Slashdot Mirror
The Gimp from the Eyes of a Photoshop User
Eugenia writes "Many in the F/OSS community are raving about the Gimp, however pros who have actually used Photoshop think differently: This Mac professional designer goes through the steps of getting Gimp 2.0 up and running on his Mac, only to get baffled by the chaotic interface in general and its non-standard UI compared to other Mac apps, its slowness to open large files and to apply filters, the unintuitive tools that accompany it and its very visible bad quality of text and lines/shapes. That designer even bought a 'supported' version of MacGimp by an OSS-Mac company, Archei, but he never heard back for his support requests (free Gimp for Macs here). I think that's one of the best-written articles I've ever read about the reality of most open-source geek-driven projects vs their equivelant professional/proprietary ones. Personally, before I get persuaded to use Gimp again for my photography projects, I would need --in addition to the author's peeves -- full 16-bit per channel support, high-quality scanning/printing drivers with integrated GUI (a'la SilverFast), and a 'crop and rotate' feature (as seen in PS/PSE). Besides, both Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements cost bellow $100 (with PS Elements getting bundled with most scanners/printers/digital cameras, albeit without the much needed 16bit support either)."
On the matter of Text, use FreeType for the GIMP. It produces beautiful scaled, rotated, and angled text output.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
From dictionary.com: 8 entries found for gimp. gimp2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gmp) Slang n. A limp or a limping gait. A person who limps.
Photoshop is great, but you CAN run it under Linux. It's a supported application of
Crossover Office.
I use it all the time under Linux with no problems.
And I almost forgot. The Obligatory link for the google impaired. :) Hinted, Kerned, and Anti-Aliased to your hearts content.. fully buzzword compliant!
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
Not the way you think...
FilmGimp a.k.a. CinePaint, is for a few specilized film editing applications, mostly to do with hand-rotoscoping, dust removal, and such. It is not a general purpose tool for video editing like Premiere or AfterEffects.
Gentoo Sucks
Open Source simply historically speaking does not produce quality end-user or GUI applications. Open source is written by programmers, for programmers. If it isn't something a programmer or sysadmin would be interested in, it doesn't get much attention paid to detail or quality.
I've used all four in comic artwork, and here's my option:
[b]PHOTOSHOP:[/b] A bit overkill, but it's the best for most any application. It's better on a Mac, though, than on a PC, due to interface issues.
[b]GIMP:[/b] Next best thing, I can do almost 100% of the stuff I can do in Photoshop. Speeding stuff up (like employing multiple CPU's or servers) will help, and 16-bit/channel may help photo artists.
[b]Paint Shop Pro:[/b] If it's what you got and you can't get the others, it'll do. Most of the stuff above you can do.
[b]Photoshop Elements:[/b] DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GETTING THIS!!! BAD! BAD!! The interface is confusing for even old Photoshop users, and to think I used Photoshop *BEFORE* going with Gimp!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!
Most of the time, you (the common user) don't need something heavy-handed as Photoshop. You just need to tweak Gimp/PSP to use more memory. I have it using half of 1.5 gigs here, may push it back up to a full gig. That speeds filters up fast (when you don't have to swap!)
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
I personally find that Illustrator is even more candle repellent. In terms of Vector graphics manipulation, I think it is tops.
This is the company that invented PostScript after all.
A lot of people fire back about GIMP's interface with, "But think of how friendly to multiple monitors it is!"
Never mind that Photoshop works just fine with multiple monitors! It has as far back as I can remember. I've seen five-monitor Mac setups arranged in order of the artist's graphics processes, moving from one monitor to another, going from area to dialog to area and so forth.
I get WHY people justify GIMP's interface. I just don't agree whatsoever.
Funny, when I try this on Linux and Gimp (FC1 and 2.0.0) and (FC2t3 and 2.0.1) there's no glitches like this, fonts are just as beatiful as on in Photoshop (must be related to X11 on OSX or something).
And besides,... Gimp environment is Linux friendly not OSX friendly (Gimp behaves completely different than any other software on OSX).
To sum it all up, writer had just as awkward position as I had when I run Photoshop (tryed to use my alerady paid versions) on crossover office on Linux (something just didn't belong there). As much as I was working with Photoshop in the past (few years of intensive usage, after that I traded it for Linux and Gimp), I found my self very uncomfortable with Photoshop interface as he with Gimp.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Thank goodness I have a mac. :)
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Isn't that sort of reaction kinda par for the "Mac user tries anything else" course?
You're a troll, but I'll bite. The author of the article is not just some Mac user, he's Joe Gillespie, an established pro in graphic design and typography. By "established", I mean for the past 20 years or so he's been doing this kind of thing. Link 1, link 2. Nothing a little trip to google won't clear up if you're looking for credentials.
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
Just to answer a couple of these:
;-)
(1) The interface sucks. Nobody likes working with 16 different open windows
This was true in Gimp 1.x. The interface has been changed for the Gimp 2.x series (most of the tools can be docked).
(2) The interface sucks. Nobody likes menus in different windows and toolbars
See answer to point 1.
(3) No 16-bit/channel color support
True.
(4) No [good] CMYK support = will never be used in prepress[1]
True. (this is being worked on though).
(5) Repeat (1) and (2)
The answer repeats as well
(6) [Lack of] Speed
I've never noticed any problems as far as that goes.
(7) Dependencies (GTK+, etc.)
Gimp depends on GTK (Gimp Tool Kit)?. No! Really?!? I'd never have guessed!
One other point: Font rendering.
The article provided a good example of bad font rendering - but I haven't been able to re-produce the problem on Linux or on Windows. In fact - the rendering on Photoshop for Windows and Gimp 2.0 for Windows was nearly identical. It does rather look like there are some problems with the packaged version of the Gimp that the writer was using.
The Gimp isn't perfect - but it isn't as bad as the article makes out.
Adobe has licensed Pantone color matching. If you don't have Pantone, you won't get anywhere, in the design world. Basically, using Pantone guarantees that the color you see on your mock-up is the exact color the press will produce on the final product. Not "close enough," not almost, but exactly. From posters to wallpaper to clothing to linoleum, pretty much. If your designer shows you a sample, you can pretty much rest easy that it will be that color.
What?
"Moron" you're responding to:
'Open source' means that the source code is available at no cost to anybody that wants to download it, use it, modify it, use it to fill empty hard drives - whatever.
Eric S. Raymond's Jargon File:
"Open Source"... describe[s] software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code.
Can you please explain to me the difference between these two definitions?
Would you say Mr. Raymond is a "moron"? Okay, maybe you would, what about all those people who mirror the jargon file? Are they morons as well?
I think that it just depends on what you are used to using. A GIMP user with a lot of experience with the program, may have the same problems when migrating to Photoshop. I know I do. I'm not very familiar with anything but Photoshop basics, but I'm quite familiar with GIMP.
Many of problems that the author sites in the review are problems that are native to the Mac version. I agree that GIMP does need some help in many areas, but the program isn't ideal for Macs right now, without some work.
A) It requires an X11 server on top of the MacOS.
B) The filesystem issue is related to the fact that GIMP wasn't designed for OSX, even if it can be compiled for it.
C) The font issues are related to the fact that it is using a different font renderer than OSX. There is no sub-pixel hinting going on in his makeshift X-server, and it looks like it is using an inferior render.
Really, I don't disagree with the reviewer. They are legitimate points, but the majority of the problems are simply related to the Mac install.
In regards to other complaints...
Tools *ARE* organized; e.g. first row has selection tools, and fourth row has drawing tools.
I'm not sure what was up with his copy, but JPEG images (over 30 MB) open up within a fraction of a second for me.
The "reviewer" hasn't familiarized himself with how the drawing tools work to get them to function properly. I personally feel that this person is just looking for a Photoshop clone, which GIMP is not. It is similar to Photoshop in the sense that it performs most of the same functions, but it is not a clone by design. The UI seems practical to some of us; even novice users that I know. But hey... To each his own. Again, the GIMP does deserve criticism in some respects, but 3/4 of the problems that the reviewer sited were not the fault of GIMP or its design.
Optical kerning is, as I understand it, a new auto-kerning algorithm in InDesign 3. Rather than kerning based on metrics, it kerns based on actual letter-forms, producing much more pleasing results. I use optical kerning for all type above about 12 points, within reason. It is apparently quite CPU-intensive, because InDesign really slows to a crawl when you turn on optical kerning for an entire page of body type.
Between optical kerning for display type and optical margin alignment for justified body type, InDesign 3 just kicks typographic ass.
I write in my journal
No, that is not the point. You know what I do if I want to install gimp?
/Applications and just double click it! the only pre-requirement is you need X11 installed. that's IT. not too bad.
apt-get install gimp
you know it's pretty much that easy in os x too. just visit http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/ After downloading the gimp-2.0.dmg file, you drag Gimp.app to
- tristan
Bob
First of all, running under X11 makes it slower than running natively under linux.
Umm, you do know that Linux uses X11 too right? I guess you also know that the Mac OS X X11 implementation is largly based on the linux one, but has some compositing improvements which actually speed it up compared to linux.
Mac users just aren't used to having menus show up in application windows.
I use linux daily at work, I still cannot stand this setup. It's just not usefull. I keep having to first find the graphic window under all my other apps, then all the toolbar windows. It's just stupid.
Some of the performance issues again are no doubt due to the emulation, again, same with the font handling. Try it on a real linux computer.
OS X does not emulate unix, it IS unix. There is no emulation going on here. Gimp wasn't designed for Linux, it was designed for unix and runs without any emulation on other operating systems such as BSD, OS X, I think there may even be a native windows port. This is not the problem.
What I use my [pirated] copy of Photoshop for is nothing more than very, very simple cropping, correcting the rotation of, and resizing images. I usually then save in a different format. Occationally I will do some simple color correction, and very occationally I will need to take some simple graphic or text and resize and position it on top of some other image.
These seem like very simple needs to me. They do not seem like it would be possible to create a free software program which screws up being suitible for these simple tasks. Yet somehow, the Gimp manages it.
Gimp 2.0 has a top menu to access features just like photoshop, in addition to the right click method.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Eh, I've never been impressed with Illustrator.
I managed a graphic design shop for a couple of years, and my formally-trained graphic artists using Illustrator couldn't even begin to keep up with this self-taught geek using Corel Draw. Just about every feature that Illustrator crows about when they first add it has already been in Draw for at least two years. Draw's print setups and dialogs *completely* blow Illustrator out of the water. Complex layouts can be done in seconds.
As for Photoshop, yeah, it's OK, but Corel's PhotoPaint is its equal. Not better, but not worse.
original comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=80387&cid=7086 133
Some of the things CinePaint has that the GIMP lacks:
Also, CMYK support is coming soon. BTW, I'm not a pro user of Photoshop, the GIMP, or CinePaint. I learned about CinePaint from these Slashdot stories:
"CinePaint is a free open source painting and image retouching program designed to work best with 35mm film and other high resolution high dynamic range images. It is the most popular open source tool in the motion picture industry -- used in 2 Fast 2 Furious, Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, Stuart Little and other feature films." -- CinePaint
Optical kerning is, as I understand it, a new auto-kerning algorithm in InDesign 3. Rather than kerning based on metrics, it kerns based on actual letter-forms, producing much more pleasing results.
Optical kerning was around at least as of InDesign 2.0. In theory it is a very nice method for kerning; in practice it doesn't seem to make as big of a difference as you might think, at least with fairly typical serif and sans-serif fonts. In the print environment in which I worked, we used optical kerning for our newsprint, with our two dominant fonts being Calisto MT (serif) and Gill Sans (sans-serif); neither of those fonts suffer serious colisions with normal metric kerning, so optical kerning didn't make a night-and-day difference.
Also, optical kerning does add a modicum of additional spacing over the flow of a story or document, as in a 100 line story might end up 102-105 lines after being optically kerned (again, as of InDesign 2).
and Photoshop is but the tip of the iceberg in the world of what Linux will never be able to do natively - screw emulation...this work is already slow enough without another layer interfering
Crossover Office is built on top of Wine.
Wine = Wine Is Not an Emulator
There's no extra layer interfering. I notice no slow down while running PS on Linux.
MacGIMP approach is to minimize comparisons with Photoshop because the two pieces of software are just very different animals. As far as interface goes, once you get used to the GIMP way of doing things, Photoshop feels awkward, and since most Americans have prior experience with Photoshop, the accusation that the GIMP feels awkward seems to dominate the discussion. Outcomes of interface quality comparisons have a lot to do with what you first learned, and what you've gotten used to. So any balanced interface comparison should keep the inherent bias of familiarity in mind. Windows versus Linux-based desktops will face a similar challenge.
It wasn't mentioned which version the Web Page Design for Designers review used. Recent builds are now making use of GIMP Freetype plugin which has excellent support for anti-aliasing. For the record, Archei LLC does provide support (by a toll free number too) for anyone who purchases the MacGIMP product. Not sure how that support request slipped through the cracks, but the offer to help still stands: support@archei.com While we're on the topic, the MacGIMP forum is another alternative to getting questions answered.
Finally, even though a certain amount of disagreement will likely occur, discussions about open graphics software, especially when open and patent unencumbered file formats are promoted, are always to be encouraged. Hopefully this Slashdot article will have the net positive effect of making more people aware of the GIMP who had never heard of it before.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
It's not that easy yet; they are making headway, but the GIMP is still straggling behind somewhat in this area. They have grand plans to move to GEGL (GEneric Graphics Library) http://www.gegl.org/ , which is a graphics processing library that will apparently (among other things) make it easier to use ICM profiles and work in CMYK.
I've heard that GIMP 2.0 has CMYK support, but I've also heard that it's not quite useful enough yet. ICM profiles have been in GIMP for a while though. As far as LAB colour and stuff... haven't seen anything like that yet.
All in good time... for my fairly modest stitching, retouching, and modifying needs, GIMP works great. I'm an RGB man.
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
Liquefy tools? Much better type handling? Much better color matching? New filters? Real vector layers? Soft proofing? Hello?
I'm not sure what you mean by "rendition". Do you mean how the colors render on your monitor? Do you mean your color profiles? In both cases the problem is you and not the software. Photoshop has about the best color management engine out there.
I have no ideas what you're talking about.
The fact that you teach design is clear to me, as you don't know the first thing about production. I have lost track of the die cuts I have made with Illustrator. You can make die cuts with fucking Quark if you need to. Man, I would hate to be one of your students.
Then it's a good thing millions and millions of designers choose Photoshop.
I don't know where you live, but here (NYC) good designers make $600+ a day and high level retouchers make $150/hr.
Back on the topic: although people seem to be concentrating on UI issues, GIMP is nowhere near feature-complete with respect to Photoshop.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Having to click on buttons several times to active is also a symptom of running under X11. I have GIMP2 on my powerbook and it's *horrible* to work with because of the way that focus works in a mac so each time you click from window to window in the gimp you have to click once to give the window focus, and then again to activate the menu/tool/etc.
It is indeed horrible. However, you can fix it with focus follows mouse:
defaults write com.apple.x11 wm_ffm true
A small thing that makes all the difference.
must... stay... awake...
I'll first mention that while Acrobat is simply a reader
Acrobat most certainly is NOT "simply a reader" - Acrobat Reader is only one piece of the entire Adobe Acrobat family. Acrobat is used to create PDFs, and convert other document formats to PDF. It is most likely the industry standard for PDF creation.
Free does not mean much to a professional who needs to get things done. Would a pro photographer use a quikimart freebe camera to shoot promo material?
Also, Photoshop *does* have a complete API in the lastest CS version (Using a JavaScript implementation--no cludgy C). I'm pretty sure it can perform all the actions avail. from the GUI. Map generation would be pretty trivial if this is the case.
I do a lot of graphics work. I've also used a large number of the true graphics programs (3d, 2d, vector, etc... not MSPaint) out there at one point or another. In addition to this, I also do freelance development from time to time. It is the user interface alone that makes or breaks the program, in my opinion. Without a good interface, it doesn't matter what the rest of the code does.
Here are my remarks on a few of the ones I've used at one time or another:
Photoshop - Easy to use interface. Provides an easy introduction for those unfamiliar with the program and provides the power necessary for advanced users.
GraphicsConverter - Another easy to use interface. Though it lacks the power photoshop has, it makes up for it in the large number of image formats it can read and write.
Paint Shop Pro - I am not overly fond of this interface. For one, I think there are far too many icons used. Drowning out interface buttons and such with icons is very irritating for a novice user as they generally have to hover the mouse and wait for the tooltip to figure out what something is. Further, it has the "too much help" syndrome that seems a standard on windows. I much prefer that the help system be delegated to something else and not be built into the program.
Poser - This is definitely a unique interface, but it still provides simplicity for novice users and control for advanced users. The largest downside is that by not using default system-provided user interface widgets, some of the details you would expect are not there whereas they would be there if the system versions were used.
Bryce - Bryce is extremely easy to use. It was my first 3d program and is still one of my favorites due to its simplicity. I have yet to find another 3d program with an object placement system that I like more than bryce's.
Blender - Not a big fan. Though it is quite powerful, the learning curve is very steep. On Macs, the interface text is quite small in some places and hard to read. The interface is also a bit clunky. Sections are not as clearly divided as I would like.
Carrara - I have not used this one for some time (and as such, newer versions may be different than what I remember), but I found it quite user-friendly when I did. All tools were placed in a context-sensible place and it had the camera system that I liked from bryce.
The Gimp - I don't like it. The user interface is extremely clunky by my standards. Consolidating a number of the windows into one and reorganizing the tools would go a long way towards helping it. There is also the fact that I am used to my nice Aqua interface and it has the drab sharp bevels and general lack of detail that is natural to most x86 OS's under default configurations.
Illustrator - I do not use this program frequently, but being from adobe, it has a very similar interface to photoshop that makes it very easy to use.
Fireworks - I'm apathetic about this one. It provides no real functionality that I cannot get in a program whose interface I like better and has more stuff I can use.
Freehand - Pretty much the same as Fireworks. I've only mostly toyed with this one as I found Illustrator more appealing.
One other feature I like about photoshop is that it is extremely easy to do image versioning. When doing web designs, I will
Actually, you can do color changes and transforms on a single layer quite easily, you're just looking in the wrong place.
:)
Rule of thumb: If you don't think photoshop can do something, then you haven't looked hard enough through the tools
Not to really disagree with you about the issues you've had with your Linux, but most of those things you mention sound like configuration issues to me. I experienced a lot of the same things when I used Redhat. Once I learned a bit more about the innards of Linux I was able to resolve most of the things like that. It's simply a matter of tracking down the problems and fixing them while reading about how to do that.
/dev directory is set up and configuration files for hotplug.
Open Office: I totally agree with you on this. However I don't use it any more (have started using LaTeX exclusively.) Frankly openoffice has been horrible every time I've every tried using it. About the only thing it does better than any other Linux program is import Microsoft formats.
Hardware issues - seem to me to be distro-related. Are you using a custom kernel or some crappy precompiled monstrosity your distribtion vendor made for you? It really helps if you compile in only the support you need for the hardware you have, and do so from the official kernel source from kernel.org. I feel the official source is more trouble-free than any distribution provided kernel. Also you might want to look into things like the way your
Games - you're right about the performance. This is either the fault of the applications - a lot of games (*cough* UT2k3) were designed around Windows APIs and absolutely suck under Linux by comparison since they are basically unoptimized for OpenGL. Another possibility is that you're using an ATI card - their drivers for Linux suck and are way slower than the Windows ones. NVIDIA's drivers for Linux are a lot closer to the performance of the Windows ones.
Stability - My "desktop" Linux, running on a laptop, is FAR more stable than Windows XP, and I include applications in that. However, I don't use KDE or Gnome, so I can't vouch for the stability of those lately. Another possibility is that you have a crappy distro that mismatches applications and library versions.
Audio - I agree, it still sucks. Hopefully it'll get better when more applications support ALSA natively. We still need a standard kernel software mixer though...
Video - Works much better than under Windows for me. Mplayer supports more formats than Windows Media Player does without installing hard-to-find 3rd party video codecs into Windows. Windows Media is very easy to use for formats that have codecs on the Microsoft auto-download site, but it sucks royally to have to set up a more obscure format that isn't on the official site.
Seriously - just compile mplayer from source and all your problems with video will go away.
Are you using a custom kernel or some crappy precompiled monstrosity your distribtion vendor made for you?
... whatever. Those people can go grind your "I'm more l33t than you, yo" axe somewhere else.
.... right?
I download the source code from kernel.org and compile my own. I only include support for hardware I have. I don't even make modules for hardware I don't have. It makes a bit more work for myself if I later add a new device, but that is rare so it's a "chore" I'm willing to undertake.
Games...Another possibility is that you're using an ATI card - their drivers for Linux suck and are way slower than the Windows ones. NVIDIA's drivers for Linux are a lot closer to the performance of the Windows ones.
I had an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro. Many people told me NVidia was way better for Linux so I bought an NVidia 5700 Ultra Pro. The NVidia drivers are nicer in terms of installation, especially if you don't have an RPM distro - but performance wise, I saw no difference. If anything, my ATI card performed better.
Stability - My "desktop" Linux, running on a laptop, is FAR more stable than Windows XP, and I include applications in that. However, I don't use KDE or Gnome, so I can't vouch for the stability of those lately.
For *Desktop* purposes - I prefer Gnome over the likes of Blackbox, Window Maker, etc... Light Weight window managers are fine for some people, but not for me. They are too bare bones for my taste. I don't like editing config files to add something to my start/launch/whatever menu. I don't like editing/writing scripts to set my background image color/wallpaper every time my computer boots. Those things just seem needlessly cumbersome to me. Some people call it "bloatware" when you have a GUI tool that will edit the file for you,
Another possibility is that you have a crappy distro that mismatches applications and library versions.
Ug... I'm not even going to touch that one. "Any distro but the one *I* use sucks"
Video - Works much better than under Windows for me.
Hmm... what video editing programs for Linux can you recommend?
Check the manual of quartz-wm, you can enable focus follows mouse and click-through, makes things sooo much better.
But if "others" don't listen to people complaining, because "GIMP is already much better than PS", it will never actually be.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Note, the above is based on experience using Gimp 1 on the OS X X11 some time ago.
So you're basing your opinion on software that is 3 years old running on a platform it was ported to, but not initially designed for. Now that's a useful evaluation. Try the latest version on a Linux desktop.
Photoshop has layers:
Imagine pieces of transparencies you lay on top of each other to create your final output.
Photoshop has masks:
Between each transparency you can insert cutouts to block certain portions of images; unlike the real world though, masks can be edited. Once you cut out a transparency, you cannot simply add back in. Also, you can toggle on and off these masks at any time.
Photoshop has blending modes:
Each layer can interact with the other layer in multiple ways. In the real world you can only: Block or transmit. Photoshop allows you to add, subtract, mix, apply thresholds, multiply, and invert, as well as modify different colors! In the real world this would be accomplished with multiple transparencies and masks.
Photoshop has color correction:
The white in the image is too blue? Shift it more towards yellow. Too green? Shift it towards magenta. Want everything 'cooler'? Shift it more towards blue.
So these are some of the powerful features, and it's not just useful for publication, and publication *isn't* a fairly small niche. Imagine this: Every poster you've ever seen. Every book you've ever held. Every ad and photo in every magazine. Every insert in any DVD. Every DVD cover. Every DVD. Every advert in every newspaper. The coupons you get in the mail. The logos you see printed on every tube of toothpaste. The artwork on every box of toothpaste. Every piece of art on every game package. The artwork on your box of Quaker Oats. The artwork on the box of macaroni and cheese. The artwork on the paper bag in your grocery store. The desktop image on most computers. The photos you see on most professional websites.
Simply put, if it's been manufactured, and you can see it, Photoshop can be used to make it better; and quite likely, has.
GPL Deconstructed
it's absolutely no problem using void as return value. if the compiler eats it, it simply does not hurt, allthough you know it's not correct. _FAR WORSE_ is using printf in the code. printf parses the whole dam thing for format codes, finds none and puts the thing to the console. He should have use puts in the first place and save us and him a lot of parsing. return does not hurt too !! regards from germany