Slashdot Mirror
Paint.NET: The Anti-GIMP?
Arno contributes a link to Paint.NET, a free-of-charge raster-graphics program for Windows XP machines. "Quote: 'Paint.NET is image and photo manipulation software designed to be used on computers that run Windows XP. Paint.NET is jointly developed at Washington State University with additional help from Microsoft, and is meant to be a free replacement for the MS Paint software that comes with all Windows operating systems. The programming language used to create Paint.NET is C#, with GDI+ extensions.' It really seems like a nice tool. I definitely prefer its UI to GIMP's."
I managed to grab a mirror if needed. Site kinda seemed slow, especially for a .edu domain.
Before we all do the obligatory "GIMP r0xx0rz, .NET sux", please try downloading this... after it's Slashdotted. Very nice product, it doesn't have the advanced image conversion GIMP does, but very useful indeed.
I wonder if they used P/Invoke so I can run this on Mono?
-1, Flamebait.
:)
Not that it's impossible that this is useful/good software, but to suggest so to slashdot? Come on..
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
Does it run on Mono? I'm being serious.
-Peter
So, um, isn't this the kind of thing we can run under mono without having to deal with wine regressions? Didn't M$ just help linux and windows users alike here by using .net?
Can't even get the screenshots to load. While it may be an anti-gimp, it probably is also an anti-photoshop. However, the site is now not responding, so I can't check features and specifications. Did anyone manage to get a mirror set up?
A blog like any other.
This program is so Anti gimp that it can walk and has full use of all it's limbs.
why does the name have .NET?
.Net in paint
What are the features of
Why does yahoo do this
If it's meant to be a replacement for MS Paint as the blurb states, I don't think the Gimp should feel threatened. The chasm between Paint and Gimp is lightyears wide. It's unlikely this program could attract the OSS devotion necessary to become really big, especially what with its association with MS and the sometimes irrational dislike this inspires in some of us.
I do a bit of graphics stuff and i would never put my Photoshop to the side. it is by FAR the best graphics program out there. GIMP is nice for little things at work, but for personal use i would never use it.
75gb
dev, with mirror link: http://blogs.msdn.com/rickbrew/
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:M2DW9zE1bnIJ: www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/+&hl=en/
Paint.NET (aka Gimp for Windows) Does that make it PIMP for Windows?
Much faster than either of the mirrors listed.
Hmm.... sounds fun. Maybe I should try it on a work computer so I can get a new one...
Unfortunately, just like most anti-particles in our universe, it appears that Paint.NET is in short supply.
You should care because one of the nicest features of GIMP, and indeed all cross platform OSS is that it DOES work on Windows. It's a major help to development to have that user base. If GIMP gets dropped for Paint.NET on windows ( which I'm not saying/seeing it will, but it DOES apparently have MS's interest ) then GIMP will lose "hands at the wheel" for development/testing and that will contribute to it losing a bit of steam, even if YOUR only concernt is linux. Ask not for who the bell tolls, sir, it tolls for thee.
BSD-like License: http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/legal.html
Considering that it IS open source, your post looks rather moronic. FYI, RTFM before putting virtual foot in mouth.
try drawing with the fat brush
i am running a 3.0+ ghz and 2GB ram dell and the graphics painting sucks
they may want to work on speed a bit if they want to be taken seriously
...designed to be used on computers that run Windows XP
.NET Framework installed.
The author mentions twice that it runs only with Windows XP. It runs with Windows 2000, and presumably with any version of Windows that has the
Now I wonder, does it run with Mono?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
I'd say, just like the article, it's intended to be a replacement for MS-Paint. It doesn't appear to have anywhere near all of the advanced features of Gimp.
It has layers, and an effects API, but that seems to be where the similarity ends.
The interface appears to be simple like MS Paint's, but I think it's seriously overstating that it's a Gimp competitor. Heck, sounds like the project has only been around for 2 semesters. How mature could it be compared to Gimp or Photoshop?
Indeed. Listed System Requirements: 600MHz processor (800MHz recommended), 128MB RAM (256MB recommended), Windows XP SP1 or later (all editions), .NET Framework 1.1. However...
meant to be a free replacement for the MS Paint software that comes with all Windows operating systems.
If the requirements are XP, it can only be a replacement for the MS Paint Software that comes with XP, not for the MS Paint Software for any other MS OS. Yes, I think I know what they mean; no, that's not what they said.
(Sorry, my mother was a retired English teacher.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I have .net installed on my system.
I can not afford photoshop and I would love a free graphics program that is fast, loads up quick like Xnview, has paint and image texturing functions. I could make some quick backgrounds for websites and 3d graphics programs that I am working on.
Photoshop is too fancy and the gimp is too slow and unusable on Windows.
http://saveie6.com/
Why write something using Microsoft's .NET Framework and then say it's for Windows XP? I thought one of the advantages of .NET was that it works the same on all the supported operating systems.
('Course, having developed stuff in .NET myself, I can vouch for the fact that stuff doesn't always work the same on different OSes, but it's close enough to release a functional product)
torrents are fun
Looking at their screenshots (can't run it from work, I'm on an aging Solaris workstation), it appears that the "layers" pannel lists the layers backwards. And when I say "backwards", I don't mean "opposite from Photoshop", I mean backwards.
The whole point of layers is that you can stack them, so that you can see through a layer ON TOP to a layer ON THE BOTTOM. "On top" is generally synonymous with "above", not "below", and if you keep that mentality, you can view the layer window as a horizontal cross-section of your image.
This is, perhaps, a minor quibble (this is not going to make or break it for me), but it just jumpped out at me as being strange. I can't think why anyone would reverse the layer ordering except to make their software look "not-Photoshop"ish.
FYI: .NET 1.1 installed. :)
Program also works on Windows 2000 with
First impressions: sure beats MS Paint
"In the spirit of all this freedom, we welcome any suggestions, as well as provide the source code free of charge for anyone who wishes to tinker with it. Please explore this website, download the software and try out many of the things you would do on those expensive commercial applications."
and the license
" Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
"
Well fuck me, MS is sponsoring not just free software but Free software, Very interesting! Oh and can we take this and shove it on Linux?
You would think Microsoft wouldn't let people mirror their software - after all, they always tell people that you can't trust software on mirrors. Huge security risk, you know.
I have blog like everyone else
The fact is that the GIMP UI sucks and the developers don't care. Therefore it's inevitable that GIMP will eventually be replaced by something whose UI doesn't suck. It might be some evolution of Inkscape, or it might be a port of Paint.NET, but it must happen, and the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.
You don't.
First of all, the .NET framework is not badly designed. It's one of the best-designed products Microsoft ever came up with. The reason Microsoft released so much crap over the years, is probably because all their best programmers were working on .NET.
Secondly, their exist free (as in free software) alternatives. Mono is the best-known one, an other is DotGNU Portable.NET. But they're not 100 % complete yet, so I don't know if this Paint.NET will work.
Yes, but warez-kid-in-basement isn't the Photoshop market.
This thing looks like people can install it on their computer at work and not get in trouble.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Heretic. Turn in your Linux / Open Source badge and exit the building. Get out.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I guess photoshop sucks too. Except for some rather erudite features needed for color printing and certain effects, the gimp has just every feature in photoshop that I've ever needed. I actually miss features in the gimp when using photoshop. But if you think Photoshop also sucks, I don't see how you could say the gimp does too.
That's right, but in another company: Borland.
Ummm...I use the GIMP every day. I'm a website developer and graphic designer. I like Photoshop better than the GIMP, but other than some less-than-perfect GUI issues, I love the GIMP as well.
BenCurry.net
I see several interesting things here. Note how they had to use a GDI+ 'extension'? And someone is reporting sluggishness anyway, even on hardware that is fairly new. Tells me .net suffers from Java's Disease along with any other emulated environment and that the move to add in native hooks is already well underway. And of course it is in Microsoft's interest to make sure that .NET is 'multiplatform' in the hype but Windows only in practice.
.net and all it's works are nothing but a trap for the unwary. And will never live up to the hype anymore than Java did, although there is now hope for Java to become useful by jetisoning the emulation and making it just another object oriented language that GCC will grind down to ELF executables.
Let this be an object lesson for all you Mono fetishists,
Democrat delenda est
This uses GDI+, so an environment like Wine would be more feasible than a port to mono et al.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe any of the OSS alternatives implement (or plan to implement) GDI+.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The UI is fine if you make an effort to learn to use it.
I believe thats exactly what everyone is complaining about. I'm sure the GUI is certainly usable once you learn it, the problem is that there is an enormously steep learning curve involved that turns the majority of potential users away.
If I replaced your car's steering wheel with joysticks, I'm sure that once you learn it you'll drive just fine. But you'll still curse me for forcing you to learn to drive that way. Most people will probably just give up. At the same time, I'm sure that there will be someone out there who will indeed be willing to learn it and say to everyone else "put some effort in, you whiny idiots."
I will stick with GIMP or Photoshop thanks. Maybe this program will mature in time and I wish the best to the development team. It may sound like I am being harsh and I apologize for that. But this whole topic came off very trollish to Me.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
same here
Except, I'm starting to use the GIMP even more than Photoshop lately. I guess I'm just getting more comfortable with it.
I still don't understand why everyone has so many problems with the interface. Makes me think people are just re-hashing old horror stories from before 2.0. To me it behaves just like any other application.
What actually makes this "Anti-Gimp"? ... ... afterall, what is Gimp? It's more like an Anti-Photoshop. ... this would make a great replacement
If it's to be Anti-Anything, it would probably be more along the lines of Anti-Paintshop Pro
Just because a project was done with the help of M$, it doesn't mean that there is some *nix app that they are targetting
Also, look at M$ Paint? It's a useless "paint" program that hasn't changed since it was first release
ok, so.....
layer support sucks. only very few basic layer modes.
to work on multiple images, you basically have to start another instance of the program. functional but not efficient.
it is incredibly slow. i'm running it on a 1.8 GHz P4, 1 gig of RAM. I apply an effect on a decent size image, and go get a cup of coffee.
oh, try the "re-color" tool, if you've got nothing to do for a while.
can't get anti-aliasing to work right.
interface flickers quite a bit as you navigate through the menus. not critical, but rather annoying.
color picker does not display the color in hex, which makes it harder to use for web graphics.
on a good note, the interface is vaguely familiar to the ubiquitous and expensive software that we all love so much.
how is this anti-GIMP, anyways? it's not cross-platform, it's quite a bit slower, and is targeted at a totally different audience. I agree that it's better than MS Paint, but shit, MS Paint should have been retired years ago.
--- sig moved for great justice.
especially what with its association with MS and the sometimes irrational dislike this inspires in some of us.
.net towards those ends, avoiding any .net project like the proverbial plague is not only wise, it is critical to the self-preservation of any software developer wishing to work in an environment free of Microsoft's coercive control, be it Apple OS X, FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, Palm OS, Solaris, or anything else.
.NET, and, as you say, it addresses a different niche of users.
Based on Microsoft's behavior past and present, its effect on the industry and emergence of technology in general (quite negative), and their publicly stated intentions with respect to Linux, software freedon in general, and freedom to innovate vis-a-vis software patents and ligitagion in general (of which their funding of the SCO debacle is but a precursor), I'd say there is absolutely nothing whatsoever "irrational" about the dislike an association with Microsoft inspires in any of us.
Now, the expression of that dislike can sometimes take irrational forms, just as the expression of anger can on any subject, but that by no means belies the entirely rational, indeed very justified, anger and dislike being felt.
Finally, given Microsoft's long history and ongoing policy of customer lock-in, and their stated strategy of leveraging
I do agree that this program is no threat to the GIMP. Its licensing is more restrictive, it requires
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
they just didn't actually implement it on multiple platforms, though they did release Rotor for BSD.
Is Rotor available for commercial use? Does Rotor implement System.Windows.Forms? And what's this about examples compiled under one GUI platform will not run under other GUI platforms?
What is the point of ISO standardization if you don't intend it to be cross platform?
Are System.Windows.Forms and the parts of GDI+ added by System.Drawing part of the ISO spec?
I don't think it's the features in GIMP that suck - it's the absolutely atrocious interface.
Have you heard of page sharing and copy-on-write? Most of these 80MB is shared between two instances of the app. At the same time fore each of the processes it looks like it has 80MB of code and data loaded. In reality both processes have the same thing, except for pages that differ. So code DLLs are mapped to the same areas of physical RAM and data segments are only in physically different locations if they've been written into.
Yet windows task manager shows 80MB anyway, because that's what individual processes see.
At most, they may plink down $250, but most likely will go home with the "Ph0t0 M4st3r 2.3" software for $9.99 in the 'Value Software' bin.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Yes it was. No, you're not confusing it, Microsoft confused you (and most everyone) with their, seemingly arbitrary, .NET naming scheme.
.NET framework != the passport login scheme (although you can use the passport login scheme with the .NET framework).
The
It is not the features it is the interface. Example: Both Photoshop and GIMP support layers, It is easy to add a new layer and Minipulate it in photoshop. In GIMP I really need to look for it and moving between layers gets more difficult. It is an issue of making the more usefull features where people can access them the most and the more cryptic ones a little further Back.
The basic rule is that 80% of the people use 20% of the features. So it is not matching feature per feature with photoshop it is matching how well people can access the feature.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The Gimp does have an abysmal user interface, BUT, that interface must be seen in connection with the OS you are using. On OpenBSD it makes perfect sense. As you go on using it, you learn to deal with its oddities.
More when I can actually get my hands on Paint.Net.
Most interesting though is that Microsoft actually has some hand in aiding the creation of this software. If so, does that give us any indication that Microsoft might actually try to go after sections of the user market that are already ceded to other vendors?
What happens if Microsoft suddenly embraces Open Source development for its products? Given the level of piracy that abounds, they might get a better handle on some profit by transferring from a product based to service based model. Hm.
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
Okay I just loaded it up and I have the following to say about it:
.NET. Why? I don't have a clue.
.NET comparable thing is... Can it be ported? Again--Why is it necessary?
... at least for now. I like Paint.NET's simplicity but speed and memory consumption is unusable and it's hard to explain that to users... and the WinXP only thing is the kicker. I know lots of people still running Win98 and even though The GIMP isn't all that great for Win98, it still kinda runs anyway. (I think it'd be nice if someone out there were to build in a compile option to support Win98 and share the binaries... there's a need!)
(BTW, Thanks to whoever it was that supplied the link to the MSI. Very handy considering the death the original site suffered.)
1. It requires
2. It can only handle one document at a time, though I can load multiple instances. It doesn't QUITE make up for it... probably eats up gobs more memory than it should as a result though.
3. It is GOD-AWFUL slow. My machine is 2GHz with 512MB... not a hot-rod but no slouch neither.
4. There is no ability to drag a layer from one project to another. That's a pretty critical thing when you are importing several images to create a single image.
5. The UI is nice enough... I'm kinda torn between that and the GIMP UI. But since it's the functionality I care more about than the UI, I lean to The GIMP since it clearly has more and performs FAR better.
I could probably add more but I won't. This program is NOT (yet) a threat to The GIMP. And since The GIMP is cross-platform, there is no contest in my mind. Cross-platform, however, doesn't mean anything to those who will be using only Windows for the next 3-4 years. (And for that reason, the UI style is best for Windows-only users since they are likely to adapt to it more quickly than that of The GIMP.)
I think if they could address the problems I listed above, they'd start to have a contender on their hands. I don't like that it's needlessly not cross-platform -- I think someone mentioned something about the Mono project or whatever the Linux
Which would I recommend to users? The GIMP without hesitation
A GIMP frontend that mimicks Photoshop (or almost any other image editing software), and I'd wager that you see GIMP on a hella lot of desktops in a rather short time.
GIMP is an outstanding product completely and utterly crippled by its user interface. There may be a few fans and supporters out there, but the sheer fact that GIMP hasn't taken over yet (despite it's almost feature completeness) should end this argument.
I was playing around with this, and wondered what the hell you guys were talking about.
The fat brush worked just fine for me.
Then I turned off the "translucent windows" option... and the program slowed right the hell down.
So, it's one of those odd programs that runs FASTER with the effects TURNED-ON.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Rick Brew has posted a copy of the installer on his blog. Download it from http://blogs.msdn.com/rickbrew/.
Check out our infosecurity industry blog: http://securitymusings.com/
According to one of the GIMP developers, BigSven:
"GIMP is also not meant to be like Photoshop and we aren't trying to win PS users over. We are creating a tool that gets the job done. Some approaches of PS are worth to copy, others aren't. GIMP is not a Photoshop clone and it was never meant to be one." -BigSven
"Gimp was not written as a competitor to Photoshop." -mac[LAG]
Please do not compare GIMP with Photoshop, because that's a very sensitive point with GIMP fanatics, who go out of their way to ignore Photoshop, and wear their ignorance as a badge of pride.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
True, you can never please all of the people all of the time, but there are good interfaces and bad interfaces. While you may not like the iPod, most people love it. Gimp is the opposite--a few people love it (mostly the developers), everyone else finds it completely unusable. I have never heard of a program that is as universally criticized as having a bad interface, but the developers completly ignore the critiques. Gimp is powerful, but it is needlessly hard to use.
Sure there's something to be said for coming up with a new, more powerful interface-- but only if it's usable. The argument that "people just aren't used to it yet" doesn't fly. The users of Gimp are by definition, some of the most advanced computer users around. If they can't figure it out, normal users never will.
Until the usability problems are fixed, it will never be used by more then a few geeks.
Speaking of nice features: the lasso-select in this thing is pretty kick ass. Does any other software have similar real time highlighting of the selected area for the lasso?
What you mean, like the GIMP? Press "F" or click the third button in the tool pane and you are using lasso select.
I'm beginning to think that there are a bunch of people out there who just like to spout off without engaging their brain. The GIMP has a ton of great features, the dockable toolbars work fabulously, it has great support for the Wacom Intuous tablet I use and it does pretty much everything I need it to do. Plus plugins like Resynthesizer make removing spots and creating tilable textures from digital photos really easy. Criticise the tools you use, not the ones where you just visited the web page.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
That's BS FUD and you know it.
I use GIMP all the time on Windows and Linux. Now that the Windows version 2.2 with GTK 2.4 supports my Wacom Intuous 2 pad, I'll use it even more.
I use GIMP for image manipulation and for painting and it is a great piece of software. Without it, I would have to spend hundreds of dollars on Photoshop, something that I can't afford.
Why o why o why do soooo many people whine about the UI of the GIMP? I dont get it at all.
What's so hard to understand about the GIMP?
There's a toolbox - double click the tool for options - a colour picker and a brush selector. Easy. It does reasonable AA text, albeit a little clunkily and it has a whole lot of load/save options per supported filetype. Easy. There are options per image under the right mouse button and there are options per session of the gimp application in the menu at the top of the toolbar. Easy. It allows for any number of views of the image you're working on and it has configurable shortkeys for lots of stuff. Easy. It has most of the image manipulation filters you's expect from a heavy duty gfx app and a kick-arse animation plugin. Easy.
The only thing about recent versions of the GIMP that really annoys me is the Gtk+ 2.x/Pango/atk/glib complex. This has become so slow that it's almost unbearable. Gtk+ is now a dog of a behomoth of a bitch of a toolkit. Die Gtk+ die.
Finally, the fact that there is very minimal (non-existant really) support for the CMYK colourspace is an annoyance too. Other than that the GIMP is simply great value and a lot of fun to use.
Oh, one thing though - the GIMP really needs to be run on a Unix. Win32 versions of the GIMP suck _really_ badly.
- It took western civilisation 2000 years to ensure popular literacy, and now we work with icon driven GUI's. Go figure.
I like their varied patterns you can use for the Fill Style. I liked them better back in 1990 when they were included in Hypercard, though.
Both Photoshop and GIMP support layers, It is easy to add a new layer and Minipulate it in photoshop.
That's funny...I find it easy to add a layer in the GIMP, yet have to look around for the functionality in photoshop.
Imagine that...the program you spend a whole lot of time with ends up feeling more familiar to you. Who ever would have thunk it?
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Seriously though... What moron at Microsoft decided that naming a coding framework after a popular gTLD was a good idea?
Performance was not a problem on my PC. Some have reported it is on theirs. I am running a P4 3.2 GHz HT w/512 MB RAM.
Now to the constructive criticism...
The memory problem is a big one. I'm guessing that the history list is largely responsible for the offense, and that some disk cacheing could remedy the problems. Garbage collection isn't a license to grab all the RAM on my PC.
Anyway, a good free program all-in-all. A bit of a heavyweight to be a Paint replacement though.
That is a completely subjective and unverified argument you make. I myself can't use photoshop, but have no problems with the gimp, and that is because I'm used to it, whether you beleive it's possible or not. Anybody who started out on gimp is better with gimp and prefers gimp, the same thing with those who started out with photoshop(thanks to piracy, that is most people). People use your exact arguments against OSX, and for XP everyday, doesn't make them valid or informed.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Tell me, why does the phrase "damning with faint praise" spring instantly to mind? =)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
If they genuinely want FOSS to succeed as a mass-market movement, the slashdotters who keep pulling this line out of their posteriors will need to shut up. Not everybody who wants to use The GIMP is going to be a programmer, or a bored geek with the time free to do such things. For things like the GIMP to succeed, they need to attract graphics professionals - the majority of whom don't care in the slightest about the source code or programming. It's a stupid response, and I wish people would stop saying this every time that somebody has an issue with an open source package. It's called "User feedback", it comes from having "Users" who "Use" your software to "Do things". These strange people don't just sit around their bedrooms and scratch themselves all day, interspersed with the occasional porn download. They have jobs. They get paid to do work. They may go to their boss and say "Look, we can save $xyz by using this excellent free package instead of paying up for package ABC". They will not go to their boss and say "Look, there's this free package I like... can I spent a couple of months hacking it to make it usable for our needs?". Programmers do that. Creative professionals don't.
I agree that a lot of Linux apps sucks
.. ie you still can do stuff on lower windows, while some dialog is open.
but i really really don't get it when people says GIMP sucks
are you talking about GIMP 2.0 ???
For me the UI surpasses in ease-of-use and functionality compared to many competitors.
1. You hardly get stuck with modal windows
2. If all fails and you panic- just right click. Right click gives you a pop-up menu that let you navigate to any operation you want performed.
I agree GIMP 1.x sucked horrid.
But GIMP 2.x ??
I use it a lot - its very user friendly.
If it was horrid I would agree you - believe me.
I can be a Linux zealot but I am not into praising any software that is downright crap (independant of vendor or OS)
Microsoft Excel for example - still (imho) unsurpassed.
While Inkscape is no way as near as good as Corel Draw 12 (if you don't count stability of course)
GIMP 2.x = brilliant powerful intuitive app.
Trying to draw any comparison between Paint.NET and The Gimp is just plain silly. It will not, and cannot do any of the myriad tasks that I have been able to use the Gimp for.
Warts and all, the Gimp is a fully developed application with a history of growth.
Paint.NET is exactly what it purports to be- an application developed by a number of students to be a replacement/upgrade for the MSPaint application. It performs that function extremely well. MSPaint is a notoriously limited application that has little or no purpose.
On the other hand, I can see users who need relatively simple answers using PAint.NET for simple needs.
As built, the Gimp will not challenge beyond a discrete community of users who have both the technical ability to use its power and the imagination needed to take advantage of everything that happens to be in there.
Just try using the animation abilities to make shorts that resemble Terry Gilliam's animation work. The Gimp makes it wholly possible. It's dissolve function makes the impossible seem simple- seamless transition from frame to frame in animations.
Paint.NET? Good work students, and I'm sure that MS will enjoy putting you to work for them for long hours with little pay when you are ready.
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
Can someone explain to me why this won't run on Windows NT 4.0, despite the fact that I have the .NET framework 1.1 installed? This .NET business was supposed to be write once, run anywhere (as long as it's Microsoft), right? How can there be Windows XP dependencies in a .NET program, as long as you have the appropriate version of the runtime?
Am I missing something? There's that Layer menu in Photoshop. or shift+ctrl+n. How hard is it to see?
Am I missing something? There's that Layer menu in the GIMP. Or ctrl-l, n. How hard is it to see?
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.