You can't order the old iMacs from Apple, and the new iMacs aren't covered. So basically I don't get a free iPod anymore. What the freakin' HELL.
Yep. I posted earlier about this when I ordered. I called Apple and basically the new iMacs are not part of the promotion. Kinda weird, but personally, I already have an iPod so it wasn't a big deal for me. I can see whereas other people might be annoyed.
Do you think its worth the 300 bucks to up it to 2.33 Ghz from 2.16 Ghz?
Don't you mean $250?
As to whether or not it is worth the extra $, it depends:
If you don't and it turns out that it isn't much of a speed bump, you are a winner. If you do and it turns out it isn't much of a speed bump, only you have to know that you made a dumb mistake.
If you don't and it turns out that it is a significant speed bump, you are a loser. If however, you do and it is a significant speed bump, you will be able to brag it to your friends. And that makes you a real winner.
Do you think its worth the 300 bucks to up it to 2.33 Ghz from 2.16 Ghz?
I spent the money figuring I would have this machine for several years. Why not get the fastest available? I'll make myself feel better pretending that I'm spending $50 per year for a 5 year machine life span.
1. When Picasa imports photos, it respects the folder structure that I use. It uses the folder names to a
automatically categorize the photos (similar to iPhoto albums, but it's automatic).
Since v6, iPhoto has stored images in either...
~/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Originals/2006/Film Roll Name
or left them where they are on your disk. It's an option in Preferences. Just set the name of the film roll on import or edit it later when viewing the library in 'Film Roll' view. If you modify the images, replace 'Originals' with 'Modified' above to get your edits.
It bizarrely doesn't mimic the folder structure you see on the left hand column but it's not as mad as the old pre-v6 store by date method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
2. Picasa is extremely fast in starting up - even when it is managing many thousands of photos.
3. In a similar vein, Picasa is very fast in rendering thumbnails (again, even with thousands of photos).
Pre v6 it was slow with certain cameras that stored a lot of info in the EXIF header of the images. v6 onwards takes about 5 or 6 seconds on my 1.8Ghz G5 with around 8000 images and it's much faster with thumbnails. Last year's iPhoto, the first after the port to cocoa, was dismal. Unusable for some. v6 is light years ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
4. Photo editing and tuning is a lot easier. The UI is simpler and more readily available.
Opposite IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
5. Picasa integrates with a wider variety of photo printing vendors.
Never used one. Why would I? Got my own printer here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
6. The labeling and search functionality in Picasa *seems* better (although I haven't focused much attention looking at iPhotos capabilities here yet).
Better than Spotlight? I've never labelled anything though in iPhoto. I just create albums for them. IIRC the batch edit is a bit hokey when I have. eg. changing the date of images.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
7. Picasa is offering free hosting for a reasonable number of photos (I think you get 250MB at no charge).
I like iPhoto quite a lot, but I think Picasa has it beat for the moment.
Quite the opposite IMHO. Plus Picasa doesn't integrate in with the Macs media browser palette used in the other iLife apps or Pages/Keynote so it's a no go for me. It's essential in producing Wedding Photo Albums in iDVD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
My approach to using Picasa has been to use Parallels to run Win XP. I then tell OS X to allow file sharing. Lastly, I installed Bonjour on Win XP and set up a fixed drive letter to point to where my photos are on the Mac. Works very nicely.
Thoughts?
Give iPhoto another look. I think you've missed some of it's features in your Windows inertia.
Apple is bottom feeding to lower prices, but they are loosing specs.
Huh? The Merom is generally $100 MORE EXPENSIVE than the Conroe.
They're also using SODIMMs still which are MORE EXPENSIVE than desktop RAM. Saying that, their RAM prices are actually pretty reasonable in the new iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Apparently they now believe that iMac is no longer in the spec range of the typical desktop. PC desktop wins this round, but we shall see how much the average consumer thinks he really needs.
You must have a different picture about what the AVERAGE consumer buys. Hint: it's not 24" screened dual-core designer Apple all-in-ones. Apple aren't after the AVERAGE consumer.
How do you figure? They released the fastest iMacs to date today. Where are they losing specs?
The iMac got faster, but they still won't be as fast as a PC with a conroe, especially with the higher clock speeds. The merom simply isn't as competitive for the price.
Apple really needs to use the conroe in *something*. It's great bang for the buck, it would be a shame to not take advantage of it.
I've been playing with iPhoto quite a bit lately. You're right in saying that the two programs offer similar features. Here's what I like about Picasa:
7. Picasa is offering free hosting for a reasonable number of photos (I think you get 250MB at no charge).
--DotComCTO
Google released an iPhoto plugin for Picasa Web Albums. You can now publish to the Picasa Web Albums directly from iPhoto. I have used it and it is pretty neato.
Quicken was listed as bundled with the previous iMac and is still listed as shipping with the refurbished iMacs. It was also bundled with the Cube. It did not ship with the Mini.
It shipped with my G4 mini. It was a big part of Apple's advertising to "switch".
1. When Picasa imports photos, it respects the folder structure that I use. It uses the folder names to a
automatically categorize the photos (similar to iPhoto albums, but it's automatic).
A lot of people critizised iPhoto for this (although since iPhoto 6 this issue seems to be moot), I never understood them.
With Picasa you [can] organize your photos outside of Picasa in folders then import them. With iPhoto (pre vs.6) you import your photos into iPhoto and then organize them into folders/albums inside iPhoto. Essentially the same work you have to do in both cases BUT I think organizing photos inside a program like iPhoto or Picasa is much easier than doing it in the Finder/Explorer.
To those who might argue that they already have the folder structure outside iPhoto/Picasa, I might add that when I started using iPhoto (years ago), I maybe had a few dozen digital photos in total, so for me that never was an issue.
~/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Originals/2006/Film Roll Name
or left them where they are on your disk. It's an option in Preferences. Just set the name of the film roll on import or edit it later when viewing the library in 'Film Roll' view. If you modify the images, replace 'Originals' with 'Modified' above to get your edits.
Perhaps I missed something in iPhoto; however, when I import my existing photos into iPhoto, it does not automatically create albums to match the folder name it imported from. The process dumps all the photos into the main library. I then have to choose "New Album from Selection" to manually create an album. This is not a trivial process when dealing with thousands of photos spanning hundreds of folders. I also did not notice how a folder/album substructure is represented in iPhoto. Lastly, the album arrangement doesn't appear to be sortable in any particular order.
Again, perhaps I'm too unfamiliar with iPhoto, but any direction you can provide would be welcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Pre v6 it was slow with certain cameras that stored a lot of info in the EXIF header of the images. v6 onwards takes about 5 or 6 seconds on my 1.8Ghz G5 with around 8000 images and it's much faster with thumbnails. Last year's iPhoto, the first after the port to cocoa, was dismal. Unusable for some. v6 is light years ahead.
Nevertheless, I still find iPhoto to be slower to get going than Picasa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
4. Photo editing and tuning is a lot easier. The UI is simpler and more readily available.
Opposite IMO.
This is purely a personal preference. Perhaps if I work more with iPhoto, I may feel differently; however, at this point in time, I am more comfortable with Picasa's approach. I should mention that I am also very well versed in Photoshop. I understand iPhoto's approach, I personally prefer working in Picasa for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
5. Picasa integrates with a wider variety of photo printing vendors.
Never used one. Why would I? Got my own printer here.
I used to be 100% in your camp, but as of the last year I've ditched printing most photos at home. I find the process coming from the professional Fujitsu digital photo printers to be far superior and far cheaper. The cost of consumables for a printer adds up quickly.
The sole exception is when I'm printing something on extremely large format media. For example, I shot a 5 frame NYC pano that I stitched together in Photoshop. I printed to very large canvas for that project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
6. The labeling and search functionality in Picasa *seems* better (although I haven't focused much attention looking at iPhotos capabilities here yet).
Better than Spotlight? I've never labelled anything though in iPhoto. I just create albums for them. IIRC the batch edit is a bit hokey when I have. eg. changing the date of images.
As I said, I have not experimented a ton with iPhoto search features yet. I will do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
7. Picasa is offering free hosting for a reasonable number of photos (I think you get 250MB at no charge).
I like iPhoto quite a lot, but I think Picasa has it beat for the moment.
Quite the opposite IMHO. Plus Picasa doesn't integrate in with the Macs media browser palette used in the other iLife apps or Pages/Keynote so it's a no go for me. It's essential in producing Wedding Photo Albums in iDVD.
At present, we seem to have different needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Give iPhoto another look. I think you've missed some of it's features in your Windows inertia.
That is an excellent - and valid - observation. Your take on the topic is both enlightening and very much appreciated.
I'm looking forward to your continued thoughts on the subject.
Google released an iPhoto plugin for Picasa Web Albums. You can now publish to the Picasa Web Albums directly from iPhoto. I have used it and it is pretty neato.
I was just informed of that by "aegisdesign". I am going to check it out! Now...if they could share their meta-data that would be awesome. That would allow me to make edits in iPhoto or Picasa and have the changes appear in both tools!!
A lot of people critizised iPhoto for this (although since iPhoto 6 this issue seems to be moot), I never understood them.
With Picasa you [can] organize your photos outside of Picasa in folders then import them. With iPhoto (pre vs.6) you import your photos into iPhoto and then organize them into folders/albums inside iPhoto. Essentially the same work you have to do in both cases BUT I think organizing photos inside a program like iPhoto or Picasa is much easier than doing it in the Finder/Explorer.
To those who might argue that they already have the folder structure outside iPhoto/Picasa, I might add that when I started using iPhoto (years ago), I maybe had a few dozen digital photos in total, so for me that never was an issue.
Gotcha. I have an very large existing library with hundreds of folders. I can't see myself spending many, many hours manually importing a folder, then creating an album, lather, rinse, repeat. I do not understand the logic of iPhoto's approach.
In the good old days when AppleWorks was bundled you'd get a Database, Spreadsheet, Drawing, Painting, Presentation and Word Processing. Now all you get 30day trial of Office & iWork (which at just two apps hardly qualifies as a 'package').
Which in all is a real shame for the consumer market because Apple tells you it's selling a 'works out the box' solution. When actually nearly every consumer is going to have to install some kind of Office/Works application. iWorks needs to be bundled on consumer Macs and it needs to match the features of AppleWorks (yeah I know AppleWorks was rubbish - but the features were at least there and free).
Perhaps I missed something in iPhoto; however, when I import my existing photos into iPhoto, it does not automatically create albums to match the folder name it imported from. The process dumps all the photos into the main library. I then have to choose "New Album from Selection" to manually create an album. This is not a trivial process when dealing with thousands of photos spanning hundreds of folders. I also did not notice how a folder/album substructure is represented in iPhoto. Lastly, the album arrangement doesn't appear to be sortable in any particular order.
If you import from a folder, a new roll will be created in your library with the images from that folder with the name of the folder as the roll name. If you import multiple folders, each will have the roll name of the folder.
Albums aren't automatically created. However, if you're in 'Film Roll View' from the View menu, just click on the film roll title, then + and it creates an album.
You can sort the albums in any order by just dragging them into place, including putting folders inside others and albums in folders.
Film Roll view is IMHO the best way of looking at the library.
Gotcha. I have an very large existing library with hundreds of folders. I can't see myself spending many, many hours manually importing a folder, then creating an album, lather, rinse, repeat. I do not understand the logic of iPhoto's approach.
--DotComCTO
I see your problem, however, I hope you see that for somebody who has always lived in iPhoto this is not an issue.
Anyway, I am off to Aperture since quite a while, and I think I remember reading that Aperture can take a folder structure and turn it into build-in folder/album structure but then again with having no photos outside Aperture I do not really have a need for this feature.
However, I never bothered moving my old photos from iPhoto to Aperture. So, I would suggest, just start working in iPhoto/Aperture/Picasa with new photos and keep your folder structure for older photos.
Comments
This was all great news until I read this: http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...s/bts_faq.html
WTF??
You can't order the old iMacs from Apple, and the new iMacs aren't covered. So basically I don't get a free iPod anymore. What the freakin' HELL.
Yep. I posted earlier about this when I ordered. I called Apple and basically the new iMacs are not part of the promotion. Kinda weird, but personally, I already have an iPod so it wasn't a big deal for me. I can see whereas other people might be annoyed.
--DotComCTO
Do you think its worth the 300 bucks to up it to 2.33 Ghz from 2.16 Ghz?
Don't you mean $250?
As to whether or not it is worth the extra $, it depends:
If you don't and it turns out that it isn't much of a speed bump, you are a winner. If you do and it turns out it isn't much of a speed bump, only you have to know that you made a dumb mistake.
If you don't and it turns out that it is a significant speed bump, you are a loser. If however, you do and it is a significant speed bump, you will be able to brag it to your friends. And that makes you a real winner.
Do you think its worth the 300 bucks to up it to 2.33 Ghz from 2.16 Ghz?
I spent the money figuring I would have this machine for several years. Why not get the fastest available? I'll make myself feel better pretending that I'm spending $50 per year for a 5 year machine life span.
--DotComCTO
1. When Picasa imports photos, it respects the folder structure that I use. It uses the folder names to a
automatically categorize the photos (similar to iPhoto albums, but it's automatic).
Since v6, iPhoto has stored images in either...
~/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Originals/2006/Film Roll Name
or left them where they are on your disk. It's an option in Preferences. Just set the name of the film roll on import or edit it later when viewing the library in 'Film Roll' view. If you modify the images, replace 'Originals' with 'Modified' above to get your edits.
It bizarrely doesn't mimic the folder structure you see on the left hand column but it's not as mad as the old pre-v6 store by date method.
2. Picasa is extremely fast in starting up - even when it is managing many thousands of photos.
3. In a similar vein, Picasa is very fast in rendering thumbnails (again, even with thousands of photos).
Pre v6 it was slow with certain cameras that stored a lot of info in the EXIF header of the images. v6 onwards takes about 5 or 6 seconds on my 1.8Ghz G5 with around 8000 images and it's much faster with thumbnails. Last year's iPhoto, the first after the port to cocoa, was dismal. Unusable for some. v6 is light years ahead.
4. Photo editing and tuning is a lot easier. The UI is simpler and more readily available.
Opposite IMO.
5. Picasa integrates with a wider variety of photo printing vendors.
Never used one. Why would I? Got my own printer here.
6. The labeling and search functionality in Picasa *seems* better (although I haven't focused much attention looking at iPhotos capabilities here yet).
Better than Spotlight? I've never labelled anything though in iPhoto. I just create albums for them. IIRC the batch edit is a bit hokey when I have. eg. changing the date of images.
7. Picasa is offering free hosting for a reasonable number of photos (I think you get 250MB at no charge).
You can export directly from iPhoto to Picasa's web space. See http://picasa.google.com/web/mac_tools.html
There's also a Flickr export.
I like iPhoto quite a lot, but I think Picasa has it beat for the moment.
Quite the opposite IMHO. Plus Picasa doesn't integrate in with the Macs media browser palette used in the other iLife apps or Pages/Keynote so it's a no go for me. It's essential in producing Wedding Photo Albums in iDVD.
My approach to using Picasa has been to use Parallels to run Win XP. I then tell OS X to allow file sharing. Lastly, I installed Bonjour on Win XP and set up a fixed drive letter to point to where my photos are on the Mac. Works very nicely.
Thoughts?
Give iPhoto another look. I think you've missed some of it's features in your Windows inertia.
Apple is bottom feeding to lower prices, but they are loosing specs.
Huh? The Merom is generally $100 MORE EXPENSIVE than the Conroe.
They're also using SODIMMs still which are MORE EXPENSIVE than desktop RAM. Saying that, their RAM prices are actually pretty reasonable in the new iMac.
Apparently they now believe that iMac is no longer in the spec range of the typical desktop. PC desktop wins this round, but we shall see how much the average consumer thinks he really needs.
You must have a different picture about what the AVERAGE consumer buys. Hint: it's not 24" screened dual-core designer Apple all-in-ones. Apple aren't after the AVERAGE consumer.
This was all great news until I read this: http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...s/bts_faq.html
WTF??
You can't order the old iMacs from Apple, and the new iMacs aren't covered. So basically I don't get a free iPod anymore. What the freakin' HELL.
You'll have to walk down your local Apple reseller tommorow and buy the two said items of the shelf.
Never had a copy here in either iBooks, iMacs or eMacs since 2001. Perhaps it's a USA thing only?
iMac G4 20" (exact date unknown) shipped with it on the Install Disks in the UK.
How do you figure? They released the fastest iMacs to date today. Where are they losing specs?
The iMac got faster, but they still won't be as fast as a PC with a conroe, especially with the higher clock speeds. The merom simply isn't as competitive for the price.
Apple really needs to use the conroe in *something*. It's great bang for the buck, it would be a shame to not take advantage of it.
I've been playing with iPhoto quite a bit lately. You're right in saying that the two programs offer similar features. Here's what I like about Picasa:
7. Picasa is offering free hosting for a reasonable number of photos (I think you get 250MB at no charge).
--DotComCTO
Google released an iPhoto plugin for Picasa Web Albums. You can now publish to the Picasa Web Albums directly from iPhoto. I have used it and it is pretty neato.
iMac G4 20" (exact date unknown) shipped with it on the Install Disks in the UK.
Didn't come with my iBook G3 500Mhz, the iMac G4 1Ghz, eMac 1.25Ghz or my 1.8 G5. I thought it was only PowerBooks that came with Quicken/Quickbooks.
Then again, I'm not likely to use it as it's shit and I've got MYOB already.
Quicken was listed as bundled with the previous iMac and is still listed as shipping with the refurbished iMacs. It was also bundled with the Cube. It did not ship with the Mini.
It shipped with my G4 mini. It was a big part of Apple's advertising to "switch".
2GB DDR2 SODIMMs were $1300 wherever I looked.
On dealram.com you can get 2GB sticks for the MacBook Pro starting at $700.
1. When Picasa imports photos, it respects the folder structure that I use. It uses the folder names to a
automatically categorize the photos (similar to iPhoto albums, but it's automatic).
A lot of people critizised iPhoto for this (although since iPhoto 6 this issue seems to be moot), I never understood them.
With Picasa you [can] organize your photos outside of Picasa in folders then import them. With iPhoto (pre vs.6) you import your photos into iPhoto and then organize them into folders/albums inside iPhoto. Essentially the same work you have to do in both cases BUT I think organizing photos inside a program like iPhoto or Picasa is much easier than doing it in the Finder/Explorer.
To those who might argue that they already have the folder structure outside iPhoto/Picasa, I might add that when I started using iPhoto (years ago), I maybe had a few dozen digital photos in total, so for me that never was an issue.
Since v6, iPhoto has stored images in either...
~/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Originals/2006/Film Roll Name
or left them where they are on your disk. It's an option in Preferences. Just set the name of the film roll on import or edit it later when viewing the library in 'Film Roll' view. If you modify the images, replace 'Originals' with 'Modified' above to get your edits.
Perhaps I missed something in iPhoto; however, when I import my existing photos into iPhoto, it does not automatically create albums to match the folder name it imported from. The process dumps all the photos into the main library. I then have to choose "New Album from Selection" to manually create an album. This is not a trivial process when dealing with thousands of photos spanning hundreds of folders. I also did not notice how a folder/album substructure is represented in iPhoto. Lastly, the album arrangement doesn't appear to be sortable in any particular order.
Again, perhaps I'm too unfamiliar with iPhoto, but any direction you can provide would be welcome.
Pre v6 it was slow with certain cameras that stored a lot of info in the EXIF header of the images. v6 onwards takes about 5 or 6 seconds on my 1.8Ghz G5 with around 8000 images and it's much faster with thumbnails. Last year's iPhoto, the first after the port to cocoa, was dismal. Unusable for some. v6 is light years ahead.
Nevertheless, I still find iPhoto to be slower to get going than Picasa.
4. Photo editing and tuning is a lot easier. The UI is simpler and more readily available.
Opposite IMO.
This is purely a personal preference. Perhaps if I work more with iPhoto, I may feel differently; however, at this point in time, I am more comfortable with Picasa's approach. I should mention that I am also very well versed in Photoshop. I understand iPhoto's approach, I personally prefer working in Picasa for now.
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
5. Picasa integrates with a wider variety of photo printing vendors.
Never used one. Why would I? Got my own printer here.
I used to be 100% in your camp, but as of the last year I've ditched printing most photos at home. I find the process coming from the professional Fujitsu digital photo printers to be far superior and far cheaper. The cost of consumables for a printer adds up quickly.
The sole exception is when I'm printing something on extremely large format media. For example, I shot a 5 frame NYC pano that I stitched together in Photoshop. I printed to very large canvas for that project.
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
6. The labeling and search functionality in Picasa *seems* better (although I haven't focused much attention looking at iPhotos capabilities here yet).
Better than Spotlight? I've never labelled anything though in iPhoto. I just create albums for them. IIRC the batch edit is a bit hokey when I have. eg. changing the date of images.
As I said, I have not experimented a ton with iPhoto search features yet. I will do so.
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
7. Picasa is offering free hosting for a reasonable number of photos (I think you get 250MB at no charge).
You can export directly from iPhoto to Picasa's web space. See http://picasa.google.com/web/mac_tools.html
There's also a Flickr export.
That's a fantastic tip! Thanks for that!!
Originally Posted by DotComCTO
I like iPhoto quite a lot, but I think Picasa has it beat for the moment.
Quite the opposite IMHO. Plus Picasa doesn't integrate in with the Macs media browser palette used in the other iLife apps or Pages/Keynote so it's a no go for me. It's essential in producing Wedding Photo Albums in iDVD.
At present, we seem to have different needs.
Give iPhoto another look. I think you've missed some of it's features in your Windows inertia.
That is an excellent - and valid - observation. Your take on the topic is both enlightening and very much appreciated.
I'm looking forward to your continued thoughts on the subject.
8)
--DotComCTO
Google released an iPhoto plugin for Picasa Web Albums. You can now publish to the Picasa Web Albums directly from iPhoto. I have used it and it is pretty neato.
I was just informed of that by "aegisdesign". I am going to check it out! Now...if they could share their meta-data that would be awesome. That would allow me to make edits in iPhoto or Picasa and have the changes appear in both tools!!
DotComCTO
A lot of people critizised iPhoto for this (although since iPhoto 6 this issue seems to be moot), I never understood them.
With Picasa you [can] organize your photos outside of Picasa in folders then import them. With iPhoto (pre vs.6) you import your photos into iPhoto and then organize them into folders/albums inside iPhoto. Essentially the same work you have to do in both cases BUT I think organizing photos inside a program like iPhoto or Picasa is much easier than doing it in the Finder/Explorer.
To those who might argue that they already have the folder structure outside iPhoto/Picasa, I might add that when I started using iPhoto (years ago), I maybe had a few dozen digital photos in total, so for me that never was an issue.
Gotcha. I have an very large existing library with hundreds of folders. I can't see myself spending many, many hours manually importing a folder, then creating an album, lather, rinse, repeat. I do not understand the logic of iPhoto's approach.
--DotComCTO
Then again, I'm not likely to use it as it's shit and I've got MYOB already.
Roger that! - I took a look at it and gave up anyhow - I decided I'd manage without.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the good old days when AppleWorks was bundled you'd get a Database, Spreadsheet, Drawing, Painting, Presentation and Word Processing. Now all you get 30day trial of Office & iWork (which at just two apps hardly qualifies as a 'package').
Which in all is a real shame for the consumer market because Apple tells you it's selling a 'works out the box' solution. When actually nearly every consumer is going to have to install some kind of Office/Works application. iWorks needs to be bundled on consumer Macs and it needs to match the features of AppleWorks (yeah I know AppleWorks was rubbish - but the features were at least there and free).
Perhaps I missed something in iPhoto; however, when I import my existing photos into iPhoto, it does not automatically create albums to match the folder name it imported from. The process dumps all the photos into the main library. I then have to choose "New Album from Selection" to manually create an album. This is not a trivial process when dealing with thousands of photos spanning hundreds of folders. I also did not notice how a folder/album substructure is represented in iPhoto. Lastly, the album arrangement doesn't appear to be sortable in any particular order.
If you import from a folder, a new roll will be created in your library with the images from that folder with the name of the folder as the roll name. If you import multiple folders, each will have the roll name of the folder.
Albums aren't automatically created. However, if you're in 'Film Roll View' from the View menu, just click on the film roll title, then + and it creates an album.
You can sort the albums in any order by just dragging them into place, including putting folders inside others and albums in folders.
Film Roll view is IMHO the best way of looking at the library.
Gotcha. I have an very large existing library with hundreds of folders. I can't see myself spending many, many hours manually importing a folder, then creating an album, lather, rinse, repeat. I do not understand the logic of iPhoto's approach.
--DotComCTO
I see your problem, however, I hope you see that for somebody who has always lived in iPhoto this is not an issue.
Anyway, I am off to Aperture since quite a while, and I think I remember reading that Aperture can take a folder structure and turn it into build-in folder/album structure but then again with having no photos outside Aperture I do not really have a need for this feature.
However, I never bothered moving my old photos from iPhoto to Aperture. So, I would suggest, just start working in iPhoto/Aperture/Picasa with new photos and keep your folder structure for older photos.
Focus, people!