing like this:
    1. mmap open all sources (there are about 10 to 15 depending)
    2. collect counts of all source records in a given "set"
    3. wait for any previous targets to finish writing to disk
    4. process the current set of source records and write target records to memory buffers for each target
    5. when a given target buffer is full, aiowrite to the target file
    6. while there are source records, goto step 2
    Basically I used aiowrite to get a little free async operation in that any target buffers that are ready to be written could do so while the next set of source records is being grouped (being read from the mmap'd source files). I also try to keep things as fast as possible by not moving the data more than necessary. Usually my transformation logic can move the data directly from the mmap'd file to the target buffer, and in other cases only a single move of the data needs to be done.
    What I think I would like to do is create a thread that groups the source record sets into 8 independent memory locations. This thread's job is to simply keep those group locations full. Then 8 worker threads would pick the next source "set" from the pool and process it, and only have to sync on a mutex when writing to the target file.
    Any insight or feedback would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks,
    Matthew

    If your application is not using threads, then the entire program is running in a serial state, waiting for i/o etc. To check how your little program works, use:
    truss -a -d -D -f -l -o your_truss_output_file.log your_application

Maybe you are looking for