...sorry?
did that have any relevance at all?
I think you have missed the point here mate
I left it at 16% zoom because going any closer in resulted in a 5 minute redraw as each little section was ground out from the disk. Any significant change in the image resulted in no less.
Photoshop did the same thing in fractional seconds.
... the point in question is the fact that photoshop was astronomically faster than gimp was at editing the same image on the same hardware at the same time. It's a relative test and if the graphics drivers are slowing down gimp, shouldn't they be slowing down photoshop more if gimp is "faster"? - I was lacking in ram at the time, but again it is the fact that gimp performed at such a horribly slower pace than photoshop did in the same circumstances that gets to me.
I'm not a usual complainer and I would be all for gimp if it was to clean up the act a bit, but frankly in my opinion it sucked. Enough to stop me recommending it to people as a photoshop replacement and find some other alternative. (I now use fireworks as my main graphics software, and my old copy of photoshop when I really need to)
Working with large images bigger than the screen is supposed to be much much faster in gimp than in photoshop.
ARE YOU KIDDING???
I was making an a3 sized 600dpi poster for my schoolwork.
On gimp, the image would literally take 10 minutes to apply any kind of filter-like effect at all, text rendering was hideous and zooming in was so painful that I did the whole thing in the same zoom level (16% or so?)
I finally got so irritated that I opened up photoshop 6 instead and finished the thing in less time that it took to save in gimp.
gimp + large images? no thanks.
Indeed, I myself only use bittorrent and not any other p2p programs/technologies
turns out in the end to be my most reliable method of getting large files
plus I have access to all the things that I am after (mostly anime/linux distros/a little music actually)
what about some sort of an emulated hardware layer or some such? like some kind of virtualPC style thing. Even if you just use that layer by flagging the virtual TPM value to check where and when the kernel checks for the TPM, then you've got some kind of pointer as to where and when it happens at least, narrows it down by a couple million lines of asm. I'm not a low-level programmer, so it's just a theory, is that possible?
Slashdot Mirror
Damn Frenchies, blowing up my boat.
...sorry? did that have any relevance at all? I think you have missed the point here mate I left it at 16% zoom because going any closer in resulted in a 5 minute redraw as each little section was ground out from the disk. Any significant change in the image resulted in no less. Photoshop did the same thing in fractional seconds.
... the point in question is the fact that photoshop was astronomically faster than gimp was at editing the same image on the same hardware at the same time. It's a relative test and if the graphics drivers are slowing down gimp, shouldn't they be slowing down photoshop more if gimp is "faster"? - I was lacking in ram at the time, but again it is the fact that gimp performed at such a horribly slower pace than photoshop did in the same circumstances that gets to me. I'm not a usual complainer and I would be all for gimp if it was to clean up the act a bit, but frankly in my opinion it sucked. Enough to stop me recommending it to people as a photoshop replacement and find some other alternative. (I now use fireworks as my main graphics software, and my old copy of photoshop when I really need to)
Working with large images bigger than the screen is supposed to be much much faster in gimp than in photoshop. ARE YOU KIDDING??? I was making an a3 sized 600dpi poster for my schoolwork. On gimp, the image would literally take 10 minutes to apply any kind of filter-like effect at all, text rendering was hideous and zooming in was so painful that I did the whole thing in the same zoom level (16% or so?) I finally got so irritated that I opened up photoshop 6 instead and finished the thing in less time that it took to save in gimp. gimp + large images? no thanks.
Indeed, I myself only use bittorrent and not any other p2p programs/technologies turns out in the end to be my most reliable method of getting large files plus I have access to all the things that I am after (mostly anime/linux distros/a little music actually)
what about some sort of an emulated hardware layer or some such?
like some kind of virtualPC style thing.
Even if you just use that layer by flagging the virtual TPM value to check where and when the kernel checks for the TPM, then you've got some kind of pointer as to where and when it happens at least, narrows it down by a couple million lines of asm. I'm not a low-level programmer, so it's just a theory, is that possible?