Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 12:44 AM (in response to Gigi1701)
Thanks - but why in the name of all that's appley do they not say so? And why do they release software that won't work on a machine with their standard spec? As it happens I'm about to upgrade the RAM to 12GB but what a stuoid, stupid piece of design if they know it won't work but they just take your money and don't tell you.
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 5:28 AM (in response to andyfromembsay)
Andy, when you call this "a stuoid, stupid piece of design", are you saying that all software should have identical RAM needs? Even Pro applications?
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 7:31 AM (in response to John Kitchen)
No, I mean they should make it clear what the system requirements are before they take your money.
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 9:00 AM (in response to andyfromembsay)
The system requirements vary widely depending on how you use the product. Others in these discussions have reported that 3GBs is enough for them. On the other hand, I found that 8GBs was not enough, I guess because I use all the options, have a large library, I mostly process RAW files, and my RAW files are huge.
That's why Apple has a 30 day trial program. Maybe you should have tried that so you could assess the suitability of the software to your system.
Anyway, I'm glad that you are taking the rational way out and upgrading the RAM to 12GBs. I'm 99% confident that that will fix your RAM demand issue.
I can never understand why there is such general reluctance to configure computers with a lot of RAM. RAM is cheap and it is the last resource that anyone should consider skimping on. Accessing RAM takes nanoseconds, accessing hard drives takes milliseconds. So saving less than a hundred dollars makes things go a million times slower. Not a good deal IMHO.
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 9:07 AM (in response to John Kitchen)
I tried the 30 day trail but assumed because it was the trial version the library import was taking hours - again they don't make this clear in any documentation. If you watch the video guide you'd think that it'd take a few minutes and you'd be up and running. It doesn't say anywhere that "if you have a photo library of 70GB you can expect it to take several days before the library is imported".
I don't do anything complex. I don't process RAW files - but it appears 4GB is not enough. So why not say so?
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 9:21 AM (in response to andyfromembsay)
I tried the 30 day trail but assumed because it was the trial version the library import was taking hours - again they don't make this clear in any documentation.
Nowhere does Apple say that the trial version is anything other than the full version of Aperture with an expiration date.
It would be senseless for them to create a slower version of Aperture for you to try, so that you could have an artificially horrible experience and then choose not to buy the "real" version because of this.
In fact here is what Apple says about the trial version (my emphasis added) and presumably you read that?
"To get a fully functional copy of Aperture 3 for your Mac, enter your name and email address in the box to the right. You’ll receive an email with a serial number for activation. The free trial will expire 30 days after you open the application for the first time."
And as I said above, 3GBs is enough for some users, it's just that 4GBs is not enough for you. The happy 3GB users would be less happy if Apple told them that they'd need more than 4GBs, since it is just not true. For them.
So you tried the free trial version, it was a bad experience for you, so you chose to buy a bad experience and now blame Apple for "not telling you". It's time you took responsibility for your own buying decisions and your choice not to read what was in front of you and not to learn from the trial.
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 12:19 PM (in response to andyfromembsay)
Hi Andy, 70GB is a BIG library. You certainly know enough that such a library will take some of your time, whether you process or not...
Thanks for your patience John.
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 3:26 PM (in response to Gigi1701)
Well, that is good to know. RAM is the key to many things. On my Mac Pro I have 16 gb so having no issues, but my older laptop, MacBookPro 3,1 has only four gb. I was planning to put Aperture on it so I have it when at clients' we can look at the photos I have shot. I haven't upgraded to Lion on it, mostly because of Parallels (not quite dialed in yet), but looks like I would need to upgrade the RAM again to have both Lion and Aperture.
Thank you for the info, it is very,very good to know now before I do the upgrades on the laptop! Also explains the OP's issues. The very first thing I do with a computer is add more RAM. On any given day I have several Adobe CS5 programs open, several browsers, Mail, and dozens of smaller programs open too. Adobe programs are also RAM hogs, big ones, so more memory is step one before even turning the machine on.
You are so correct on the RAM story. Your MacBook Pro 3,1 can probably go up to 6GBs if I'm reading MacTracker correctly.
You might like to read this post of mine as well - Lion and Macs with 4GBs of RAM (or even 8GBs)
This may help you assess whether Lion is likely to work well for you or not.
Message was edited by: John Kitchen
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 3:34 PM (in response to John Kitchen)
I looked at OWC and they have an upgrade package for 6 gb, so yes it is true that model can be upgraded. When I am ready for Lion on that machine (as soon as a couple important programs get updated for Lion) I should get more memory just so it is a better experience. My one confusion is if my model can really do 64 bit. I was going to switch it when I got Snow Leopard, but the program I was using to switch was warning that my model, while in theory can be 64 bit, they didn't recommend it because Apple didn't support it. But that may change with the new system. I just need to find some current info on that issue.
Thanks for the link, very helpful!
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 3:51 PM (in response to Gigi1701)
Gigi, I believe your MBP 3,1 supports 64 bit. But with only 6GBs of RAM, there is no point in running in 64 bit mode for the applications. In fact it is a good plan to set them into 32 bit mode to stop them going rampant! Pardon the pun.
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 3:55 PM (in response to John Kitchen)
Thank You John, that is the most I can put in so sounds like it is best to stick with the 32 bit as you suggest. My MacPro is my main workhorse, the laptop is a backup and my machine to run Windows to check out websites in Exploder, so I don't have to have the 64 bit as awesome as it is on my MacPro.
(sorry for the off topic posts, but grateful for the info before jumping in and running into trouble!)
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 4:20 PM (in response to andyfromembsay)
This story has been playing out - literally for decades - with pro graphics apps. OS versions change, app versions change, users' demands are widely varied and vendors usually spec only minimum RAM requirements. Users need to realize:
• RAM needs increase over time. Fortunately RAM prices fall.
• GPU demands increase over time.
• New OS versions and/or new app versions frequently present added hardware challenges.
We should expect the above, not be surprised by it. And we should plan our hardware purchases, equipment life cycles and OS/app upgrades accordingly.
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 8:11 PM (in response to SierraDragon)
So, Dragon, what you are telling us is we should ignore coding errrors and bad software in general, basic QA sloppiness and such and throw more hardware at the problem??!! Are you sure your middle name is not Bill and you are not a billionaire??!!
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 8:17 PM (in response to Gigi1701)
There is an issue with Aperture in 32 bit mode as well: it crashes quite predictably on 4 GB systems. Apple has taken notice and is investigating. Not sure however how long it will take to get a fix.
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2011 9:39 PM (in response to sorinfromtoronto)
Glad to hear they are looking into it. We have a Mac Mini that isn't that old got it in 2010 and it is maxed out at 4gb. I just upgraded that one to Lion. Would be great if they could figure out the problem for computers that can't get more memory.