Gimp 2.0 Pre 2 Released

Paul Kucher writes "A second preview of GIMP 2.0 has been released. From gimp.org: "Lots of bugs have been fixed since the last release and you are encouraged to try the new pre-release. It is now available from ftp.gimp.org or from one of the mirrors. Plug-in authors, please consider to port your GIMP plug-in to the 2.0 API. Now is a good time to do that." I have posted some screenshots here."

Comments

What I don't like about the Gimp

[ObviousGuy]

Why don't they use a master window to contain all the other child Gimp windows? Every window floats free and disappears and reappears as application focus changes.

Taking a clue from Photoshop, the Gimp could be made much more user-friendly just by adding a simple window frame around all the controls and sub-windowing all the other windows.

Re:What I don't like about the Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called MDI

Some people love it. I hate it. I think it sorta breaks the normal flow of work. Suddenly it's much harder to switch back and forth between a GIMP window and an xterm because your gimp window has to be full screen to hold all the palletes.

But, you know, it's a personal preference thing. Maybe it would be nice if they could make it an option.

Re:What I don't like about the Gimp

[Muggins the Mad]

> Taking a clue from Photoshop, the Gimp could be made much more user-friendly just by adding a simple window frame around all the controls and sub-windowing all the other windows.

And that's almost exactly why I *like* the Gimp. I let my (carefully chosen to suit my needs) window manager deal with organising them.

Apps that put everything in one parent window really bug me since I have to organise *those* windows seperately from all the other apps I have running. And I can't see my other windows when I have one of the app windows in front.

- MugginsM

Re:What I don't like about the Gimp

[damiam]

Essentially there is no MDI in gtk, for good or bad.

While that's true, GTK was created to serve GIMP. If they wanted MDI, they could have added it. I think the "no-MDI" thing was a conscious decision and not a toolkit limitation.

Re:What I don't like about the Gimp

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

My KDE 3.1.2 panel manages to group together all of the gimp windows, i'm pretty sure the latest gnome-panel is capable of that as well. sure, after you click on the single "gimp" icon, you then have to make another click to pick a gimp window--but one could imagine a window manager that remember which gimp window had focus last and then chose that one. Infact, since the window managers are already capable of grouping together single windows, it seems like it would be possible for the window manager to turn a group of windows into an MDI interface. perhaps thats why MDI was opposed, because it takes over the role of window management from the users chosen window manager? Is gimp supposed to be aware of your window manager and make sub-window frames that look like your regular subwindows?

Re:What I don't like about the Gimp

[self assembled struc]

The trick is on the Mac, even in OS 9, an open application gets only one entry in the task-list. Whether this is the application menu (mutli-finder) or the dock, photoshop appears once.

What bothers me is that every window the gimp opens takes up a new task bar location. On the Mac, it's up the application to manage it's own open windows (That's what the "window" menu is for) and many OS X apps now adhere to the cmd-~ windows-in-current-application switch key, so I cycle though my open iChat windows, or my open Photoshop documents with that key stroke, but only have one entry in my "running programs" list. Which, if you think about it makes sense. I'm running the gimp as an app. Not the individual palettes.

Also, what bothered me so much, and i'm glad to see fixed, was the use of context menus. Context menus are great for contextual items, but THE FILE MENU IS NOT A CONTEXT MENU.

Re:What I don't like about the Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always maintained that anyone who runs apps full screen really isn't using a windowing system to their best advantage.

I have to disagree here. Perhaps if you have some insanely large desktop it's worth it, but at 1024x768, there simply isn't enough room to have more than one productively sized window for most applications. All you end up doing is wasting the edges of the screen real-estate and cluttering the "background". Grabbing and resizing an image window in the GIMP is noticably slower for me if there's other windows behind it with their own window decorations to distract. What I usually end up doing is shoving all my GIMP windows onto another virtual desktop to "emulate" a proper window. It still sucks, only not as much.

Re:What I don't like about the Gimp

[Mr. Slippery]

Why don't they use a master window to contain all the other child Gimp windows?

Because that's an ugly and unfriendly thing to do. Let my window manager manage windows the way I want it to, please.

(If I'm doing a lot of GIMPing I'll put it on its own virtual desktop. But I might to float those GIMP windows around a web browser window to see how that image looks in the web page I'm working on.)

Re:Is it time.. . .

[BlueEar]

My overall impression is that GIMP has been designed by highly qualified geeks, but geeks nevertheless. I think it would benefit immensly from a usability expert input. A number of solutions chosen is far from intuitive. While the overall capabilities of GIMP are excellent, it takes some getting-used-to time. Once the initial "who the hell thought that right click plus Ctrl is a natural solution for this operation" types of experiences are over, you might be pleasantly surprised by the power of GIMP. Overall, this is one software that I woulde definitely recomment reading books or tutorials before using it. Ah, and yes, I find that 1.3 series and now 2.0 release candidates have some improvements in usability over 1.2 version. Dockable dialogs and a much better menu systems just to name a few ...

Re:Is it time.. . . [a bit OT]

[kelnos]

The lack of MDI is typical of Gnome apps. Now that I'm accustomed to Gnome it doesn't bother me.

that's interesting. i guess we just have different usage patterns - i absolutely _despise_ the MDI model that apps like photoshop impose, as most of the time the only natural way to work with them is to maximise the window, thus blocking out everything else i have on that particular desktop. it's not so bad for, say, a tabbed text editor, but when you have an app like the gimp that has several ancillary windows that you need to refer to often to use the app (the main toolbox, layer window, tool options windows), you need more screen real estate to handle these items. and when they all have to be contained within a single large rectangular container, you lose the option of having a funny-shaped container which leaves open 'holes' into which you can see the rest of your desktop workspace.

i dunno, just a personal preference. but from the interface point of view, i'd pick gimp over photoshop any day. i still agree, however, that there are several aspects to the gimp UI that aren't terribly intuitive. and photoshop certainly still has an edge in features (tho not being a graphics-savvy person, the gimp is more than sufficient for my needs).

Two editing styles

[digitect]

As I sit here reading comments, I'm struck by the two conflicting desires of the posters:

1. MDI v. window manager
2. Window mouse-clicking/virtual workspace-swapping v. Alt+Tab/Window list mouse-clicking

Perhaps we're using GIMP two different ways.

It appears those that do not want MDI want to be able to arrange their windows around the desktop leaving little areas to peer through to other apps in the background. This group likes to use the mouse to focus windows and may enjoy being able to swap to another workspace to preserve this environment.

Others of us (myself included) sometimes do graphics professionally for days straight at a time. We're in the environment 10-12 hours and may have 20-50 image windows open in one session, maybe 500 a day. (Such as when producing icons, or bullets, or thumbnails, etc.) In this case, having to select objects by visual means is almost impossible. There are enough windows to completely obstruct the background with frames alone. And who on earth would actually go to the trouble to physically arrange them all?! Instead, we prefer a single Alt+Tab or mouse click on the window list to switch away, and another to return to the graphic application environment. The MDI has it's own window list which aids in having to decide between different names and other applications in the same list. It also has its own separate Ctrl+Tab key combination to page between them.

I guess I'm tired of seeing the flames. Can't the developers simply acknowldege that there is more than one way to look at the UI and add the simple option to have MDI? Or is it really not that simple? Perhaps not. Is that why the option is being avoided?

Re:Is it time.. . . [a bit OT]

[elveu]

the advantage of the "holes" is that it allows you to have other applications visable in the background and offers far more flexability. just beceause you personally may not have a use for it dosn't mean that there isn't one.
and most people who use image editors dosn't do graphics proressionally

Re:The improvements just keep coming...

[psergiu]

> as a side note, does anyone use GIMP with a Wacom pad in Xfree86?

yes. :)

> Do all the basic tools and plugins take advantage of tilt and pressure?

Yes - but as my cheapo wacom is only presure sersitive - i cannot comment on the tilt.