iPhoto: Slower than booty

bradbowerbradbower
Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
It really is, on my older iMac. I wouldn't call it unbearable, but pretty slow in all truthfulness. Then again, it is doing a lot of disk access with all of the photos I've got. Not only that, but it has hung on me several times, after editing preferences. "Application Not Responding" in the dock, had to force quit it.



Overall it's really nice though, I dig the "keywords" thing rather than the filename thing. I just wish there were more photo effects and stuff, more things you could print (like calendars), and TWAIN acquire support (for scanners). And hey, you can't beat free! :cool:

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    corvettecorvette Posts: 561member
    steve jobs told you to get a new imac today
  • Reply 2 of 14
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member




    Also, it takes much longer to download pictures than with ImageCapture.. and I can no longer use this app called ExifRenamer which gave photos much better filenames than cameras do \ Or at least I can't figure out a way to use it anymore. But who needs that, "keywords" are a GREAT concept and work really nice.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    stepsonstepson Posts: 95member
    How old is your older iMac? I believe the minimum specs are a 400Mhz G3. I ran it on such a G3 today, and it seemed ok . I also am installing it right now on 450Mhz G4 (cube) and it seems ok now too ...
  • Reply 4 of 14
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    Its slow as anything on my rev D imac (333), even with 384 megs of ram.



    I'm certain this is due to X's lack of support for my graphics card.



    Also with regard to importing i think the lack of speed has something to do with the previews that are generated.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    In Apple's ReadMe it says that they recommend a 400 MHz G3 or greater. I was rather surprised by that oviously. My 366 iBook holds up OK but it is slow/awkward when scrolling. I also managed to crash it with an admittedly huge file (I only have 192 MB of RAM). Resizing some thumbs is pokey too. Seems to depend on the file. Slide show is slow to start up too.



    Also, why are the Sharing icons not centered? It looks like it's missing one? (OK, trying to start rumors here. )



    and finally I don't like their rendition of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring."
  • Reply 6 of 14
    eat@meeat@me Posts: 321member
    [quote]Originally posted by bradbower:

    <strong>It really is, on my older iMac. I wouldn't call it unbearable, but pretty slow in all truthfulness. Then again, it is doing a lot of disk access with all of the photos I've got. Not only that, but it has hung on me several times, after editing preferences. "Application Not Responding" in the dock, had to force quit it.



    Overall it's really nice though, I dig the "keywords" thing rather than the filename thing. I just wish there were more photo effects and stuff, more things you could print (like calendars), and TWAIN acquire support (for scanners). And hey, you can't beat free! :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Are you running 10.1.2?
  • Reply 7 of 14
    neomacneomac Posts: 145member
    iPhoto is obviously designed for the new iMac.



    Pushing around all those pictures really requires two things: 256MB of RAM and a G4 - both available in the new iMac.



    Works pretty good on my G3 PowerBook.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    pretty crappy on my Powerbook 667.



    There is also no support for Epson USB Cameras so its uselss to me.. for now
  • Reply 9 of 14
    dwsdws Posts: 108member
    Slow?



    I installed iPhoto on an iMac DV 400, which is the minimum recommended, using 320 megs of RAM on OS X 10.1.2. It runs nicely. In fact, I was pleased with how quickly it makes a QuickTime movie out of a small bunch of pics.



    It does seem to be a bit slow to create the thumbnails, though.



    I'm sure that it would run nicely on a new iMac!



    iPhoto is an excellent example of the power of Cocoa programming. The best evidence of this is how easily (and quickly) it renders OpenGL in creating slideshows and takes your pics and makes a QuickTime movie of them.



    And this is only the beginning. Think of what our lives will be like in two years...



    dws
  • Reply 10 of 14
    macwaymacway Posts: 55member
    Runs pretty well on my TiBook 500 with 512MB RAM.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    It ran well on my 500MHz iBook. Not the greatest but it was fine.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Running great on my TiBook 667 with 512, though I do not yet have more than 300 photos in my Library.



    Redeye seems like a primitive fill bucket tool at times, and I really miss even a simple AutoLevels command from Photoshop. Mebbe it can be AppleScripted in, when Adobe finally ships for X.



    Looks like I'm still going to have to run Classic to edit photos. But, I like the crop constrained function, the slide show, and all the export functions.



    Basic color/contrast corrections in Version 2, maybe... like the EQ in iTunes 2 ?
  • Reply 13 of 14
    gordygordy Posts: 1,004member
    [quote]Originally posted by FormerLurker:

    <strong>Redeye seems like a primitive fill bucket tool at times, and I really miss even a simple AutoLevels command from Photoshop. Mebbe it can be AppleScripted in, when Adobe finally ships for X.

    Looks like I'm still going to have to run Classic to edit photos. But, I like the crop constrained function, the slide show, and all the export functions.

    Basic color/contrast corrections in Version 2, maybe... like the EQ in iTunes 2 ?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why not use GraphicConvertor? I plan on using the 'Browse Folder' feature in GC to navigate through iPhoto's library and edit away.
Sign In or Register to comment.