Then use referenced rather than managed images.
"On faster machines I'm quite sure it runs better. A friend with a Quad G5 and 4 GB of RAM says that it runs quite nicely. I'm sure it does. But until there's a $10,000 UbberMac on my desk I'll just have to take his word for it."
*** I have a 2x2,5Ghz and it's still slow
. LR and C1 are not
"One of the major complaints against Aperture, which I resoundingly echo, is that it is a unitary database program. By this I mean that it keeps all of its files and data in one huge database. This has several implications. The first is that your entire collection of raw files, completed files, versions etc, can not be larger than a single hard drive. This is simply unacceptable for a professional application. I currently have more then two Terabytes of files occupying 10 separate drives, and I'm sure that most pros and active photographers have as much if not more – and growing weekly.
Yes, I know that you can change to a different database, but what if you want to search for, compare and re-catalog files that reside on different disks? Can't do it. Bad. Really bad. Can you say "dumb design"?
Another issue is that your raw files are sucked into this database, and that's where they live. Yes, you can first copy them to a separate directory and drive before ingesting them into Aperture. And, yes, you can extract them from Aperture. But, I am very uncomfortable having my files living inside a large unitary database. I really don't see why a more modern relational database structure can not be adopted. It feels like Apple simply adapted their rather limited IPhoto structure when creating Aperture.
Consequently Aperture really has little utility for cataloging images. Without the ability to catalog files outside of its own limited environment, photographers are forced to use other cataloging programs, and these are incapable of reaching inside Aperture to index its files. All in all a bad situation."