« The saga of Apple's iPhoto and Google's Picasa with some tests | Main | Changes at Applepeels »

August 04, 2011


Dave M.

Not sure if this is accurate or not, but isn't this test just a test to see how fast x number of photo's can be pulled from a memory card onto a hard drive?

Picasa shows pictures stored on a hard drive, scanning the drive for new images as it runs. iPhoto imports images off the memory card and stores them in a special folder of pictures so that the full library of images appear to be in one file.

Either way, they are stored on the hard drive. So the question of speed breaks down to how fast the computer can pull the images off the card and store them to the hard drive.

Actually, an interesting test of speed would be to do the import manually. Copying the images off the Memory Card to a folder on your hard drive without Picasa or iPhoto. Just to see a baseline as it were.

As for your last paragraph. iPhoto, and Picasa for that matter, do way more than just keep pictures. They allow you to filter them via Face, and location. Slightly more useful than thumbnails in Finder/Explorer.


Actually, I configured the test so that the hard drive did not have the photos on it before Picasa started so it had to import the photos to the hard just like iPhoto. I also deleted photos between tests when iPhoto ran first.

The test shows how fast the application boots, and imports the photos. There are lots of other things the programs do obviously. I mentioned some of those in the other posts.

Unfortunately the other tests also show the latest iPhoto to be slow in more than just importing. I did the tests to confirm my perception that the latest iPhoto is one slow piece of software compared to previous versions.

Dave M.

I figured that you did all the correct things to do an accurate comparison. I just realized as I was typing the comment that both are basically "move images from image card to hard drive" imports.

Trust me, I'm no supporter of iPhoto. I find it intolerably slow starting and imports always show up at the top of the Events screen making me drag them all the way to the bottom of the list of events. Even thought the dates are set correctly. I have yet to figure out why this happens.

However, I do like the "Look and Feel" of iPhoto over Picasa. Apple always seems to do such a great job in that department. I just wish they did a better job with code optimizations so that the programs ran smoother. At least on older machines like my poor Mac Pro (Aug. 2006). :)

I basically use Picasa so I don't have to put the Astronomy Picture of the Day images I collect into my iPhoto library. Picasa allows me to see the collection a little easier than Finder thumbnails.

John Davis

Whereas I can see that there are things to improve about iPhoto, I could never use Picasa. I downloaded it and tried it, but the interface is ghastly.

I'm sure that after spending a day or so with "Picasa for Dummies" it would be as putty in my hands, but the clincher for me is iCloud. I'd bet any money that Picasa will not be supported and I know iPhoto will.


Well we are are all different, but as far as I am concerned, the interface on the most recent iPhoto is "iPhoto for Dummies."

Picasa's interface is consistent, works well, is easy to figure out and they've haven't moved interface elements around like Apple does. You could write a book on how the export function has moved around on iPhoto.

In addition Picasa works well on Windows and Macintosh (as long as you an Intel processor).

As for not being supported, you should first worry about your photos. I have been using .Mac and MobileMe since they started. I have multiple albums over the years that I have trusted to Apple's current "cloud."

At least twice Apple has stopped supporting whatever slide show that they have required us to use for the web.

The most recent episode of that left me pictures whose names are unrecognizable numbers so I have to download them to figure out what they are.

Apple's suggestion is that just upload them from the original machine or iPhoto library. That's is perhaps the most dumb suggestion I have seen in a long time since who keeps a computer more than three or four years?

You put photos on the web so you don't have to worry about which computer or where they are on a hard drive.

The other Apple suggestion is to download them to a new album, rename them and re-upload them.

Well I followed part of their suggestion. I downloaded them, but when I uploaded, I put them on Picasa Web Albums which works better to start with and doesn't mess up my photo names.

I no longer trust Apple with my photos or any online data, and I don't see how their spots are going to change in this next iteration of the cloud.

Apple has never understood publishing on the web. It will be interesting to see how easy iCloud is to use from multiple machines or platforms.

Dave M.

Also, with Apple's iCloud, there is no real photo storage. You simply have 1 month to pull images stored in Apple's iCloud before they get removed from online storage. It's strictly for syncing images from your iPhone to your computer.

Picasa Web Albums do not go away after a period of time. I have albums that have been there since 2006 and I didn't have to do anything to keep them there.

Sure, Picasa has a weird interface, but one can get used to it and as ocracokewaves mentioned, it hasn't changed pretty much since it was released.

I still use both iPhoto and Picasa since the only way to get images into an iOS device is with iPhoto. However, for storing images in the cloud, it's Picasa all the way!

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • View David Sobotta's profile on LinkedIn


  • Powered by FeedBlitz


Blog powered by Typepad