ATT nospam: Photos, iPhoto, Lightroom and Aperture speed test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izwXtUGzAY

Computer: 2013 mac Pro (Garbage can) with latest 10.11 El Capitan, 3Ghz 8-core
Intel Xeon E5 and 16 GB of RAM.

Storage media: Externally connected SSD drive (Blackmagic speed test: Read: 387
MB/s, Write: 344 MB/s) using Thunderbolt.

All applications use the same photos in their respective libraries, except
Aperture that is opening the iPhoto library. Every single photo is stored on
the SSD drive.

All applications were pre-launched prior to the test, to benefit from any
cacheing it could be doing. No cold-starts vs. hot-starts so to speak.


The result, if you'e too lazy to view the video:


Launching Opening image Editing image
------------------------------------------------------------
Photos 30s ~2s ~2s
iPhoto 9s ~1s Instant
Lightroom 6s ~2s ~4s
Aperture 5s Instant Instant


So, the verdict:

1. Winner: Aperture
As I've said all along, Aperture is the speed king when it comes to handling
huge photo libraries. It launches quickly, and "cheats" a bit when scrolling
where it shows a dotted outline, but thumbnail loading is very quick. Handles
images *instantly*. There is no wait involved anywhere where it does something.
Open an image? Boom, you're there. Want to edit it as well? Do it, you're al
ways in edit mode!

2: iPhoto
On second place, iPhoto. Takes a while longer to launch, but inside the appli
cation, it scrolls through tens of thousands of images like a hot knife through
butter, showing full thumbnails all the time, every time. Opening an image
takes less than a second, and editing it is instant. A good runner-up to the
Aperture speed king.

3. Lightroom
Lightroom has good launch speed, but is slow when viewing and editing images,
so switching in and out of preview and/or develop mode a lot? Well, expect to
do some waiting around. With Lightroom CC 2015, the scroll speed has been sig
nificantly enhanced, and now (finally) matches iPhoto speed. It falls short
(speed-wise) when it comes to most everything else.

4. Loser: Photos
Not even a worthy fourth place. It's super slow to launch with 40k photos, and
scrolling is buggy and uses super low-res fuzzy previews if it doesn't blank
them out completely. Uses the same "cheat" as Aperture, only does a worse job
at it. Opening images and then editing them is a bit better than Lightroom, but
when you do it a lot, it adds up to the overall slow feel of the application.
As noted in the video, iPhoto has grown a bit buggy in El Capitan, for in
stance, it has this huge blackened window when launched which it didn't have in
Yosemite.


Conclusion:

It baffles the mind how Apple would discontinue Aperture. I mean, as I've now
shown, it is by far the fastest and quickest photo management software on the
planet (still), and imagine if it had been updated and kept on-par with some of
the missing features found in Lightroom. It would have been awesome.

Pity.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

It baffles the mind how Apple would discontinue Aperture. I mean, as I've now
shown, it is by far the fastest and quickest photo management software on the
planet (still), and imagine if it had been updated and kept on-par with some
of
the missing features found in Lightroom.

I think that we are dealing with the Appleworks-iWorks syndrome. The Big
A is simply afraid of antagonizing important "partners"... The Mac
without Office and/or CC would not be that tempting to some clientele.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android wrote:

Sandman:
It baffles the mind how Apple would discontinue Aperture. I mean,
as I've now shown, it is by far the fastest and quickest photo
management software on the planet (still), and imagine if it had
been updated and kept on-par with some of the missing features
found in Lightroom.

I think that we are dealing with the Appleworks-iWorks syndrome. The
Big A is simply afraid of antagonizing important "partners"... The
Mac without Office and/or CC would not be that tempting to some
clientele.

No.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , android wrote:

Sandman:
It baffles the mind how Apple would discontinue Aperture. I mean,
as I've now shown, it is by far the fastest and quickest photo
management software on the planet (still), and imagine if it had
been updated and kept on-par with some of the missing features
found in Lightroom.

I think that we are dealing with the Appleworks-iWorks syndrome. The
Big A is simply afraid of antagonizing important "partners"... The
Mac without Office and/or CC would not be that tempting to some
clientele.

No.

Q:You don't think that. A:No.
Q:You don't think. A:Yes.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android wrote:

Sandman:
It baffles the mind how Apple would discontinue
Aperture. I mean, as I've now shown, it is by far the fastest
and quickest photo management software on the planet (still),
and imagine if it had been updated and kept on-par with some
of the missing features found in Lightroom.

android:
I think that we are dealing with the Appleworks-iWorks syndrome.
The Big A is simply afraid of antagonizing important
"partners"... The Mac without Office and/or CC would not be
that tempting to some clientele.

Sandman:
No.

Q:You don't think that. A:No. Q:You don't think. A:Yes.

Correct, you don't think.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , android wrote:

Sandman:
It baffles the mind how Apple would discontinue
Aperture. I mean, as I've now shown, it is by far the fastest
and quickest photo management software on the planet (still),
and imagine if it had been updated and kept on-par with some
of the missing features found in Lightroom.

android:
I think that we are dealing with the Appleworks-iWorks syndrome.
The Big A is simply afraid of antagonizing important
"partners"... The Mac without Office and/or CC would not be
that tempting to some clientele.

Sandman:
No.

Q:You don't think that. A:No. Q:You don't think. A:Yes.

Correct, you don't think.

Right, I don't think that you think.
--
teleportation kills

In article , Sandman
wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izwXtUGzAY

As expected, nospam quietly left the subject with his tail between his legs. Good
choice.


--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izwXtUGzAY

As expected, nospam quietly left the subject with his tail between his legs. Good
choice.

no he didn't. it's in the queue.

tl;dr you are full of ****.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izwXtUGzAY

Computer: 2013 mac Pro (Garbage can) with latest 10.11 El Capitan, 3Ghz
8-core
Intel Xeon E5 and 16 GB of RAM.

Those numbers are for the new Mac Pro?!?!? That's in the territory of
my aluminum boat anchor from 2006. What happened to Apple?

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izwXtUGzAY

Computer: 2013 mac Pro (Garbage can) with latest 10.11 El Capitan, 3Ghz
8-core
Intel Xeon E5 and 16 GB of RAM.

Those numbers are for the new Mac Pro?!?!? That's in the territory of
my aluminum boat anchor from 2006. What happened to Apple?

Your "aluminum boat anchor from 2006" had a Xeon E5? Was that delivered
to you by Doctor Who or by Marty McFly?

As to "what happened to Apple", Apple does not make CPUs and it seems to
have escaped your notice that performance today is being obtained by
means other than increasing clock speed.

It's an antique MacPro1,1 that launches Aperture in 6 to 7 seconds.

5 GB RAM
2x 2.66 GHz Dual Core Xeon
2x 1TB WG Green
GeForce 7300 GT
MacOS 10.6

I'm guessing it runs some tasks quickly because it's still on MacOS
10.6. If I bought the $$$$$ new Trash Can Mac and it took 30 seconds to
launch Photos with a modestly sized library like that, I'd return it.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.