Picassa

thebaz

I have probably been one of the great advocates of Picassa from the begining, and have avoided so far using Lightroom as part of my workflow (if you could call it that :-) ) -- but the the latest version of Picassa is a disaster for me, seams to hog resources, so may after all this time move on to Lightroom - not sure if anyone else uses Picassa or has witnessed these resource issues ?

jaqian

Didn't notice that myself but wasn't mad on thier UI so I switched to XnView 1.96, have you tried that yet? Whats the specs on your pc?

nilhg

I have Picasa 3 on an old PC for the kids and its fine on that (P4 1.7gh 512RAM)

Lightroom has many fine points, but being easy on resources isn't one of them, you will need at least 2gb RAM and the more the merrier.

thebaz

I have Vista home, and there seams to be problems causing it to crash, maybe its not resouce issues, I have 3 GB of memory !

thebaz

I have been really only using picasa for quick edits, and as the software to import from camera - I guess Lightroom would be better for this

jaqian

Its a lot of money (in around €300) for such basic requirements, which XnView can do for free. If you're not mad on it, what about ACDsee or Breeze Browser & Downloader Pro?

oshead

I would investigate why Picasa is running slow rather than spending big bucks on new software. Where are you storing your images? Are they on a network share or on the local computer? This would make a difference with a large amount of pics.

Valentia

thebaz wrote: »

I have Vista home, and there seams to be problems causing it to crash, maybe its not resouce issues, I have 3 GB of memory !

Have you Vista set up for "performance"? It's the first thing I do with a new PC. You can change the look after you have done it if you find the new one too plain. It can be set in Control Panel>System & Maintenance>Performance Information & Tools>Use Tools to Improve Performance>Adjust Visual Effects and then select adjust for best performance. I find that this makes a massive difference to speed. I have a quad core and it still makes a noticeable difference.

I can't find it in Control Panel in Classic view.

thebaz

Danny - I tried that but font loked awfull, so reverted back -- didn't realise LR was so expensive - more experimentation , I guess, previous version of picasa was better/ certainly with Vista home

Valentia

thebaz wrote: »

Danny - I tried that but font loked awfull, so reverted back -- didn't realise LR was so expensive - more experimentation , I guess, previous version of picasa was better/ certainly with Vista home

All you have to do after setting it for performance is change to the Vista theme/colours in display and your fonts and everything will look as it did before the change. It will just be faster.

pullandbang

Valentia wrote: »

Have you Vista set up for "performance"? It's the first thing I do with a new PC. You can change the look after you have done it if you find the new one too plain. It can be set in Control Panel>System & Maintenance>Performance Information & Tools>Use Tools to Improve Performance>Adjust Visual Effects and then select adjust for best performance. I find that this makes a massive difference to speed. I have a quad core and it still makes a noticeable difference.
I can't find it in Control Panel in Classic view.

Just did this on mine, changed setting, clicked APPLY and WOW! It's like a new computer. Nice one Danny!

thebaz

thanks Danny - tried it - display is not as was - but is better and will do :-)

nilhg

thebaz wrote: »

thanks Danny - tried it - display is not as was - but is better and will do :-)

There is a tick box in the performance options-visual effects dialogue box called smooth edges of screen fonts, if you tick it screen looks much better.

thebaz

nilhg wrote: »

There is a tick box in the performance options-visual effects dialogue box called smooth edges of screen fonts, if you tick it screen looks much better.

if i set that, I will lose "the best Performance option" - it will go to "Custom"

oh God, sometimes I am so un-techy :eek:

thebaz

nilhg wrote: »

There is a tick box in the performance options-visual effects dialogue box called smooth edges of screen fonts, if you tick it screen looks much better.

think , I'm sorted now , thanks for help - mucked about with custom

coylemj

Fancy visual effects chew up system resources, all that animation and smooth edges and 'show folder contents while dragging' cost huge amount of memory and processor cycles, especially in Vista.

Microsoft thought that animating everything would appeal to the masses, yes it does but boy does it slow things down.

thebaz

BTW - I am using a 17" monitor, for those technically better than me (most of you!!) what would you say is best screen resolution to use -
1024x768 or 1280x1024 (Highest) -bit confused :mad:

nilhg

thebaz wrote: »

BTW - I am using a 17" monitor, for those technically better than me (most of you!!) what would you say is best screen resolution to use -
1024x768 or 1280x1024 (Highest) -bit confused :mad:

LCD or CRT?

If it's LCD it will have a native resolution, which it will look best at, with CRT its really all the same go with whichever suits you best.

thebaz

nilhg wrote: »

LCD or CRT?

If it's LCD it will have a native resolution, which it will look best at, with CRT its really all the same go with whichever suits you best.

it's LCD , the 1280x1024 looks better, but doesn't fill full screen, if you know what I mean, lots of space at bottom of web pages

Simplicius

Ah Joe them youngsters and their digital don't know what it is like, looking for 2 gig of ram to run Picassa, I'm not joking but back in the day all I had was a tank some chemicals and an 'etch a sketch as a laptop" The celtic tiger has spoiled them all.