Do you think you could use the built-in quote function and quote tags next time, with proper attributions, so it's easy to see exactly whose text you're quoting and responding to, please?
Quote: " you have a typical 2004 / 2005 generation Mac you will find running Aperture to be an exercise in waiting."
Apple makes 3 models, always has. This is typical. Here are the requirements one of the following Macintosh computers:
– Power Mac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
– 17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
– 15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with 1.25GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
– Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster recommended
It will not be "an exercise in waiting" if you use an 1.8GHz computer. Go to a any computer store that sell Apple computers and play with Aperture (if they have it loaded) on the slowest model. Aperture works on versions of the RAW files unlike Photoshop so the speed is over the top fast.
This does not correspond well with the experiences other sources have.
Apparently, there is a lot of variation here.
Perhaps the speed depends on the number of images in the library, or something like that?
Quote: "If you go on reading, you will see that his complaint is directed at the lack of adjustments for the fonts; Aperture does not respect the system font settings."
The font sizes are the same between Aperture and Photoshop, some of Photoshop window might have a little bit larger font than Aperture while some palettes fonts are smaller than Aperture.
You are not addressing the point: is there a way to adjust the font size, yes or no?
Quote: "From what I understand, Aperture "imports" all files into a single database, which cannot span more than one filesystem." "Another problem with this approach -- again, from what I understand -- is that there are no individual files as such anymore; you can't access the data without Aperture."
It may appear to be as such but click on the Aperture icon by Command clicking on it and choose Open Packages to see what is truly under the hood (not recommended unless you know what you are doing). What appears to be one single database isn't. You can find any of your images by searching with the Finder if you want to. Not only are your original RAW files still there but every Version is also and they are individual files.
If you can't see or access them in Finder or a Unix shell, they're not individual files.
Quote: "Will it catalogue images without importing them and deleting the source files?"
Yes. All data whether it is metadata or edits, adjustments, crops etc. are archived for future use. Never is the original RAW file altered it does all this non-destructively.
I think you're dodging my question.
If I have a file called "IMG_8485.CR2" in my "Pictures" folder, will or won't that image be there afterwards?
Quote: "Look at other reviews, such as the one at Ars Technica, clearly displaying the quality issues."Original reviewFollowup review
Yes, unfortunately there are other sites with misleading statements whether they are intentional because of product loyalty to other applications or systems or user errors or just mistaken. If you have an url that I can go to I would be happy to see it.
Quote: "I'd be tempted to disbelieve you just on past merits. But since you're probably right, it doesn't make what Michael wrote a lie. It's an erroneous statement, yes, but not necessarily deliberately so."
History will show. Let's meet next year at this time. I bet we'll know.
History will not show whether whatever mistakes in the review were deliberate or not, you will just have to take Michael's word for it.
History might show whether he's correct about his predictions regarding Aperture, but that's a separate issue