I do this in Firefox or Seamonkey by putting a folder called Temp in my Bookmarks toolbar, to which links can be dragged.
The point of this feature is you can clipboard links which you WANT to visit again, but do NOT want to bookmark. That's quite an innovation in my opinion.
I also heard they plan in Netscape 10 to introduce a place where you put links which you WANT to visit, but do NOT want to bookmark and do NOT want to clipboard.
Next to this, they plan to introduce a "address board" - a place where you can type links to visit, but you do NOT want to type them in the address bar.
Do you think each software product should either have ugly graphics or be institutionalized in a big company that can afford both a photoshop license and a dedicated graphics designer?
It's interesting that you said "dedicated designer". If I could spin the meaning of this a little, ask yourself why are there so many dedicated OSS developers and only a small minority of dedicated designers.
Developers really created everything to fit their model and needs, designers hardly fit there, and hardly have motivation to help you improve something that wasn't created for designers to begin with. Now, I'm sure you can spin a nice icon in GIMP, GIMP isn't quite so crippled as that. Even MS Paintbrush isn't quite so crippled actually.
But attacking Photoshop with something that's plain out wrong (and apparently due to attempt to "catch up" with its workflow too fast) wasn't the reaction I expected.
Products created by small teams and by developers who understand more than one aspect of their operation are often time superior. For example, Adobe failed to create a logical feature set for software developers and other people who do not want to do graphics design full time.
I work in a small shop with a small team, and usually there's one designer and one-two developers working on a project at any given time (unless we find a way to split a project into more standalone pieces). Adobe's workflow suits us fine, and given they are the leading standard for design software, AND that the majority of web dev/design / print design companies are small, shows that they generally get things right so far.
Personally I have no trouble drawing rounded rectangles with rectangular select, growing the selection and the applying the fill tool. And you call yourself a professional.
I'm a fan of antialiasing, and shall remain one until PC-s ubiquitously come with >150dpi screens, but apart from that I thank god people don't hire me because of how I draw the damn rectangle, or I'd be in serious trouble.
I mean, good thing I'm not publishing under my real name here: if anyone understood I use the existing tool, versus come use an indirect approach every time, my career is over.
I'd come off as a total lamer, wouldn't I. Not just that, but I also use the layer effects sometimes:(
Real design people use Mac, even at Microsoft, where dog food rules over reason and getting things done. Some may move to free software but none is going to trade a Mac for M$, ever.
The first part cracks me up, I hope that was the intended effect. But the reason I'm posting this is: Photoshop and MS Office are supported on both Mac and PC, so I'm not sure where the "trade their Mac for M$" stuff came from.
You've obviously only been using Photoshop for the past couple revisions.
I'm using Photoshop since version 3. When version 3 existed, GIMP didn't exist at all. Now you won't actually want me to compare the 2007 version of GIMP with Photoshop in the early 90-s right. That wouldn't make much sense.
Whether I use GIMP or Photoshop, I live in 2007, and therefore I judge based on the latest version of both products.
It's only really in the CS versions that the lines between Illustrator and PS have been blurred heavily. Traditionally, there was no 'rounded corner rectangle' tool in PS. Don't be all elitist when you obviously haven't a clue of the history of which you speak.
You mean since version 5. The First CS version is version 8.
You're apparently using a meaning of "blurred heavily" I'm not familiar with. Likewise for "elitist". Didn't know that having basic drawing primitives was exclusively intrinsic to the elite, but if so, I'm happy to be there and be an elitist.
Further, if you can't figure out how to make a rectangle with rounded corners anyways despite not having a fancy tool to do it for you... I'd highly suggest you stop talking now as you're really starting to show your ignorance.
Allow me to not make any use of your sarcastic suggestions. There's a reason CS3 is called a "productivity suite". It's because I don't have to assemble a rounded rectangle from two rectangles and 4 circles, or other likely stupid tricks that waste my time.
True. However, it is possible to work the other way: store the original image once, from before the first undo event, along with a simple list of the operations that took place since that point. To undo just reload the original image and reapply all the chances except the most recent.
I (and anyone) would perform probably several thousand operations at least on a design or art piece by the time it's done.
Replaying from starts quickly becomes impractical. Also, the brush, filters and all this, it takes CPU to render, sometimes storing differing pixels for the last X operations is truly the smarter solution.
Your approach of more emphasis on the operation rather than altered data is more suitable for vector based applications, such as Illustrator.
However, even those applications won't replay everything from the very start, or pretty soon it'll be a hell to do a single undo.
TIFF is a way to waste disk space. It's used by people who think "300 dpi" (used in place of pixel dimensions) is meaningful for a digital image, and by people who think that abusing CMYK makes you a Real Professional.
Yea! Idiots. Everyting today uses RGB! Why use CMYK, when you can use what everyone uses. You have CMYK printer? Get a RGB printer!
Be modern and smart, CMYK was very popular around Januari-Februari 1994, but then peopel realized this is very old, and no longer used it.
And I hav to completely agre about "300 dpi": what has "300 dpi" to do with dots per inch and print density?! LOL. Peopel who think "dpi" has anyting to do with dots per inch are morons!
For example this print shop I used few monts ago: I go there and tell them, please print this at 1024x768. They say "wat is this: A4, A5, A6?". I tell them: "Are you morons, I want you to print it 1024x768". I mean how much more cleer could I possibly tell them that?! They look at me as if Ive fallen from the sky or someting. They now absolutly about modenr printing!
Not entirely. Photoshop not only adds pixel state changes to the history palette, but also simple things like "select" and "deselect", guide positions, as well as text edits (which are vector based changes). [..] They're so simple and quick there is no reason not to redo these steps in realtime instead of caching pixels. This information is relevant as any of these steps take away from the default 20 history states. [..] When Photoshop saves pixel changes, I presume it only caches those portions of the image that actually change, and for each new step it "patches" together a final image. I can't confirm this, however, as I didn't find any info. Sounds sensible however, and AFAIK Apple is planning to introduce exactly this concept to their new "time machine" feature in the next OSX.
Yes, Photoshop will save only the changes, onto its scratch files (or in RAM if there's enough), but there's more pixels to save that it may appear obvious at first. Undoing a brush stroke isn't the same as running the rubber along the same path, the previous pixels needs to be stored as they are totally unrelated from the action that's being undone (except by position).
Selections are actually a full blown channel on their own (mask channel), the fact that they appear as a simple outline, as you know, it's deceptively simplifying the real story. Photoshop needs to store pixels of that too.
Text layers and smart layers have a composite representation that's used instead of recompositing the entire object every time. Sometimes the object/text layer can't be recomposited, because for example you don't have that font, but picked "Maintain appearance" when opening the PSD. This means the pixels should be stored for those layers as well, as Photoshop can't recomposite them with a missing font.
I'm using 100 levels of undo since I mostly work with screen-resolution images. In the cases where I use higher res images, I simply peruse the "purge undo / history" if I find myself critically out of RAM, but this won't happen as long as you have enough disk space on your scratch files partition.
Undo is limited to ridiculously low number of operations. Layer styles produce ridiculous results on common images and randomly refuse to work with different layer types. Simple things take forever to complete. Gimp still has a learning curve but also features logical design that appeals to programmers.
Your rant is the reason why usually programmers are not sent in Photoshop to draw icons and artwork. Designers do that.
Undo levels are configurable, the layer styles algorithms are standard and mainstream (what exactly means "produce ridiculous results"), and you can apply the same layer styles on anything from a normal layer, text layer, smart object layer, placed art, even layer group (folder). I'm not aware of anything "random" in Photoshop about the applicability of layers in Photoshop.
Also please let us know what are those simple things that take forever. GIMP is overall quite much slower compared to Photoshop. I mean, even startup. CS3 with a bunch of plugins over here starts in less than 12 seconds. GIMP starts in 1 minute, on the same exact machine.
Dreamweaver does more, but it depends greatly what you are doing. I use Dreamweaver a lot, but I spend nearly all my time in code view anyway. The only major problem I have with Dreamweaver is it's inability to handle frames properly.
Hi, I use Dreamweaver more or less like you say (but I also and writing extensions for the Design view to allow WYSIWYG of my framework for those who need that).
I've not used frames lately, but when I did I've never noticed problem with the ability of DW to handle them. What did you notice?
I don't know if you ever noticed "View -> Show Grid/Snap To Grid" or "Select -> Rounded Rectangle" 16 bit is still missing though.
I've noticed it, this is why I said "usable grid". You see, a thick pixel grid overlayed on my design (versus dot grid) that drives the CPU to max at lower pixel sizes and has no subdivisions, isn't exactly usable in my eye.
GIMP isn't meant for rounded rectangles. It's not a vector program and doesn't even try to do vector stuff; [..] you can export a.png in Inkscape just as much you can import a.svg in GIMP.
GIMP isn't meant to solve all graphics problems. It's part of a toolkit.
Ok so your solution to the fact you can't draw a rounded rectangle in GIMP is, go to another program, draw it, save it and import it in GIMP.
We're not talking about vector art complete with 90 layers of shading touches and sophisticated structure. We're talking about a rectangle.
But you're right, if you need a rounded rectangle, it must be vector and diagramming work. I mean, who would've thought rounding the edges on a raster rectangle in a web design, for example? Have you seen a web site with rounded raster panels. I haven't.
What's even funnier is the poster who declares that others have never designed professionally, while never posting a link to their own portfolio. For all we know, your sum total of graphics design experience involves crayons and construction paper.
- sincerely, a professional designer who uses all FOSS tools, and kicks your butt at it.
1. Bitching about me not posting portfolio examples for some reason, while you yourself not posting any portfolio too: -2 points. 2. Posting as Anonymous Coward while bitching about above point: -10 points. 3. Claiming your kick my ass in design without knowing what I do, and without me knowing what you do: -25 points. 4. Posting links, the majority of which are about people who moved to Linux, and not about people who moved to GIMP: -50 points. 5. Comparing dust removes and wire removal on CinePaint, with original design on a full-blown raster editor: -1000 points. 6. Citing the CinePaint project manager as a reliable source about how many people use CinePaint versus other tools: -2000 points. Did you know Adobe also claims "Photoshop is the most used application in the motion picture industry"? But wait, one of your links says CinePaint has got Scooby Doo covered, that's impressive by itself.
Remember, we're talking about a teaching aid here - not a professional productivity suit.
So what kind of professionals are we training here if we replace the professional producivity suit with an amateur piece of software that has vaguely imitates few random features from a 10 year old version of the productivity suite?
It's an unfair analogy, the GIMP isn't economical or easy to drive.
Furthermore:
it's got no gears; no handbreak; can't turn left; turns right only after you enter the arc degrees and radius in a numerical input prior; after you enter the arc degrees/radius it takes around a minute until it starts executing the turn;
Of course, anyone who has patience CAN drive GIMP. Amazing feats could be achieved when you have so little to play with. But driving to work and back every day on the highway: naah.
It's always funny to see someone who never designed professionally in their life suggest GIMP.
GIMP lacks so basic features such as a usable grid, 16-bit/HDR image support, and requires special plugins with numerical inputs to draw a simple rounded rectangle, let alone something more complex.
The closest I've seen to Photoshop is Pavel's Pixel editor. It works on any OS you can imagine, from DOS to OS/2, Windows, MacOSX, Linux etc. It's very cheap and it's basically a clone software of Photoshop in many regards.
Other than this, there's Corel's Paintshop and Painter, but Painter is more oriented towards natural media art, not synthetic design or editing photos. Yes, neither of them are free, either. That's because people who have a clue designed them, and people who have a clue in the design industry don't work for free.
You could skimp on Dreamweaver, InDesign, Illustrator, but you won't last long without Photoshop, even if when someone sends you PSD next time and you realize that when GIMP advertised "importing PSD" they actually meant more like importing Photoshop 4 level PSD and losing everything else in the design, thus wrecking it in the process.
Comparing Photoshop-GIMP to MS_Office-OpenOffice is extremely unfair. GIMP is really a toy, it has few interesting plugins and crude tools, while OpenOffice is actually quite usable, even if it lacks some features, it definitely has the basics right, and working.
I have both OpenOffice and GIMP installed here, next to MS Office and Photoshop. I use GIMP only to run the texture resynthesis plugin when I need a tileable texture.
The part that bothers me is that this "problem" only started showing up with Vista. Maybe they just changed how the counted 'free' RAM. Or maybe, and this is the worrying part, Vista is the first Microsoft OS with built-in file caching?! I had just assumed that XP had this feature. I mean, I may knock Microsoft, but I also granted NT and progeny "modern OS" status and figured file caching was part of the package.
It's nice that you're worrying, and worrying about Windows and Microsoft is kinda fashionable as well:P
Vista has SuperFetch cache. XP didn't have SuperFetch cache. XP had basically two main kinds of file-related cache:
- file system cache (NOT to be confused with file cache of frequently used programs), which kept directory locations in RAM and other low level FS data, which sped up disk access - fetch, which places fragments of files in a faster location on the disk, ordered so they can quickly be loaded. This is disk based, not RAM based.
I hope that answers your question about where the RAM went and caching. Now, Vista is performing better than XP in high-end configurations. This could be used as a proof that caching in RAM works.
But since I need to worry as well to be in sync with modern times: I would think Vista was modular. Right? They spent like 3 extra years rewriting their code to be modular.
So why we can't turn all this extra caching or whatever crap off, and run it on a 256MB RAM system at least as fine as XP could?
I'm afraid caching is only partly to blame and there's quite some bloat added as well. Well, at least let's hope memory gets quickly much cheaper, smaller, and more efficient (electricity), then none of this would matter to begin with.
We all remember WinXP Home and Pro, and how "useable" Home was. Generally, whoever got the "Home" edition of XP got it 'cause he couldn't get his PC without any license and tossing Home was cheaper than tossing Pro.
What a bunch of bull. My brother's a student, and needed a laptop. We did a feature comparison of XP Home versus Pro, and figured out he doesn't really need anything in Pro. That's despite he's a developer and studying in computer science.
Whole year has passed since and not even once he found he was missing something from XP Pro.
XP Pro has its uses, but Home is perfectly usable, especially on a laptop. People who call Home "useless" simply are of the kind who want to have everything for the sake of everything. But there's also a lot of people just being practical about it, and putting on their plates only what they can eat.
Sect 1 defines teleportation as the tearing down of matter, converting it into energy, transport that energy, and convert it back into matter.
Sect 2 defines teleportation as scanning all of the information about an object, transport that INFORMATION to destination, create replica, then tear down the original.
Euh, I prefer Sect 3, a time-space bridge/warp, so I don't have to tear down my perfect haircut and rebuild it, put just pass through it and be elsewhere. Duh.
This occurs even if the second measurement is made a millisecond after the first measurement, and the two particles are on opposite sides of the galaxy.
You know, I'm slightly skeptical about the "opposite sides of the galaxy". I can see thousands of scientists and sci-fi writers rushing to shut me up, but was his ever tested? As in, you know put two particles in the opposite sides of the galaxy and check their polarity.
According to the current theory, the entanglement works despite of the distance, but you never know if won't turn out the distance limit is quite big in Earth dimensions, but quite well existing, and we don't know about it.
Really, the only way teleportation (or brain-to-computer transference) could work is if each individual part (for some definition of "part") were duplicated, placed in sync with the original, and then the original part destroyed. Since consciousness consists of the whole and not the parts (assuming we're not going to invoke the supernatural), the consciousness remains continuous with only one instantiation at any one time.
Probably, but consider this: can you really prove your consciousness remains continuous every time, say, you go to sleep and wake up the next morning.
The same paradox occurs: you think you are the same consciousness, but there's no way to know.
People take enough risk to die already by using a much simpler transportation device, a car. Maybe this invention is distant enough in the future to allow for our values to change, and realize that in the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter if you're an instant and perfect copy of yourself, using "generic energy" for the process every time you go back from work.
Of course not many people from today would accept such a destiny ("wake up, honey and get ready to die in the teleporter to work").
Finally, the two arch nemesis: software and hardware, will live together in symbiosis. Never before you have seen software and hardware working together.
Now this article demonstrates that what was before unthinkable, may tommorow be a commodity, and we will finally be able to run software on our hardware.
Those fotos are all fake: NASA setup a Mars stage on the Moon
This previos statement of main, makes it look as if I actually said NASA went to the Moon. But you didn't read between the lines:
What I mean is, the stage on the Moon is fake too, so they in fact setup the Mars stage on the Moon stage on Earth.
As a proof: desaturate the "Mars" fotos: observ, they look as if shot on the Moon. Now look at the original fotos, play Total Recal. They are both red.
Now colorize the photos and put blue sky: they look like Earth fotos.
Slashdot Mirror
I do this in Firefox or Seamonkey by putting a folder called Temp in my Bookmarks toolbar, to which links can be dragged.
The point of this feature is you can clipboard links which you WANT to visit again, but do NOT want to bookmark. That's quite an innovation in my opinion.
I also heard they plan in Netscape 10 to introduce a place where you put links which you WANT to visit, but do NOT want to bookmark and do NOT want to clipboard.
Next to this, they plan to introduce a "address board" - a place where you can type links to visit, but you do NOT want to type them in the address bar.
Do you think each software product should either have ugly graphics or be institutionalized in a big company that can afford both a photoshop license and a dedicated graphics designer?
It's interesting that you said "dedicated designer". If I could spin the meaning of this a little, ask yourself why are there so many dedicated OSS developers and only a small minority of dedicated designers.
Developers really created everything to fit their model and needs, designers hardly fit there, and hardly have motivation to help you improve something that wasn't created for designers to begin with. Now, I'm sure you can spin a nice icon in GIMP, GIMP isn't quite so crippled as that. Even MS Paintbrush isn't quite so crippled actually.
But attacking Photoshop with something that's plain out wrong (and apparently due to attempt to "catch up" with its workflow too fast) wasn't the reaction I expected.
Products created by small teams and by developers who understand more than one aspect of their operation are often time superior. For example, Adobe failed to create a logical feature set for software developers and other people who do not want to do graphics design full time.
I work in a small shop with a small team, and usually there's one designer and one-two developers working on a project at any given time (unless we find a way to split a project into more standalone pieces). Adobe's workflow suits us fine, and given they are the leading standard for design software, AND that the majority of web dev/design / print design companies are small, shows that they generally get things right so far.
I design professionally, and I use the GIMP.
My sincere condolences.
Personally I have no trouble drawing rounded rectangles with rectangular select, growing the selection and the applying the fill tool. And you call yourself a professional.
:(
I'm a fan of antialiasing, and shall remain one until PC-s ubiquitously come with >150dpi screens, but apart from that I thank god people don't hire me because of how I draw the damn rectangle, or I'd be in serious trouble.
I mean, good thing I'm not publishing under my real name here: if anyone understood I use the existing tool, versus come use an indirect approach every time, my career is over.
I'd come off as a total lamer, wouldn't I. Not just that, but I also use the layer effects sometimes
Damn it. I better rethink my life. Thanks, man.
Real design people use Mac, even at Microsoft, where dog food rules over reason and getting things done. Some may move to free software but none is going to trade a Mac for M$, ever.
The first part cracks me up, I hope that was the intended effect. But the reason I'm posting this is: Photoshop and MS Office are supported on both Mac and PC, so I'm not sure where the "trade their Mac for M$" stuff came from.
You've obviously only been using Photoshop for the past couple revisions.
I'm using Photoshop since version 3. When version 3 existed, GIMP didn't exist at all.
Now you won't actually want me to compare the 2007 version of GIMP with Photoshop in the early 90-s right. That wouldn't make much sense.
Whether I use GIMP or Photoshop, I live in 2007, and therefore I judge based on the latest version of both products.
It's only really in the CS versions that the lines between Illustrator and PS have been blurred heavily. Traditionally, there was no 'rounded corner rectangle' tool in PS. Don't be all elitist when you obviously haven't a clue of the history of which you speak.
You mean since version 5. The First CS version is version 8.
You're apparently using a meaning of "blurred heavily" I'm not familiar with. Likewise for "elitist". Didn't know that having basic drawing primitives was exclusively intrinsic to the elite, but if so, I'm happy to be there and be an elitist.
Further, if you can't figure out how to make a rectangle with rounded corners anyways despite not having a fancy tool to do it for you... I'd highly suggest you stop talking now as you're really starting to show your ignorance.
Allow me to not make any use of your sarcastic suggestions. There's a reason CS3 is called a "productivity suite". It's because I don't have to assemble a rounded rectangle from two rectangles and 4 circles, or other likely stupid tricks that waste my time.
True. However, it is possible to work the other way: store the original image once, from before the first undo event, along with a simple list of the operations that took place since that point. To undo just reload the original image and reapply all the chances except the most recent.
I (and anyone) would perform probably several thousand operations at least on a design or art piece by the time it's done.
Replaying from starts quickly becomes impractical. Also, the brush, filters and all this, it takes CPU to render, sometimes storing differing pixels for the last X operations is truly the smarter solution.
Your approach of more emphasis on the operation rather than altered data is more suitable for vector based applications, such as Illustrator.
However, even those applications won't replay everything from the very start, or pretty soon it'll be a hell to do a single undo.
So native version of OOo is always welcomed. Also I would love to see better X11 from Apple.
Your words are a law written in stone for me, milord! [rushes to improve X11]
Regards, Apple
TIFF is a way to waste disk space. It's used by people who think "300 dpi" (used in place of pixel dimensions) is meaningful for a digital image, and by people who think that abusing CMYK makes you a Real Professional.
Yea! Idiots. Everyting today uses RGB! Why use CMYK, when you can use what everyone uses. You have CMYK printer? Get a RGB printer!
Be modern and smart, CMYK was very popular around Januari-Februari 1994, but then peopel realized this is very old, and no longer used it.
And I hav to completely agre about "300 dpi": what has "300 dpi" to do with dots per inch and print density?! LOL. Peopel who think "dpi" has anyting to do with dots per inch are morons!
For example this print shop I used few monts ago: I go there and tell them, please print this at 1024x768. They say "wat is this: A4, A5, A6?". I tell them: "Are you morons, I want you to print it 1024x768". I mean how much more cleer could I possibly tell them that?! They look at me as if Ive fallen from the sky or someting. They now absolutly about modenr printing!
Not entirely. Photoshop not only adds pixel state changes to the history palette, but also simple things like "select" and "deselect", guide positions, as well as text edits (which are vector based changes). [..] They're so simple and quick there is no reason not to redo these steps in realtime instead of caching pixels. This information is relevant as any of these steps take away from the default 20 history states. [..] When Photoshop saves pixel changes, I presume it only caches those portions of the image that actually change, and for each new step it "patches" together a final image. I can't confirm this, however, as I didn't find any info. Sounds sensible however, and AFAIK Apple is planning to introduce exactly this concept to their new "time machine" feature in the next OSX.
Yes, Photoshop will save only the changes, onto its scratch files (or in RAM if there's enough), but there's more pixels to save that it may appear obvious at first. Undoing a brush stroke isn't the same as running the rubber along the same path, the previous pixels needs to be stored as they are totally unrelated from the action that's being undone (except by position).
Selections are actually a full blown channel on their own (mask channel), the fact that they appear as a simple outline, as you know, it's deceptively simplifying the real story. Photoshop needs to store pixels of that too.
Text layers and smart layers have a composite representation that's used instead of recompositing the entire object every time. Sometimes the object/text layer can't be recomposited, because for example you don't have that font, but picked "Maintain appearance" when opening the PSD. This means the pixels should be stored for those layers as well, as Photoshop can't recomposite them with a missing font.
I'm using 100 levels of undo since I mostly work with screen-resolution images. In the cases where I use higher res images, I simply peruse the "purge undo / history" if I find myself critically out of RAM, but this won't happen as long as you have enough disk space on your scratch files partition.
Undo is limited to ridiculously low number of operations. Layer styles produce ridiculous results on common images and randomly refuse to work with different layer types. Simple things take forever to complete. Gimp still has a learning curve but also features logical design that appeals to programmers.
Your rant is the reason why usually programmers are not sent in Photoshop to draw icons and artwork. Designers do that.
Undo levels are configurable, the layer styles algorithms are standard and mainstream (what exactly means "produce ridiculous results"), and you can apply the same layer styles on anything from a normal layer, text layer, smart object layer, placed art, even layer group (folder). I'm not aware of anything "random" in Photoshop about the applicability of layers in Photoshop.
Also please let us know what are those simple things that take forever. GIMP is overall quite much slower compared to Photoshop. I mean, even startup. CS3 with a bunch of plugins over here starts in less than 12 seconds. GIMP starts in 1 minute, on the same exact machine.
Dreamweaver does more, but it depends greatly what you are doing. I use Dreamweaver a lot, but I spend nearly all my time in code view anyway. The only major problem I have with Dreamweaver is it's inability to handle frames properly.
Hi, I use Dreamweaver more or less like you say (but I also and writing extensions for the Design view to allow WYSIWYG of my framework for those who need that).
I've not used frames lately, but when I did I've never noticed problem with the ability of DW to handle them. What did you notice?
I don't know if you ever noticed "View -> Show Grid/Snap To Grid" or "Select -> Rounded Rectangle"
16 bit is still missing though.
I've noticed it, this is why I said "usable grid". You see, a thick pixel grid overlayed on my design (versus dot grid) that drives the CPU to max at lower pixel sizes and has no subdivisions, isn't exactly usable in my eye.
GIMP isn't meant for rounded rectangles. It's not a vector program and doesn't even try to do vector stuff; [..] you can export a .png in Inkscape just as much you can import a .svg in GIMP.
GIMP isn't meant to solve all graphics problems. It's part of a toolkit.
Ok so your solution to the fact you can't draw a rounded rectangle in GIMP is, go to another program, draw it, save it and import it in GIMP.
We're not talking about vector art complete with 90 layers of shading touches and sophisticated structure. We're talking about a rectangle.
But you're right, if you need a rounded rectangle, it must be vector and diagramming work. I mean, who would've thought rounding the edges on a raster rectangle in a web design, for example? Have you seen a web site with rounded raster panels. I haven't.
What's even funnier is the poster who declares that others have never designed professionally, while never posting a link to their own portfolio. For all we know, your sum total of graphics design experience involves crayons and construction paper.
- sincerely, a professional designer who uses all FOSS tools, and kicks your butt at it.
1. Bitching about me not posting portfolio examples for some reason, while you yourself not posting any portfolio too: -2 points.
2. Posting as Anonymous Coward while bitching about above point: -10 points.
3. Claiming your kick my ass in design without knowing what I do, and without me knowing what you do: -25 points.
4. Posting links, the majority of which are about people who moved to Linux, and not about people who moved to GIMP: -50 points.
5. Comparing dust removes and wire removal on CinePaint, with original design on a full-blown raster editor: -1000 points.
6. Citing the CinePaint project manager as a reliable source about how many people use CinePaint versus other tools: -2000 points. Did you know Adobe also claims "Photoshop is the most used application in the motion picture industry"? But wait, one of your links says CinePaint has got Scooby Doo covered, that's impressive by itself.
Remember, we're talking about a teaching aid here - not a professional productivity suit.
So what kind of professionals are we training here if we replace the professional producivity suit with an amateur piece of software that has vaguely imitates few random features from a 10 year old version of the productivity suite?
Would you train an aeroplane pilot on a bicycle?
It's an unfair analogy, the GIMP isn't economical or easy to drive.
Furthermore:
it's got no gears;
no handbreak;
can't turn left;
turns right only after you enter the arc degrees and radius in a numerical input prior;
after you enter the arc degrees/radius it takes around a minute until it starts executing the turn;
Of course, anyone who has patience CAN drive GIMP. Amazing feats could be achieved when you have so little to play with. But driving to work and back every day on the highway: naah.
GIMP and CMYK support for The GIMP
It's always funny to see someone who never designed professionally in their life suggest GIMP.
GIMP lacks so basic features such as a usable grid, 16-bit/HDR image support, and requires special plugins with numerical inputs to draw a simple rounded rectangle, let alone something more complex.
The closest I've seen to Photoshop is Pavel's Pixel editor. It works on any OS you can imagine, from DOS to OS/2, Windows, MacOSX, Linux etc. It's very cheap and it's basically a clone software of Photoshop in many regards.
Other than this, there's Corel's Paintshop and Painter, but Painter is more oriented towards natural media art, not synthetic design or editing photos. Yes, neither of them are free, either. That's because people who have a clue designed them, and people who have a clue in the design industry don't work for free.
You could skimp on Dreamweaver, InDesign, Illustrator, but you won't last long without Photoshop, even if when someone sends you PSD next time and you realize that when GIMP advertised "importing PSD" they actually meant more like importing Photoshop 4 level PSD and losing everything else in the design, thus wrecking it in the process.
Comparing Photoshop-GIMP to MS_Office-OpenOffice is extremely unfair. GIMP is really a toy, it has few interesting plugins and crude tools, while OpenOffice is actually quite usable, even if it lacks some features, it definitely has the basics right, and working.
I have both OpenOffice and GIMP installed here, next to MS Office and Photoshop. I use GIMP only to run the texture resynthesis plugin when I need a tileable texture.
The part that bothers me is that this "problem" only started showing up with Vista. Maybe they just changed how the counted 'free' RAM. Or maybe, and this is the worrying part, Vista is the first Microsoft OS with built-in file caching?! I had just assumed that XP had this feature. I mean, I may knock Microsoft, but I also granted NT and progeny "modern OS" status and figured file caching was part of the package.
:P
It's nice that you're worrying, and worrying about Windows and Microsoft is kinda fashionable as well
Vista has SuperFetch cache. XP didn't have SuperFetch cache. XP had basically two main kinds of file-related cache:
- file system cache (NOT to be confused with file cache of frequently used programs), which kept directory locations in RAM and other low level FS data, which sped up disk access
- fetch, which places fragments of files in a faster location on the disk, ordered so they can quickly be loaded. This is disk based, not RAM based.
I hope that answers your question about where the RAM went and caching. Now, Vista is performing better than XP in high-end configurations. This could be used as a proof that caching in RAM works.
But since I need to worry as well to be in sync with modern times: I would think Vista was modular. Right? They spent like 3 extra years rewriting their code to be modular.
So why we can't turn all this extra caching or whatever crap off, and run it on a 256MB RAM system at least as fine as XP could?
I'm afraid caching is only partly to blame and there's quite some bloat added as well. Well, at least let's hope memory gets quickly much cheaper, smaller, and more efficient (electricity), then none of this would matter to begin with.
We all remember WinXP Home and Pro, and how "useable" Home was. Generally, whoever got the "Home" edition of XP got it 'cause he couldn't get his PC without any license and tossing Home was cheaper than tossing Pro.
What a bunch of bull. My brother's a student, and needed a laptop. We did a feature comparison of XP Home versus Pro, and figured out he doesn't really need anything in Pro. That's despite he's a developer and studying in computer science.
Whole year has passed since and not even once he found he was missing something from XP Pro.
XP Pro has its uses, but Home is perfectly usable, especially on a laptop. People who call Home "useless" simply are of the kind who want to have everything for the sake of everything. But there's also a lot of people just being practical about it, and putting on their plates only what they can eat.
Sect 1 defines teleportation as the tearing down of matter, converting it into energy, transport that energy, and convert it back into matter.
Sect 2 defines teleportation as scanning all of the information about an object, transport that INFORMATION to destination, create replica, then tear down the original.
Euh, I prefer Sect 3, a time-space bridge/warp, so I don't have to tear down my perfect haircut and rebuild it, put just pass through it and be elsewhere. Duh.
This occurs even if the second measurement is made a millisecond after the first measurement, and the two particles are on opposite sides of the galaxy.
You know, I'm slightly skeptical about the "opposite sides of the galaxy". I can see thousands of scientists and sci-fi writers rushing to shut me up, but was his ever tested? As in, you know put two particles in the opposite sides of the galaxy and check their polarity.
According to the current theory, the entanglement works despite of the distance, but you never know if won't turn out the distance limit is quite big in Earth dimensions, but quite well existing, and we don't know about it.
Really, the only way teleportation (or brain-to-computer transference) could work is if each individual part (for some definition of "part") were duplicated, placed in sync with the original, and then the original part destroyed. Since consciousness consists of the whole and not the parts (assuming we're not going to invoke the supernatural), the consciousness remains continuous with only one instantiation at any one time.
Probably, but consider this: can you really prove your consciousness remains continuous every time, say, you go to sleep and wake up the next morning.
The same paradox occurs: you think you are the same consciousness, but there's no way to know.
People take enough risk to die already by using a much simpler transportation device, a car. Maybe this invention is distant enough in the future to allow for our values to change, and realize that in the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter if you're an instant and perfect copy of yourself, using "generic energy" for the process every time you go back from work.
Of course not many people from today would accept such a destiny ("wake up, honey and get ready to die in the teleporter to work").
Finally, the two arch nemesis: software and hardware, will live together in symbiosis. Never before you have seen software and hardware working together.
Now this article demonstrates that what was before unthinkable, may tommorow be a commodity, and we will finally be able to run software on our hardware.
Those fotos are all fake: NASA setup a Mars stage on the Moon
This previos statement of main, makes it look as if I actually said NASA went to the Moon. But you didn't read between the lines:
What I mean is, the stage on the Moon is fake too, so they in fact setup the Mars stage on the Moon stage on Earth.
As a proof: desaturate the "Mars" fotos: observ, they look as if shot on the Moon. Now look at the original fotos, play Total Recal. They are both red.
Now colorize the photos and put blue sky: they look like Earth fotos.
It is undeniable they faked it. Scammers.