Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #76012 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-05-28 20:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-06-12 19:42 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 83 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-16 16:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <160620151654138081%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #76703 |
In article <alpine.OSX.2.20.1506161424520.43505@mako.ath.cx>, David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> You can copy iPhoto from an OS X 10.9.x installation, into your > >> Applications directory, via a network connection or a direct > >> connection between the two machine where one is booted into target > >> mode (if that's still possible). > > > no need to copy anything, since iphoto is still there. > > Please do try to read for comprehension. > > You seem to have missed the part regarding erilar having a new > machine, which came with OS X 10.10.x on it, hence all the whining > about Yosemite not being Snow Leopard. As such, it doesn't have > iPhoto installed. Additionally, eliar's old iPhoto, from OS X 10.6.x, > will likely not run on the new box. she got the machine a while ago, but regardless, if iphoto is not there then it's a quick download from the app store. > It is because of these _facts_ that I suggested trying to copy iPhoto > from a machine which has the most recent version of iPhoto installed. > In retrospect, I could have as easily suggested copying it from any > running a version of OS X, on which the most recent version of iPhoto > (9.6.1) will run on Intel hardware. if you were actually interested in facts, you would have suggested that she look in the applications folder to see if iphoto is actually there or not. with the 10.10.3 upgrade, the iphoto icon in the dock was replaced with a photos icon, but the actual iphoto app remains. either way, iphoto won't read her previous photos library, so what she would need to do is copy her iphoto *library* from another machine and use that, but keep it separate from photos. better yet, ditch iphoto and photos entirely and switch to lightroom. > Even so, it's possible erilar will encounter registration issues for > the software. Changes, in the way things are done, have occurred over > the past decade or so. %\ there is no registration for iphoto. so much for facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-16 22:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.OSX.2.20.1506162119500.52815@mako.ath.cx> |
| In reply to | #76704 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 16:54 -0400, in article <160620151654138081%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> You seem to have missed the part regarding erilar having a new >> machine, which came with OS X 10.10.x on it, hence all the whining >> about Yosemite not being Snow Leopard. As such, it doesn't have >> iPhoto installed. Additionally, erilar's old iPhoto, from OS X >> 10.6.x, will likely not run on the new box. > she got the machine a while ago, but regardless, if iphoto is not > there then it's a quick download from the app store. Have you checked the App Store recently? I thought not. I repeat, iPhoto does not exist on erilar's new Yosemite box, hence the questions regarding replacing Photos with iPhoto. iPhoto was distributed mainly via pre-installation on new Macs, just as Photos is now. It may have also been included with the defunct iLife package. (I believe this is how I initially acquired iPhoto.) It's never been an App Store application, although updates were distributed through the store. Upgrades, beyond OS X 10.6.8 v1.1 (25 July 2011), however, where taken care of as part of OS X upgrades, through the App Store. While I don't recall any mention, I suspect the old laptop is running a PowerPC processor, and cannot move beyond Snow Leopard. Questions get asked of erilar, but few are answered. Also recall that the user chose not to migrate anything, when setting up the new machine running Yosemite, from the older, unspecified laptop, for reasons known only to the person at the keyboard. Additionally, the user was not interested in running the Migration Assistant utility. This, I believe, is a major source of self-inflicted dissatisfaction, frustration and consternation. As of today we know that the two computers are on the same network, although the user may be a tad fuzzy on how one might get them to communicate with each other or share files and resource. (Today's mention of shared AirPort Time Capsule, for backups, is the first message indicating that a home network even exists.) As for your broken record skipping, you've said, "Use Lightroom instead," a few dozen times now. If you hadn't picked up on it, the user in question may not be interested in a $9.95/mo subscription, nor spending as much as $149 for the privilege of following your *oft* repeated recommendation. While it hasn't been mentioned, that I noticed, I've been using Thorsten Lemke's GraphicConverter since Classic Mac days, in addition to Photoshop. For $39.95, GraphicConverter 9.6.1 is available and well rated at the App Store. It may prove useful as a mid-point choice, at about one quarter the price. It's quite capable of importing RAW image files from a device plugged into the computer, as well as being easy to script and able to batch convert or process files, as its name suggests. Should erila be interested in a GKON test drive, it can be downloaded from <http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/download/>, for this purpose. A multi-lingual version of GraphicConverter 9.7 is available from the author, for the same price, but not from the App Store. P.S. iPhoto can only be replaced in the Dock, if the iPhoto application was installed prior to updating to OS X 10.10.3. I suspect it wasn't, as the bitching and moaning about Photos began, as soon as the new computer was booted. -- David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> Be kind to animals; kiss a shark. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlWA7aYACgkQUrwpmRoS3uv5jQCeKOhPQ5ZsUtAPdi85vjBrJ1AE dCIAoLVZ0g0cjEA9LWDkvqt5Qp31aDck =at4W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 00:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170620150014051590%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #76719 |
In article <alpine.OSX.2.20.1506162119500.52815@mako.ath.cx>, David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> You seem to have missed the part regarding erilar having a new > >> machine, which came with OS X 10.10.x on it, hence all the whining > >> about Yosemite not being Snow Leopard. As such, it doesn't have > >> iPhoto installed. Additionally, erilar's old iPhoto, from OS X > >> 10.6.x, will likely not run on the new box. > > > she got the machine a while ago, but regardless, if iphoto is not > > there then it's a quick download from the app store. > > Have you checked the App Store recently? sure have. > I thought not. you thought wrong. > I repeat, iPhoto does not exist on erilar's new Yosemite box, hence > the questions regarding replacing Photos with iPhoto. how would you know what exists and what does not without seeing it for yourself? you don't. she has mentioned the laptop for a while, which suggests she bought it *before* 10.10.3, which means she *does* have iphoto, and being a new mac, it would be the yosemite compatble version. the 10.10.3 upgrade removes iphoto *from the dock* which suggests that it's totally gone, but that's not the case. it's still there. > iPhoto was distributed mainly via pre-installation on new Macs, just > as Photos is now. It may have also been included with the defunct > iLife package. (I believe this is how I initially acquired iPhoto.) > It's never been an App Store application, although updates were > distributed through the store. Upgrades, beyond OS X 10.6.8 v1.1 (25 > July 2011), however, where taken care of as part of OS X upgrades, > through the App Store. > > While I don't recall any mention, I suspect the old laptop is running > a PowerPC processor, and cannot move beyond Snow Leopard. Questions > get asked of erilar, but few are answered. you suspect wrong. her previous mac was running 10.6/snow leopard which is only intel. there is no powerpc version of it. 10.5/leopard was a universal binary and ran on both powerpc and intel macs. 10.4/tiger was either powerpc or intel, not both. they were two separate versions. > Also recall that the user chose not to migrate anything, when setting > up the new machine running Yosemite, from the older, unspecified > laptop, for reasons known only to the person at the keyboard. > Additionally, the user was not interested in running the Migration > Assistant utility. This, I believe, is a major source of > self-inflicted dissatisfaction, frustration and consternation. that's a separate issue. > As of today we know that the two computers are on the same network, > although the user may be a tad fuzzy on how one might get them to > communicate with each other or share files and resource. (Today's > mention of shared AirPort Time Capsule, for backups, is the first > message indicating that a home network even exists.) she has internet access, so clearly there's a network of some kind. > As for your broken record skipping, you've said, "Use Lightroom > instead," a few dozen times now. If you hadn't picked up on it, the > user in question may not be interested in a $9.95/mo subscription, nor > spending as much as $149 for the privilege of following your *oft* > repeated recommendation. she never liked iphoto and although photos is a bit better, it's still extremely limited. lightroom is an excellent deal and well worth it and the standalone version can be had for less than $149, even under $100 if you catch a sale. > While it hasn't been mentioned, that I noticed, I've been using > Thorsten Lemke's GraphicConverter since Classic Mac days, in addition > to Photoshop. For $39.95, GraphicConverter 9.6.1 is available and > well rated at the App Store. It may prove useful as a mid-point > choice, at about one quarter the price. It's quite capable of > importing RAW image files from a device plugged into the computer, as > well as being easy to script and able to batch convert or process > files, as its name suggests. photoshop elements is about $50 street price and does *way* more than graphic converter with the exception of converting zillions of formats nobody has ever heard of. graphic converter also lacks asset management, which the main purpose of iphoto, photos and lightroom. its raw conversion is also nowhere near what photoshop/lightroom offers, especially the latest version. > Should erila be interested in a GKON test drive, it can be downloaded > from <http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/download/>, > for this purpose. A multi-lingual version of GraphicConverter 9.7 is > available from the author, for the same price, but not from the App > Store. i think she said she has it, but again, it doesn't do what the other apps do. it's in no way an iphoto replacement. > P.S. iPhoto can only be replaced in the Dock, if the iPhoto > application was installed prior to updating to OS X 10.10.3. I > suspect it wasn't, as the bitching and moaning about Photos began, as > soon as the new computer was booted. wrong on that too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 10:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <drache-77BA3F.10012218062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #76720 |
In article <170620150014051590%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > i think she said she has it, but again, it doesn't do what the other > apps do. it's in no way an iphoto replacement. GC is a great program I've always updated and one of 3 I've used in my Mac decades that has never gotten worse for my purposes. It's also far superior to iPhoto, or to Photo, which I actually have tried. Unfortunately, GC does not include some editing features I need, even with the filter addition. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 11:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180620151153162560%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #76787 |
In article <drache-77BA3F.10012218062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > i think she said she has it, but again, it doesn't do what the other > > apps do. it's in no way an iphoto replacement. > > GC is a great program I've always updated and one of 3 I've used in my > Mac decades that has never gotten worse for my purposes. It's also far > superior to iPhoto, or to Photo, which I actually have tried. gc serves an entirely different purpose than iphoto or photos. > Unfortunately, GC does not include some editing features I need, even > with the filter addition. it's also quite slow. you will likely find photoshop elements and/or lightroom to fit your workflow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 23:46 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <1m681z0.11mjl51101487eN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #76719 |
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message > > On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 16:54 -0400, > in article <160620151654138081%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >> You seem to have missed the part regarding erilar having a new > >> machine, which came with OS X 10.10.x on it, hence all the whining > >> about Yosemite not being Snow Leopard. As such, it doesn't have > >> iPhoto installed. Additionally, erilar's old iPhoto, from OS X > >> 10.6.x, will likely not run on the new box. > > > she got the machine a while ago, but regardless, if iphoto is not > > there then it's a quick download from the app store. > > Have you checked the App Store recently? > > I thought not. > > I repeat, iPhoto does not exist on erilar's new Yosemite box, hence > the questions regarding replacing Photos with iPhoto. OS X 10.10.3 was released on April 8, which is also the day iPhoto was pulled from the App Store. Erilar first mentioned her new Mac around April 10 (if memory serves, it is a Mid 2012 13-inch MacBook Pro - the one with the optical drive). By then, her "Mac expert" had already done the initial setup. If the new Mac came with Yosemite preinstalled, then it came with OS X 10.10.2, with iPhoto 9.6 or 9.6.1 preinstalled. iPhoto will still be in the Applications folder after installing OS X 10.10.3, just not on the Dock by default. If the new Mac came with Mavericks or earlier preinstalled (unlikely if it was bought new from Apple around March/April 2015) and later upgraded to Yosemite, then it would have had iPhoto 9.5.1 or earlier preinstalled, which might have been updated to iPhoto 9.6.1 depending on timing of the Yosemite install and whether App Store was used to apply an iPhoto update. Resolving this question is simple in theory: Erilar needs to go into her Applications folder, see if iPhoto is there, and if so do a Get Info to find its version number. > iPhoto was distributed mainly via pre-installation on new Macs, just > as Photos is now. It may have also been included with the defunct > iLife package. (I believe this is how I initially acquired iPhoto.) iPhoto was one of the major components of iLife. Buying a new version of iLife was the main way to get a new major version of iPhoto, short of buying a new Mac after a new version of iLife was introduced and preinstalled (new Mac model, or updated software distribution for an older model). Timeline: Jan 2002: iPhoto introduced, preinstalled on new Macs subsequently. Aug 2002: Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar. Not sure if retail DVD had iPhoto. Jan 2003: iLife introduced as a retail product, including iPhoto 2. Oct 2003: Mac OS X 10.3 Panther retail DVD includes iPhoto 2. Jan 2004: iLife '04, including iPhoto 4 (there was no iPhoto 3). Jan 2005: iLife '05, including iPhoto 5. Apr 2005: Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger retail DVD does not include iPhoto. From this point, Mac OS X upgrades did not upgrade iPhoto. You had to buy a new iLife to get a new iPhoto version for an existing Mac. Jan 2006: iLife '06, including iPhoto 6. Aug 2007: iLife '08, including iPhoto 7. Oct 2007: Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. Jan 2009: iLife '09, including iPhoto 8. Feb 2009: Mac Box Set: includes Leopard, iWork '09 and iLife '09. Aug 2009: Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. Sep 2009: Mac Box Set updated to Snow Leopard. Oct 2010: iLife '11, including iPhoto 9. Jan 2011: Mac App Store launched, includes iPhoto 9, iMovie and Garageband, but not iDVD and iWeb. Jul 2011: Mac OS X 10.7 Lion. iLife retail DVD discontinued, iDVD and iWeb not available any more. App Store versions of iPhoto, iMovie and Garageband are preinstalled on new Macs that came with Lion or later preinstalled, need to be "accepted" in App Store to link to the owner's Apple ID. Jul 2012: OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. iPhoto 9.3 adds support for Mountain Lion, drops support for Snow Leopard. Apr 2013: iPhoto 9.4.3 is the final update distributed via Software Update and manual installer for the non-App Store iPhoto 9. Oct 2013: OS X 10.9 Mavericks. iPhoto 9.5 for Mavericks only, App Store only. App Store offers to upgrade iLife '11 apps to App Store versions. Oct 2014: OS X 10.10 Yosemite. iPhoto 9.6 for Yosemite only, App Store only, free. App Store still offers to upgrae iLife '11 apps to App Store versions. Apr 2015: iPhoto gone from App Store, Photos released in OS X 10.10.3. > It's never been an App Store application, Yes it was. From January 2011 it was possible to buy iPhoto, iMovie and Garageband from App Store. iPhoto 9.6.x for Yosemite was free on the App Store (until it was removed). iMovie is still available on App Store (not free), and the free upgrade from the iLife '11 version to the App Store version still works. Garageband is now free on App Store (apart from an in-app purchase). > although updates were distributed through the store. > Upgrades, beyond OS X 10.6.8 v1.1 (25 July 2011), however, where taken > care of as part of OS X upgrades, through the App Store. Only in some cases. If the iLife '11 apps were installed (preinstalled or from the retail DVD), App Store in Mavericks and later offered to update them to the App Store versions, which required accepting the update to tie it to your Apple ID. Someone who had iLife '09 (iPhoto 8.x) or earlier was never offered an update to iPhoto 9.x via App Store. They had to buy it from App Store (free in early Yosemite), or install iLife '11 to trigger the automatic update offer in Mavericks or early Yosemite, or buy a new Mac from July 2011 which came with Lion or later preinstalled. > While I don't recall any mention, I suspect the old laptop is running > a PowerPC processor, and cannot move beyond Snow Leopard. Questions > get asked of erilar, but few are answered. Snow Leopard implies an Intel processor. From earlier discussion, I think I remember that the old laptop is an early MacBook Pro. -- David Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <drache-B51337.09553318062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #76765 |
In article <1m681z0.11mjl51101487eN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > Snow Leopard implies an Intel processor. From earlier discussion, I > think I remember that the old laptop is an early MacBook Pro. It's Intel. I wanted a larger hard drive, but the laptop was just barely too old for a parallel installation of Yosemite on one side and Snow Leopard on the other, even with a much larger HD. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 09:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <drache-547E06.09493518062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #76704 |
In article <160620151654138081%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > with the 10.10.3 upgrade, the iphoto icon in the dock was replaced with > a photos icon, but the actual iphoto app remains. > > either way, iphoto won't read her previous photos library, so what she > would need to do is copy her iphoto *library* from another machine and > use that, but keep it separate from photos. Could Photo copy the old iPhoto library(which is also in the TimeCapsule data folder)? I'm thinking primarily of the "albums". -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 11:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180620151153152514%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #76784 |
In article <drache-547E06.09493518062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > Could Photo copy the old iPhoto library(which is also in the TimeCapsule > data folder)? I'm thinking primarily of the "albums". photos converts your iphoto library automatically the first time it's launched. the old iphoto library remains and you can continue to use iphoto (assuming you have it), however, any changes made remain in iphoto. similarly, any changes made in photos remain in photos. once the conversion is done, each library is separate, therefore it's a good idea to decide which one to use going forward. using both and trying to remember which changes were made in which app is going to turn into a complete mess very quickly. keep in mind that although the two libraries are separate, the actual images themselves are not duplicated so there is very minimal additional disk space used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 12:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5582f16e$0$44743$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #76790 |
On 15-06-18 11:53, nospam wrote: > photos converts your iphoto library automatically the first time it's > launched. It does not touch your iphoto library. It consults it to build its own library. So the iphoto library remains intact and usable. (and both apps point to the same shared image files).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 13:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180620151332319840%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #76794 |
In article <5582f16e$0$44743$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > photos converts your iphoto library automatically the first time it's > > launched. > > It does not touch your iphoto library. It consults it to build its own > library. it has to touch the iphoto library to do the conversion. otherwise how could it know what to do? what it doesn't do is modify it. > So the iphoto library remains intact and usable. that's what i said. > (and both apps point to the same shared image files). i said that too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-19 12:35 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <1m69ei4.zbl3sgzoc1yaN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #76801 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <5582f16e$0$44743$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > > photos converts your iphoto library automatically the first time it's > > > launched. > > > > It does not touch your iphoto library. It consults it to build its own > > library. > > it has to touch the iphoto library to do the conversion. otherwise how > could it know what to do? > > what it doesn't do is modify it. It does make at least one minor modification: the iPhoto library is renamed. If you launch iPhoto 9.6.1 after having run Photos for the first time, you need to tell iPhoto where to find its renamed library. -- David Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-19 11:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <drache-4A8EB4.11022019062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #76790 |
In article <180620151153152514%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <drache-547E06.09493518062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, > erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > Could Photo copy the old iPhoto library(which is also in the TimeCapsule > > data folder)? I'm thinking primarily of the "albums". > > photos converts your iphoto library automatically the first time it's > launched. > > the old iphoto library remains and you can continue to use iphoto > (assuming you have it), however, any changes made remain in iphoto. > > similarly, any changes made in photos remain in photos. > > once the conversion is done, each library is separate, therefore it's a > good idea to decide which one to use going forward. using both and > trying to remember which changes were made in which app is going to > turn into a complete mess very quickly. > > keep in mind that although the two libraries are separate, the actual > images themselves are not duplicated so there is very minimal > additional disk space used. OK, thanks. One worry out of the way. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-16 19:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5580ac0b$0$32422$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #76701 |
In article <alpine.OSX.2.20.1506161220330.43505@mako.ath.cx>, David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > It really is time for you to attempt to move on, rather than wishing > for the past to magically become the present and future. It ain't > gonna happen. I agree. I recommend Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. There's a free trial. -- 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]
| From | erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 18:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <drache-7125D1.18293417062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #76707 |
In article <5580ac0b$0$32422$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <alpine.OSX.2.20.1506161220330.43505@mako.ath.cx>, > David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > It really is time for you to attempt to move on, rather than wishing > > for the past to magically become the present and future. It ain't > > gonna happen. > > I agree. I recommend Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. There's a free trial. I looked it up. Monthly subscription????? -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 19:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <558205de$0$44868$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #76739 |
In article <drache-7125D1.18293417062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > I agree. I recommend Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. There's a free trial. > > I looked it up. Monthly subscription????? There's a "desktop version." -- 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]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170620152338005632%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #76739 |
In article <drache-7125D1.18293417062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > I agree. I recommend Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. There's a free trial. > > I looked it up. Monthly subscription????? it's either a monthly subscription for *both* lightroom and photoshop (two different apps that can seamlessly work together), *or* a standalone purchase of either lightroom or photoshop elements (you don't need the full photoshop) or both. there are advantages and disadvantages to either option. the subscription gives you *two* apps and continuous feature updates as they are released whereas with the standalone versions, you'd need to wait a year or two for the next version, just like any app. on the other hand, with a standalone version, it's a one time purchase and if you don't upgrade every year or two, it can work out to be less expensive. that's why both options exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 13:19 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <1m65usp.1sm6snz1q3gb5jN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #76701 |
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message > > On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 11:33 -0500, > in article <drache-231E4C.11330116062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, > erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-GO9LCym5c6nl@localhost>, > > "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 00:49:23 UTC, erilar > >> <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > >>> Is there a way to get it into a laptop cursed with Yosemite? > > It isn't Yosemite which is cursed; PEBCAK. > > You skipped over three version of OS X, yet you expect Yosemite > (10.10.x) to operate exactly as Snow Leopard (10.6.x). Get over it and > please try to move forward, rather remaining stuck in a rut and > complaining that you cannot get out. > > >> If by "it" you mean iPhoto, I haven't had any problem running it > >> under Yosemite. If you mean iMovie HD, that won't run so I have a > >> Snow Leopard partition on an external drive that I use to work with > >> movies. Apps running from the external drive can access files in > >> [Mac hard drive]/Users/Shared. > > > Yosemite has imposed Photo on the new laptop. How do I get iPhoto to > > replace it? ( The laptops share the data file on Time Capsule, so I > > have moved some things that way) > > erilar, you only /think/ you want to replace Photos on your new box. > As Photos is part of Yosemite, you do not want to fuck with it. > Leave it alone. Don't use it, if that's your choice, but DO NOT > attempt to remove it. > > You can copy iPhoto from an OS X 10.9.x installation, into your > Applications directory, via a network connection or a direct > connection between the two machine where one is booted into target > mode (if that's still possible). As you've demonstrated, these > techniques are beyond your skill set. Contact your local "Mac Expert" > and ask whether they can perform either of these techniques for you. That method won't work. A copy of iPhoto on Mavericks or earlier will be iPhoto 9.6 or earlier. Yosemite refuses to launch any version of iPhoto older than 9.6.1 (which was released at the same time as Yosemite and is only available in Yosemite, now only to those who already have iPhoto on their Purchases list in App Store). Erilar bought a new Mac recently and it came with Yosemite (10.10.2 or earlier), so she probably already has iPhoto 9.6.1, therefore running it should not be complicated. That is only going to be a short term solution. iPhoto is never going to be updated again, and may break in future OS X versions. It would be better to start getting used to Photos, and send feedback to Apple for any issues you have with it. > iPhoto and Photos can coexist under Yosemite. One can use iPhoto, but > changes may not be saved to your photo library. Pardon? iPhoto 9.6.1 on Yosemite is perfectly capable of saving changes to its own photo library. Any changes made in iPhoto will not be copied to an existing library for the Photos application, but you could throw away the Photos library and reimport it from iPhoto. > This will likely be the case, even if you manage to remove > /Applications/Photos.app from your new computer, Woden forbid. > > It really is time for you to attempt to move on, rather than wishing > for the past to magically become the present and future. It ain't > gonna happen. Agreed. -- David Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-16 18:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mlqk13$9tq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76714 |
On 6/16/15 PDT 6:19 PM, David Empson wrote: > David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: >> >> It really is time for you to attempt to move on, rather than wishing >> for the past to magically become the present and future. It ain't >> gonna happen. > > Agreed. And more agreement. Yes, you can use iPhoto for a while, but rather than sticking your finger in the dike, go with the flow. To mix two watery metaphors.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 12:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5581a405$0$41611$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #76714 |
On 15-06-16 21:19, David Empson wrote: > That is only going to be a short term solution. iPhoto is never going to > be updated again, and may break in future OS X versions. It would be > better to start getting used to Photos, and send feedback to Apple for > any issues you have with it. I disagree. Keep using iPhotos until Photos gets upgraded to meet your requirements. But one must keep an eye out for the day iPhoto stops working, at which point you must choose to not upgrade OS-X until you find the new app to replace it. This isn't a question of getting used to a new UI, it is a question of missing key functionality, like ability to cal photoshop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web