I just wanted to post that i Think Picasa is Great, after coming off of Macs and going to a PC i was a little lost about how i would mange my photo's. Not only was Picasa Free but it was really easy to use. Thanks for a terrific free program Google! Its red eye reduction isnt as good as iphoto but for a free program i am not complaining. If you got a PC and you need a cheap and easy to use photo program this is it.
So is that something Picasso does? Is that why it is better? Is that the only thing?
Can someone structure a reply on this? From the above I take it that Picasso can:
+ Handle multiple libraries (what is this exactly)
+ Can back up (in what way? iPhoto can back up in some way. What is different)
+ It has better storage (file system layout? Why is it better?)
Multiple Libraries
No one has really answered the first question for you, so I will. I want the ability to have separate libraries in iPhoto. For example, images that I skim from the web could be in one library, while photos I take with my camera are in another. There would be no need to have every image you want to use iPhoto to organize to be mixed together in the 'library view.' And creating 'images from web' and 'photos from camera' albums to separate them is a stop-gap measure because then the 'library view' is completely useless.
This ability is also useful for people that want to separate work and home photos. If you use your Mac for both work and home (possible work for yourself or work from home), it would be nice to have the ability to separate photos that are part of your work and photos that are personal.
Yet another example... What if you like to take some risque photos with your girl/boyfriend? Wouldn't you like to store them in a separate library from the Christmas photos that you want to show your parents?
Backup
The suggestion of 'dragging and dropping' from iPhoto to a disc is fine, but you lose the meta-data. You also lose the originals to revert back to in this process. This is not a useful way to back it up. This is only useful if you want to drag an album to a disc to give to someone else.
iPhoto needs a way to back up the entire library to a location. Backup to another hard drive (internal or external) would be an excellent backup feature. The ability to burn the backup to CD or DVD would be a great feature as well. But when it comes to CD or DVD Apple would need to have the ability to allow the backup to span disks (for people with libraries greater than 700MB or 4489MB). There needs to be a built-in system for creating this backup, or at least a helper-app that launches from iPhoto to allow to create said backup.
As for people that had problems with a manually backed-up iPhoto library, did you backup the folder to a FAT32 volume instead of a HFS+ volume? If so it could have lost resource forks... Also iPhoto uses hard links (I think it's hard, not soft links) in the Album folders it creates. The last I delved into the topic of the iPhoto Library folder I found that all of the photos were stored in one location, and then iPhoto created folder for each of the albums and created hard links in those folders to the photos that are in the other location. FAT32 does not support hard or soft links, and I don't think that Finder has a way of dealing with such a conversion. (Finder has a way of dealing with resource forks from HFS+ -> FAT32)
Better Storage
I think people are talking about the way that Picasa allows you to create your own organizational system with files and folders. Picasa doesn't force you to keep all of your photos in a location that it dictates, and it doesn't force you to use it's organizational conventions. You can create your own folders and throw pictures in them how you see fit, and it will find them and index them all the same. Now this can be a good and a bad thing. I think that a lot of people like the fact that iPhoto basically handles all that stuff in the background for them. But more tech savvy people tend to want to organize the stuff in the way that they want.
No one has really answered the first question for you, so I will. I want the ability to have separate libraries in iPhoto. For example, images that I skim from the web could be in one library, while photos I take with my camera are in another. There would be no need to have every image you want to use iPhoto to organize to be mixed together in the 'library view.' And creating 'images from web' and 'photos from camera' albums to separate them is a stop-gap measure because then the 'library view' is completely useless.
This ability is also useful for people that want to separate work and home photos. If you use your Mac for both work and home (possible work for yourself or work from home), it would be nice to have the ability to separate photos that are part of your work and photos that are personal.
Yet another example... What if you like to take some risque photos with your girl/boyfriend? Wouldn't you like to store them in a separate library from the Christmas photos that you want to show your parents?
Having separate libraries, and having one library with multiple albums, achieves the same results.
In either case, you have to specifically import your "work" photos or your "webcam lovin'" photos or whatever into their respective library/album. Separate libraries saves you no time here.
However, it has a number of cons.
First, it's confusing and adds unnecessary complexity to the interface. There needs to be a way to sort create/manage libraries in addition to albums, etc. This creates more work for the end user, and is plain annoying.
Second, it makes it harder to find things. Say you have ten libraries, how do you know which one that one picture was in? You'd have to search all ten. (Unless there was an uber-library, which brings us back where we started.
What you want is better served with albums, smart albums, and keywords.
Also, you're right about hiding risque/confidential pictures. But that's a problem best left up to a scheme of password protecting sets of images and hiding them. Wouldn't that be a lot better than your mom clicking on the wrong library by accident?
Also, you're right about hiding risque/confidential pictures. But that's a problem best left up to a scheme of password protecting sets of images and hiding them. Wouldn't that be a lot better than your mom clicking on the wrong library by accident?
Not if you password protect that library - something that Picasa lets you do.
What would your response be to: "Hey, if you don't like the way Word:Mac works, buy a Dell" ?
Asking and expecting applications that involve large amounts of data to have a simple way to backup that data is in no way a reason to tell others to 'buy a Dell'. Had they wanted a Dell, they would get a Dell. They want OS X and they want iPhoto to have a simple backup option.
You know, like iTunes allows you to backup your music by burning Data CDs or DVDs. Or like Mail.app allows you to backup your e-mail messages. Suggesting that one buy Backup.app from Apple in order to do what ever other decent photo organization app does.. is not a good argument, to say the least.
What would your response be to: "Hey, if you don't like the way Word:Mac works, buy a Dell" ?
Asking and expecting applications that involve large amounts of data to have a simple way to backup that data is in no way a reason to tell others to 'buy a Dell'. Had they wanted a Dell, they would get a Dell. They want OS X and they want iPhoto to have a simple backup option.
You know, like iTunes allows you to backup your music by burning Data CDs or DVDs. Or like Mail.app allows you to backup your e-mail messages. Suggesting that one buy Backup.app from Apple in order to do what ever other decent photo organization app does.. is not a good argument, to say the least.
my point was, there IS a simple way to backup iPhoto ... Backup will do it to CD's, DVD's or a HD and it does incremental backups either on command, or on a schedule ...
(and I don't use Word:Mac ... still using AppleWorks and it still does more than I need it to.)
I would like to know how to back-up iPhoto efficiently. I was copying the whole iPhoto folder to an external HD on a weekly basis. When my Internal HD died and was replaced, I thought simply copying the last backup folder back would work.
David
It does work perfectly assuming you are working with the very same, say identical,
version of iPhoto. If not you always can hold option key while launching iPhoto.
Than you can choose an existing iPhoto library OR create a new one.
And this is the answer to all, who are asking about managing various
iPhoto libraries. Granted this is a widely unknown feature
Anyways...it's clear to me now that Picasa isn't "so much better" than iPhoto. It could be "somewhat better" at most. My opinion? It's a stale mate...somethings Picasa does better, other things iPhoto does better.
iPhoto 5 (aka 2005) is almost a year old...Picasa 2 isn't quite as old. iPhoto 2006 will probably bring substantial new features (fingers crossed on CoreData and CoreImage) as well as a GUI revamp (something closer to iTunes 6 (less brushed-metal bulkiness, more unified slimness.)
$99 a year for a backup program??? i don't like Apple THAT much!
You know I bet if Apple sold backup for $19.95 like they do QT Pro upgrades it'd do quite well because it is a decent backup program. Just a shame they bundle it with .mac and not the OS.
Anyways...it's clear to me now that Picasa isn't "so much better" than iPhoto. It could be "somewhat better" at most.
I downloaded Picasa at work and fooled around with it a bit. It has a nice backup feature. It will allow you to back up to a CD/DVD and it will keep track of what you backed up so that you can make sure that your backups don't have duplicates. Not sure how it handles originals/edits with respect to backups though. I would say this is a lot better than iPhoto.
my point was, there IS a simple way to backup iPhoto ... Backup will do it to CD's, DVD's or a HD and it does incremental backups either on command, or on a schedule ...
(and I don't use Word:Mac ... still using AppleWorks and it still does more than I need it to.)
But software packages that are free like Picasa already have the backup features in them. People have to pay Apple for iPhoto and it doesn't have those features? Apple could implement a subset of the features of Backup in iPhoto. It doesn't need every last feature. Just incremental CD/DVD backups of the photos / albums / library meta-data.
Having separate libraries, and having one library with multiple albums, achieves the same results.
Not really. When you have separate libraries, the photos are completely separate from each other. There is no inter-mixing in an overall library.
Quote:
In either case, you have to specifically import your "work" photos or your "webcam lovin'" photos or whatever into their respective library/album. Separate libraries saves you no time here.
It's not supposed to be a time-saver. It's supposed to be an organizational tool.
Quote:
However, it has a number of cons.
First, it's confusing and adds unnecessary complexity to the interface. There needs to be a way to sort create/manage libraries in addition to albums, etc. This creates more work for the end user, and is plain annoying.
This could be a feature like tabs in Safari that is disabled by default that the user has to actively seek out and enable. Then the users who would be confused may never even notice that it's a feature. It's not like you are forced to use every last feature of every software package installed on your computer.
Quote:
Second, it makes it harder to find things. Say you have ten libraries, how do you know which one that one picture was in? You'd have to search all ten. (Unless there was an uber-library, which brings us back where we started.
It's an organizational tool. As such, it means it needs to be used correctly. Using ten libraries is ridiculous. You wouldn't use a separate library for each album. That's not the point. You would use it maybe to have the following libraries: Images Saved From Web, Personal Photos, Work Photos, Risque Photos.
Those are clearly defined categories that you might not want to have mixed all together. If you are looking for a photo you took of a vacation, it's not going to be in 'Images Saved From Web.' That image of Bugs Bunny that you saved from a forum 2 months ago isn't going to be in 'Risque Photos.' Etc. The entire point would be that there would be separation along clearly defined lines. People that used the libraries to separate photos by year would quickly find their organizational scheme to be useless.
You shouldn't condemn something just because someone can use it stupidly.
Quote:
What you want is better served with albums, smart albums, and keywords.
Albums, smart albums and keywords would not help this situation.
Quote:
Also, you're right about hiding risque/confidential pictures. But that's a problem best left up to a scheme of password protecting sets of images and hiding them. Wouldn't that be a lot better than your mom clicking on the wrong library by accident?
The point would be that the wrong library would be hidden somehow or password protected. If all of the photos are in one library and your mom clicks on the library view to look at all your photos, then she would see the risque photos. If you create an album with all the risque photos and tell iPhoto to password protect all images in that album, how would you handle the library view for unauthenticated users?
Would you just have them not show up at all? That seems counter intuitive. Especially if you are going to have iPhoto telling you stats like the total # of photos in the library, or the total disk space usage. Would you just have all of the images display in their locations in the library view, but have blank thumbnails with maybe a lock over them to indicate that they are hidden? I somehow don't like that solution either.
The best solution would be more along the lines of a list of libraries on the left sidebar. When you click on a library, the list items below it are forced downward as it expands to show you all of the albums that this library has. Or maybe a drop-down menu above the sidebar that allows you to select the current library. Maybe with a lock next to protected (and not unlocked yet) libraries. Whenever a library is selected, the sidebar items are changed to reflect all of the albums/smart albums/etc that are in that library.
Like I said before, this could be confusing for some users, but by disabling it by default you eliminate that. Then the power users that may need the feature have the ability to use it if they need it.
As for the iPhoto library shortcut that was mentioned, I'll have to try that. If that's true it's a very hidden feature. And it seems like an excellent solution, but the better solution would be for iPhoto to manage the list libraries and the libraries themselves for you.
Thing is, I hardly use iPhoto. It's not convenient (a stark contrast from everything else in iLife). When I plug in my camera, I don't want it to import all the pictures, I want to be able to select.
Also, what about viewing the image in it's actual size? The zoom slider never tells me where the image is at its actual size.
Editing features are good for a photo management app, but I remember Picasa being simple to work.
Thing is, I hardly use iPhoto. It's not convenient (a stark contrast from everything else in iLife). When I plug in my camera, I don't want it to import all the pictures, I want to be able to select.
"Image Capture" does a better job of letting you select. It can give you a thumbnail view of what is on your camera so that you can select the pictures you want to pull over, but IIRC it doesn't import directly into iPhoto... It only allows you to set a preference to launch iPhoto on camera connect instead of it.
Comments
Originally posted by curmi
So is that something Picasso does? Is that why it is better? Is that the only thing?
Can someone structure a reply on this? From the above I take it that Picasso can:
+ Handle multiple libraries (what is this exactly)
+ Can back up (in what way? iPhoto can back up in some way. What is different)
+ It has better storage (file system layout? Why is it better?)
Multiple Libraries
No one has really answered the first question for you, so I will. I want the ability to have separate libraries in iPhoto. For example, images that I skim from the web could be in one library, while photos I take with my camera are in another. There would be no need to have every image you want to use iPhoto to organize to be mixed together in the 'library view.' And creating 'images from web' and 'photos from camera' albums to separate them is a stop-gap measure because then the 'library view' is completely useless.
This ability is also useful for people that want to separate work and home photos. If you use your Mac for both work and home (possible work for yourself or work from home), it would be nice to have the ability to separate photos that are part of your work and photos that are personal.
Yet another example... What if you like to take some risque photos with your girl/boyfriend? Wouldn't you like to store them in a separate library from the Christmas photos that you want to show your parents?
Backup
The suggestion of 'dragging and dropping' from iPhoto to a disc is fine, but you lose the meta-data. You also lose the originals to revert back to in this process. This is not a useful way to back it up. This is only useful if you want to drag an album to a disc to give to someone else.
iPhoto needs a way to back up the entire library to a location. Backup to another hard drive (internal or external) would be an excellent backup feature. The ability to burn the backup to CD or DVD would be a great feature as well. But when it comes to CD or DVD Apple would need to have the ability to allow the backup to span disks (for people with libraries greater than 700MB or 4489MB). There needs to be a built-in system for creating this backup, or at least a helper-app that launches from iPhoto to allow to create said backup.
As for people that had problems with a manually backed-up iPhoto library, did you backup the folder to a FAT32 volume instead of a HFS+ volume? If so it could have lost resource forks... Also iPhoto uses hard links (I think it's hard, not soft links) in the Album folders it creates. The last I delved into the topic of the iPhoto Library folder I found that all of the photos were stored in one location, and then iPhoto created folder for each of the albums and created hard links in those folders to the photos that are in the other location. FAT32 does not support hard or soft links, and I don't think that Finder has a way of dealing with such a conversion. (Finder has a way of dealing with resource forks from HFS+ -> FAT32)
Better Storage
I think people are talking about the way that Picasa allows you to create your own organizational system with files and folders. Picasa doesn't force you to keep all of your photos in a location that it dictates, and it doesn't force you to use it's organizational conventions. You can create your own folders and throw pictures in them how you see fit, and it will find them and index them all the same. Now this can be a good and a bad thing. I think that a lot of people like the fact that iPhoto basically handles all that stuff in the background for them. But more tech savvy people tend to want to organize the stuff in the way that they want.
"Picasa is soooooooooooooooo better than iPhoto!"
that's how i read it every time.
Originally posted by pyr3
Multiple Libraries
No one has really answered the first question for you, so I will. I want the ability to have separate libraries in iPhoto. For example, images that I skim from the web could be in one library, while photos I take with my camera are in another. There would be no need to have every image you want to use iPhoto to organize to be mixed together in the 'library view.' And creating 'images from web' and 'photos from camera' albums to separate them is a stop-gap measure because then the 'library view' is completely useless.
This ability is also useful for people that want to separate work and home photos. If you use your Mac for both work and home (possible work for yourself or work from home), it would be nice to have the ability to separate photos that are part of your work and photos that are personal.
Yet another example... What if you like to take some risque photos with your girl/boyfriend? Wouldn't you like to store them in a separate library from the Christmas photos that you want to show your parents?
Having separate libraries, and having one library with multiple albums, achieves the same results.
In either case, you have to specifically import your "work" photos or your "webcam lovin'" photos or whatever into their respective library/album. Separate libraries saves you no time here.
However, it has a number of cons.
First, it's confusing and adds unnecessary complexity to the interface. There needs to be a way to sort create/manage libraries in addition to albums, etc. This creates more work for the end user, and is plain annoying.
Second, it makes it harder to find things. Say you have ten libraries, how do you know which one that one picture was in? You'd have to search all ten. (Unless there was an uber-library, which brings us back where we started.
What you want is better served with albums, smart albums, and keywords.
Also, you're right about hiding risque/confidential pictures. But that's a problem best left up to a scheme of password protecting sets of images and hiding them. Wouldn't that be a lot better than your mom clicking on the wrong library by accident?
Also, you're right about hiding risque/confidential pictures. But that's a problem best left up to a scheme of password protecting sets of images and hiding them. Wouldn't that be a lot better than your mom clicking on the wrong library by accident?
Not if you password protect that library - something that Picasa lets you do.
It's a program from Apple... it works (with iPhoto).
Yes, you have to be a .mac member, but hey, if you don't like it, buy a Dell.
What on earth is wrong with paying for something you like/want ???
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
but hey, if you don't like it, buy a Dell.
What would your response be to: "Hey, if you don't like the way Word:Mac works, buy a Dell" ?
Asking and expecting applications that involve large amounts of data to have a simple way to backup that data is in no way a reason to tell others to 'buy a Dell'. Had they wanted a Dell, they would get a Dell. They want OS X and they want iPhoto to have a simple backup option.
You know, like iTunes allows you to backup your music by burning Data CDs or DVDs. Or like Mail.app allows you to backup your e-mail messages. Suggesting that one buy Backup.app from Apple in order to do what ever other decent photo organization app does.. is not a good argument, to say the least.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
It's a program from Apple... it works (with iPhoto).
Yes, you have to be a .mac member, but hey, if you don't like it, buy a Dell.
that's what i'm going to do. immediately. what a goony thing to say.
$99 a year for a backup program??? i don't like Apple THAT much!
maybe i'm just pissed since i planned on using that iTools address for life. i couldn't even forward!
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What would your response be to: "Hey, if you don't like the way Word:Mac works, buy a Dell" ?
Asking and expecting applications that involve large amounts of data to have a simple way to backup that data is in no way a reason to tell others to 'buy a Dell'. Had they wanted a Dell, they would get a Dell. They want OS X and they want iPhoto to have a simple backup option.
You know, like iTunes allows you to backup your music by burning Data CDs or DVDs. Or like Mail.app allows you to backup your e-mail messages. Suggesting that one buy Backup.app from Apple in order to do what ever other decent photo organization app does.. is not a good argument, to say the least.
my point was, there IS a simple way to backup iPhoto ... Backup will do it to CD's, DVD's or a HD and it does incremental backups either on command, or on a schedule ...
(and I don't use Word:Mac ... still using AppleWorks and it still does more than I need it to.)
Originally posted by iMac David
I would like to know how to back-up iPhoto efficiently. I was copying the whole iPhoto folder to an external HD on a weekly basis. When my Internal HD died and was replaced, I thought simply copying the last backup folder back would work.
David
It does work perfectly assuming you are working with the very same, say identical,
version of iPhoto. If not you always can hold option key while launching iPhoto.
Than you can choose an existing iPhoto library OR create a new one.
And this is the answer to all, who are asking about managing various
iPhoto libraries. Granted this is a widely unknown feature
iPhoto 5 (aka 2005) is almost a year old...Picasa 2 isn't quite as old. iPhoto 2006 will probably bring substantial new features (fingers crossed on CoreData and CoreImage) as well as a GUI revamp (something closer to iTunes 6 (less brushed-metal bulkiness, more unified slimness.)
Originally posted by progmac
$99 a year for a backup program??? i don't like Apple THAT much!
You know I bet if Apple sold backup for $19.95 like they do QT Pro upgrades it'd do quite well because it is a decent backup program. Just a shame they bundle it with .mac and not the OS.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
What on earth is wrong with paying for something you like/want ???
Would you pay $100,000 for a Ford Focus? There's a difference between demanding free and demanding a reasonable price.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Anyways...it's clear to me now that Picasa isn't "so much better" than iPhoto. It could be "somewhat better" at most.
I downloaded Picasa at work and fooled around with it a bit. It has a nice backup feature. It will allow you to back up to a CD/DVD and it will keep track of what you backed up so that you can make sure that your backups don't have duplicates. Not sure how it handles originals/edits with respect to backups though. I would say this is a lot better than iPhoto.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
my point was, there IS a simple way to backup iPhoto ... Backup will do it to CD's, DVD's or a HD and it does incremental backups either on command, or on a schedule ...
(and I don't use Word:Mac ... still using AppleWorks and it still does more than I need it to.)
But software packages that are free like Picasa already have the backup features in them. People have to pay Apple for iPhoto and it doesn't have those features? Apple could implement a subset of the features of Backup in iPhoto. It doesn't need every last feature. Just incremental CD/DVD backups of the photos / albums / library meta-data.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Having separate libraries, and having one library with multiple albums, achieves the same results.
Not really. When you have separate libraries, the photos are completely separate from each other. There is no inter-mixing in an overall library.
In either case, you have to specifically import your "work" photos or your "webcam lovin'" photos or whatever into their respective library/album. Separate libraries saves you no time here.
It's not supposed to be a time-saver. It's supposed to be an organizational tool.
However, it has a number of cons.
First, it's confusing and adds unnecessary complexity to the interface. There needs to be a way to sort create/manage libraries in addition to albums, etc. This creates more work for the end user, and is plain annoying.
This could be a feature like tabs in Safari that is disabled by default that the user has to actively seek out and enable. Then the users who would be confused may never even notice that it's a feature. It's not like you are forced to use every last feature of every software package installed on your computer.
Second, it makes it harder to find things. Say you have ten libraries, how do you know which one that one picture was in? You'd have to search all ten. (Unless there was an uber-library, which brings us back where we started.
It's an organizational tool. As such, it means it needs to be used correctly. Using ten libraries is ridiculous. You wouldn't use a separate library for each album. That's not the point. You would use it maybe to have the following libraries: Images Saved From Web, Personal Photos, Work Photos, Risque Photos.
Those are clearly defined categories that you might not want to have mixed all together. If you are looking for a photo you took of a vacation, it's not going to be in 'Images Saved From Web.' That image of Bugs Bunny that you saved from a forum 2 months ago isn't going to be in 'Risque Photos.' Etc. The entire point would be that there would be separation along clearly defined lines. People that used the libraries to separate photos by year would quickly find their organizational scheme to be useless.
You shouldn't condemn something just because someone can use it stupidly.
What you want is better served with albums, smart albums, and keywords.
Albums, smart albums and keywords would not help this situation.
Also, you're right about hiding risque/confidential pictures. But that's a problem best left up to a scheme of password protecting sets of images and hiding them. Wouldn't that be a lot better than your mom clicking on the wrong library by accident?
The point would be that the wrong library would be hidden somehow or password protected. If all of the photos are in one library and your mom clicks on the library view to look at all your photos, then she would see the risque photos. If you create an album with all the risque photos and tell iPhoto to password protect all images in that album, how would you handle the library view for unauthenticated users?
Would you just have them not show up at all? That seems counter intuitive. Especially if you are going to have iPhoto telling you stats like the total # of photos in the library, or the total disk space usage. Would you just have all of the images display in their locations in the library view, but have blank thumbnails with maybe a lock over them to indicate that they are hidden? I somehow don't like that solution either.
The best solution would be more along the lines of a list of libraries on the left sidebar. When you click on a library, the list items below it are forced downward as it expands to show you all of the albums that this library has. Or maybe a drop-down menu above the sidebar that allows you to select the current library. Maybe with a lock next to protected (and not unlocked yet) libraries. Whenever a library is selected, the sidebar items are changed to reflect all of the albums/smart albums/etc that are in that library.
Like I said before, this could be confusing for some users, but by disabling it by default you eliminate that. Then the power users that may need the feature have the ability to use it if they need it.
As for the iPhoto library shortcut that was mentioned, I'll have to try that. If that's true it's a very hidden feature. And it seems like an excellent solution, but the better solution would be for iPhoto to manage the list libraries and the libraries themselves for you.
Thing is, I hardly use iPhoto. It's not convenient (a stark contrast from everything else in iLife). When I plug in my camera, I don't want it to import all the pictures, I want to be able to select.
Also, what about viewing the image in it's actual size? The zoom slider never tells me where the image is at its actual size.
Editing features are good for a photo management app, but I remember Picasa being simple to work.
Well, next iPhoto, then...
Originally posted by livatlantis
I used Picasa before switching to the Mac.
Thing is, I hardly use iPhoto. It's not convenient (a stark contrast from everything else in iLife). When I plug in my camera, I don't want it to import all the pictures, I want to be able to select.
"Image Capture" does a better job of letting you select. It can give you a thumbnail view of what is on your camera so that you can select the pictures you want to pull over, but IIRC it doesn't import directly into iPhoto... It only allows you to set a preference to launch iPhoto on camera connect instead of it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It's interesting how you come to that conclusion without ever having used Picasa.
I've come to that conclusion since Picasa can't seem to do RAW and only understands one color profile. This is pretty bad, IMO.