Wow. scrolled down really far and I can't believe this thread is still on this dude whining about 2006. Fool me twice.... He also does a sideline in Mac Whining under the name UbuntuMacDupe. The full collection at
How are the Apple lawyers going to like this? About as much as they react to people putting wheels on cars I would imagine. Apple didn't invent multi touch, so they can do bugger all about it.
Apple have brought it to the attention of the general public, so it will most likely be turning up on a lot more devices from now on, which is good, but thankfully, it does not seem to be controlled by one company who will stop anybody else from using it.
Second, can it do all the other things the MultiTouch can do? The killer feature on my MacBook Pro is 2 finger scrolling, 2 finger right click, etc. Don't know about two finger scrolling, but I put an ordinary copy of Ubuntu on an old laptop a few weeks ago(7.10 I think), and it had one finger scrolling on both the x and y axis as an option. No idea if this is a feature of the touch pad on this laptop in particular, or if it works on all touch pads. Worked perfectly on any app I tried. And with Linux, if the other distros that one might install on the Eee don't have that feature right now, someone will incorporate it. Use two fingers to scroll, or use one finger at the edge of the pad where there is a noticeable lip to run your finger along.. Either sounds pretty useful to me. But I still prefer a mouse.
Not so sure about the two finger right click. Right click seems to be more frequently used by PC OSs than Apple, so a physical button is generally supplied, which kind of defeats the need to use a gesture of any kind. Different OS different conventions. Who can say which is better.
If it was the year of the linux desktop (finally) then why would ASUS be making such an effort with MS to get rid of the linux on their EEE PC? Who is getting rid? The 20 gig Eee 900 is still going to be sold with Linux, as are the 2 and 4 gig models. Not exactly doom and gloom for Linux.
That said, I still dont think this is MS's fault. If people are buying machines with 256 megs of ram and a 800x600 screen they really shouldnt expect it to be a desktop replacement running everything they run at home just as quickly. Except back when XP came out.. that was not unusual on a desktop.
Changing ISPs is more of a problem than you might think, especially with all the triple-play providers in large US metro areas.
Typically these ISPs have entire neighborhoods if not entire cities tied up and you have a choice of provider X or Dialup (which is often Provider X again).
In most of these areas people use cheap routers to hang more machines on their connection.
My prior ISP allowed 8 connections (the max mac address slots they had in the modem). After a move I'm in an area where I get precisely one. And why should they do anything else? You want broadband, so what are you going to do. Set up your own telecoms giant? The ISPs must be laughing at the poor schmucks who are tied into their service every time their bonuses come in. They can charge what they like, and offer whatever service they want, and nobody does anything. Market forces are working really well for them.
Not to mention the ISPs in some countries (the police state, UK especially) will try to limit service by machine with mac address (forcing you to use mac spoofing to allow a router). While others in the same police state will supply a wireless router as part of the subscription and couldn't care less how many computers are hooked up. Personally I have two desktops, an N800 and a Wii all happily accessing the Internet over here in Airstrip one through an iSP provided router, and not a word of complaint from my ISP. So long as I pay my bill and don't max out my bandwidth all the time, they couldn't care less.
If you really need to go so far as that to get more than one computer to share your connection.. Change your ISP to someone with sane terms as soon as possible!
If a linux iTunes is such a show-stopper why hasn't someone written one?
Isn't that what OSS is all about? The author of a linux iTunes would have brimming tip jar. Pretty simple answer really. Because it would have to interface with the Apple store and use Apple's DRM. Neither of which will happen in the near future. Apple would not allow it, and the developer would need Apple's permission to do so.
It's not always obvious afterwards, because editors know that April is approaching and save up their hard-to-believe stories. The only reasonably reliable way of sifting the wheat from the chaff is to compare three major papers - anything which is only in one is likely to be a joke, whereas anything in more than one is either genuine or a joke originating at Reuters or AP. Unless its an iPhone rumor...
If the UI were the only problem, the GIMP would have made more inroads into mainstream image manipulation a long time ago. The interface of the GIMP improved a lot with 2.0 and is no longer as terrible as it used to be with the very Unix style of doing with right clicks to find menus etc. Another thing is that the GIMP looks absolutely awful on Mac OSX. A good percentage of designers work on Mac, and the really bad UI on the Mac makes the GIMP a general non starter on OSX. I can see your point. Especially the usage shift involved in right clicking on a Mac. I've only used Gimp on Linux, where the Unix style of doing tings is not out of place. So I arguably have a better experience of it, and with the virtual desktops and window grouping/shading, it does tend to minimize the problems someone else mentioned having with keeping track of the multiple windows and not being able to dock them onto each other (hopefully solved with 2.6) on the Windows version. No fault of the respective OSs, but a native Linux app that is ported to something else is going to run into problems with differences on the respective platforms. I seem to remember reading that at least some versions of Photoshop were a bit easier to use on Apple systems than on Windows. Can't remember the reason given.
But for me, as someone who uses Photoshop on a daily basis at work, on Windows mostly, the thing that makes the GIMP useless is the fact that it doesn't support bicubic scaling. The GIMP's cubic scaling is really, really poor in comparison, and no one would accept images scaled with that algorithm where I work. How much better is bicubic than Lanczos 3. Or do the two not even merit a mention in the same sentence?
That is exactly what I was hoping for. Valid specific criticism of the UI features. Not the usual it can't possibly succeed in the market and other fluff. I agree. Gimp has failings, but it is still a useful tool, and who knows, these problems may eventually be overcome. It works well enough for me right now, and every new version refines the app. The Linux multiple desktop mechanism and dual monitors seem to be a way around some problems, perhaps other issues will be fixed or worked around in time.
>>CMYK, Pantone in particular but mostly it's down to the horrible interface that GIMP comes with. >>Gimp is basically a programmers idea of how a creative tool should look.
>The two missing features I'll give you.
>Although one is just a licensing issue,
>and the other is only relevant if you are working on images that are intended for print
For photographers and other professionals doing graphics work, CMYK and color accuracy are deal breakers. Excuses don't matter to people who build their careers on a tool, if GIMP doesn't have what they need to do their job, then they won't consider using it. I was referring specifically to the interface. A feature missing is a shortcoming I'll freely admit, and already have above. But the question I have is relating to the statement "mostly it's down to the horrible interface that GIMP comes with." So if the CMYK and pantone features are secondary, then what is wrong with the interface that can't be fixed?
There's a reason why people pay enormous sums for copies of photoshop even when there's plenty of cheap or free tools that do 60% of what photoshop does, and that's because every pro is going to have at least one feature missing from the 60% product that is a total show stopper for them. Irrelevant to my question. I'm specifically referring to interface, not feature set, or other programs.
This is a lesson on half assed software, that's good enough for the developer that wrote it, but not good enough for the market.
Coding to your personal needs isn't good enough for products that are going to non developers. Linus doesn't say "well, there are some problems with Linux on big IBM mainframes, but I don't personally use a mainframe, so I won't work on that fix." When you are serious about software, you talk to the people that will be *using* your software, and you code to *their* standards in addition to your own. Yep.. Its a flawed product. Just like everything else. But what are the flaws specifically relating to the UI. Not the missing features, but the interface. The way in which you interact with the program to use the existing features.
Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought.. Gimp has such a horrible interface because it isn't a direct clone of Photoshop. So the reverse is also true. Photoshop has such a horrible interface because it isn't Gimp. Apart from the 16 bit colour space, personally they seem pretty similar to me.
Absolutely and unconditionally wrong on all counts. Why? I freely agreeing up front that Photoshop has some features that Gimp does not. The colour space is a big problem for quality of output, and both Cinepaint and Krita go up to 32 bit colour, so there is no technical limitation to having this feature. I also agree that the other features that are not currently present in Gimp can be show stoppers for the person who needs that particular feature. So no argument there either. There are things that Photoshop does that Gimp can not do at this point in time.
The fact that they are not included in the current version however, does not mean they are never going to be included. Either part of a new version of Gimp, or as a fork. Being open source, there is nothing stopping some interested parties doing exactly that. And While I'm not holding my breath, It isn't impossible. I'm not even suggesting the Gimp is competing with Photoshop in the professional graphics market, or that Gimp is better for all tasks.
But I am questioning the snotty "Bwahaaaa... Gimp's interface is shit" comments that keep popping up with nothing tangible to back them up. Without a good argument the issue is reduced to one laughing at another kid because he has different laces in his over priced, but otherwise identical trainers. In other words, a non argument.
So give me examples of how the Gimp interface is horrible and the Photoshop one is so wonderful that do not rely on familiarity with one over the other. It is a fair question.
Remember, we are talking about the interface alone, so the buttons that are pushed, and the controls. Not colour space options and the like. Lack of features is a different subject, which I agree Photoshop wins ever time. Nebulous does not make for justification of the statement "the gimp has a horrible interface". And familiarity with only one does not make for an unbiased comparison.
If it makes it easier to understand my question.. Imagine you have been hired to improve the interface of Gimp. You are not allowed to add new features to the application, but you can, if it makes the thought experiment easier, assume this is some alternate universe where the two apps are feature identical. You are allowed to change any interface aspect you like. The only limitation is that you can not make it a direct Photoshop clone.
The point that I am trying to make is that if all the technical things that make Gimp out of the question today were fixed, such as the pantone palette, the colour gamut, and the CMYK support, and anything else you might like to throw in. There would still be hoards of graphic design wannabes who would use some vague "but the interface is crap" argument that can never be countered because the only real problem is not that one is inferior to the other, but that one is different to the other. Inferior can be worked on, but different is a personal preference. Consensus is impossible.
wanna know. Does "first to be compromised" mean the only one to be compromised? No. The other competitors carry on until the end of the day.
Is the contest completely over once one machine is cracked? No
If not, were Windows and Ubuntu cracked minutes or hours after OS X? No Results are in. Both still standing after day two.
Does using Firefox on OS X make it uncrackable? No. It just makes it not vulnerable to this particular exploit. No such thing as 100% secure under all circumstances.
Was each OS required to use it's own browser: IE, Safari, and Epiphany? Defaults for the OS, so it is most likely that Ubuntu had Firefox.
Since Firefox works on all 3 systems, wouldn't that be a better gauge of OS security? Perhaps on day three when the third party software is entered as possible vectors. Day two was a test of a default fully patched system with default settings and apps.
Where did I come from? I'm not brave enough to speculate.
Why is the sky blue? Because when you are bad and don't read TFA you make the angles cry, and angels have blue tears.
I think most people dislike the Gimp interface because it's just so different from Photoshop's. Photoshop has been top dog for a very VERY long time and people are used to how it works. Any graphic design software will instantly be compared to Photoshop, Gimp or other.
FWIW I used to use Photoshop on a daily basis, but now I have simple imaging needs, and Gimp is just fine. Sure, it's a pain to learn a new interface, but eventually I figured it out. A lot of professional digital artists I've worked with, if you told them they had to use Gimp instead of PS they would quit.
A great many extremely talented artists have spent their whole career with Photoshop. I can think of no other software with such an insurmountable market share. Pretty common problem. It seems weird to me that many people are so terrified of having options.
That because that's how interfaces are. They are very subtle and nebulous things. Good interface design is nowhere near as easy as "that button is in the wrong place". And learning how to evaluate and design them is not a small task. Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought.. Gimp has such a horrible interface because it isn't a direct clone of Photoshop. So the reverse is also true. Photoshop has such a horrible interface because it isn't Gimp. Apart from the 16 bit colour space, personally they seem pretty similar to me.
I know that Adobe has put a great deal of effort into keeping the interface as consistent as possible, and I think they have done a very smart thing. The last thing anybody wants is to have to relearn each version of a commonly used tool. But the same can be said of Gimp. They might be able to do a mode where there was a close copy of Photoshop, but that would piss off the Gimp users who would then accuse the makers of tryiong to copy Photoshop.
Still quite a hollow argument though which basically comes down to moaning about having to learn something new.
So that excludes the people who would want Photoshop to go Web-based, the MOST.
I'm talking about people using Opera or Konqueror on Linux. The Adobe Flash Player 7 and even 9 Beta works very, very poorly with these browsers, on Linux, and doesn't seem to be improving at all. The only browser being given attention is Firefox.
Guess we Linux users will have to wait for a long time, before we really starting using the internet and get recognised by the world. Is the demo section different to the actual app then? It seems to work fine with Konqueror on Fedora 8. I just played around with it a bit, but didn't sign up yet. Nothing against Photoshop, but Gimp is plenty for my modest needs.
CMYK, Pantone in particular but mostly it's down to the horrible interface that GIMP comes with. Gimp is basically a programmers idea of how a creative tool should look. The two missing features I'll give you. Although one is just a licensing issue, and the other is only relevant if you are working on images that are intended for print. I'd add the fact that Gimp only does 8 bit colour, while Photoshop does at least 16 bit which is much more important than the two omissions you mentioned.
But can someone tell me what exactly is so terrible about the Gimp interface?
This is a genuine question, as I've used both, and don't find either particularly difficult to get my head around. But then, I'm not a power user when it comes to graphics packages. No doubt the differences would be pretty important to someone using either one day in day out.. But I've never seen anybody actually cite examples of the terrible Gimp interface in anything but the vaguest terms as opposed to the silky smooth and obvious ways of doing the same thing with Photoshop.
I know that from a legal standpoint Microsoft has a monopoly...but from a realistic standpoint...they don't. OSX is an option (and Apple is a household brand, known by just about anyone who knows what a computer is), Linux and its many incarnations are an option, BSD, etc...there are other choices out there that provide an alternative to Windows. Not so simple. Having the vast majority of the market means you have the power to shape that market. He who shapes the market can make it awkward to operate outside their domain, and make it as awkward as possible to switch.
iPhone doesn't have flash.. ho hum.. Some nice videos of the iPhone on Youtube though..
Windows doesn't have flash, byebye flash.
The average person, despite knowing this, doesn't really seem to care. If people know this, and don't care, and continue giving money to Microsoft despite knowing there are alternatives...I'm apologize, but I can't feel sorry for someone that keeps walking into the same wall instead of going around it. You severely over estimate the average person.
People do not generally choose Windows. Choice implies there is at least knowledge of a different option. They put up with it because they don't know that something else exists. The fact that at this stage in the history of computers, that there is one OS and one office suite that almost everyone is convinced they must have is insane.
The vast majority of people don't have a very complete picture of what they want when they go to buy a computer. So they trust the sales person, or they trust their friend who "knows about computers" and get the recommended model. Thats it. They don't know enough if anything about any alternatives to make an informed choice.
Of course, 2.0.0.1.2 Firefox doesn't pass Acid2 either. So, not so much. It will be an old version in a few months when Firefox 3 comes out, and FF3 beta 4 passes Acid 2. I just tried it and it renders the whole thing perfectly.
The author of the article (yes I actually read it) went as far as comparing the pro/anti Apple crowd to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Yes, he seriously did. And not by briefly alluding to it, but over the course of several paragraphs.
I've heard of some crazy stretches for comparison, but come on, a journalist actually comparing a group of people that have an affinity for a company's products to a deeply-complicated bloody 60+ year old conflict? Talk about going off the deep end. I read it too. If you go back and re read it, you will see that you are referring to something that was not said. Funny thing perception.
From the article....
To understand the phenomenon, consider a study (PDF) that Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper, psychologists at Stanford University, conducted in the aftermath of another issue that provokes many accusations of press bias, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The author then goes on to briefly summarize the findings of the study, which was the reaction of three distinct groups of people to a carefully selected sample of news stories on a specific incident in the conflict, not the conflict it's self. And explains the reason for referring to the findings of the study.
At no point did he compare the Apple/PC conflict with the Israel/Palestine conflict. That would be preposterous. The findings of the study don't have to apply to just one particular subject, but are indicative of a more general psychological state.
Just to satisfy my curiosity.. what is your position in the Apple versus the rest of the universe debate?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=UbuntuMacDupe&search=Search
Worth watching just so you can imagine the voice when you read the posts.
Apple have brought it to the attention of the general public, so it will most likely be turning up on a lot more devices from now on, which is good, but thankfully, it does not seem to be controlled by one company who will stop anybody else from using it. Second, can it do all the other things the MultiTouch can do? The killer feature on my MacBook Pro is 2 finger scrolling, 2 finger right click, etc. Don't know about two finger scrolling, but I put an ordinary copy of Ubuntu on an old laptop a few weeks ago(7.10 I think), and it had one finger scrolling on both the x and y axis as an option. No idea if this is a feature of the touch pad on this laptop in particular, or if it works on all touch pads. Worked perfectly on any app I tried. And with Linux, if the other distros that one might install on the Eee don't have that feature right now, someone will incorporate it. Use two fingers to scroll, or use one finger at the edge of the pad where there is a noticeable lip to run your finger along.. Either sounds pretty useful to me. But I still prefer a mouse.
Not so sure about the two finger right click. Right click seems to be more frequently used by PC OSs than Apple, so a physical button is generally supplied, which kind of defeats the need to use a gesture of any kind. Different OS different conventions. Who can say which is better.
Typically these ISPs have entire neighborhoods if not entire cities tied up and you have a choice of provider X or Dialup (which is often Provider X again).
In most of these areas people use cheap routers to hang more machines on their connection.
My prior ISP allowed 8 connections (the max mac address slots they had in the modem). After a move I'm in an area where I get precisely one. And why should they do anything else? You want broadband, so what are you going to do. Set up your own telecoms giant? The ISPs must be laughing at the poor schmucks who are tied into their service every time their bonuses come in. They can charge what they like, and offer whatever service they want, and nobody does anything. Market forces are working really well for them.
If you really need to go so far as that to get more than one computer to share your connection.. Change your ISP to someone with sane terms as soon as possible!
Isn't that what OSS is all about? The author of a linux iTunes would have brimming tip jar. Pretty simple answer really. Because it would have to interface with the Apple store and use Apple's DRM. Neither of which will happen in the near future. Apple would not allow it, and the developer would need Apple's permission to do so.
That's when the time travel comes in.
Or perhaps vampires. Or very neat zombies....
Not sure about the plugins from memory, but there is an undo - redo in the edit menu. Ctrl Z and Y respectivly.
That is exactly what I was hoping for. Valid specific criticism of the UI features. Not the usual it can't possibly succeed in the market and other fluff. I agree. Gimp has failings, but it is still a useful tool, and who knows, these problems may eventually be overcome. It works well enough for me right now, and every new version refines the app. The Linux multiple desktop mechanism and dual monitors seem to be a way around some problems, perhaps other issues will be fixed or worked around in time.
Absolutely and unconditionally wrong on all counts. Why? I freely agreeing up front that Photoshop has some features that Gimp does not. The colour space is a big problem for quality of output, and both Cinepaint and Krita go up to 32 bit colour, so there is no technical limitation to having this feature. I also agree that the other features that are not currently present in Gimp can be show stoppers for the person who needs that particular feature. So no argument there either. There are things that Photoshop does that Gimp can not do at this point in time.
The fact that they are not included in the current version however, does not mean they are never going to be included. Either part of a new version of Gimp, or as a fork. Being open source, there is nothing stopping some interested parties doing exactly that. And While I'm not holding my breath, It isn't impossible. I'm not even suggesting the Gimp is competing with Photoshop in the professional graphics market, or that Gimp is better for all tasks.
But I am questioning the snotty "Bwahaaaa... Gimp's interface is shit" comments that keep popping up with nothing tangible to back them up.
Without a good argument the issue is reduced to one laughing at another kid because he has different laces in his over priced, but otherwise identical trainers. In other words, a non argument.
So give me examples of how the Gimp interface is horrible and the Photoshop one is so wonderful that do not rely on familiarity with one over the other. It is a fair question.
Remember, we are talking about the interface alone, so the buttons that are pushed, and the controls. Not colour space options and the like. Lack of features is a different subject, which I agree Photoshop wins ever time. Nebulous does not make for justification of the statement "the gimp has a horrible interface". And familiarity with only one does not make for an unbiased comparison.
If it makes it easier to understand my question.. Imagine you have been hired to improve the interface of Gimp. You are not allowed to add new features to the application, but you can, if it makes the thought experiment easier, assume this is some alternate universe where the two apps are feature identical. You are allowed to change any interface aspect you like. The only limitation is that you can not make it a direct Photoshop clone.
The point that I am trying to make is that if all the technical things that make Gimp out of the question today were fixed, such as the pantone palette, the colour gamut, and the CMYK support, and anything else you might like to throw in. There would still be hoards of graphic design wannabes who would use some vague "but the interface is crap" argument that can never be countered because the only real problem is not that one is inferior to the other, but that one is different to the other. Inferior can be worked on, but different is a personal preference. Consensus is impossible.
I know that Adobe has put a great deal of effort into keeping the interface as consistent as possible, and I think they have done a very smart thing. The last thing anybody wants is to have to relearn each version of a commonly used tool. But the same can be said of Gimp. They might be able to do a mode where there was a close copy of Photoshop, but that would piss off the Gimp users who would then accuse the makers of tryiong to copy Photoshop.
Still quite a hollow argument though which basically comes down to moaning about having to learn something new.
I'm talking about people using Opera or Konqueror on Linux. The Adobe Flash Player 7 and even 9 Beta works very, very poorly with these browsers, on Linux, and doesn't seem to be improving at all. The only browser being given attention is Firefox.
Guess we Linux users will have to wait for a long time, before we really starting using the internet and get recognised by the world. Is the demo section different to the actual app then? It seems to work fine with Konqueror on Fedora 8. I just played around with it a bit, but didn't sign up yet. Nothing against Photoshop, but Gimp is plenty for my modest needs.
But can someone tell me what exactly is so terrible about the Gimp interface?
This is a genuine question, as I've used both, and don't find either particularly difficult to get my head around. But then, I'm not a power user when it comes to graphics packages. No doubt the differences would be pretty important to someone using either one day in day out.. But I've never seen anybody actually cite examples of the terrible Gimp interface in anything but the vaguest terms as opposed to the silky smooth and obvious ways of doing the same thing with Photoshop.
iPhone doesn't have flash.. ho hum.. Some nice videos of the iPhone on Youtube though..
Windows doesn't have flash, byebye flash. The average person, despite knowing this, doesn't really seem to care. If people know this, and don't care, and continue giving money to Microsoft despite knowing there are alternatives...I'm apologize, but I can't feel sorry for someone that keeps walking into the same wall instead of going around it. You severely over estimate the average person.
People do not generally choose Windows. Choice implies there is at least knowledge of a different option. They put up with it because they don't know that something else exists. The fact that at this stage in the history of computers, that there is one OS and one office suite that almost everyone is convinced they must have is insane.
The vast majority of people don't have a very complete picture of what they want when they go to buy a computer. So they trust the sales person, or they trust their friend who "knows about computers" and get the recommended model. Thats it. They don't know enough if anything about any alternatives to make an informed choice.
I've heard of some crazy stretches for comparison, but come on, a journalist actually comparing a group of people that have an affinity for a company's products to a deeply-complicated bloody 60+ year old conflict? Talk about going off the deep end. I read it too. If you go back and re read it, you will see that you are referring to something that was not said. Funny thing perception.
From the article....
To understand the phenomenon, consider a study (PDF) that Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper, psychologists at Stanford University, conducted in the aftermath of another issue that provokes many accusations of press bias, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The author then goes on to briefly summarize the findings of the study, which was the reaction of three distinct groups of people to a carefully selected sample of news stories on a specific incident in the conflict, not the conflict it's self. And explains the reason for referring to the findings of the study.
At no point did he compare the Apple/PC conflict with the Israel/Palestine conflict. That would be preposterous. The findings of the study don't have to apply to just one particular subject, but are indicative of a more general psychological state.
Just to satisfy my curiosity.. what is your position in the Apple versus the rest of the universe debate?