OS X, where have my photos gone?

In article <45c39fdf$0$15003$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>, David
Dyer-Bennet <dd-b.RemoveThis@dd-b.net> wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > All photo browsers have practical limits to the size of the library they
> > will
> > manage. Break those limits and they usually crash. Aperture's reaction is
> > to
> > bog down if you get more than 20,000 photos in the library. At least it
> > doesn't crash like the rest of them.
>
> Yikes; that's not useful!
>
> ThumbsPlus is coping perfectly happily with 50,000 images in my
> collection currently; no performance difference from when it had 100 in
> anything except a full-database query (which is still decently fast; but
> it is slower than when there were many fewer images).
>
> I see people reporting having scanned 30,000 slides in a year; what use
> is a program that starts to choke at a TOTAL collection around 20,000?
> Sheesh.

aperture does NOT choke with 20k total images, nor is there any need to
have multiple libraries to handle large amounts of images.

within aperture, one can make multiple projects in a library, and those
have an upper limit (not sure how many but it is quite large). the
main library itself is limited by available disk space and images can
be on any attached drive. as long as no individual project is huge,
there isn't any major problem.

there can be any number of projects per library, and a project can be
whatever the user wants - a specific photo shoot, a particular subject,
etc. one can also create albums which can contain images from any
project. it is quite flexible in organizing images.

In article <45c39fdf$0$15003$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>, David
Dyer-Bennet <dd-b.RemoveThis@dd-b.net> wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > All photo browsers have practical limits to the size of the library they
> > will
> > manage. Break those limits and they usually crash. Aperture's reaction is
> > to
> > bog down if you get more than 20,000 photos in the library. At least it
> > doesn't crash like the rest of them.
>
> Yikes; that's not useful!

Don't jump to conclusions - I've never heard of this limitation before,
and I've read every scrap of Aperture documentation I could get my
hands on. Until I saw proof, I'd tend to not place a lot of stock in
it.

You'll notice the "at least it doesn't crash like the rest of them" -
how many others have you heard of that crashed with large numbers of
images? That alone indicates to me that this is not a common occurance
with others, but rather that something on/in the poster's system/app is
hosed.

>
> ThumbsPlus is coping perfectly happily with 50,000 images in my
> collection currently; no performance difference from when it had 100 in
> anything except a full-database query (which is still decently fast; but
> it is slower than when there were many fewer images).

Anything like that is normal - you can't search, sort, or display twice
the information without increasing CPU cycles. Enough of an increase,
and it will be noticable, no matter what program or system.

> I see people reporting having scanned 30,000 slides in a year; what use
> is a program that starts to choke at a TOTAL collection around 20,000?
> Sheesh.

Like I said, don't sweat it - I have a hard time accepting it as a
fact, and will, until I see some sort of a tech note defining it as a
problem.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard