Should i bother using aperture.....
with a G4 system i.e. my PowerBook. The thing crawls on my machine. I cant afford to own a G5...no space and its expensive.
Will i have to wait for an intel mac to enjoy the full capabilities?
When I was testing my memory I pulled everything but the last gig of memory and tested Aperture. SLOW..... Going back up to 2 gigs helped, but things really kicked in at 4 gigs. If you run Aperture and then also Activity Monitor you'll see the RAM usage, so yes going up in RAM will still help quite a bit as will the fastest video card you can get.
As far as backing up at the event, I'm against it as I would rather do it in a controlled environment. Too much going on at a wedding to try to remember which card you backed up etc. Keep it simple and always do the exact same thing. I put my cards in a pouch that is attached to my camera bag. Unused ones on top slid straight in. Used ones replace new ones and rotated 90º starting from the top working my way down. The pouch always stays in the same pocket and the tether makes sure of that.
Similar Messages
-
I'm a avid iphoto user and have about 20+ gigs of photos on my MBpro. I don't presently own a camera that shoots raw but expect to buy one in the next year or two. A photographer is going to give us a thousand pics from our recent wedding weekend and I wanted to know whether I should ask for them in raw or jpeg. I know iphoto can import raw but is it worth it to buy Aperture to possibly edit the pics? I fiddle with the histogram settings in iphoto quite a bit.
Second question: is Aperture easy to administer? We are running out of room on our hardrive and will probably have to store some photos on an external drive. Is this complicated? Time Machine has nearly filled our 300gig external drive and so we will probably need to buy a larger external drive soon. Should I stick with iphoto or progress to Aperture?
Any advice would be great. thxBy all means get your wedding pix in RAW format. In fact the photog almost surely has the pix in RAW+JPEG, so he/she should be willing to deliver in both formats at no cost difference. In addition to allowing huge latitude in post-process editing, RAW captures contain more image data.
I strongly recommend that every digital photog with adequate computer hardware first spend $33 and work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 (Apple Pro Training) by Orlando Luna and Ben Long (Paperback - Oct 18, 2006). Have the CD and a MacIntel with minimum 2 GB RAM (preferably more) prior to ordering the Aperture trial so you don't waste time of the 30 day trial. Note that the value is in the tutorial, not in using the book as a manual.
IMO trying Aperture without the tutorial's guidance is a waste of time, leading to bad habits and/or just not getting it.
Note that you probably should ignore Shell's confusing post above; IMO Shell is just confused.
When you do go to buy a DSLR, note that there is always a delay from the time any brand new DSLR is introduced until various software supports the new model's RAW conversions. Different RAW converters variously show up sooner/later, and different RAW converters work better/worse with different models. E.g. Adobe's Nikon D300 conversions are out now but apparently do not do a very good job.
Typically the time frame is 1-3 months, so the very earliest adopters of new models may have to wait a month or two to convert their RAW images. All good DSLRs have a RAW+JPEG capture choice, however, so even the earliest adopters can manage images immediately.
Safely storing 20,000+ images using a laptop as a base is complicated. No way around that reality. Aperture provides several mechanisms (vaults, projects, etc.) that assist in the the process, and there are regularly threads here on the topic.
-Allen Wicks -
So...Should I Continue Using Aperture's Library?
With 1.5's new feature to not contain all my photos within a single library file, should I leave my library as it is (after importing tonnes of photos) or should I move them all out into folders again?
Just curious, what are you going to do with YOUR library?With 1.5's new feature to not contain all my photos
within a single library file, should I leave my
library as it is (after importing tonnes of photos)
or should I move them all out into folders again?
Just curious, what are you going to do with YOUR
library?
I'm still going to keep using the images stored in the library, because I like having all my master image data along with versions and edits in a single place.
What I am really curious about is just what will happen when you edit an image externally if you are using a master outside the library. Currently Aperture makes a new master which is a TIFF or PSD file it sends to the external application. Will that master be placed alongside the master held outside the library, or will it always go in the library? Neither answer is really that great, and so I prefer to keep things inside the library outself for Aperture to manage.
If the mechanism for offline storge is that you migrate master files onto a DVD, then I would probably make use of the external storage in that way.
An interesting thought is that you could have virtual masters. Currently as my camera is not supported by Aperture I import 16-bit TIFF files. I could do desired adjustment and other work based on these TIFF files, then migrate them outside the library and simply delete them - I can always recreate the exact same TIFF files later from my RAW versions in case there was a future need for the ful-size version, so it would save some space (especally for images I am iffy about but do not dislike enough to remove). -
Why do I have both photoshop cc and photoshop cc (64 bit) in my menu? Which one should I be using?
Why do I have both photoshop cc and photoshop cc (64 bit) in my menu? Which one should I be using?
The majority of the time using the 64 bit version is better, since you have more resources available (ram)
If you need to run some older third party plugins that were only ever offered as 32 bit plugins, then the 32 bit version is the choice.
Or if you happen to use a scanner with twain, then the 32 bit version. -
Using Aperture as external editor for iPhoto
Hi all,
I could be classed as a "keen amatuer" I suppose. I import all my photos into iPhoto, and use it to publish photos to the web for family / friends.
I then import the "best" photos into Aperture so I can work my "magic".
I've recently returned from a very sunny Italy and I want to use Aperture's shadows / highlight editing to enhance a few pictures, then band these up onto the web using I photo.
I've set Aperture as my default editor in iPhoto, and when I double-click Aperture does open, but the photo I want to edit does not.
Is it possible to use Aperture in this way? If not, what are the best options for moving photos in and out of both of these apps? Also, I've not used Aperture's web publishing facilities. Are these as good (read "easy") as iPhoto?
I don't really want to make the move over to Aperture and completely remove iPhoto because the family know and like iPhoto to browse things.
Cheers for the help.
StuartOnce your Aperture photos are in iPhoto, they are shared just like any others in iPhoto.
If you're willing to make the switch, then once you switch over to Aperture (moving over all or some of your photos), delete and re-add them to iPhoto. Then you should see any Aperture made photos. Be sure they're added and copied over so when you delete from iPhoto, you're not deleting your only copy. -
Using Aperture with a Network Attached Storage (NAS)
Hi,
I would like to make my Aperture library accessible from severals Macs and for different users on these Macs --- not at the same time. The idea is that only one user from one Mac can use Aperture at a given time.
The basic idea is to install the Aperture library on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) --- either will all photos included or with all photos stored in a separated folder structure --- next to the library ("externally referenced masters").
The NAS I am planning to use is a QNAP TS 239 Pro II+, which will be attached to a Gigabit Ethernet network (to which all Macs are connected too). Following the reviews, the QNAP should be capable to deliver a read/write performance in the order of 70 Mb/s ... hence performance-wise there should be no problem.
I've read through various forums and found many messages telling that using Aperture with a NAS is not possible or at least not a good idea. The posts in the forum were partially a bit confusing; people were telling contradictory things. I also had the impression that the answers depend on the actual version of Aperture. Apple itself put in the release notes of Aperture 3.1.1 about Vaults: "Fixes an issue that could sometimes cause Aperture on a computer with Mac OS X v10.5.8 Leopard to stop responding while updating a vault stored on a network volume." Hence, it seems that Aperture 3.1.1 can work with a NAS ... at least it can use vaults that are stored on a NAS. On the other hand, it's exactly the topic of vaults where many people say that this does not work with a NAS ...
To clarify things, I try to get some clear and competent answers here. The questions are:
Can one store and use the Aperture library on a NAS (whose disk is formatted using a UNIX file system, e.g. EXT4) ?
If yes, does this work in both configurations: (a) with a library containing the masters, and (b) with a library with externally referenced masters (that are also located on the NAS) ?
If a user on a given Mac on the network has opened Aperture (and thus the library on the NAS), is this library the blocked for other users ? (That should ideally be the case.)
If it is NOT possible to use an Aperture library on the NAS, is it then possible to store it on an external, HFS+ formatted drive connected to the NAS via USB ? (QNAP allows to format its external drives with HFS+).
I know that putting everything on an iSCSI target volume on the NAS is a solution, but is iSCSCI properly working under OS X (10.6). I read that one has to install an iSCSI Initiator software first ... which is not from Apple itself.
What about Vaults: According to the Aperture 3.1.1 release notes, it seems to be possible to use vaults on a NAS ... is this really the case ?
Is usage of Aperture on a NAS depending on the file protocol used to transfer the data ? I read also that if one uses the AFP protocol (supported in a QNAP NAS) then everything's fine ... Is this the case ?
Thanks a lot in advance for any clear and correct answer!
RainerCan one store and use the Aperture library on a NAS (whose disk is formatted using a UNIX file system, e.g. EXT4) ?
Not reliably, no. You will encounter issues. You could use Mac OS X disk images on the server, mount them on a client, and work that way. Note only one machine can mount the disk image at a time.
If yes, does this work in both configurations: (a) with a library containing the masters, and (b) with a library with externally referenced masters (that are also located on the NAS) ?
(a) no (b) no.
If a user on a given Mac on the network has opened Aperture (and thus the library on the NAS), is this library the blocked for other users ? (That should ideally be the case.)
Aperture does no locking. There is a very high likelihood you will corrupt the library if you do this.
If it is NOT possible to use an Aperture library on the NAS, is it then possible to store it on an external, HFS+ formatted drive connected to the NAS via USB ? (QNAP allows to format its external drives with HFS+).
How would you be accessing it then? If it's over a file protocol (SMB or NFS or ...) it likely won't work.
I know that putting everything on an iSCSI target volume on the NAS is a solution, but is iSCSCI properly working under OS X (10.6). I read that one has to install an iSCSI Initiator software first ... which is not from Apple itself.
Right. There is no Apple-provided iSCSI initator. I don't know how well 3rd party initators work.
What about Vaults: According to the Aperture 3.1.1 release notes, it seems to be possible to use vaults on a NAS ... is this really the case ?
I've done vaults reliably for years using a Mac OS X disk image stored on the NAS, that I mount before backing up. I wouldn't do it "naked" (i.e. stored directly on the NAS).
Is usage of Aperture on a NAS depending on the file protocol used to transfer the data ? I read also that if one uses the AFP protocol (supported in a QNAP NAS) then everything's fine ... Is this the case ?
AFP might have a better chance than other protocols but... frankly... it's a bad idea. If you MUST share a library across many machines, use something like a Promise DS4600 (direct attached) and plug it into a machine when you're using it. -
Using Aperture via Remote Desktop
Hi everyone,
I'll post this message in both the Aperture and Remote Desktop discussions.
I work for a photographer who's looking at doing some high volume shoots overseas. Budget doesn't allow me to travel with him so I want to find out how easy it would be for me to process images in Aperture via the internet and Remote Desktop.
Am I correct in thinking that once setup, and with both computers hooked up to a broadband internet connection, I'd be able to connect to his laptop and begin working with Aperture fairly easily? Sure, he'd need to import the images, but once that was done it'd be business as usual, right?
Thanks for your replies,
AndrewAndrew
I often use remote connections (either Mac to Mac using "Back To My Mac" or Mac to PC using Microsoft's "Remote Desktop Connection") but my experience is that these services are not 100% dependable...
I usually use remote desktop solutions between my 2 DSL connections, 1 at home and 1 in my studio. The smallest pipe I have either way is 4Mbps for my studio upload pipe (even this is not too shabby) but even though I control both ends of the connection I still cannot guarantee that the service is going to work. One day it does and the next it doesn't (or doesn't do so reliably)!
If the photographer for whom you work is going to be in public locations or locations where he does not have access to router settings (e.g. to ensure NAT is enabled) I think the safest assumption to make is that you should not rely on a remote desktop connection to be available.
As a professional photographer myself, I realise this may affect your workflow but assuming you both have broadband speeds it is probably better to share projects via a dropbox solution such as iDisk on MobileMe or DropBox...
best
Raf -
I currently use Aperture. I understand Adobe is developing a conversion to Lightroom. I currently store all my photos on an external RAID server and I want to continue to do so. Is this allowed with Creative Cloud?
So, what if I (1) connected an external hard drive to my wi-fi router so I could remote access pics w/a network connection-- this way even my wife's macbook could connect to it, creating our own cloud.
A strong warning: If you're trying to edit the Library (that is, make albums, move photos around, keyword, make books or slideshows etc.) or edit individual photos in it via Wireless be very careful. Dropouts are a common fact of wireless networking, and should one occur while the app is writing to the database then your Library will be damaged. Simply, I would not do this with my Libraries.
Or (2) had a way to save the most recent 6mo on my locally and the rest on said external HD?
Make sure the drive is formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
1. Quit iPhoto
2. Copy the iPhoto Library from your Pictures Folder to the External Disk.
Now you have two full versions of the Library.
3. On the Internal library, trash the Events you don't want there
Now you have a full copy of the Library on the External and a smaller subset on the Internal
Some Notes:
As a general rule: when deleting photos do them in batches of about 100 at a time. iPhoto can baulk at trashing large numbers at one go.
You can choose which Library to open: Hold down the option (or alt) key key and launch iPhoto. From the resulting menu select 'Choose Library'
You can keep the Library on the external updated with new imports using iPhoto Library Manager
how do you keep photos accessible in iPhoto when your HD is full?
Move the Library to an external disk - see above.
Do you just switch to Aperture and have multiple libraries?
Aperture uses as much space as iPhoto and both can do multiple libraries.
Regards
TD -
My wife and I have a family account at Verizon and are thinking of both getting the IPhone 4S. My question is can we both use all of the features of Icloud with one account at Verizon or do we need to have separate accounts?
If Mail in Mavericks is the same as earlier versions you can select accounts in the sidebar, so that you can either display the inboxes for individual accounts, or the contents of all the account inboxes. (If the accounts don't show click the disclosure triangle next to 'INBOX'). The layout may have changed since the version I have - Snow Leopard - but you should be able to do the same thing.
-
Can I use aperture library on more than one machine
My situation is thus:
I have a Macbook Pro on which my Aperture Library resides, in wherever Aperture decided to put it when I bought the software.
I now have a iMac, which obviously will be better than the Macbook for photo editing.
But I want to be able to take my Aperture Library with me when I take the Macbook out and about, and if necesary still edit on the Macbook.
Is there any way to share the Aperture Library, so that I can edit on the iMac, but leave the library on the Macbook, and then edit on the Macbook if I wish.
I am the only user, and will only be using Aperture on one machine at any one time.
I have searched archives but not managed to find the answer.Is it possible to simply share the directory that contains the necessary file(s).
If your Library is in the location that aperture picks by default, then it will be in your "Pictures" folder - look for a file with a name like "Aperture Library. aplibrary".
What you will need to share depends on your import strategy for the master images. If you use managed masters, and all your master images reside inside the Aperture library, then you simply need to make this library file accessible or copy it to an external disk.
If on the other hand your masters are referenced, then I would recommend to consolidate them into the library before you share the library and then share the consolidated library.
If you will share your library over the network or just by moving it to an external device is really up to you, but you might consider the following pros and cons:
- If you want to profit from the faster CPU on your iMac, then you should keep the library on the fastes volume that is available, and a network volume might be much slower than a directly connected volume.
- if the network fails during a critical operation your library might get corrupted, if it resides on a network volume - there have been quite a few problems reported in this forum.
That is why I suggested to use your Macbook as directly mounted external volume, that leaves the library in its place on the Macbook Pro - no need to copy - and you have a very quick and stable connection, but the decision is yours to make. You will have to be comfortable with the workflow you choose.
HTH
Léonie -
I just bought a new MacBook Pro. I managed to transfer everything from my older MacBook Pro to the new one. Both use Snow Leopard, the latest update.
My new one has the newest trackpad, the old one, no.
I'm have big problems using Text Edit on the new laptop--the curser does not go where I want it to go for editing, I cannot get the text to be a clear or as large
as with the older Laptop. Similarly, I cannot find a way to enlarge the menu bar. But the text edit is my biggest problem right now. I have reviewed all the preferences, particularly those in Universal Access, to no avail.
I finally gave up, used dropbox to send the text edit document to my old laptop, and continued with ease. But this is not the way it should work. I bought the
new laptop because the old one is showing signs of age.....
Is there something wrong with Text Edit while using the new trackpad?Thanks, Sig.
The old computer is a 2.6 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
The new one is a 2.3 GHz intel core i7
In going over this, thanks to "tallking it out" with you, I did discover the Text Edit problem. Because I've still been unable to get the new computer text size (fonts or whatever) to match the old computer, I did not notice that the curser is now different--the line midway down the curser has to be placed on the line I am working upon, otherwise the edits go elsewhere on the page. Now, with a bit of difficulty, I am able to get Text Edit to work correctly.
If you have any ideas as to why my menu bar and Text Edit type are still so slow, I'd love to have them.
(I went through the process you suggested earlier, re my Trackpad preferences, and found no improvement.) -
I wonder how pro photographers use aperture?I shoot raw and my harddrive is alreay full.I'm not able to import new pictures. I don't know what to do. I created a vault. My plan was to create a vault(put all my master files into an external harddrive) and then delete all my projects in my mac pro's harddrive. Is it the correct way to do it ? What should I do if I have thousands of raw files ? How should my workflow be? Can I use an external HD and use aperture through the vault,without keeping the master files on my computer's hard drive?? Or should I shoot raw+jpeg and store raw files in an external backup harddrive and import only jpegs into my aperture library?
There's a bit to learn. It will slowly make sense.
Aperture is an empty field. You're given a tractor and a whole bunch of attachments. What you grow, how, and where, is entirely up to you.
Vaults are for back-up and only for back-up. They have nothing to do with storing your working files.
When your Library outgrows your system drive (and for good performance, you should leave c. 20% of every drive empty), it's time to convert some of your image's Masters from Managed to Referenced. ("Managed" and "Referenced" refer to Masters, not to Libraries.)
There are hundreds of posts in the forum, and several pages in the User Manual on using Masters.
Many people run Aperture with the Library on their system disk, and most (or all) of their images' Masters on external FW drives. This is a good set-up. Note that you will likely have to take steps to back-up the data on your external drives.
If you do the above, there should be no reason to delete any Projects.
The choice of RAW or RAW+JPEG or JPEG depends on the kind of work you are doing. I capture RAW only -- but I don't do any commercial shoots. Pros on deadlines report that the RAW+JPEG works well for them. Capture JPEG if it saves you time. IMHO, there is not a good reason to shoot JPEG to save space (space is cheap; time expensive).
Short-term solution: buy and use a FW800 external 1 TB drive, formatted "Mac OS Extended (Journaled)", and using Aperture relocate the Masters of all images older than 30 days to that drive. (Be sure to change your back-up strategy to include this new drive; you may need a second new drive.)
This general post of mine might help you understand more about Aperture. -
OK to use Aperture to maintain iPhoto Referenced Library
I have Aperture and iPhoto. We are an OSX and Windows household. But thanks to the Windows 8 debacle, my wife (the diehard Windows user) has abandoned her PC with all regard to photos and videos (viewing, editing, sharing). Now, I use Aperture most of the time, but my wife uses iPhoto 100% of the time. I manage all the imports with Aperture. (I currently have one referenced library that I use in Aperture of all files and a second default iPhoto Library that is managed but only has post-2010 files in it. Both created in their respective programs, if that matters.)
Coincidentally, we are also at a point where we need to quit adding photos/videos to the PC or we'll exceed its backup capacity.
Now that she is using the iMac, I would like to get the Library organized and minimize my workflow and eliminate duplication. I do not have enough contiguous disk space for single managed aperture library. I have avoided proceeding because iPhoto and referenced files are not recommended by most of the experts here, for well founded reasons. However, now that both apps can use the same library, and Aperture handles referenced libraries so much better... why not go referenced now? I can leave the pre-2010 files on the PC, and keep all the post-2010 imports on the iMac, all in one Library. The fact that nobody is getting into the files on the PC virtually eliminates all the problems I've had in the past.
Is there something I'm missing?
Thanks for any thoughts on this, or hidden gotchas.No assuming that you have the latest version of both iPhoto and Aperture so there is total interoperability between them
LN -
I have been using Aperture 3.3.2 with Mac OS-X 10.7.5. This version doesn't support RAW with Nikon D7100, so I decided to upgrade to 3.4. On downloading, it tells me that in order to upgrade, I need Aperture Version 3, which is what I have. What is one supposed to do??
Have you moved or renamed your Aperture 3 version? If it is not installed in the "Applications" folder or not named simply "Aperture", then Software Update will not recognize it.
Put Aperture back and "Software Update" should find your version.
Regards
Léonie -
Image quality of slide shows using Aperture 3 seems inferior to iPhoto '08
I haven't previously used Aperture. I've been using a copy of iPhoto '08 for several years. I've shot everything in RAW for the last several years and process it in
DXO on my Mac Pro (3 1/2 years old with 7 gigs of RAM). I then load the jpegs into iPhoto '08.
I downloaded Aperture 3 yesterday, and it certainly is impressive in what it can do for improving existing jpegs. I think I could do most touch-ups with Aperture
instead of Photoshop 3. Because of some glitch, I couldn't load or link to my 37,000 images from iPhoto but I did export about 4000 images as full jpegs into
a separate file and then imported these images into Aperture. Touch-ups are an order of magnitude better that trying to use iPhoto to do the same.
I'm an amateur and aside from a fair amount of print making and a few thousand images uploaded to a new Picasa account
http://picasaweb.google.com/jamesn88888
I enjoy a lot of my images via slide shows on my 23" Apple monitor, usually sequenced at 3 seconds per slide.
Comparing slide shows of identical jpegs run with iPhoto '08 and then with the files uploaded to Aperture 3 there is a very subtle loss of definition with Aperture. It's not so
obvious when viewing relatively large detail but is is very noticeable when running slides containing small detail. When both of these programs are just used to display static images full screen I note no difference in readability. Someone suggested that I check the preferences for preview displays. Sure enough, it was set for relatively low quality. I decided to re-do all 4000 images maximum preview display quality.
Using the import settings that came already selected on the trial software, the total size of my
Aperture 3 trial library was a little over 25 GB. The quality of the slide shows did not approximate
the quality of the slide shows of the identical jpegs included in my iPhoto '08 library.
I therefore re-processed all of the previews to the "don't limit" in the photo preferences. The total size of my Aperture 3 trial library grew from 25GB to 41.37GB, an increase of 17 GB. With 3926 jpegs in the library that means the average additional size added to each preview image was 4.33 Megabytes. Inasmuch as the original jpeg images that I imported into Aperture 3 were more in the neighborhood of 1.7 to 3.5 Megabytes each (I have DXO output most jpegs @ 90% quality- fine for my purposes), this is an extreme measure to take in order to be able to use Aperture 3 the same way that I used iPhoto '08. In comparing slide shows between the two applications I still get the feeling that there is a very slight loss in acutance when viewing the slide shows. iPhoto still wins out.
I think that I'm better off staying with iPhoto and continuing to do the RAW processing with DXO and slight file modifications with iPhoto. More elaborate changes can continue to be done using Photoshop 3 and Viveza. It's a shame, because I really like the image processing abilities that are contained in the new Aperture.
Have any of you compared slide show views on your computer between Aperture and iPhoto?
Is there any workaround for best slide show viewing- importing or referencing my existing iPhoto library of 37,000 images does not work for me. My copy of iPhoto 7.1.5 get the message that Aperture cannot import or link to iPhoto earlier than 7.1.5 (?)I think I've solved my problem with a Google Search. I came across a free slide show generator
(contributions requested) that shows much higher quality slide shows than either iPhoto or Aperture 3.
You click on a folder of jpegs and it almost immediately generates thumbnails and within a few seconds
I can be viewing a full screen, tack sharp, slideshow of all of the files in the folder. Much sharper than
I'm used to seeing.
I think I'll keep the Aperture 3 and use if for the purpose it's intended for in the future. I'll also redo the
image preview files to the small size it started with and then I'll copy all of the files I'm interested in from
iPhoto into a separate folder on another disk. I'll use Aperture to catalog and to perform image manipulations
on but I won't try to use it as an iPhoto replacement. I don't think I'll be using iPhoto much as an image
viewer in the future either after I finish moving my favorite pictures to the Phoenix Slides folder.
The name of the free program is Phoenix Slides. It's free to download and try, free to keep (though I
think you'd want to pay the small amount requested) and fast. My pictures have never looked so good
before.
http://blyt.net/phxslides/
Message was edited by: Jimbo2001
Maybe you are looking for
-
Windows Update Error Code 80072F8F! I Did All The Steps And Will Not Fix Please HELP?
No one seems they can not help me fix this error code I did many things and not one person has really helped me, I have a question at another forum but all they do is just ask me questions tell me steps to fix this but nothing worked at all, This hap
-
Select a Project in the Library Inspector from Projects View -- now broken?
The new interface is missing something I used to use all the time. In Olde Aperture (3.3.1), double-clicking any selected Project(s) in Projects View showed the contents of that (those) Project(s) in the Browser and selected them in the Library tab
-
So I plugged my ipod into my computer and even itunes does not detect my ipod. The update seems to be my download and restore did not work either. Thank you for your help.
-
While importing any RFC from R3 to IR getting error -> The function module "DD_DOMA_GET" not released for 'remote' calls. I got solution from forum. 1. Is FM DD_DOMA_GET remote enabled.Please change the DD_DOMA_GET to remote-enable. 2. Then Try to im
-
Encrypt fields in Oracle 8.1.6 ??
Hi. Has anyone tip how to encrypt a field in oracle 8.1.6. /Christer