or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Picasa is so much better than iPhoto
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Picasa is so much better than iPhoto - Page 3

post #81 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by dutch pear
There are rumors on the net that Google has bought startup company Riya
If Riya's promise holds true, this would really, really improve the usability of meta-data in consumer-picture software.

Interesting technology...I'm sure that eventually there will be some complex algorithms that will automatically tag metadata onto a photo by analyzing it's content. I guess Riya can figure out *who* is on the photo (although I'd like to see the robustness of this...ie what happens when someone makes a silly face, or the picture is a little fuzzy, or the face is half covered, etc.)
post #82 of 151
Guys can someone tell me where can I download from this Picasa 2 or Picasa for Mac OS X?

On the Google site only the PC version is available, and it sais that the Mac one isn't available yet.

10q
post #83 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Artanis
Guys can someone tell me where can I download from this icasa 2 or Picasa for Mac OS X?

It does not exist, that's the whole point of this thread.
post #84 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by mikef
It does not exist, that's the whole point of this thread.

ok, sorry.
post #85 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Project2501
Second thing is securing, if there is something I don't want to share with world it's in my FileVault protected home directory. Idea for password protected folders is sort of backwards thinking, you shouldn't be securing things that you don't want to share but sharing only the things you want. This is some thing Apple needs to sort out in future, how to wisely share things with others based on some simple rules, like share these pictures based on this rule to all users on this computer/all computers in LAN and so on. Apple hasn't yet figured out all the possibilities of metadata ideology, but at least they are one giant step ahead of Windows on this.

The problem is in securing everything. FileVault kinda sucks, IMHO. Why? Because when I'm low on hard drive space and I delete a bunch of files from my home directory, I have to reboot (or log out, I guess) to allow for FileVault to resize the sparse image so that I can take advantage of the space I just freed up. While I'm not blaming Apple for this, because it is something that is inherent in the technology, we need technologies that allow us to seemlessly protect folders.

Also I think that it's kinda stupid that if I want to 'share' photos in iPhoto with someone. under your reasoning, I would have to create a new user account for them an copy the photos over in your scenario rather than just opening up iPhoto under my user account and showing them. By being able to 'lock' certain photos in iPhoto, you can prevent accidental viewing of photos that you want to remain private.

By your reasoning, I should put EVERYTHING in my house into one large vault. And then only take out the stuff that I want to share with others when I need to share it with them. And I shouldn't use a bank for my money either. Just one large vault for everything I own. That's overkill to me.

I don't think people should be required to run around encrypting individual files using GnuPG or PGP with a command-line interface or anything. It's possible to use encryption in a user-friendly manner. It's just that most people creating encryption software don't know UI design principles that well.
post #86 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Agreed, but if you're *only* doing an en masse back up, you *DON'T* care where files are stored, do you? When you're backing up your mail, for example, you don't care about which mail message is stored where, you just want all your mail backed up. I don't see a Backup feature *inside* Mail, nor would I expect to.

Well, I don't know about a backup feature within Mail.app, but there are a lot of people that would think that going into their ~/Library/ folder to backup their email is too hard.

Quote:
I think this way leads to the Kitchen Sink Mentality... and Windows UI design.

So, by Apple putting that inside iPhoto, EVERY iApp / Apple App will be like that? And all developers everywhere will turn their heads and follow Apple's lead? I hardly think so. My thinking is that Photo organization apps could be the exception to the rule, not the base-standard.

[quote][b]This is what I meant by lack of solid definitions for what people meant by backing up... to me, and to most people, backing up is a mirroring of the current state of *everything*.

Quote:

What I hear most people saying is "I want to move certain pictures aside for a while, but pull them back in later with preserved metadata". The term most often used for that is Archiving.

I'm not talking about archiving. Everything that I was originally talking about was not relating to removal of the photos from the iPhoto library at all. More like incremental backup. You can backup all your stuff now, and iPhoto keeps track of what was backed up. Then when you want to backup again, it will only backup what has changed since the last back up (I was originally just thinking about 'new photos,' but this discussion has forced me to think beyond that; I realized that previously backed up photos might still be editted in the future.)

Quote:

Again, clashing terminology. There's no reason to have a Backup feature in iPhoto, one in iTunes, one in iMovie, one in iDVD... when you can have a dedicated tool that only needs to know only a little bit about the file structure of each app. Think plugins into a backup tool.

I think that the plugins to a backup tool is a good idea. Something that can specifically access the libraries of iPhoto, iTunes, etc. Possibly have some way of defining a 'default backup tool' in OS X and then having a 'Backup' button in iPhoto that launches it or something? But that's beside the point.

I haven't used iMovie, or iDVD, but I was under the impression that they weren't managers of movie/dvd libraries. So those would be about as relevent as the MS Word example.

Quote:

Archiving is another issue, and one that I agree needs to be addressed, and *has* to be done from within iPhoto.

Archiving could be done with an external backup tool. It would just need a plugin allowing it to use the iPhoto library. But that only solves the 'putting it to disk and removing it' issue. There's also the issue of how iPhoto should handle the missing files? What if some of those files were in albums that still exist and have unarchived flies in them? Should the albums still be viewable in iPhoto, but with a message that says you need to 'Insert Archive Disc 2?'

Quote:
Ah, see, that's archiving. And it *is* a useful feature.

I wasn't talking about archiving at that point. Archiving assumes that the files are being 'moved' off disk/offsite/etc. I was just talking about burning them to disc.

Quote:
Er, if you're not concerned about metadata, here's an iPhoto route to the same thing, more or less:

Select pictures.
Export pictures to disc.
Tag pictures as exported.

Not as smooth, definitely, but I think it provides the backbone for the same functionality. Perhaps a quick Applescript over the top?

Perhaps a better interface for this in iPhoto. Like a 'tag as exported' check box in preferences or a pop-up when you export. Does export allow you to export directly to CD/DVD? That might be useful.

One comment also is that the 'snapshots'/backups could be stored in a way that would allow them to be used for other programs. (i.e. store them so that you don't have to sort through massive amounts of edits, duplicates, etc if you want to use the backup to put them onto a PC, or another photo library on the Mac.) Because what if you decide to use that backup sometime in the future when you no longer have iPhoto or OS X? Lessening the burden on the user would be nice. I wouldn't expect Apple to do this, but another backup program could.
post #87 of 151
I don't think Picasa is better than iPhoto. iPhoto is better than Picasa.

Number 1, Picasa has nothing like iPhoto's integration with OS X and iLife (and increasingly third party apps). I love being able to add a photo to my iPhoto library right from within an email window in OS X Mail (or right click on a photo in Safari and save it to iPhoto). Or choosing an iPhoto library to use as my desktop background from System Preferences. Or having iTunes load some of my photo albums into my new 60 gig iPod. Or having my iPhotos available in iMovie and iDVD. Third party developers -- For example, iSale ebay listing software - you can upload photos from iPhoto to ebay real easy.

Number 2, I love the book feature in iPhoto and use that all the time. I didn't see anything like that built into Picasa. Love the print ordering with iPhoto - no need to go to another website (that's slower)

Number 3, I like the storage system in iPhoto. The lack of multiple libraries is a minor thing for most people. Sure, if you need it maybe you hate iPhoto for that reason but that doesn't make Picasa a better program overall. Frankly, I think the way Picasa grabs photos from all over your drive is a bad idea because what happens if some folder gets deleted. Better to have the photos in a central place (and where they can't get mucked with). Also, backing up your iPhotos is a no brainer with Backup (.Mac). Everything's automated.

Number 4, support. I don't see any live person phone support for Picasa. When I buy a new mac, I get Applecare and can call them anytime for three years and get any issue with iPhoto resolved. Even without applecare, you can go to any apple retail store and get free help. I hate email only support - it's often useless and annoying.

Number 5, the way you can make the thumbnails bigger and smaller in iPhoto is really slick. Picasa can't seem to do that as smoothly and elegantly (I think that's more of a Windows issue, but still).
post #88 of 151
So you're pretty much ready to pay $400+ just to be able to organize and backup your pictures?

Hmm. Interesting.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #89 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So you're pretty much ready to pay $400+ just to be able to organize and backup your pictures?

Hmm. Interesting.

Where does the $400 come from? If it's .Mac, Applecare, iLife, you seem to be forgetting that you get more than "organizing and backing up your pictures" for the cost of those products.

Anyways, I thought this thread was about what's better, not what's cheaper. Granted, a $299 Dell desktop with a downloaded copy of Picasa is cheaper than a Mac with Applecare support and .Mac. But I know which I'm buying.

Oh, I forgot another reason why iPhoto is better than Picasa - Rendevous sharing of photo libraries among user accounts on the same mac and macs on your home network. This is really slick and you can even copy photos from shared libraries (unlike with iTunes).
post #90 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by curmi
Given spotlight, iPhoto could (potentially) be able to find all your images on your hard drive, and they just appear in iphoto almost instantly. So I would think an iPhoto for Tiger could work even better in this way.

It sounds like Picasa works better when used with a file system. Given that there is a trend away from that from Apple (and Microsoft) to this spotlight type thing, what does that mean?

I don't want all my images in iPhoto - just my photographs. Anyway I will be switching ti Aperture soon. yay!
post #91 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by mikef
It does not exist, that's the whole point of this thread.

" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #92 of 151
excellent - nice to see people reading the first few posts in a thread

post #93 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by cesjr
...
Number 3, I like the storage system in iPhoto. The lack of multiple libraries is a minor thing for most people. Sure, if you need it maybe you hate iPhoto for that reason but that doesn't make Picasa a better program overall. Frankly, I think the way Picasa grabs photos from all over your drive is a bad idea because what happens if some folder gets deleted. Better to have the photos in a central place (and where they can't get mucked with). Also, backing up your iPhotos is a no brainer with Backup (.Mac). Everything's automated.
...

First, i like your post, i fully agree with almost everything. Also,
backing up your iPhotos is a no brainer even with the Finder.
Drag the library onto another disk, burn it, done. What is wrong
with that?


Quote:
...
Number 5, the way you can make the thumbnails bigger and smaller in iPhoto is really slick. Picasa can't seem to do that as smoothly and elegantly (I think that's more of a Windows issue, but still).

This feature alone is priceless, imho
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #94 of 151
I have nothing constructive to add to the debate re: iPhoto vs. Picasa.

However, I will say that I absolutely detest iPhoto as an application. I've never been very satisfied with it minus some of its organizational features. Having said that, it's slow (1ghz Powerbook), buggy, and did I mention slow? Doing anything in iPhoto is a painful and often counter-intuitive process; it certainly is the sore thumb in the collection of excellent iApps.

A backup option would be quite nice considering one pays for iPhoto whereas Picasa is free.
post #95 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by pyr3

Also I think that it's kinda stupid that if I want to 'share' photos in iPhoto with someone. under your reasoning, I would have to create a new user account for them an copy the photos over in your scenario rather than just opening up iPhoto under my user account and showing them. By being able to 'lock' certain photos in iPhoto, you can prevent accidental viewing of photos that you want to remain private.

If it's you whos showing the fotos, why the hell do show pictures you don't want people to see????? Point was give your mother own acount and give her ability to see some pictures you choose.

Quote:
By your reasoning, I should put EVERYTHING in my house into one large vault. And then only take out the stuff that I want to share with others when I need to share it with them. And I shouldn't use a bank for my money either. Just one large vault for everything I own. That's overkill to me.

That vault is called your house, why leave doors open, when you can lock them. And give keys only to those peole you trust.

Quote:
I don't think people should be required to run around encrypting individual files using GnuPG or PGP with a command-line interface or anything. It's possible to use encryption in a user-friendly manner. It's just that most people creating encryption software don't know UI design principles that well.

Thats why we have FileVault.
post #96 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Project2501
Thats why we have FileVault.

I still wouldn't recommend using this.
post #97 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by cesjr
Where does the $400 come from?

$99 for .Mac (for backup) and around $300 for AppleCare for 3 years that you mentioned when you talked about support.

That's $400 dollars right there. Might as well get Aperture.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #98 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
$99 for .Mac (for backup) and around $300 for AppleCare for 3 years that you mentioned when you talked about support.

That's $400 dollars right there. Might as well get Aperture.

Aperture doesn't give you the warranty. Incidentally AppleCare varies depending on the computer you have. Desktops being cheaper than laptops.
post #99 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Aperture doesn't give you the warranty. Incidentally AppleCare varies depending on the computer you have. Desktops being cheaper than laptops.

And your point? It's not $400, but it's $350. So?

When you compare applications, it is necessary to compare them on equal grounds. Extras that will run you $400 give an advantage to app A, therefore making the comparison pointless.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #100 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by cesjr
Number 3, I like the storage system in iPhoto. The lack of multiple libraries is a minor thing for most people. Sure, if you need it maybe you hate iPhoto for that reason but that doesn't make Picasa a better program overall. Frankly, I think the way Picasa grabs photos from all over your drive is a bad idea because what happens if some folder gets deleted.

What happens is I restore from backup. You know, the thing iPhoto doesn't let me do?

Does your word processor have a library too? What's keeping you from deleting all your documents?
Quote:
Number 4, support. I don't see any live person phone support for Picasa. When I buy a new mac, I get Applecare and can call them anytime for three years and get any issue with iPhoto resolved. Even without applecare, you can go to any apple retail store and get free help. I hate email only support - it's often useless and annoying.

I have good experiences of Applecare in general, but they can't fix broken software.

edit: to clarify, I think they work reasonably hard to help, and are willing to look into things, but with how simple it is to use Macs, when I have a problem it's too hard for them too. I have contacted them three times. Once for iPhoto (restoring from backup was impossible), once for OS X keyboard shortcuts (broken in 10.3, "fixed" by removing the feature in 10.4) and once because I can't get my native characters to work right in Terminal. Not once did I get the problem fixed.
post #101 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
What happens is I restore from backup. You know, the thing iPhoto doesn't let me do?

Does your word processor have a library too? What's keeping you from deleting all your documents?I have good experiences of Applecare in general, but they can't fix broken software.

edit: to clarify, I think they work reasonably hard to help, and are willing to look into things, but with how simple it is to use Macs, when I have a problem it's too hard for them too. I have contacted them three times. Once for iPhoto (restoring from backup was impossible), once for OS X keyboard shortcuts (broken in 10.3, "fixed" by removing the feature in 10.4) and once because I can't get my native characters to work right in Terminal. Not once did I get the problem fixed.

Lack of one feature some people want (restore from backup) does not a better program Picassa make. (Especially when apple in fact offers this, you just have to pay for that - in .mac)
post #102 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And your point? It's not $400, but it's $350. So?

When you compare applications, it is necessary to compare them on equal grounds. Extras that will run you $400 give an advantage to app A, therefore making the comparison pointless.

Why are you telling me this? I don't think .Mac and AppleCare have anything to do with the purchase of Aperture. Especially not the AppleCare.

Aperture has not been designed for consumers to backup their photos (i know this is a feature). The program is to provide a slick workflow for RAW.
post #103 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Why are you telling me this? I don't think .Mac and AppleCare have anything to do with the purchase of Aperture. Especially not the AppleCare.

Aperture has not been designed for consumers to backup their photos (i know this is a feature). The program is to provide a slick workflow for RAW.

Um, dude, we were talking about Picasa. I mentioned Aperture because the price of backup for Picasa + support for Picasa was almost as high as what Apple charge for Aperture.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #104 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Um, dude, we were talking about Picasa. I mentioned Aperture because the price of backup for Picasa + support for Picasa was almost as high as what Apple charge for Aperture.

you keep forgetting you get a lot more than support and backup for iPhoto by purchasing Applecare and .Mac

Also, you can get free support (technical and creative) for iPhoto at Apple retail stores.

And Picasa lacks many of the features of iPhoto and there's no way to add them (e.g., OS X and iLife integration, libary sharing between users and macs). At least the backup feature "missing" in iPhoto are available for the price of .Mac or probably other cheaper backup software for the mac (because, as we know, it's so hard to move an iPhoto library to a disk for backup).
post #105 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by cesjr
[B]you keep forgetting you get a lot more than support and backup for iPhoto by purchasing Applecare and .Mac

Maybe I don't want to get 'a lot more'. Maybe I just want to backup my photos.

Quote:
Also, you can get free support (technical and creative) for iPhoto at Apple retail stores.

Oh yes. Let me put on my shoes, I gotta travel 15 miles to ask a simple question.

Quote:
And Picasa lacks many of the features of iPhoto and there's no way to add them (e.g., OS X and iLife integration, libary sharing between users and macs).

Um, Picasa is for Windows so I don't see how you can say Picasa lacks OS X integration, when it doesn't even exist for OS X.

Quote:
At least the backup feature "missing" in iPhoto are available for the price of .Mac or probably other cheaper backup software for the mac (because, as we know, it's so hard to move an iPhoto library to a disk for backup).

If you had read the thread, you would know that moving an iPhoto library to a disk doesn't work because when you restore those photos, all metadata is lost.

So no, it doesn't work, and those features are missing in iPhoto. Not to mention that it's dog slow too. But you wouldn't care. 'Cause you can get speed by buying a $3000 Quad PowerMac, right?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #106 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Maybe I don't want to get 'a lot more'. Maybe I just want to backup my photos.



Oh yes. Let me put on my shoes, I gotta travel 15 miles to ask a simple question.



Um, Picasa is for Windows so I don't see how you can say Picasa lacks OS X integration, when it doesn't even exist for OS X.



If you had read the thread, you would know that moving an iPhoto library to a disk doesn't work because when you restore those photos, all metadata is lost.

So no, it doesn't work, and those features are missing in iPhoto. Not to mention that it's dog slow too. But you wouldn't care. 'Cause you can get speed by buying a $3000 Quad PowerMac, right?

You can always use this free program - http://www.grapefruit.ch/iBackup/

Also, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say you lose the metadata. I've had my OS X system go down on a few macs, where I had to rebuild the startup disk and in those instances I recreated the user accounts and reconstituted the Pictures folder for each user with their iPhoto library folder (extracted from the disk before I zeroed it and reinstalled OS X - by the way I don't do this anymore because I use Carbon Copy Cloner and keep a copy of the drive). After putting the iPhoto library folder into the pictures folder, I launched iPhoto and everything was there. So what are you talking about?

Second, Picasa has NO option other than your typically lame email support. Honestly, you're better off with user forums than email support. User forums exist for iPhoto at apple and at other sites. Now if you want real phone support, you get it for a free period with a mac or iLife purchase, which you can extend to three years by buying an extended hardware warranty (applecare) which is a good idea anyways and isn't even that expensive. Plus you can go to an Apple retail store - no such option for Picasa. Thus, overall, iPhoto has vastly superior support compared to the lame, email only support for Picasa.

As far as Picasa not existing for OS X, well, people are claiming photo organizing/editing is better on Picasa despite that fact. That's the whole point of this thread, despite no OS X version of Picasa. So I guess what people are saying is photo organizing/editing on a PC with Picasa is better than the experience on a mac with iPhoto. This is wrong for several reasons, including the fact that iPhoto has awesome integration with its OS and other apps that Picasa totally lacks.

I disagree with dog slow. Works fine on my 867 powerbook and even better on our iMac G5. Speed is not everything anyways.
post #107 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Um, dude, we were talking about Picasa. I mentioned Aperture because the price of backup for Picasa + support for Picasa was almost as high as what Apple charge for Aperture.

Right, sorry I'm subscribed to too many threads.

If you want backup in iPhoto it is a problem - I expect this will be solved in iLife '06. I may wait till then before ordering Aperture to see what features they add. I can understand mentioning .Mac but AppleCare still seems a little irrelevant when compared to Picasa!

Edit: .Mac has, however, just been beefed up so maybe Apple will not add backup - this would be a shame as .Mac is very expensive for what it provides. As far as I'm concerned I used it for a year and only really used e-mail and occasionally the iDisk and Synchronising.
post #108 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by cesjr

Number 1, Picasa has nothing like iPhoto's integration with OS X and iLife (and increasingly third party apps). I love being able to add a photo to my iPhoto library right from within an email window in OS X Mail (or right click on a photo in Safari and save it to iPhoto). Or choosing an iPhoto library to use as my desktop background from System Preferences.

From outlook and outlook express, IE and Firefox pictures are saved to the "My pictures" directory by default. This is also the default location that Picasa stores and looks for photos. When Picasa is open, those photos are automatically read. Virtually any app that uses photos goes to the My Pictures directory by default. You don't get the smooth scrolling and dynamic thumbnails from the Picasa GUI, but the photos are right there and easy to find. You can also set the desktop background from inside Picasa, any folder in the windows explorer or the display properties screen shows you the "My pictures" folder by default.

Quote:

Frankly, I think the way Picasa grabs photos from all over your drive is a bad idea because what happens if some folder gets deleted. Better to have the photos in a central place (and where they can't get mucked with).

I think a centralized place is a good idea too. By default Picasa will only look inside "My documents". It is fun to turn on whole-disk-crawling to find pics in nooks I had forgotten about or never knew I had. I move them to a safe place myself, but it's easy to backup what's in Picasa's library.

Quote:

Number 5, the way you can make the thumbnails bigger and smaller in iPhoto is really slick.

One click in Picasa, easy and smooth even on my box.
Quote:
Oh, I forgot another reason why iPhoto is better than Picasa - Rendevous sharing of photo libraries among user accounts on the same mac and macs on your home network.

Again not in Picasa, but you can share photos (or any file) with multiple users and across the network from any Windows Explorer directory in one click. I know some people are putting a lot of weight into "IPhoto Integration", but I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel.
post #109 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by xmoger
From outlook and outlook express, IE and Firefox pictures are saved to the "My pictures" directory by default. This is also the default location that Picasa stores and looks for photos. When Picasa is open, those photos are automatically read. Virtually any app that uses photos goes to the My Pictures directory by default. You don't get the smooth scrolling and dynamic thumbnails from the Picasa GUI, but the photos are right there and easy to find. You can also set the desktop background from inside Picasa, any folder in the windows explorer or the display properties screen shows you the "My pictures" folder by default.


I think a centralized place is a good idea too. By default Picasa will only look inside "My documents". It is fun to turn on whole-disk-crawling to find pics in nooks I had forgotten about or never knew I had. I move them to a safe place myself, but it's easy to backup what's in Picasa's library.

One click in Picasa, easy and smooth even on my box.
Again not in Picasa, but you can share photos (or any file) with multiple users and across the network from any Windows Explorer directory in one click. I know some people are putting a lot of weight into "IPhoto Integration", but I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel.

There's no iMovie or iDVD type integration (which iPhoto has had for years now) or third party app integration, which is the biggest thing.

I also think saving to, or selecting from a default folder in a directory is less intuitive. It's obviously not a problem for people that are knowledgeable about computers, but some people don't grasp the hierarchical file system (for example, my mom never has).

Same thing with sharing photos via a directory over a network. This is a geek exercise. For ordinary folks, there's too many steps and few people actually know how to do this, whereas with iPhoto it's brain dead simple.

As for the thumbnails in Picasa, I didn't think there were infinitely scable like in iPhoto, all at the same time, using a simple slider at the bottom. Someone else here agreed with me on this, though maybe we're wrong.
post #110 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by xmoger
I know some people are putting a lot of weight into "IPhoto Integration", but I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel.

Precisely my feeling on archiving of photos from within the app.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #111 of 151
The way I see it currently is that Apple doesn't want to step on developer's toes...so they sell iPhoto with iLife now. This is Google's opportunity to port Picasa to Mac (if people really do hate iPhoto, Google could have something big on their hands.) But if they don't take this opportunity, one day Apple may simply allow free updates to iPhoto and developers will have missed their chance.
post #112 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by cesjr
Lack of one feature some people want (restore from backup) does not a better program Picassa make. (Especially when apple in fact offers this, you just have to pay for that - in .mac)

I'm not saying anything about Picasa, I haven't even used it. I'm also not saying Apple should put an explicit backup feature in iPhoto. There's no need to put the kitchen sink in every app.

I had the iPhoto Library folder copied whole, and could not restore it to working condition even with help from Applecare. This makes iPhoto utterly, completely useless because I can't trust it to keep my data. That was my point.
post #113 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
I'm not saying anything about Picasa, I haven't even used it. I'm also not saying Apple should put an explicit backup feature in iPhoto. There's no need to put the kitchen sink in every app.

I had the iPhoto Library folder copied whole, and could not restore it to working condition even with help from Applecare. This makes iPhoto utterly, completely useless because I can't trust it to keep my data. That was my point.

I've backed up my hardrive multiple times and have restored from the iPhoto Library in the pictures folder with no problems. Your problem sounds odd.
post #114 of 151
MacCrazy:

there is an issue with restoring photos - see my earlier posts.

Kickaha:

I have to disagree with you on the backup/archive point. As I mentioned before, iPhoto is different from most other apps (for typical home use) in that when you download a picture into it that is the only place it exists. A HD failure will lose all your precious snaps. Other apps, such as iTunes, Word, Excel, will also lose their data but I'd argue in a typical home environment that loss isn't catastrophic.

Spreadsheets can be rebuilt. Letters re typed. Even thesis can be redone (OK,OK, I realise it's hard, but it isn't the end of the world). But a photo cannot be recreated.

So for me a backup routine within iPhoto is almost a neccesity, not a nice to have.

Plus it would be nice to have a great Apple interface. At the moment I use Silverkeeper, which isn't bad. But it isn't great, either.

David

PS I accept your point about bloatware, but would it really be so bad to have an extra menu item under Services called backup, that goes to a standard app from whichever app you call it? So iPhoto could be set to backup every time a new picture is added or amended, whilst iTunes could be set to a weekly/monthly backup etc etc.
post #115 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Kickaha:

I have to disagree with you on the backup/archive point. As I mentioned before, iPhoto is different from most other apps (for typical home use) in that when you download a picture into it that is the only place it exists. A HD failure will lose all your precious snaps. Other apps, such as iTunes, Word, Excel, will also lose their data but I'd argue in a typical home environment that loss isn't catastrophic.

Spreadsheets can be rebuilt. Letters re typed. Even thesis can be redone (OK,OK, I realise it's hard, but it isn't the end of the world). But a photo cannot be recreated.

So for me a backup routine within iPhoto is almost a neccesity, not a nice to have.

Plus it would be nice to have a great Apple interface. At the moment I use Silverkeeper, which isn't bad. But it isn't great, either.

*beats head against wall*

So basically what you're saying is that you want to be able to back up your important files. Which is what *existing* backup solutions offer. There is *no reason* to slap a backup feature into an app. None. Nada. Zip. Use a backup application, and use it regularly. Done.

Adding redundant features to multiple apps, so that each app does it a *little* differently is the hallmark of lousy design. cf: MS.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #116 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Adding redundant features to multiple apps, so that each app does it a *little* differently is the hallmark of lousy design. cf: MS.

You're talking out of your ass now. No MS consumer app has any backup feature. As a matter of fact, their OS ships with a separate backup program, unlike OS X.

So out of the box, OS X offers no backup app, and it offers no way to backup your important photos from within iPhoto. Now that's bad design.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #117 of 151
Backup options are tricky. MS have preferences for similar things everywhere making using a computer confusing. Yet a centralised solution is annoying if you want to change the preferences for an individual app.

To be honest the best back-up solution should be one app which has different preferences for different apps. This SHOULD be included OS X. However then customers will complain it's not heave duty enough. I think Apple should release backup as part of iLife and not .Mac.
post #118 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You're talking out of your ass now. No MS consumer app has any backup feature. As a matter of fact, their OS ships with a separate backup program, unlike OS X.

Gene, try to start thinking less pedantically, and more abstractly.

Read what I wrote. Specifically, read the exact sentence you quoted. Does it mention backup? No. It states that adding features, NO MATTER WHAT FEATURE, to many applications, when that feature is best pulled out into a central app with a unified approach, is a bad idea.

That is what adding backup to iPhoto would do, and all it would accomplish. It's a bad idea.

As I've stated before, if you'll look back, I think that adding an *archiving* feature would be very good. But a *backup*? No. It's just redundant and bad design.

Quote:
So out of the box, OS X offers no backup app, and it offers no way to backup your important photos from within iPhoto. Now that's bad design.

Most new users drag and drop, or burn to CD. I agree that the Backup app that is currently part of .Mac should be made part of the standard install, no question about it. Personally, I use rsync, which *IS* included by default, but not everyone is comfortable using the command line. There are about a dozen third party apps that range from free to $99, however, until Apple chooses to bundle Backup.

(Wait... I thought you didn't *like* it when Apple wrote all the apps? Silly me.)

The sticking point you are failing to see is that adding backup to within an app is just a bad idea when there are much better solutions already lying around, many for free.

Hell, here's a script to backup a user's iPhoto Library to a hard drive named PhotoBackup, free of charge:

#!\\bin\\sh
rsync --archive --update --relative --showtogo "~/Pictures/iPhoto Library" "/Volumes/PhotoBackup"

There. Cut and paste that into a TextEdit window, make it plain text, and save as BackupPhotos.sh. Get that .sh ending on there. Now double-click it in the Finder, and it'll do it's mojo. Done. You'll always have a working mirror of your photo directory.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #119 of 151
Kickaha your brain really is hung like a horse.
post #120 of 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]Gene, try to start thinking less pedantically, and more abstractly.

Start writing more pedantically, and less abstractly.

Quote:
Read what I wrote. Specifically, read the exact sentence you quoted. Does it mention backup? No.

Therefore, it's off-topic.

Quote:
It states that adding features, NO MATTER WHAT FEATURE, to many applications, when that feature is best pulled out into a central app with a unified approach, is a bad idea.

Except that the much-talked about 'central app' is, mysteriously missing.

Quote:
That is what adding backup to iPhoto would do, and all it would accomplish. It's a bad idea.

I disagree.

Quote:
As I've stated before, if you'll look back, I think that adding an *archiving* feature would be very good. But a *backup*? No. It's just redundant and bad design.

Um, this is semantics. You're basically saying the same thing.


Quote:
Most new users drag and drop, or burn to CD. I agree that the Backup app that is currently part of .Mac should be made part of the standard install, no question about it. Personally, I use rsync, which *IS* included by default, but not everyone is comfortable using the command line. There are about a dozen third party apps that range from free to $99, however, until Apple chooses to bundle Backup.

A modern (2005) OS should include a backup app.


Quote:
(Wait... I thought you didn't *like* it when Apple wrote all the apps? Silly me.)

Um. I suppose you think you're being sarcastic? Not funny. A backup app is *necessary* out-of-the box. A broadband tuner is not.

Quote:
The sticking point you are failing to see is that adding backup to within an app is just a bad idea when there are much better solutions already lying around, many for free.

Oh, such as Backup from .Mac?

Quote:
Hell, here's a script to backup a user's iPhoto Library to a hard drive named PhotoBackup, free of charge:

#!\\bin\\sh
rsync --archive --update --relative --showtogo "~/Pictures/iPhoto Library" "/Volumes/PhotoBackup"

You don't need to write scripts for me. You're not dealing with an amateur here.

Yet I fail to see how this is a better solution than a dedicated button in iPhoto (Gasp! One button more!)


Quote:
There. Cut and paste that into a TextEdit window, make it plain text, and save as BackupPhotos.sh. Get that .sh ending on there. Now double-click it in the Finder, and it'll do it's mojo. Done. You'll always have a working mirror of your photo directory.

And this is better than adding a backup feature to iPhoto... how?

Anyway... I digress. I guess Google is not as smart as that, for they include a backup option in their program. Oh well. They don't know good design, anyways..
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Picasa is so much better than iPhoto