3 ms·

>As someone who's grumbled at the semi-occasional glitch and lag in Google Photos I feel bad Don't. They killed a good product, Picasa, which didn't have these

>As someone who's grumbled at the semi-occasional glitch and lag in Google Photos I feel bad Don't. They killed a good product, Picasa, which didn't have these problems because it didn't need to solve them. There's no way Google Photos - or any cloud solution - will be an adequate replacement to handle my 100GB+ library of JPEGs, RAW files, and videos, with instant editing and access to all of it -- if only because it doesn't take a second to pull 100GB of data from the net! Not everything needs to be cloud-based -- but not according to Google's vision. Picasa still does a fine job for me, but I have to preserve my copy of the installer because Google wouldn't want me to have it any more.

plttn 8y ago
I've got 30GB+ of photos/videos in my Google Photos (unclear count due to Pixel free upload). I launch Google Photos, I see the most recent photos. I scrub down to 2011, there's the photos in 2011. It doesn't try to load the entire library in one go.
joshuamorton 8y ago
It appears you didn't really read the article. There's no need to pull 100gb of data. And 100gb is comparatively small for a photo and video library. The article mentions testing with 250k photos, which would be well over 100gb (2-3 times that at minimum, significantly more if RAW and high res).
- romwell 8y ago
  >It appears you didn't really read the article. There's no need to pull 100gb of data. I read the article, paying special attention to section 4, aptly titled "Smoke and Mirrors". There's always a need to pull in as much data as the user wants to actually interact with. No matter what tricks you pull, you'd still need about 1s to pull in a 10MB photo over a 100mbps connection at full speed, and most people don't have that. Reading data off a disk is an order (or two, with an SSD) of magnitude faster. And sometimes, I just want to flip through the library and look at a lot of photos without having to wait seconds for each one to load. Sure, the layout algorithms are still important, and that's what a lot of the article is about. But all king's horses and all king's men can't make the latency of a javascript UI with a network backend comparable to a compiled program interacting with a disk. Thank you, but smoke and mirrors aren't for everyone. Google Photos fulfills an obvious need, but it's not a Picasa replacement.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    I went back to use the filesystem as I was used to do before. Editing via Paint.NET and exporting to the Web via jAlbum. Requiring a G+ account didn't help to gain my love.
    - igouy 8y ago
      1) Folders date-labelled when the files were moved from camera to computer 20180712 and files date & sequence labelled 20180712-005.ARW 20180712-005-1.tif as variants are created 2) Edit mostly via RawTherapee (with special help from MS ICE & photoFXlab masks & Silver Efex Pro) 3) Distribute & Share with Google Photos (jpgs down-sized below 16MP) [upload with web browswer interface avoids all the confusion around auto backup and deletes]

plttn 8y ago

I've got 30GB+ of photos/videos in my Google Photos (unclear count due to Pixel free upload). I launch Google Photos, I see the most recent photos. I scrub down to 2011, there's the photos in 2011. It doesn't try to load the entire library in one go.

joshuamorton 8y ago

It appears you didn't really read the article. There's no need to pull 100gb of data. And 100gb is comparatively small for a photo and video library. The article mentions testing with 250k photos, which would be well over 100gb (2-3 times that at minimum, significantly more if RAW and high res).

romwell 8y ago
>It appears you didn't really read the article. There's no need to pull 100gb of data. I read the article, paying special attention to section 4, aptly titled "Smoke and Mirrors". There's always a need to pull in as much data as the user wants to actually interact with. No matter what tricks you pull, you'd still need about 1s to pull in a 10MB photo over a 100mbps connection at full speed, and most people don't have that. Reading data off a disk is an order (or two, with an SSD) of magnitude faster. And sometimes, I just want to flip through the library and look at a lot of photos without having to wait seconds for each one to load. Sure, the layout algorithms are still important, and that's what a lot of the article is about. But all king's horses and all king's men can't make the latency of a javascript UI with a network backend comparable to a compiled program interacting with a disk. Thank you, but smoke and mirrors aren't for everyone. Google Photos fulfills an obvious need, but it's not a Picasa replacement.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  I went back to use the filesystem as I was used to do before. Editing via Paint.NET and exporting to the Web via jAlbum. Requiring a G+ account didn't help to gain my love.
  - igouy 8y ago
    1) Folders date-labelled when the files were moved from camera to computer 20180712 and files date & sequence labelled 20180712-005.ARW 20180712-005-1.tif as variants are created 2) Edit mostly via RawTherapee (with special help from MS ICE & photoFXlab masks & Silver Efex Pro) 3) Distribute & Share with Google Photos (jpgs down-sized below 16MP) [upload with web browswer interface avoids all the confusion around auto backup and deletes]