Currently Being ModeratedJun 27, 2012 10:31 PM (in response to scottkahn)
I wonder if anyone from Apple reads these forums.
Scott, This is a user forum, so it is not guaranteed that your post will be read by Apple officials. Use the Aperture feedback form (from the main menu bar):
Aperture > Provide Aperture Feedback
Apple has totally f*ed up regarding this upgrade because there is literally no simple way to revert from this.
No, since you cannot revert an Aperture library in a lossless way, your best option will be to revert the upgrade by restoring your Aperture Library and your System system from your backup; this is best done from a bootable clone, if you have one.
There is no logical reason for Aperture 3.3 to require a more powerful computer as this MacBook Pro is still respectably speedy
It is not the speed of your old processor, that is preventing you from running Aperture 3.3 on your Core Duo - Aperture 3.3 is a 64bit only Application and requires a 64bit processor. You also will have problems to run older 32bit plug-ins from Aperture 3.3.
I know this is a very difficult situation for a professional depending on software tools; but before you consider a law suit read the release notes again, that came with the Aperture installer , also the technical specifications for OS Lion: http://support.apple.com/kb/SP629
Currently Being ModeratedJun 27, 2012 10:50 PM (in response to scottkahn)
I agree with leonieDF,
The lesson learned here is to:
1) Always back up.
2) Always back up before upgrading.
3) See #1 and #2.
4) Read the release notes (at least the summary and requirements).
This is an unfortunate time because of the transition from 32 bit to 64 bit. You stated that your MacBook Pro is "circa 2009", but Apple transitioned the MacBook Pro line to the Core 2 Duo on October 24, 2006 when they went from the Intel Yonah processor to the Intel Merom processor. Besides going to 64 bits, it also meant a clock speedup, a doubling of processor cache, and doubling of maximum RAM.
It's unfortunate perhaps, but not unreasonable, for "pro" software to require a Mac that wasn't discontinued almost 6 years ago, especially given the 64 bit transition.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 6:27 AM (in response to KevinePaloAlto)
Yikes... OK, maybe I didn't realize how long I've had the MacBook Pro! :-p
I agree with lessons re: backing up... however, upon reading the release notes:
* IT DOES NOT SAY THIS APP CHANGED FROM 32-BIT TO 64-BIT, thus requiring 10.7.
* There was no important notice like "Warning: If you run Aperture on multiple computers (like a laptop), make sure that your laptop also meets the system requirements for this upgrade or else you may lose the ability to move work between the two computers.
In over 20 years of IT experience (my former career, and part-time consulting to this day), I haven't experienced this particular problem, for which the only true fix is to spend around $2,000 on a new 15" MBP.
I do not use Time Machine (yes, that would have rendered an easy solution), but I practice a sound backup strategy that suits my workflow. Every shoot that I do gets exported from Aperture to a volume on the computer that gets burned to DVDs and stored offline. So, all of my mission critical data is backed up, and is Aperture independent (in case Adobe or Nikon give me a more appealing alternative), but I don't back up the huge, multi-GB Aperture libraries regularly (though I do periodically copy them to other disk volumes).
I guess the main reason for this post is so that other photographers dealing with this upgrade are made aware of the serious challenge Apple has created. Most photographers don't have the money to upgrade their computers every time Apple makes a technology shift, and in the case of studio computer/laptop computer, it's likely that other people will have the same issue, where they don't mind that the laptop is a bit older and slower, but it's not the primary work machine.
As for the lawsuit, well... that won't help my Apple stock any, so I doubt I'll go there :-p.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 7:21 AM (in response to scottkahn)
Scott, I see your point, the critical information is there, but distributed over several documents, and to understands that you will need the latest Lion version, 64bit compatible, on all machines, requires to follow the links through three documents.
I just noticed that I forgot the most relevant document into my collections of links, the TechSpecs for Aperture 3.3: http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/
These follow from the requirement, that Aperture 3.3. needs MacOS X 10.7.4, and 64bit Intel machines.
This information is only given indirectly from the absence of 32bit machines in the list of supported architectures.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 7:44 AM (in response to léonie)
Well, I have a 5 year old MacBook Pro (Apple calls it 'Vintage' and Aperture 3.3 runs under Lion 10.7.4. But I also know that I am trending on water at this point and it will be necessary to upgrade it. Love good reason to upgrade machines!!
I looked at the new Retina displays at the local Apple store and was very much impressed. But I am very disappointed there is not a 17" screen out as screen size is important to me. One option is to get a 15" and Thunderbolt it to a larger display, but then I lose the Retina screen.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 9:25 AM (in response to e2photo)
Perhaps look at this discussion?
Screensize is important, and that is why I got myself an 17" MBP, right before the retina display came out. But if you need a MBP because you need a portable mac, the 15" Retina might not be that bad. A 17" mac is useless in an Airplane, if you do not travel first class; you simply cannot open it in the small space in front of you, and it is a lot of weight to be lugging around. The retina display is brilliant and perfect for viewing images.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 9:34 AM (in response to léonie)
There's a reason all the new MacBook Pro with Retina Display commercials feature Aperture front and center: Because Aperture (and your images) look fantastic on it. There's no question it's the best laptop currently available for Aperture.
What's also interesting: If you want to use fast storage (and you do...) then the Retina version is cheaper than the non-Retina version, because upgrading the non-Retina model to a 256 GB SSD adds $500 to the price and makes it the more expensive model. And a spinning disk is a dinosaur.
I suspect the cutover to 10.7.4 as a minimum version with Aperture 3.3 was specifically due to the Retina Display support: All the OS support to do the automatic switching based on the right graphical assets does not existing in OS versions prior to the 10.7.4, and Aperture relies on it.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 9:56 AM (in response to William Lloyd)
".. And a spinning disk is a dinosaur...."
Sorry, can't let that one slip by! They may go the way of the dinosoar when they make a 3TB SSD for under $200 that will last several years of read-write, but until that time I would say HDD technology is at an all time height of excellence .
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 10:10 AM (in response to peter_watt)
Meh. You can get 768 GB of storage in the new MacBook Pro and it's 400-500 MB/sec compared to 40 MB/sec in the spinning drive. Coupled with the fact that I personally had 5 laptop drives fail in 3 years prior to moving to SSD 2 years ago (no failures since!) and I'm totally done with them in a laptop form factor. I simply don't trust laptop drives any more: They're too fragile for the environment they're in.
The only thing they have going for them, at all, is they have a low cost per GB. That's it. Otherwise, they're slow, crappy, and unreliable compared to the alternatives. And they are improving performance-wise maybe 5% to 10% per year, compared to 50% to 100% with SSD and flash-based solutions.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 11:54 AM (in response to William Lloyd)
Although I run an SSD in my 17" MBP, the future may not be as bright as we think for the SSD unless better implementations are designed according to the study mentioned in the article link below:
It would be nice to see a really large capacity, inexpensive SSD in the future, but the circuitry is apparently suspect. Let's hope the industry scientists can avoid the potential issue. Otherwise, enterprise level servers may not be terribly interested in SSD's long term and may stick with HDD swap.
I am however; very happy with my current OWC SSD and now discontinued 17" MBP (late 2011).
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 12:01 PM (in response to scottkahn)
"IT DOES NOT SAY THIS APP CHANGED FROM 32-BIT TO 64-BIT, thus requiring 10.7."
No but it does say very specifically that 10.7.4 is required. This is on the download page and App Store as well, under Information Requirements. The 32-bit to 64-bit may be the technical reason, but one doesn't need to know that, just that 10.7.4 is needed.
Unfortunately, Apple did make a huge mistake in not posting any of this in the Software Update tool, meaning if you upgraded there, you'd have no way of knowing that 10.7.4 was required if your Mac already was running 10.7.4. Apple has done this in the past with other software, and it's a very valid complaint and problem. I'd recommend submitting feedback on this specific point.
"In over 20 years of IT experience (my former career, and part-time consulting to this day), I haven't experienced this particular problem'
The problem has occured with most major software applications that use their own file formats. I'm going through the list of apps that I have used through the years and every single one has encountered this issue: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, Final Cut, Outlook, Filemaker, iTunes, iPhoto... The list goes on, but I can't find one example of software that's been around long enough to evolve their file format that hasn't encountered this. Again, the problem isn't 32-bit versus 64-bit per se, it's about a new version of the app having a different file format and requiring a different set of specs to run on.
This isn't to bash you, but rather to point out the important lesson here of always reading the release notes, especially when it comes to specs and known issues. Since this information is often missing from the Software Update Tool, I'd recommend using the App Store, or getting the updates from the Apple website where the requirements are clearly listed.
"but I practice a sound backup strategy that suits my workflow."
I don't think you do.
I too keep the original image files from my camera in isolated folders independent of Aperture, so I know I can always go back to them. However, if you care about your Aperture library, you really should be keeping it backed up and if you really care about it, you should keep it archvied.
There are alternatives to Time Machine (see Carbon Copy Cloner), but a sound backup strategy requires also maintaining a back up of the system required to access the data. Any new software could have significant bugs, and unless you can revert back, you may find that the backup of your files (library) is useless.
"I don't back up the huge, multi-GB Aperture libraries regularly (though I do periodically copy them to other disk volumes"
This. You should. Do it regularly, and especially do it before any upgrade to Aperture. On the other hand, if you don't care about your library don't back it up. If you don't care about any changes you've made don't do an incremental backup. You can get an external, portable USB 3.0 drive for under $90 for 1TB on Amazon. Attach it before going to sleep, and you're good...or leave it plugged in all the time. This is assuming you need 1TB, if you need less, it's less expensive, but $90... that's buying you a lot of protection right there... for your whole system, not just Aperture.
Personally, that's not enough for me. I also keep an offsite archive and a mirrored clone. The clone is so that if my hard drive fails, I can pop in the clone and be back and running as if nothing had happened within 10 minutes. The archive is for restoring the system back to a point in time or restoring files from a previous point in time.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 12:05 PM (in response to CorkyO2)
The MacBook Pro with Retina display doesn't use an SSD, per se. It uses onboard flash, which takes up a lot less space an an SSD (which is basically a box of air with a few chips in it, designed to fit in the space normally taken by a 2.5" magnetic turd drive).
Again you can already get 750 GB of space in the new MMBR. What's the biggest laptop drive at the moment, 1 GB?
And an article that extrapolates out to 2024 is silly. In the meantime, the same article says that flash is 100x faster than spinning drives in many use cases. That it might slow down (and, in the future, maybe only 500x faster as it improves and drives do not), is, well, not relevant ;-)
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 12:14 PM (in response to William Lloyd)
"The only thing they have going for them, at all, is they have a low cost per GB. That's it."
It's not just cost per GB, it's also about maximum capacity. I want at least 2TBs in my MacBook Pro. That's not an option with SSD. It is with current hard drives. Although that's changing too. OWC just announced 960GB SSDs, which is close enough to 1TB each, but meanwhile HDDs are coming out in 1.5TB and higher (for notebook drives).
I'm looking forward to making the switch though. I'm waiting for that 960GB to come down in price a little and get some experienced reviews. As it stands now, $1,270 is too much to be a tester with.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 28, 2012 12:19 PM (in response to William Lloyd)
Actually, I was looking at the error rate increasing by a factor of 3. That is a problem for any data being read and written. HDD's haven't seen that in their current lifespan. Data errors with respect to databases would be a deal breaker, IMHO.