Why is LR5 catalog better than PSE 12 Organiser?

Hi/
I have started using a trial version of LR5.
I have been a regular user of various versions of PSE over the years.
Generally, I have been happy with the organiser, & have various tags nested in each-other.
I have never had a problem with it being unstable, & can normally find what I am looking for,
(provided that I have correctly tagged it in the first place :-)
My first impression of the LR5 catalogue is that it is not as intuitive.
I have searched on-line for how to set-up the catalogue & much of the discussion relates to how many catalogues to have. - I've already made that decision - Just the one:
So? What features am I missing in the LR5 catalogue that make it better than the Elements Organiser?
What do you think?

I am also a happy user of the Organizer, but I also use LR 4.4.
What I find interesting in LR:
- huge amount of possible customization and options (if you need them...)
- Ability to manage jpegs just as raws (the organizer does not let you open jpegs in acr, )
- Smart ways to manage variants without copying files (virtual copies)
- More advanced metadata management
- possibility to merge catalogs
- Much more support by Adobe and user forums
- More advanced options in output in the latest versions
What can be debated is the difficulty of the learning curve as well as the 'robustness' of the software. The organizer was plagued with many bugs (it was already there many years before LR.) The problem is that having many more options makes LR much more complex. For instance the database has three times the number of tables. The result is that the LR forums are full of complaints about bugs or missing features... just because it is too rich and tries to satisfy everybody's needs.
Many cases of problems with the Organizer are related to the backup function which backs up both pictures and catalogs. Lr only backup catalogs. Backing up pictures is your responsability. If you have problems, it's not LR's fault, it's yours .
I can't find a post I made to show the possible advantages of the organizer, but that was just for the fun.

Similar Messages

HT5731 why is apple tv better than netflix?

why is apple tv better than netflix?

Hi s13579,
Welcome to the Support Communities!
The following information will explain what the Apple TV is. Netflix is one of the services available on the Apple TV.
Apple - Apple TV - HD iTunes content and more on your TV.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/
Apple - Apple TV - Access iTunes, Netflix, and more on your HDTV.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/whats-on/
Watch everything from classics to recent Hollywood blockbusters to original programming like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black.5 Apple TV organizes the huge catalog of streaming titles from Netflix so you can find what you want fast.
I hope this information helps ....
Happy Holidays!
- Judy

Why is hyper-v better than virtualbox?

We have 4-5 people in a software development environment with access to 4 servers, each with 2 quad-core or dual-core cpu's (core-based, before nehalem), and 8gb or 16gb RAM, so I think we have a good amount of power for virtualization. Total, we have a
team foundation server, oracle server, web server, 2 virtualization servers, and multiple workstations, some virtualized, some not.
When we started virtualizing about a year ago, for whatever reason, and although everyone has an MSDN sub, we started using VirtualBox instead of Hyper-V. I'm no expert (and that's why I'm here) but I think they operate at different levels of interaction
with the hardware, and that VirtualBox is a bad idea for this environment.
Can someone give some good reasons why we should be using Hyper-V? Also is it possible to convert the virtual machines?
And then I would like to know if it's okay to also be virtualizing our web server and oracle server, etc. We have only been virtualizing workstations. I think we really need to make good use of virtualization if we are going to be doing it at all.
Advice welcome also for virtualization best practices, backups, management, infrastructure design, etc. I would like to start with a domain controller, and maybe a Lync server so we can share desktops, etc. Thanks for all input!

In my opinion Hyper-V is only better if your using Hyper-V to host servers, like Microsoft SharePoint, Active Directory, Sql Server, or even MySql to provide resources.
If you intend to be using Virtualizatio to develop software, like Working with SharePoint from a developer standpoint, building asp.net web applications, or even doing C++, desktop applications, or Android, Php etc, if you are going to be physically on the
VM using it as your environment to write code and design, then Oracle VirtualBox is better than Hyper-V.
With hyper-v your limited to using The Connect console, or Remote Desktop Protocol to see the virtual machine. The RDP console leaves much to be desired. It only gives you the option to use all of your monitors or one, it won't do 2 if you have
3. I like to use my third monitor to keep my email open, and pdf documentation, or word documents and use the other two monitors for my VM so I can see multiple code windows in Visual Studio at the same time (VS2010). Oracle handles multi monitors
so much better. And if I want to surface an adroid phone through USB to my VM, oracle is the only way to go there, or maybe VMWare, but VirtualBox is free.
However, Hyper-V is now native to Windows 8 desktop version and windows 8 server version. And most companies dealing with microsoft products use Hyper-V for their VM's, so from a multi developer environment, it makes sense for us to use Hyper-V with
windows 8 because all of our servers run on Hyper-V. If we need to troubleshoot something we can grab a copy of the latest server VM backup and spin it up locally on Hyper-V with windows 8 without having to do any conversions.
But from a developer standpoint it is really hard for me to leave VirtualBox. If RDP could work my 2 of my monitors and not all 3 or 4 of them I would have no complaints. Third part RDP sofware isn't any better, it could never compare to the
deep integration and speed of windows RDP. My main issue is, if RDP can do all of my monitors why can't it do just 2 of them, seems like a big thing to leave out in my opinion, it's so frustrating. It's such an awesome part of windows with such
a huge annoying handicap. I've actually thought about just having another computer for my third monitor, like a tablet or something on a stand. Sure you can SPAN a monitor in Windows so it acts like one monitor and I can tell RDP to go full screen
but it has a width limit and then I need extra software on the VM to handle the big resolution like 2 screens instead of one.
My Blog: http://www.thesug.org/Blogs/ryan_mann1/default.aspx Website: Under Construction

Why SAP ERP is Better than ORACLE ERP?????

Hi expert I need some help about the comparison study between SAP and Oracle.
One of our WOOD plantation Client have some confusion between two ERP packages.Oracle have approached them . So how can we convince them to do SAP ERP. If you have some ppt or any material please send it to me . Its urgent.
Another thing that how SAP FI is better than Oracle FI for any Wood Plantation Company.
If you gyes have any win story over Wood Plantation company then please give it to me.
Thnaks Experts for your kind Considuration

Dear Pratik,
You can find the points for your presentation from the link:
http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid41_gci1173173,00.html#
Well, you need to convince your client that ERP is not all about cost of implementation. There are many other areas that you need to look at - availabilty of trained staff - complexity of business processes - does your existing data/processes map into one better than the other - are you happy going Oracle Oracle or would you prefer SAP with some other database.
You can add that the majority of transactions in vanilla Oracle are more difficult than in SAP. SAP can be configured to support most of the business processes without coding.
Let me know in case of any specific queries.
Regards,
Rakesh

Why are two queries better than one

I'm trying to help out our developers who are struggling with the performance of a very simple select statmenent that for some reason is exhibiting some very inexplicable results.
I'll show the SQL as a single statement first.....
select * from transaction1 t where t.hid in (select distinct h.hid from history1 h,filter1 f where h.fid = f.fid and f.match='value');
transaction 1 has 250k records, history1 has about 100k as does filter1. We know generally the subselect will only return a total of half a dozen or less records (only 1 in our testing here).
Running the above query takes around 7 seconds.
Changing this to a with clause.....
WITH a as (select distinct h.hid from history1 h,filter1 f where h.fid = f.fid and f.match='value') select * from transaction1 t where t,hid in (select a.hid from a);
and the runtime drops to 3 seconds. But then re-running the first statement again also now takes 3 seconds (so I guess there's some caching going on there).
Now what really puzzles is if we split this into two queries.....
select distinct h.hid from history1 h,filter1 f where h.fid = f.fid and f.match='value';
This takes .1 of a second,
select * from transaction1 t where t.hid in (12345);
And this takes .1 of a second.
So why when run seperately are they so fast, yet combined they take so long. I'm a bit baffled by this. We've rewritten the same SQL in half a dozen different ways with the same result and also done the same thing with other tables as well. Is it an optimisation issue?

Appologies for not following protocol, my first time posting on here.
Oracle 10g clustered.
We have limited access as it's a customers server, but the explain plan comes back as....
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 898894568
| Id | Operation            | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)|Time     |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT     |                   | 49553 |    37M| 7075   (2)|00:01:25 |
|* 1 | HASH JOIN RIGHT SEMI|                   | 49553 |    37M| 7075   (2)|00:01:25 |
|   2 |   VIEW               | VW_NSO_1          | 26131 |   331K|   476   (4)|00:00:06 |
|* 3 |    HASH JOIN         |                   | 26131 |   791K|   476   (4)|00:00:06 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
|* 4 |     TABLE ACCESS FULL| FILTER1           | 26131 |   484K|   246   (4)|00:00:03 |
|   5 |     TABLE ACCESS FULL| HISTORY1          |   104K| 1225K|   227   (3)|00:00:03 |
|   6 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL | TRANSACTION1      |   199K|   150M| 6593   (1)|00:01:20 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   1 - access("T"."TID"="$nso_col_1")
   3 - access("H"."HID"="F"."ID")
   4 - filter("F"."MATCH"='value')
20 rows selectedI'll admit, I'm not completely clear on what I'm reading here, other than the fact there are some big differences in the timing values
We don't have privaleges to run trace, so I'm a bit stuffed there as I'm on the clients site, however I will get my developers to try this on our local server.
Edited by: user1410957 on 15-Sep-2009 06:14

Why iSO7 is not better than its predecessor ?

my iphone working real slow since upgread, why apple did not create bett

kula78 wrote:
it would be more approprite to take the customer feedback on apple website itself iSO 6 Vs iSO7 certainly I win - thanks alot for instant reply, am trying to be more constructive here, looking forward to see more improvements !!!
I think you misunderstand the purpose of this site. This is a user-to-user technical support forum. Apple rarely participates here. Your opinion is no more or less important than mine or anyone elses. No one here is required to agree with you or act on your opinion. You've been given your technical support options.
If you want to submit feedback to Apple, use the Feedback page:
http://www.apple.com/feedback

Is PSE 9 Better Than PSE 8

I have had problems with PSE 8 and Windows 7 HP with Windows Live Mail 2011 with image sharing by email attachment. If I upgrade to PSE 9 will my problems go away? I have just listened/seen an Adobe tutorial that makes sharing images by email attachment using PSE 9 easy. They did not comment on what OS was used but did say Windows Live Mail was ok.
What is Adobe's refund policy?

Generally PSE9 is said to support the following mail programs in addition to Outlook and the Adobe Mail Service:
Windows XP- Outlook Express
Windows Vista - Windows Mail
Windows 7 - Windows Live Mail (not Windows Live Essentials 2011)
Mac OS - Mail or Microsoft Entourage
Adobe suggests uninstalling Live Mail 2011 and using the earlier version. However I would not recommend this backward step. The email problems started with PSE8 and unfortunately have not been corrected. Also the Adobe Mail Service has suffered big problems. Click on support and record a case.

Why HCM Extracts is better than HCM BI Report?

Hi All,
I have simple question that why we use HCM extracts at time extracting data from HCM?
any suggestion will be helpful to me.
Thanks & Regards,
Shramistha

Hi Shramshitha,
The main difference is that using HCM extract you can prepare changes only reports, but you cant do the same in BI unless you have access to database.
Thanks,
Vinod

Why is Private Browsing better than just clearing History daily?

I heard that you should do your online banking and other financial activities in Private Browsing mode. I always clear history when I turn off the computer anyway. And getting the Private Browsing to accept my previously bookmarked locations has been unsuccessful. I can re-bookmark from Private Browsing, of course. But I just wondered if this is really necessary, or more for folks with computers on networks, or shared computers?
You may not get at my computer--troubleshooting information. I'm using Windows 7 operating system and the latest version of Mozilla Firefox.

You aren't on the latest version of Firefox, please update to Firefox 22 [[Update Firefox to the latest version]] (you are on Firefox 21).
There is no real difference between using Private Browsing and clearing your history everyday, it's just personal preference around workflows.

Why RBO might be better than CBO ?

Hi ,
I have a query that references 4 base tables , indexes have been created and analyzed
but when using CBO it's is very slow and it's fast when using the RULE hints.
is this something to do with the logic of the query ?
pls advise
tks & rdgs

hi ,
fyi its the same queries with 2 mode
-- using CHOOSE
SELECT
PT.PT_ID,
PD_INST.CALL_PD_NAME,
RCP.RCP_ID,
RCP.RCP_TITLE,
PD.PD_TITLE,
RCP.EQP_TYPE
FROM
PT,
PD_INST,
RCP,
PD,
PD_INST_RS
WHERE
( PT.PT_ID = PD_INST.PD_ID )
AND ( PD.PD_ID = PD_INST_RS.PD_ID )
AND ( (RCP.RCP_NAME = PD_INST_RS.RCP_NAME) AND (RCP.RCP_AF = 'A') )
AND ( (PD.PD_ID LIKE PD_INST.CALL_PD_NAME || '.%') AND (PD.PD_AF = 'A') )
AND (
( PT.PT_AF = 'A' )
AND ( PT.OF <> 'Y' )
AND ( PD.PD_AF = 'A' )
AND ( PD.OF <> 'Y' )
AND ( RCP.RCP_AF = 'A' )
AND ( RCP.OF <> 'Y' )
AND PD_INST.INST_NUM = 'ab3e12'
AND ( PD_INST_RS.HIE = 'Y' )
AND ( PD_INST_RS.MP = 'Y' )
AND PT.PRODSTATUS = 'A'
SELECT STATEMENT, GOAL = CHOOSE     Cardinality=1     Cost=268     Optimizer=CHOOSE
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID     Cardinality=139     Cost=2     Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD_INST
NESTED LOOPS     Cardinality=1     Cost=268
   MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN     Cardinality=4     Cost=267
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID     Cardinality=1     Cost=3     Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD_INST_RS
     NESTED LOOPS     Cardinality=1     Cost=181
      MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN     Cardinality=29     Cost=111
       TABLE ACCESS FULL     Cardinality=1     Cost=25     Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=RCP
       BUFFER SORT     Cardinality=67     Cost=86
        TABLE ACCESS FULL     Cardinality=67     Cost=86     Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD
      INDEX RANGE SCAN     Cardinality=227     Cost=3     Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD_INST_RS_PK
    BUFFER SORT     Cardinality=165     Cost=264
     TABLE ACCESS FULL     Cardinality=165     Cost=86     Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PT
   INDEX RANGE SCAN     Cardinality=1     Cost=2     Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD_INST_PK
-- using RULE
SELECT /*+ RULE */
PT.PT_ID,
PD_INST.CALL_PD_NAME,
RCP.RCP_ID,
RCP.RCP_TITLE,
PD.PD_TITLE,
RCP.EQP_TYPE
FROM
PT,
PD_INST,
RCP,
PD,
PD_INST_RS
WHERE
( PT.PT_ID = PD_INST.PD_ID )
AND ( PD.PD_ID = PD_INST_RS.PD_ID )
AND ( (RCP.RCP_NAME = PD_INST_RS.RCP_NAME) AND (RCP.RCP_AF = 'A') )
AND ( (PD.PD_ID LIKE PD_INST.CALL_PD_NAME || '.%') AND (PD.PD_AF = 'A') )
AND (
( PT.PT_AF = 'A' )
AND ( PT.OF <> 'Y' )
AND ( PD.PD_AF = 'A' )
AND ( PD.OF <> 'Y' )
AND ( RCP.RCP_AF = 'A' )
AND ( RCP.OF <> 'Y' )
AND PD_INST.INST_NUM = 'ab3e12'
AND ( PD_INST_RS.HIE = 'Y' )
AND ( PD_INST_RS.MP = 'Y' )
AND PT.PRODSTATUS = 'A'
SELECT STATEMENT, GOAL = HINT: RULE               Optimizer=HINT: RULE
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=RCP
NESTED LOOPS
   NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
     NESTED LOOPS
      TABLE ACCESS FULL               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD_INST
      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PT
       INDEX UNIQUE SCAN               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PT_PK
     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD
      INDEX RANGE SCAN               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD_IK03
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD_INST_RS
     INDEX RANGE SCAN               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=PD_INST_RS_PK
   INDEX RANGE SCAN               Optimizer=ANALYZED     Object name=RCP_NDX_1tks & rgds

Why are Ipod Apps better than Iphone Apps?

There are some really nice apps available to the ipod touch that aren't available to the Iphone. Go search Ipod apps in the Itunes store and you will see what I am talking about. How come the same apps aren't available for both devices?

oops, they are not on the touch they are for the nano, and reg ipod. Still I am sure there is a way to develope them for the iphone.

Its the nano better than the mini?????

why is the nano better than the mini?? if it is???

well, it IS smaller! I find the Mini's screen easier for my old eyes to read. I have NO personal experience (other than holding and playing with a Nano in the store) with a Nano, as I'm waiting for Apple to improve scratch resistance before I buy one. IF they don't, I won't. Other than a minor problem of distortion when using the bass boost EQ on a Mini, I'm not aware of any pervasive issues with them. My wife's works like a charm. I'm a 40GB iPod owner myself. It works great, also. having said that, I'd still like a Nano IF APPLE TOUGHENS UP THE CASE.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Why Annyconecct is better than vpn client ?

why anyconnect is better than cisco vpn client ?
what is its advangatges ?
i think that both are remoteaccess vpn .
why its better ?

The other thing is that, Cisco does not support traditional VPN on Windows 8.X. I have run in to lots of issues trying to install Cisco VPN client on Windows 8.x clients.. it sometimes work and sometimes it needs registry hacks etc.. really painful setup for the network engineer. So Anyconnect is preffered.
Also, since SSL uses port 443/SSL by default, it does not need any ALG (Application Layer Gateway) functionality in remote end user's routers to operate, and will simply work with normal PAT which is always on.. with traditional IPSec VPN, since it uses ESP, you need to have AGL turned on on the user's GW router (this is normally called IPSec VPN pass through mode) and this sometimes doesn't work the way you want specially on the older residential routers. When this happens you really don't have any other option for those users.. and your only response would be "Sorry your router does not support this kind of VPN or your router does something strange with the VPN so Please upgrade your router" which is something the normal residential user don't want to hear.. and something you want to tell them..
So SSL VPN is the way to go..
please rate helpful posts :)

Why does my iBook connect to WiFi better than my much faster Macbook?

Why does my iBook connect to WiFi better than my much faster Macbook?

Because it has a RISC processor. Just brag about all the MHz or even GHz while you are waiting like other Intel users. Using my trusty G4 rather than MBP becase its simply faster.
/usr/bin/gcc-4.4 -mcpu=G4 -mpowerpc-gfxopt -maltivec -mabi=altivec -fsigned-char

Why is LR5 catalog better than PSE 12 Organiser?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for