skaffensaidthis

Simple, intuitive, fast. For simple audio editing I haven't found anything to match this.

Great for quick editing of mp3s. Reminds me of Cool Edit from back in the day.

v1.0 was unusable on my 1.25GHz AlBook w/ 1 GB. RAM.

v1.1.2 is still infuriating slow at times but definitely usuable and this is on the lowest spec machine it will officially run on.

It can't be matched for sorting out 'selects' from 'discards' after a shoot. RAW output is acceptable now and can only improve. Could do with a decent plugin architecture so I can use Noise Ninja within the app!

Works wonderfully on my PM G5 (dual 2GHz) w/ an X850 and 4GB RAM.

Truely inspiring in surprising ways, the nested tagging particularly.

A 1.25 GB Albook is an old, old computer. I'm sure a Macbook Pro would do fine, with enough RAM.

I've used lightroom, Photoshop, Nikon Capture and a host of other programs. I've finally found what I'm looking for with Aperture If you have Raw files and are looking for a way to simplify the workflow, aperture is a perfect fit. Of course you will still need photoshop if you are going to do heavy-duty photo manipulations (i.e. cutting out parts of photos and using them elsewhere). But if all you need is workflow and standard Raw corrections, Aperture is perfect.

Aperture allows awesome RAW workflow.

It does like a powerful machine, however. I run it on MacPro 2.6 w/Radeon 1900XT & 5G RAM. It flies.

I have a Panasonic LX2 camera and though I would love to use Aperature, Apple hasn't taken the time to create support for anything other than high-end cameras. I would argue that many professionals would carry around a small camera like mine as an alternative discreet camera. Totally ridiculous.

Good news Aeko - Aperture actually supports every camera ever made... it uses a handy little utility called a card reader. ;o)

Do yourself a favor and stop connecting your camera directly to your computer. It's a waste of time, and is inevitably much slower than a dedicated reader. You can pick up a super fast dedicated reader for your type of memory card at virtually any computer or camera store for around $25 - $30. Or if you spring for $40 - $50 you can get a multi-card reader that will handle just about any camera you'll ever own. It doesn't make sense not to.

clintob:

aeko didn't even indicate what sort of problem was actually taking place, and you simply assumed that it was because he or she was using the direct connect camera mode. Sounds like, based on this review (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx2-review/), that even Adobe's camera raw wasn't supporting this model as of October (don't know about the more recent version 4.0). There are some camera models that are NOT supported by Apple's RAW backend, most of them being point-n-shoots that support RAW. They've mainly geared RAW support towards the SLR market, and it's a bit of a shame that there isn't more of a broad spectrum, but I'm not sure if it's entirely Apple's fault, it may be that Panasonic isn't forthcoming regarding their format, but who knows.

Aperture does now support the LX2, as noted on http://www.apple.com/aperture/raw/cameras.html

One problem with aperture is that camera raw support apparently has to be included with OSX updates, not aperture updates, as OSX just inherits the knowledge. It took 6+ months for my Leica M8 to be included. Maybe this will change in subsequent releases.

1.5.3 is much faster than 1.5.0, which in turn was much faster than 1.0. It runs plenty quick for me these days.

Pardon me, as jbsnyder mentioned I was talking about RAW file support for the LX2. As of 1.5 I believe the LX2 is supported which is nice and works well.

It had nothing to do with having a card reader. Yes, clintob, having a card reader IS much faster as I'm well aware. Thanks.

Aperture FTW!

Lightroom seems clearly ahead of Aperture in this survey:
Lightroom's usage among Mac-based pros is still nearly double that of Aperture (26.6% vs. 14.3%).

French article on macandphoto

2.1 is very very good

It's always seem quite ponderous and clunky compared to the Windows version. Obviously under Rosetta it's even slower to start and with occasional mysterious beachballs.

Wish Apple would hurry up and give us an office suite with snap!

i only use this because i have to, once in a while. that being said, i think MS's Mac division has done a great job making this more stable and usable than previous versions.

Necessary when people send you files. But I would pick Pages and Keynote any day over Word and PowerPoint. But I love Excel! It really is a great app. I don't think Numbers/Charts (or whatever Apple calls their secret unreleased spreadsheet) will come close. And if you use Exchange, Entourage is pretty good especially now that it works with Spotlight.

Definitely a must on my mac sine it helps me work with Windows users at the University.

sadly use this. occasionally.

People say "sadly" only because Microsoft is the publisher. It so happens that Microsoft is one of the best publishers of large-scale commercial software on the Mac. The best-performing and bug free software when compared to so many other publishers.

A lot of recent Apple software is really good, but "Pages" is not at all comparable to Word. It's more of a layout application rather than a word processor. I will agree that Keynote is nicer than Pagemaker though.

Word and Excel are a powerful and well-designed duo for the Mac without equals at any price from any publisher. I don't use Entourage.