Apple Event: May 7th at 7 am PT

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Level 1

8 points

aperture update 3.3 breaks workflow for pro photographer

In my studio, I have a nice quad-core Mac Pro running OS X Lion 10.7.x and a week ago upgraded to Aperture 3.3 without giving it any thought, which of course upgraded all of my Aperture libraries. However, when away from the studio, I have a MacBook Pro (Silver, circa 2009) which is a 2 GHz Core Duo... cant upgrade these Macs to OS X Lion as a Core 2 Duo is required. As such, it is still running Aperture 3.2.3, because for some absurd reason the 3.3 upgrade requires OS X 10.7.

Now, I can not use my existing Aperture libraries on my laptop! Forcing me to purchase an entirely new MacBook Pro is ridiculous. Apple has totally f*ed up regarding this upgrade because there is literally no simple way to revert from this. There is no logical reason for Aperture 3.3 to require a more powerful computer as this MacBook Pro is still respectably speedy. Companies like Apple sometimes require new OS versions simply to force people to purchase upgrades. Well, I'd gladly run Lion on the MacBook Pro.

I wonder if anyone from Apple reads these forums. I also wonder about a class action lawsuit against Apple from pro photographers. Apple just halted my ability to work, and that is unacceptible. Has anyone else has run into this problem, or does everyone just jump and buy a new MacBook Pro every other year?

Definitely not feeling like a fanboy right about now...

Scott

Aperture 3, Mac OS X (10.6.8), Aperture 3.3 requires OS X 10.7

Posted on Jun 27, 2012 9:12 PM

16 replies

Jun 28, 2012 2:33 PM in response to CorkyO2

Well, yeah, but that's referring to the failure rate of the media itself. It's possible with checksums, etc., to account for that and ensure that data isn't lost (somewhat like RAID 5, but more advanced). You just have to know the limitations of the medium and build the logic into the drive controller.

Flash fails with a certain number of writes already, and the controllers do advanced wear leveling to get around it. There are some downsides to the wear leveling and block reading/writing too, again which can be addressed (and are being enhanced) in the newer SSDs. I mean, really, flash-based storage is 500+ MB/sec now, as compared to 50 MB/sec 3-4 years ago.

The article calling the future "bleak" in 2024 is fairly silly, because there are lots of engineers thinking about ways to come out with optimal devices given the challenges of the medium. Is it the best physical storage medium ever? Likely not. But there's way more that can be done with flash than can be done with rotating magnetic media, which is slow and unreliable. I mean it's the slowest, least reliable thing on a laptop by far. By FAR.

aperture update 3.3 breaks workflow for pro photographer