Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #76012 > unrolled thread

iPhoto vs Photo

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  iPhoto vs Photo Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2015-05-28 20:49 -0700
    Re: iPhoto vs Photo JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-05-29 02:21 -0400
    Re: iPhoto vs Photo dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-05-29 19:50 +1200
      Re: iPhoto vs Photo Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2015-05-29 18:13 -0700
        Re: iPhoto vs Photo John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-05-29 18:56 -0700
        Re: iPhoto vs Photo dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-05-30 14:36 +1200
        Re: iPhoto vs Photo JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-05-30 02:06 -0400
          Re: iPhoto vs Photo Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2015-05-30 09:18 -0700
            Re: iPhoto vs Photo awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-05-30 12:13 -0700
              Re: iPhoto vs Photo JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-05-30 17:01 -0400
                Re: iPhoto vs Photo Alan Baker <email@domain.com> - 2015-06-02 07:27 -0700
    Re: iPhoto vs Photo "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-06-03 22:58 +0000
      Re: iPhoto vs Photo sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-06-05 16:27 +0000
        Re: iPhoto vs Photo "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-06-06 01:59 +0000
          Re: iPhoto vs Photo Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2015-06-06 11:53 +0100
            Re: iPhoto vs Photo Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2015-06-06 11:58 +0100
        Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-07 17:02 -0500
          Re: iPhoto vs Photo Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-08 08:02 -0400
            Re: iPhoto vs Photo android <here@there.was> - 2015-06-08 17:02 +0200
            Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-10 10:44 -0500
              Re: iPhoto vs Photo "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-06-10 21:05 +0000
                Re: iPhoto vs Photo Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 17:31 -0400
                  Re: iPhoto vs Photo Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-06-10 15:00 -0700
                  Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-10 18:47 -0400
                  Re: iPhoto vs Photo "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-06-12 18:23 +0000
                    Re: iPhoto vs Photo Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 14:41 -0400
                      Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-12 19:50 -0500
                        Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-12 21:02 -0400
                          Re: iPhoto vs Photo sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-06-14 20:45 +0000
                            Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-14 16:59 -0400
                    Re: iPhoto vs Photo sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-06-12 14:30 -0500
                      Re: iPhoto vs Photo "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-06-13 22:17 +0000
                    Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-12 19:49 -0500
                      Re: iPhoto vs Photo "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-06-13 22:24 +0000
                        Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-16 11:33 -0500
                          Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-16 12:35 -0400
                            Re: iPhoto vs Photo "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-06-20 01:11 +0000
                          Re: iPhoto vs Photo David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-06-16 12:54 -0500
                            Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-16 14:21 -0400
                              Re: iPhoto vs Photo David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-06-16 14:57 -0500
                                Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-16 16:54 -0400
                                  Re: iPhoto vs Photo David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-06-16 22:46 -0500
                                    Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-17 00:14 -0400
                                      Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-18 10:01 -0500
                                        Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-18 11:53 -0400
                                    Re: iPhoto vs Photo dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-06-18 23:46 +1200
                                      Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-18 09:55 -0500
                                  Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-18 09:49 -0500
                                    Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-18 11:53 -0400
                                      Re: iPhoto vs Photo JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-18 12:27 -0400
                                        Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-18 13:32 -0400
                                          Re: iPhoto vs Photo dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-06-19 12:35 +1200
                                      Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-19 11:02 -0500
                            Re: iPhoto vs Photo Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 19:06 -0400
                              Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-17 18:29 -0500
                                Re: iPhoto vs Photo Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 19:42 -0400
                                Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-17 23:38 -0400
                            Re: iPhoto vs Photo dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-06-17 13:19 +1200
                              Re: iPhoto vs Photo John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-06-16 18:56 -0700
                              Re: iPhoto vs Photo JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-17 12:44 -0400
                                Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-17 12:56 -0400
                                Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-17 18:28 -0500
                            Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-17 18:26 -0500
                              Re: iPhoto vs Photo David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-06-17 20:28 -0500
                                Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-17 23:37 -0400
                                  Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-18 09:44 -0500
                                Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-18 09:44 -0500
                                  Re: iPhoto vs Photo nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-18 11:53 -0400
                                  Re: iPhoto vs Photo Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-06-18 09:32 -0700
                                    Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-19 11:07 -0500
                                  And Now For Something Completely Different (Re: iPhoto vs Photo) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-06-18 18:09 -0500
                                    Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Re: iPhoto vs Photo) erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-22 10:46 -0500
                                      Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Re: iPhoto vs Photo) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-22 17:40 +0100
                                      Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Re: iPhoto vs Photo) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-06-22 16:49 -0500
                                        Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Re: iPhoto vs Photo) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-23 09:35 +0100
                                          Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Re: iPhoto vs Photo) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-23 11:02 -0400
                                            Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Re: iPhoto vs Photo) erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-23 18:50 -0500
                                        Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Re: iPhoto vs Photo) erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-23 18:49 -0500
                                          Re: And Now For Something Completely Different erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-24 15:25 -0500
                                            Re: And Now For Something Completely Different Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-24 21:38 +0100
                              Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-18 09:22 -0500
                    Re: iPhoto vs Photo JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-12 21:42 -0400
                Re: iPhoto vs Photo erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-06-12 19:42 -0500

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#76012 — iPhoto vs Photo

Now, for something entirely different........ I have iPhoto and Photo
both installed. I believe Photo was installed a while back during an
update. Both have the same pictures so it appears that when Photo was
installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB. Can I safely delete the iPhoto
library (home -> Pictures -> iPhoto and Photo) without messing up any
pictures in Photo? I understand that with the introduction of Photo,
support for iPhoto will eventually stop and it will be no more.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#76015

On 15-05-28 23:49, Otto Pylot wrote:

> installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
> waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
> 11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB.

Actually, the new Photo library points to image files which are shared
betwene the two, but the two applications retain their respective
database of images (aka: index to the image files).

Someone else can confirm whether this is done thyrough aliases or if the
image files are truly a single entry in the file system (so deleting it
from iPhoto would delete the iamge file which means the new Photos would
have pointer to a file which no longer exists).

You can try to delete 1 picture from iPhoto and empty the trash and see
if that photo is still available on Photos.

In iPhoto, you can have it show you the .jpg in a finder window. If the
same can be done with Photos, you could see where the image file is stored.

If there are aliases involved, if they are hard links, then you can
delete one and the other remains. But if they are soft links, deleting
the original leaves the alias with a pointed to a no longer existing file.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76016

Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:

> Now, for something entirely different........ I have iPhoto and Photo
> both installed. I believe Photo was installed a while back during an
> update. Both have the same pictures so it appears that when Photo was
> installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
> waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
> 11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB. Can I safely delete the iPhoto
> library (home -> Pictures -> iPhoto and Photo) without messing up any
> pictures in Photo? I understand that with the introduction of Photo,
> support for iPhoto will eventually stop and it will be no more.

The name of the application is "Photos" (with an 's'). It was added by
the OS X 10.10.3 update.

Yes, you can safely delete the iPhoto library. All the photos (and other
metadata like keywords, titles, etc.) exist inside the Photos library as
well as the iPhoto library.

Deleting the iPhoto library won't free up 11.7 GB of disk space, but it
will free up a smaller amount of space.

When Photos imports the iPhoto library, it uses a trick with "hard
links", which results in both the iPhoto Library and Photos Library
having equally valid links to each photo file. They behave like they
have separate copies of the photos, but they share the same photo files
on disk. If you delete either library, it just deletes that library's
link to each photo, and the photos will still be in the other library.

A hard link to a file is tiny compared to an entire photo, so the extra
disk space occupied by the second library is probably only a few hundred
megabytes, most of which will be photo thumbnails and database files.

Finder doesn't understand this so it shows the size of the two libraries
as if each one has independent copies of all the files and photos inside
the library.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76021

In article <1m5705e.1qb03v3b3k4uqN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
<dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:
> 
> > Now, for something entirely different........ I have iPhoto and Photo
> > both installed. I believe Photo was installed a while back during an
> > update. Both have the same pictures so it appears that when Photo was
> > installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
> > waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
> > 11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB. Can I safely delete the iPhoto
> > library (home -> Pictures -> iPhoto and Photo) without messing up any
> > pictures in Photo? I understand that with the introduction of Photo,
> > support for iPhoto will eventually stop and it will be no more.
> 
> The name of the application is "Photos" (with an 's'). It was added by
> the OS X 10.10.3 update.
> 
> Yes, you can safely delete the iPhoto library. All the photos (and other
> metadata like keywords, titles, etc.) exist inside the Photos library as
> well as the iPhoto library.
> 
> Deleting the iPhoto library won't free up 11.7 GB of disk space, but it
> will free up a smaller amount of space.
> 
> When Photos imports the iPhoto library, it uses a trick with "hard
> links", which results in both the iPhoto Library and Photos Library
> having equally valid links to each photo file. They behave like they
> have separate copies of the photos, but they share the same photo files
> on disk. If you delete either library, it just deletes that library's
> link to each photo, and the photos will still be in the other library.
> 
> A hard link to a file is tiny compared to an entire photo, so the extra
> disk space occupied by the second library is probably only a few hundred
> megabytes, most of which will be photo thumbnails and database files.
> 
> Finder doesn't understand this so it shows the size of the two libraries
> as if each one has independent copies of all the files and photos inside
> the library.

Wow. When did the Apple OS get so complicated for us simple users? Both
of you I respect as "those who know" so I'm not sure what to do. It
kinda sucks that you can't free up the extra space with the
"duplicates". Maybe the answer is to archive the photos (which I do to
a DVD), delete both libraries, reinstall your photos if you want the
archived photos accessible on your computer, and then start anew with
Photos only?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76022

On 5/29/15   PDT 6:13 PM, Otto Pylot wrote:
> In article <1m5705e.1qb03v3b3k4uqN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, for something entirely different........ I have iPhoto and Photo
>>> both installed. I believe Photo was installed a while back during an
>>> update. Both have the same pictures so it appears that when Photo was
>>> installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
>>> waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
>>> 11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB. Can I safely delete the iPhoto
>>> library (home -> Pictures -> iPhoto and Photo) without messing up any
>>> pictures in Photo? I understand that with the introduction of Photo,
>>> support for iPhoto will eventually stop and it will be no more.
>>
>> The name of the application is "Photos" (with an 's'). It was added by
>> the OS X 10.10.3 update.
>>
>> Yes, you can safely delete the iPhoto library. All the photos (and other
>> metadata like keywords, titles, etc.) exist inside the Photos library as
>> well as the iPhoto library.
>>
>> Deleting the iPhoto library won't free up 11.7 GB of disk space, but it
>> will free up a smaller amount of space.
>>
>> When Photos imports the iPhoto library, it uses a trick with "hard
>> links", which results in both the iPhoto Library and Photos Library
>> having equally valid links to each photo file. They behave like they
>> have separate copies of the photos, but they share the same photo files
>> on disk. If you delete either library, it just deletes that library's
>> link to each photo, and the photos will still be in the other library.
>>
>> A hard link to a file is tiny compared to an entire photo, so the extra
>> disk space occupied by the second library is probably only a few hundred
>> megabytes, most of which will be photo thumbnails and database files.
>>
>> Finder doesn't understand this so it shows the size of the two libraries
>> as if each one has independent copies of all the files and photos inside
>> the library.
>
> Wow. When did the Apple OS get so complicated for us simple users? Both
> of you I respect as "those who know" so I'm not sure what to do. It
> kinda sucks that you can't free up the extra space with the
> "duplicates". Maybe the answer is to archive the photos (which I do to
> a DVD), delete both libraries, reinstall your photos if you want the
> archived photos accessible on your computer, and then start anew with
> Photos only?

Too much work. If you are still concerned about bad results from 
deleting the iPhoto library, Control-click it, choose to Compress it. 
Then delete the iPhoto library. Then test how everything runs in Photos. 
I am actually doing this as I type, one of those "get a round tuit" 
things. I things go South, you can resurrect the library.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76023

Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:

> In article <1m5705e.1qb03v3b3k4uqN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Now, for something entirely different........ I have iPhoto and Photo
> > > both installed. I believe Photo was installed a while back during an
> > > update. Both have the same pictures so it appears that when Photo was
> > > installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
> > > waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
> > > 11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB. Can I safely delete the iPhoto
> > > library (home -> Pictures -> iPhoto and Photo) without messing up any
> > > pictures in Photo? I understand that with the introduction of Photo,
> > > support for iPhoto will eventually stop and it will be no more.
> > 
> > The name of the application is "Photos" (with an 's'). It was added by
> > the OS X 10.10.3 update.
> > 
> > Yes, you can safely delete the iPhoto library. All the photos (and other
> > metadata like keywords, titles, etc.) exist inside the Photos library as
> > well as the iPhoto library.
> > 
> > Deleting the iPhoto library won't free up 11.7 GB of disk space, but it
> > will free up a smaller amount of space.
> > 
> > When Photos imports the iPhoto library, it uses a trick with "hard
> > links", which results in both the iPhoto Library and Photos Library
> > having equally valid links to each photo file. They behave like they
> > have separate copies of the photos, but they share the same photo files
> > on disk. If you delete either library, it just deletes that library's
> > link to each photo, and the photos will still be in the other library.
> > 
> > A hard link to a file is tiny compared to an entire photo, so the extra
> > disk space occupied by the second library is probably only a few hundred
> > megabytes, most of which will be photo thumbnails and database files.
> > 
> > Finder doesn't understand this so it shows the size of the two libraries
> > as if each one has independent copies of all the files and photos inside
> > the library.
> 
> Wow. When did the Apple OS get so complicated for us simple users?

Apple used a trick so that it is NOT complicated for end user: you can
just delete either library without worrying about the details.

It only gets complicated if you look into the low level technical
details. I probably shouldn't have gone into as much detail, as it seems
to have confused you.

The trick allowed them to create an entire new photo library which is
independent of the original one, without having to waste a lot of disk
space by having two copies of every photo.

> Both of you I respect as "those who know" so I'm not sure what to do. It
> kinda sucks that you can't free up the extra space with the "duplicates".

The "duplicated" photos in the second library are not occupying extra
space in the first place, so there is very little to free up.

If you think you might want to use iPhoto again, then leave the iPhoto
library there.

If you are happy with Photos and expect to never use iPhoto again, then
delete the iPhoto library, perhaps after archiving it.

> Maybe the answer is to archive the photos (which I do to a DVD), delete
> both libraries, reinstall your photos if you want the archived photos
> accessible on your computer, and then start anew with Photos only?

That's unnecessary extra work. You'll get the same end result by simply
deleting the iPhoto library (after archiving it, if you really think you
might have a use for it in future).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76024

On 15-05-29 21:13, Otto Pylot wrote:

> Wow. When did the Apple OS get so complicated for us simple users? 

Mr Empson confirmed that Apple used "hard links". This means that not
only do the 2 applications use the same image files, but you can also
safely delete one of the two libraries.

You asked if it was safe to delete those files and you were given the
technical reason (use of hard links) of why it was safe to delete the
iPhoto library since the OS will keep the files that are shared with the
Photos application library.

In fact, the way Apple did it, it made it "dummy proof", the only
problem is that by not providing explanation on how it was done, it does
raise question such as yours of whether it is safe to do it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76025

In article <55695350$0$59538$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 15-05-29 21:13, Otto Pylot wrote:
> 
> > Wow. When did the Apple OS get so complicated for us simple users? 
> 
> Mr Empson confirmed that Apple used "hard links". This means that not
> only do the 2 applications use the same image files, but you can also
> safely delete one of the two libraries.
> 
> You asked if it was safe to delete those files and you were given the
> technical reason (use of hard links) of why it was safe to delete the
> iPhoto library since the OS will keep the files that are shared with the
> Photos application library.
> 
> In fact, the way Apple did it, it made it "dummy proof", the only
> problem is that by not providing explanation on how it was done, it does
> raise question such as yours of whether it is safe to do it.
> 
> 

Thank you one and all for taking the time to explain to this old
luddite iPhoto/Photos. It actually does make some sense now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76026

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 12:25:07 PM UTC-4, Otto Pylot wrote:
> In article <55695350$0$59538$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > On 15-05-29 21:13, Otto Pylot wrote:
> > 
> > > Wow. When did the Apple OS get so complicated for us simple users? 
> > 
> > Mr Empson confirmed that Apple used "hard links". This means that not
> > only do the 2 applications use the same image files, but you can also
> > safely delete one of the two libraries.
> > 
> > You asked if it was safe to delete those files and you were given the
> > technical reason (use of hard links) of why it was safe to delete the
> > iPhoto library since the OS will keep the files that are shared with the
> > Photos application library.
> > 
> > In fact, the way Apple did it, it made it "dummy proof", the only
> > problem is that by not providing explanation on how it was done, it does
> > raise question such as yours of whether it is safe to do it.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Thank you one and all for taking the time to explain to this old
> luddite iPhoto/Photos. It actually does make some sense now.

Not very "intuitive" is it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76027

On 15-05-30 15:13, awoolmeyer@gmail.com wrote:

>> Thank you one and all for taking the time to explain to this old
>> luddite iPhoto/Photos. It actually does make some sense now.
> 
> Not very "intuitive" is it?

I find the OP's question was legitimate. While it was widely known that
the photos were shared (ag: one copy) between the 2 apps, it was not
clear how this was done.  Consider a case where Photos had pointers to
files in the iPhoto library. Deleting the iPhoto library would have
deleted files that Photos would expect existed.

When Mr Empson explained they used hard links, I knew each app had its
own private file entry pointing to the same disk blocks and that it was
safe to delete one app's library.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76052

On 2015-05-30 21:01:04 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> On 15-05-30 15:13, awoolmeyer@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>>> Thank you one and all for taking the time to explain to this old
>>> luddite iPhoto/Photos. It actually does make some sense now.
>> 
>> Not very "intuitive" is it?
> 
> I find the OP's question was legitimate. While it was widely known that
> the photos were shared (ag: one copy) between the 2 apps, it was not
> clear how this was done.  Consider a case where Photos had pointers to
> files in the iPhoto library. Deleting the iPhoto library would have
> deleted files that Photos would expect existed.

I wouldn't bother with sincere replies to Michael's (awoolmeyer's real 
name) posts, JF.

> 
> When Mr Empson explained they used hard links, I knew each app had its
> own private file entry pointing to the same disk blocks and that it was
> safe to delete one app's library.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76077

On Fri, 29 May 2015 03:49:22 UTC, Otto Pylot 
<otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:

> Now, for something entirely different........ I have iPhoto and Photo
> both installed. I believe Photo was installed a while back during an
> update. Both have the same pictures so it appears that when Photo was
> installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
> waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
> 11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB. Can I safely delete the iPhoto
> library (home -> Pictures -> iPhoto and Photo) without messing up any
> pictures in Photo? I understand that with the introduction of Photo,
> support for iPhoto will eventually stop and it will be no more.

You may want to spend some time working with Photos before deciding 
to dump iPhoto.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76242

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:58:20 +0000, John Varela wrote:

> On Fri, 29 May 2015 03:49:22 UTC, Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Now, for something entirely different........ I have iPhoto and Photo
>> both installed. I believe Photo was installed a while back during an
>> update. Both have the same pictures so it appears that when Photo was
>> installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
>> waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
>> 11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB. Can I safely delete the iPhoto
>> library (home -> Pictures -> iPhoto and Photo) without messing up any
>> pictures in Photo? I understand that with the introduction of Photo,
>> support for iPhoto will eventually stop and it will be no more.
> 
> You may want to spend some time working with Photos before deciding to
> dump iPhoto.

I just went to Google Photos, and it is excellent!  Unlimited cloud 
storage of all your photos and it will work across all platforms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76312

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:27:55 UTC, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> 
wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:58:20 +0000, John Varela wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 29 May 2015 03:49:22 UTC, Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> Now, for something entirely different........ I have iPhoto and Photo
> >> both installed. I believe Photo was installed a while back during an
> >> update. Both have the same pictures so it appears that when Photo was
> >> installed, my iPhoto libraries were duplicated to Photo. It seems a
> >> waste of space to have identical photo libraries. The iPhoto library is
> >> 11.7GB and the Photo library is 11.9GB. Can I safely delete the iPhoto
> >> library (home -> Pictures -> iPhoto and Photo) without messing up any
> >> pictures in Photo? I understand that with the introduction of Photo,
> >> support for iPhoto will eventually stop and it will be no more.
> > 
> > You may want to spend some time working with Photos before deciding to
> > dump iPhoto.
> 
> I just went to Google Photos, and it is excellent!  Unlimited cloud 
> storage of all your photos and it will work across all platforms.

Tell me more: Will it import an iPhoto library and preserve titles, 
keywords, faces, and places? Does it provide satellite maps of 
places?

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76339

On 06/06/2015 02:59, John Varela wrote:

> Tell me more: Will it import an iPhoto library and preserve titles,
> keywords, faces, and places? Does it provide satellite maps of
> places?

I experimented with this during the week, as I was trying to decide 
between the new Google and Flickr Uploader apps for OS X to back up my 
iPhoto library, now that Flickr gives you 1000GB free storage.

Result: Flickr Uploader preserves much more of the iPhoto library 
metadata (titles, descriptions, albums, events) and exif data (Google 
seemed to ignore dates embedded in files, and use the file modification 
date).

Faces aren't preserved, Google and Flickr both have their own different 
face recognition systems AFAIK so that's somewhat understandable.

Both have satellite maps, though Flickr's GPS import seems like a bit of 
a work in progress at the moment -- not sure if it's actually stripping 
it, or the UI just isn't there to automatically place your photos on a 
map yet.

I don't use keywords so don't know if they were preserved. Both Google 
and Flickr have their own automated tagging system which works 
surprisingly well a lot of the time by trying to figure out what's in 
any given photo... but if you're a meticulous tagger, it won't be nearly 
good enough for you.

Another quirk is that the Flickr Uploader doesn't upload videos as yet, 
only photos. You can still share videos to Flickr directly from iPhoto 
instead, in the meantime, but there's a 3 minute limit.

Also bear in mind that Google only gives you unlimited free storage if 
you let it compress images > 16MP.

-- 
Xbox: GallusNumpty  Steam: scottishwildcat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76340

On 06/06/2015 11:53, Calum wrote:

> Faces aren't preserved, Google and Flickr both have their own different
> face recognition systems AFAIK so that's somewhat understandable.

Actually that's not quite true -- in Flickr, at least, looks like faces 
tagged or detected in iPhoto are just converted to tags in Flickr. So 
you can still see who's in the photo by looking at the tags, it just 
won't highlight them in the photo.

-- 
Xbox: GallusNumpty  Steam: scottishwildcat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76397

In article <mksimb$dc4$1@dont-email.me>,
 sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:

> I just went to Google Photos, and it is excellent!  Unlimited cloud 
> storage of all your photos and it will work across all platforms.

Tastes differ. I have no interest in storing them in a cloud. In fact, I 
only use it for one email account.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76400

In article <drache-477ADE.17025207062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
 erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mksimb$dc4$1@dont-email.me>,
>  sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> 
> > I just went to Google Photos, and it is excellent!  Unlimited cloud 
> > storage of all your photos and it will work across all platforms.
> 
> Tastes differ. I have no interest in storing them in a cloud. In fact, I 
> only use it for one email account.

We just ditched Photos (it's a borked downgrade from iPhotos) in favour 
of Lightroom. Apple are making a mistake -- their incompetence has 
driven us to an Adobe product, which runs on any platform. So now the 
only Apple software we use is Mail, and gawdknows, it sucks. 

As for "the cloud," who the fuck needs it. I want my stuff on my desk.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76401

In article <5575846a$0$29664$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <drache-477ADE.17025207062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
>  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mksimb$dc4$1@dont-email.me>,
> >  sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > I just went to Google Photos, and it is excellent!  Unlimited cloud 
> > > storage of all your photos and it will work across all platforms.
> > 
> > Tastes differ. I have no interest in storing them in a cloud. In fact, I 
> > only use it for one email account.
> 
> We just ditched Photos (it's a borked downgrade from iPhotos) in favour 
> of Lightroom. Apple are making a mistake -- their incompetence has 
> driven us to an Adobe product, which runs on any platform. So now the 
> only Apple software we use is Mail, and gawdknows, it sucks. 
> 
> As for "the cloud," who the fuck needs it. I want my stuff on my desk.

Photoshop on Linux should be a breeze then they move the CC to Air...
I'm soo very exited...
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76460

In article <5575846a$0$29664$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <drache-477ADE.17025207062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
>  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mksimb$dc4$1@dont-email.me>,
> >  sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > I just went to Google Photos, and it is excellent!  Unlimited cloud 
> > > storage of all your photos and it will work across all platforms.
> > 
> > Tastes differ. I have no interest in storing them in a cloud. In fact, I 
> > only use it for one email account.
> 
> We just ditched Photos (it's a borked downgrade from iPhotos) in favour 
> of Lightroom. Apple are making a mistake -- their incompetence has 
> driven us to an Adobe product, which runs on any platform. So now the 
> only Apple software we use is Mail, and gawdknows, it sucks. 
> 
> As for "the cloud," who the fuck needs it. I want my stuff on my desk.

I need the cloud away from home because I can't send from my regular 
e-mail gurer , though I can receive,  and my ISP's webmail is an 
abomination. 
I suppose I ought to look at Lightroom for the new laptop, since 
apparently ColorIt! will never get the long-promised upgrade.  
Unfortunately, I can't get iPhoto or back up my iPad to it because the 
iTunes thing in Yosemite is the worst abomination I can recall ever 
encountering.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web