Aperture 3.2 upgrade (from 3.1.3) crash continuously

-Allen: Well, it doesn't really matter how much you and others disagree. It's a matter of trust after all. I've used Apple since 1994 and lerned to trust the products they previously have put on the market. Wathever Windows and others put on the market, how they handle problems and whatever their policy is, is not at all an issue here. Apple has in the past, as far as I am concerned, stood up for the products they put on the market. This problem we now experiencing should obviously been known to Apple in advance of release and therefore, at the very least, been put out an warning to all potential users of this "upgrade".

Also, for the records, I am fully able to reconstruct my images into Lightroom with all it's quirks, since I have the original backups, but here we are talking about some major work. Adjustments, keywording and what not.

BTW, based on contacts I have in pro groups, this mentioned trust is very rapidly crumbling with a lot of us longtime users.

I agree. I have owned apple computers since 1985 when I even worked for IBM, but I do feel let down now. I purchased my 17 inch MacBook pro hoping it would serve me well . . And it has . . Why should I throw away a great computer just because Apple has decided not to support me and some of my software? Well it would seem (and I will wait a few weeks incase they do bring out a fix) I will have to decide if I now loose the faith and walk on the dark side.

Well 3.1.3 is still great software. Basically the only thing 3.2 did was add cloud support and clean up a few Lion issues. If you're running a Core Duo processor you can't install Lion or use the Cloud anyway so just stay with 3.1.3.

I really wonder if this was an over site in testing on the Core Duo Macs or if it was an over site in announcing that the requirements for 3.2 were a Core 2 Duo minimum. If you look at Lion and FCP X to name 2 they both require Core 2 Duo's.

That is definitely the way its going and we all know Apple was never shy about casting off old software/hardware when they decide to move forward.

I think 3.1.3 on 10.6.8 is still the best combination especially for a professional. It is extremely stable and has all the features you require. Lion and 3.2 really doesn't add anything.

JohnTweddell wrote:

Why should I throw away a great computer just because Apple has decided not to support me and some of my software?

I do not understand. What is it that Apple is not supporting?

My 2006 17" MBP with 3 GB RAM under 10.6.8 still runs Aperture 3.1.3 - as does my 2011 17" MBP with 8 GB RAM. The old box is slow as heck compared to the new one, but it runs.

Note that I will upgrade the 2011 MBP soon to Lion, etc. but I probably will not further upgrade the 2006 box. It is IMO unwise to install software upgrades past a certain point on really old hardware. What is really old? I would suggest that once hardware reaches about 3 years of age we should very carefully evaluate every single change in software prior to installing it, and have fallback alternative methods in place to drop back to older software if necessary.

-Allen

I'd like to reiterate what I said earlier - I've suffered all the problems discussed above and my iMac is a Core 2 Duo. NOT a Core Duo. So the problem may not be confined to earlier mac owners. Has anyone else had these problems on a C2D machine?

To clarify what I mean by lack of support. I feel that Apple is not supporting me by deciding:

1/ Not to allow Lion to run on this particular Intel family of processor (I can understand not allowing a different architecture such as G5s)

2/ By Offering me the upgrade to my Aperture software via the app store up to v3.2 and then to-date not providing guidance on recovery or an official fix (ok, I will wait in future rather than trust its been properly tested before going public). and, also many thanks to those on this thread who showed me that i should uninstall 3.2 because of the issue and that i needed to recover my library.

3/ by not offering my hardware configuration a way to move all my MobileMe data to iCloud (although I suppose there is a faint chance this will happen before June). I would also point out that they will not be supporting my iWeb site after this date.

4/ they ARE supporting iCloud on an old Windows Vista machines, but NOT on a newer snow Leopard system.

I am not going to get in an argument about this, but I do feel genuinely let down and not getting the level of support I was hoping for.

I still can't access my images without a quit. Yes, I dragged the Masters to desktop. Yes, I've been with tech responding to their direction. There are differing points of view in support on the 3.2 update. I did a merge libraries

Step. No avail. I did repair database. No avail. I renamed libraries. No avail. I'm waiting, I guess for the software guys, gals, to come up with a solution. If its weeks? OK. I don't know how long these things take. I did not see any warning that upgrading From Aperture 3, to Aperture 3.2, had compatibility restraints with certain machines. In fact I was just told after viewing all of the vital statistics on my MacBook Pro, 10,6,8, that this hardware is not a deterrent for Aperture 3.2. I understand through tech, it's widely understood by them that I can't GO BACK. That 3.2 has already lined with my library. It's a 3.2 library. Is that true? Their have been a couple if individuals in support communities that have reverted to Aperture 3. Tech says it can't be done. They said we have to wait. So let me ask. Is that what we're doing? Waiting. Or does communities have the solution. There's a lot of information here to decipher. Seems like there are a few ways to do the same thing. Seems like there are so many methods, that the go-to people are confused. I appologize for not having the solution myself. I don't want to conrtibute more angst for everyone than is necessary. I think we have a responsibility to ourselves as Photographers, to maintain a certain decorum. For the most part, I'm impressed with the level of technical knowledge out there. I need to catch up, and I will.

Having all of the same issues with the crashing in 3.2, and not wanting to jump through all the tech hoops, I simply used Time Machine to revert to the previous Aperture version before the upgrade.

Unfortunately, I had one Aperture Library I had tried to open since the upgrade, and of course it was converted to a 3.2 Library, making it incompatable with the earlier version of Aperture. So essentially, this Library is useless to me now. Fortunately, I have back ups and vaults of my various Libraries.

Lesson learned: Hold off on upgrading Aperture any further on my current Mac (2006 Black MacBook Core Duo). Keep redundant and current backups on all libraries, including Vaults, and keep several Libraries rather than one or two large ones.

Hope this helps some.... at least now, for me, I can get back to work!

One other note of hope is I'll move the one Library to a new MacBook Air when I get it, and use it there with a 3.2 Aperture.

Update. Not really new but, I'll keep it short:

I can access jpegs, and edit.

If when opening Aperture, I go to my slide show, with browser. Somehow that tricks photos mode to default to the brouser.

When that happens, thumbnails to choose. Tiffs aren't opening, so I can choose a jpeg.

Jpegs load fast! for editing. Nice! Just like the old day's.

As soon as a Tiff is chosen. It quits.

Somethngs up with Tiffs, and Raw. Or, just a large file.

Another note. Maybe redundent. The images are in tact, meaning, the edits are all consistent.

And your hardware, RAM, drives, etc. is...?

I just coped 3.1.3 from a Time Machine backup into Applications and once I'd reconstructed the library that 3.2 had converted things are going fine for me.

I noticed something odd in the browser. A couple of my images when clicking a thumbnail to view. There is an image, behind the image that I'm selecting. Not ghosting, but a normal opaque image hanging out of the edge of the one on top. Ok. Anyone heard of that? Didn't see that with Aperture 3.

Having the exact same problem with two different Aperture libraries; both do contain many RAW images. I'm on a MacBook Pro with 2.16 GHz Intel Core Duo with 2 GB of RAM and running OS X Version 10.6.8 (And this setup does satisfy the minimum operating requirements according to Apple)

Please fix, Apple. This is a completely unacceptable problem for a program designed for the professional photographer. I use Aperture on a daily basis and I'm happy I recognized this problem at home before upgrading the library I use at work.

painterjon wrote:

...I'm on a MacBook Pro with 2.16 GHz Intel Core Duo with 2 GB of RAM and running OS X Version 10.6.8 (And this setup does satisfy the minimum operating requirements according to Apple)

Apple lies about operating requirements. So does Adobe.

Your MBP's weak 2006 CPU and relatively weak graphics will be limiting to Aperture. I do not think it will ever run particularly well. It may or may not run "well enough" for your specific workflow. Installing maximum RAM may help but Core Duo boxes are old and weak. Sorry. 😟

I ran (in fact still sometimes run) Aperture 3.1.3, OS 10.6.8 on a 2.33 GHz C2D MBP with a max of 3 GB RAM, and it does work but it does not rock. Try doing a restart before each Aperture session and keep other applications closed.

You can evaluate whether or not you have adequate RAM by looking at the Page Outs number under System Memory on the Activity Monitor app before starting a typical Aperture work session; recheck after working and if the page outs change (manual calculation of ending page outs number minus starting page outs number) is not zero your workflow is RAM-starved. Ignore the pie charts and other info in Activity Monitor.

If your test showed that page outs increased significantly during operation (which I will almost guarantee is the case) you can

• add RAM

• and/or simply try to run Aperture by itself

• and/or switch from 64-bit operation to 32-bit operation (which will make some additional RAM space available).

HTH

-Allen Wicks

I have the same issue. This *****. I can't do anything with my photos, or my camera. If Apple doesn't release a fix soon, I'm going to have to bite the bullet and move to lightroom.