Lightroom 5 Beta and Snow Leopard

Started May 9, 2013 | Discussions
CameraCarl
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,244Gear list
Like?
Lightroom 5 Beta and Snow Leopard
May 9, 2013

I tried downloading the LR5 Beta but was told it would not work with Snow Leopard.  Does anyone know if the final release will also have this limitation?  I'd prefer not to have to upgrade my OS to use LR5.

 CameraCarl's gear list:CameraCarl's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +1 more
Howard Moftich
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,837
Like?
Re: Lightroom 5 Beta and Snow Leopard
In reply to CameraCarl, May 9, 2013

very unlikely to support SL

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CameraCarl
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,244Gear list
Like?
Re: Lightroom 5 Beta and Snow Leopard
In reply to Howard Moftich, May 9, 2013

What a shame. Just as I was resigning myself to doing all my photo editing in Lightroom since I refuse to rent Photoshop, I have to either upgrade to an OS that I don't need or keep using an outdated Lightroom.

 CameraCarl's gear list:CameraCarl's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Howard Moftich
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,837
Like?
Re: Lightroom 5 Beta and Snow Leopard
In reply to CameraCarl, May 9, 2013

yup, those are the choices.  take a look at the features that LR5 offers and see if that is how you want to go.  You might be happy staying w/ LR4.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,963
Like?
Re: Lightroom 5 Beta and Snow Leopard
In reply to CameraCarl, May 9, 2013

CameraCarl wrote:

What a shame. Just as I was resigning myself to doing all my photo editing in Lightroom since I refuse to rent Photoshop, I have to either upgrade to an OS that I don't need or keep using an outdated Lightroom.

And spending $19 on something you don't need really breaks your heart?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Cohan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,374Gear list
Like?
I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to CameraCarl, May 9, 2013

I was willing to take out a second mortgage on my home so that I would be able to afford the $19.99 upgrade to Mountain Lion. LOL All kidding aside, you will need the Core Duo 2 and at least 2 GB RAM to upgrade to Mountain Lion.

 Steve Cohan's gear list:Steve Cohan's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A77 Sony a77 II Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CameraCarl
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,244Gear list
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to Steve Cohan, May 9, 2013

It isn't the cost, obviously, is it?  I'm used to Snow Leopard.  It runs fine on my old machine. All my current software and peripherals and drivers are happy with it. So why would I want to upgrade and have to learn my way around a new operating system just to get "features" (sic) that are meaningless to me?  Some of us don't need/want the latest and greatest that Apple offers (forces).  That is why my cameras are all at least one generation old, my smart phone is so old it is almost dumb, I don't drive new cars, I still read books and newspapers printed on real paper, and my glasses don't talk back to me.

 CameraCarl's gear list:CameraCarl's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,963
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to CameraCarl, May 10, 2013

CameraCarl wrote:

It isn't the cost, obviously, is it?  I'm used to Snow Leopard.  It runs fine on my old machine. All my current software and peripherals and drivers are happy with it. So why would I want to upgrade and have to learn my way around a new operating system just to get "features" (sic) that are meaningless to me?

There aren't no new features you have to learn, there are just two things you have to get used to: document versioning (but even that you can completely ignore, it is just there in the background but if you don't use it you don't have to think about it) and Notification center (but you can completely remove that as well).

The rest are just some small changes, most of which you will never even notice. The most prominent of which is probably Expose (now called Mission Control) which groups windows now by application when using the all-windows view and the new default layout in Mail.app which you can restore to its Snow Leopard layout by selecting 'Use Classic Layout' in Mail's preferences under 'Viewing'.

Some of us don't need/want the latest and greatest that Apple offers (forces).

If your local store rearranges how it presents the products it sells, you'll get used to that pretty quickly as well. The real point here is that if scroll bars look a bit different now and there are additional optional features (that you never even need to know about), is that really anything to worry about?

That is why my cameras are all at least one generation old

I find switching even from a Nikon D3 to a D800 more complicated than switching from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
graybalanced
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,896
Like?
Re: Lightroom 5 Beta and Snow Leopard
In reply to noirdesir, May 10, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

And spending $19 on something you don't need really breaks your heart?

Especially now, the cost of the OS is not the cost of the upgrade. It's the time tweaking and tuning the updated system and paying for any necessary upgrades to other apps and utilities. I have a Snow Leopard workstation that is really solid and I'm going to have to update its OS too. Not looking forward to it but I'm not that opposed to it except for the cost of the time resolving any OS-related issues with production software and the drivers for various peripherals. If I'm lucky there won't be very many issues.

But hey, at least we're not Aperture users. Aperture dropped Snow Leopard a long time ago.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,963
Like?
Re: Lightroom 5 Beta and Snow Leopard
In reply to graybalanced, May 10, 2013

graybalanced wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

And spending $19 on something you don't need really breaks your heart?

Especially now, the cost of the OS is not the cost of the upgrade. It's the time tweaking and tuning the updated system

Which really isn't a lot of time if you don't spend your time trying to re-create pixel-for-pixel what the old system did. When I first installed Mountain Lion (as a beta on a clone), I was really hard-pressed to find any differences beyond a handful of things.

and paying for any necessary upgrades to other apps and utilities.

I normally anyway keep all my applications up-to-date as long as the updates are free or if I see value in the newer version. But I haven't updated Office since 2011 and Office 2008 also still works fine under Mountain Lion as Adobe CS5.

I have a Snow Leopard workstation that is really solid and I'm going to have to update its OS too. Not looking forward to it but I'm not that opposed to it except for the cost of the time resolving any OS-related issues with production software and the drivers for various peripherals. If I'm lucky there won't be very many issues.

Printers are probably the only potential headache (though my iDisplay calibrator also need a new software version for Lion and Mountain Lion).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TeleView
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to CameraCarl, May 10, 2013

CameraCarl wrote:

It isn't the cost, obviously, is it?  I'm used to Snow Leopard.  It runs fine on my old machine. All my current software and peripherals and drivers are happy with it. So why would I want to upgrade and have to learn my way around a new operating system just to get "features" (sic) that are meaningless to me?  Some of us don't need/want the latest and greatest that Apple offers (forces).  That is why my cameras are all at least one generation old, my smart phone is so old it is almost dumb, I don't drive new cars, I still read books and newspapers printed on real paper, and my glasses don't talk back to me.

But you want the Beta LR/5? !! 

Here'w what you should do.

Buy another external drive - they are cheap now.

Get the SuperDuper dmg, and install it.

Connect your new drive, and then let SuperDuper put the whole contents of your drive, including your OS, onto the external drive.

Then, boot from your external drive, and see that despite the slow boot, that it is running as before.

Now, you can install the new OS, either on the external drive (having booted from it), or, you can install it on your native drive, and see you things go there.

If you don't like things, then you can go back. The only issue will be how you handle your files if you go back to the older OS.

But its easy enough to try. Its even possible to - after you've booted on the external drive - to format your native drive again and put in a partition - and install - using Super Duper again - from your external onto one of your native drive's partitions - your current OS. And then do it again to the other partition, and then upgrade one of those into the new OS. That way, things will run quickly.

Only problem with all that is time. But an extra drive is cheap, and a useful backup. Something well worth it especially if all your stuff is far from new. Hard disks always fail over time.

Oh and by the way - I have LR/4 and Aperture, and CS-6 too - but I've found that Aperture is much more productive for me. Its file system is much better for me. So I wasted my money on LR. Apertures great IMO, and much easier to learn too. And it prints beautifully too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mustaphapashu
Forum MemberPosts: 58
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to CameraCarl, May 11, 2013

I totally agree with you about this and you can add one other gripe: ML runs very slowly on anything but the newest hardware. The art institute I teach at has had major speed issues in their computer labs with the iMacs that were updated to ML.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TeleView
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to mustaphapashu, May 11, 2013

mustaphapashu wrote:

I totally agree with you about this and you can add one other gripe: ML runs very slowly on anything but the newest hardware. The art institute I teach at has had major speed issues in their computer labs with the iMacs that were updated to ML.

That might be though because of RAM?

Afterall the later the OS, the more it uses native code, which should make it faster. For me, the steps to new OS's have always increased performance, not the other way around.

With the exception of OS 9 to OS X. Because OS 9 was very clean and simple (although it crashed).

OS X has all sorts of Unix compromises - such as the printer system, which in the old Mac OS's, was beautifully simple. And then there were the layers of old OS 9 compatibilities. The later the software, the less there are of those.

Still - one has to suck it to see unless one has a decent machine with enough RAM when running favourite programs.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom_N
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,013
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to TeleView, May 11, 2013

TeleView wrote:

Afterall the later the OS, the more it uses native code, which should make it faster. For me, the steps to new OS's have always increased performance, not the other way around.

Mac OS X has always relied on native code for running native applications.  It was in classic Mac OS where Apple was running parts of the OS on the 68K emulator for a while.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TeleView
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to Tom_N, May 11, 2013

Tom_N wrote:

TeleView wrote:

Afterall the later the OS, the more it uses native code, which should make it faster. For me, the steps to new OS's have always increased performance, not the other way around.

Mac OS X has always relied on native code for running native applications.  It was in classic Mac OS where Apple was running parts of the OS on the 68K emulator for a while.

Only since Lion has Rosetta not been available on OS X.

The reality of OS X's progress, has been that despite its increased capabilities, its gotten faster on most hardware.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
raptor50
Forum MemberPosts: 98
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to mustaphapashu, May 11, 2013

mustaphapashu wrote:

I totally agree with you about this and you can add one other gripe: ML runs very slowly on anything but the newest hardware. The art institute I teach at has had major speed issues in their computer labs with the iMacs that were updated to ML.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this point. There may be an issue at your art institute but it would be unfair to both Apple and a potential 'upgrader' to make a sweeping statement such as yours.

I have a 2008 Mac Pro (built Dec 2008 so it's a 3,1) with 16GB RAM and 2 x 3Ghz processors. One of my friends has a 2009 iMac with 4GB RAM and 1 x 2Ghz processor. Like a lot of people we have both noticed an improvement in overall performance of our particular machines.

I have read a few statements such as yours but from my research on this topic (before deciding to go ahead with the upgrade) I believe that there are far more instances of performance boost or remaining the same than any degradation.

Possibly the disparity comes from how the upgrade is carried out and what the state of a particular system is immediately prior to upgrade, I don't know, but it isn't a fact that 'ML runs very slowly on anything but the newest hardware', it IS a fact that in SOME cases after upgrading to ML SOME machines do perform worse than before the upgrade.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gesture
Senior MemberPosts: 2,268Gear list
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to CameraCarl, May 11, 2013

Snow Leopard is the breaking point.  Needs have Intel only applications beyond that.  Apple could have built Rosetta into Lion but choose not to.  The most practical solution is maintain a Snow Leopard boot partition for Universal apps and a Mountain Lion partition for newer, no-Rosetta capable apps.  Some early i3 processors came with Snow Leopard; otherwise, Core 2 Duo is the other limits of working on Snow Leopard.  I see vigorous bidding on eBay Core 2 Duo units, so many are in that dilemma.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom_N
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,013
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to TeleView, May 11, 2013

TeleView wrote:

Tom_N wrote:

TeleView wrote:

Afterall the later the OS, the more it uses native code, which should make it faster. For me, the steps to new OS's have always increased performance, not the other way around.

Mac OS X has always relied on native code for running native applications.  It was in classic Mac OS where Apple was running parts of the OS on the 68K emulator for a while.

Only since Lion has Rosetta not been available on OS X.

Your claim was "the later the OS, the more it uses native code, which should make it faster".

In many versions of classic Mac OS, there was code (e.g., in the Finder) that was 68K-only.  That code had to be run by the 68K emulator on PowerPC-based machines.  In other words, even if all of the applications you ran on your PowerPC-based Mac were PowerPC-native, you couldn't avoid using the 68K emulator.  There was no way around a speed penalty (if the speed was CPU-bound, more than it was disk-bound or human-reaction-time-bound).

Snow Leopard includes Rosetta, but it doesn't use Rosetta for running Snow Leopard itself, and it doesn't do much of anything with Rosetta unless you are running PowerPC applications.  So there is no "Rosetta speed penalty" for running Intel applications on Snow Leopard.  Removing Rosetta in Lion did not increase the percentage of native code used for running native applications.  And "native code" is not the reason for any speed boosts in Lion or Mountain Lion.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TeleView
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: I ran into the same issue, however
In reply to Tom_N, May 13, 2013

Tom_N wrote:

TeleView wrote:

Tom_N wrote:

TeleView wrote:

Afterall the later the OS, the more it uses native code, which should make it faster. For me, the steps to new OS's have always increased performance, not the other way around.

Mac OS X has always relied on native code for running native applications.  It was in classic Mac OS where Apple was running parts of the OS on the 68K emulator for a while.

Only since Lion has Rosetta not been available on OS X.

Your claim was "the later the OS, the more it uses native code, which should make it faster".

In many versions of classic Mac OS, there was code (e.g., in the Finder) that was 68K-only.  That code had to be run by the 68K emulator on PowerPC-based machines.  In other words, even if all of the applications you ran on your PowerPC-based Mac were PowerPC-native, you couldn't avoid using the 68K emulator.  There was no way around a speed penalty (if the speed was CPU-bound, more than it was disk-bound or human-reaction-time-bound).

Snow Leopard includes Rosetta, but it doesn't use Rosetta for running Snow Leopard itself, and it doesn't do much of anything with Rosetta unless you are running PowerPC applications.  So there is no "Rosetta speed penalty" for running Intel applications on Snow Leopard.  Removing Rosetta in Lion did not increase the percentage of native code used for running native applications.  And "native code" is not the reason for any speed boosts in Lion or Mountain Lion.

My view on all this, is that both OS X has advanced, and those applications that have taken advantage of those advances, have gotten faster.

I've had many macs, and with the old systems, one used to upgrade the OS, and straight away things went a lot faster, and more reliably.

However, things got more complicated with the later versions of Apple's old OS, and there was a file problem in upgrading one of the versions of system 8. While faster, I myself lost huge quantities of data doing such an upgrade. From that time onwards, I have held back on updating OSs. But up to then, I regarded an Apple OS upgrade, as a safer thing to do.

But every time I've upgraded, I've found things run faster ... although now doubt, with old machines, that may not be the case.

I wonder is there a site somewhere, that actually has tested the changes of Apple OSs, vis a vis the OS's performances on doing basic things, and then Apple key Apps, and then third party Apps? It would be better to have some professional testing, rather than our own "feel".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads