What is Digg?67 Comments
- DeMarko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you want the .NET framework go here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=262D25E3-F589-4842-8157-034D1E7CF3A3&displaylang=en
And then download the smaller file (the one without .NET Framework included)
http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/download.html
Makes for a faster download - pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would much rather use this than Gimp because it uses a layout/GUI that is standard among all commercial graphics programs...
- skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So install .NET 1.1 as well. They're meant to work like that -- you install .NET 1.1 for apps that require it, and .NET 2.0 for apps that require the newer runtime.
- skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lagged2Death, I think we just take off our tinfoil hats and digg free software :)
- ricodued, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To those complaining about virus scanners and games not being included in Windows:
Vista will have OneCare. It's nice, I'm a beta tester, it's awesome. Virus scannning, automated file backups, etc.
Vista also comes with new versions of Solitare, Spider Solitare, Hearts, etc. Even a few new games including this one called 'Shanghai'. They're all rebuilt and they're done with DirectX and all look and play great. They even support saving your sessions.
If that's not enough 'game' for you, I don't think Windows should be shipping with much more than some card games. Talk about bloating.
Also, for those of you bashing .NET: .NET (especially 2.0) is a great programming framework. It's fast (whatever slowdowns aren't noticable to end users), it's VERY easy to use (development time is cut by orders of magnitude for projects), and it's free! Microsoft is even supplying free versions of Visual Studio 2005 for hobbyists, which, however crippled, are great for studends and hobbyists and people just learning the languages. - Qopax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You guys should at least try it out before bashing it.
- adventxtangent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Was this ever meant to compare to Photoshop, or even The Gimp? I'm pretty sure the name, Paint.NET, should give you an idea as to what it's replacing and what it's feature set supersedes.
- Ravenlock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hooray for unrealistic and baseless expectations. It's trying to be a replacement for PAINT, not Photoshop. As a replacement for Paint, it's downright elegant.
Dugg. - pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lagged2Death said "Do we applaud that Microsoft is actually giving away something useful
for free, or do we boo and hiss that Microsoft is obviously using a
student project as a way to get .NET onto more machines, strengthening
and securing their once and future hegemony?"
This isn't Microsoft is it? But I applaud it because I am a .NET programmer... - Lagged2Death, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Do we applaud that Microsoft is actually giving away something useful for free, or do we boo and hiss that Microsoft is obviously using a student project as a way to get .NET onto more machines, strengthening and securing their once and future hegemony?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just downloaded this as an alternative to MS Paint, WAYyyy more features than Paint that's for sure.
- MrKickass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's about time for paint to get an overhaul
- KriTenKs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Paint.NET is not made by Microsoft
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>
Windows could actually be a valuable OS if they included decent apps to do basic tasks.
Yeah, and Microsoft used to include a virus scanner. And it took them years to get their basic disk defragmenter back in NT. Every time they do something like that, they catch a lot of flak by the monopolist crowd. I suppose they have a point, but it's really ***** nice to have firewalls and virus scanners and disk defragmenters in your base OS - DaviDK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a replacement for paint it succeeds, but when compared to other gratis software as the gimp... you should go with that. It's not photoshop, but you can't argue with the price.
- augmandino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's about time! There are fewer useless programs out there than the classic Paint... Why hasn't Microsoft ever made a decent image editing app? They could have developed this Paint.NET app years ago at relatively zero cost.
- markperia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you people sure are ***** picky...its FREE. If you dont like it no one's forcing you to use it. And if you're gonna rant about it, look at it for what it is dont compare it to programs that is not even in the same license. Photoshop is not free, GIMP is well... haha you got me there I like it too but this is just an alternative to the existing Paint program in Windows while GIMP is a full featured alternative to PS.
- skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hah! oepapel it's so obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. They only use C++ for some setup and shell-integration related functionality, not rendering. The 3rd-party components are only used for menu and toolbar rendering; they don't dictate the layout or design. You obviously haven't tried the plugin system, and are just knocking it for fun. If you knew the least bit about software development you would know about the breaking changes between .NET 1.1 and 2.0, what that means for stability and compatibility, and why it's not a "very minor effort."
Please, the next time you try to say anything, pull your foot out of your mouth. Oh, and remove the tinfoil hat. It just makes you look silly. - Presentlight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. This is definitely better than GIMP for quick touch ups. The interface is much more simple.
- midorigin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I redirected the default Paint shortcuts to Paint.Net, so clueless family members and mac users will stop trying to work with JPEGs in Paint.
- skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0See, now you're using some facts in your writing instead of making /everything/ up. That's a good step in the right direction. I guess your next task will be writing up a huge whiney blog post calling this application a fraud. Have fun! Nobody else cares.
- Qopax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seriously oepapel, they're working on it, cut them some slack:
Paint.NET v2.6
Scheduled release: January 15th, 2006
This release will be an upgrade of v2.5 that utilizes the brand new .NET Framework v2.0 runtime. It will have full, native Windows x64 support (64-bit), and an aesthetically updated user interface (better icons, toolbars, etc.).
There you go, .NET framework 2.0, and you only have to wait a few weeks. - tgraham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Windows XP has a firewall, disk defragger... heaven forbid a user might look to the market for provision of other services.
- skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oepapel, In the interview it was stated they use the "unsafe" (pointers) facilities of C#, not C++, for rendering. All of the filters are written in C#. Download the source code and look at it for yourself, it's on the website. Half of the first paragraph of what you just wrote is completely made up. C++ is only used for some setup and shell-extension code.
Microsoft did do work in the realm of menu and toolbar rendering. .NET 2.0 introduces many new controls for this.
Also, there is a difference between simply letting a .NET 1.1 app run on .NET 2.0 (bad idea for any non-trivial app), and actually porting it to .NET 2.0 with no compiler warnings or errors, and with proper 64-bit support.
As for 'me too' posts ... shouldn't you be over on /. ? - SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's not associated with MS, tgraham.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Download the source code and look at it for yourself, it's on the website. Half of the first paragraph of what you just wrote is completely made up. C++ is only used for some setup and shell-extension code."
I downloaded the source as you suggested. I fired up the solution in Visual Studio 2003 and did a "find in Files" for references to "DllImport". This would indicate the use of Interop and a reliance on DLL's outside the dotNET runtime.
Ignoring the 6 references used by the setup and ShellExtension projects, the search returned another 77 (!!!) references to outside DLL entry points. The DLL's were referenced from the PDN.SystemLayer namespace and two sealed classes called NativeMethods and SafeNativeMethods do the actual interoping with WinTrust.dll, User32.dll, GDI32.dll, kernel32.dll, uxtheme.dll, msvcrt.dll, wtsapi.dll, gdiplus.dll, winhttp.dll. These 9 DLL's are written in C and/or C++. Most have C# equivalents or at least C# interfaces provided by the runtime.
Remember, I have ignored the references supposedly used by the setup and shell extension. uxtheme.dll makes sense if they are hacking around a bug in the UI. The rest don't seem to be explained very well. winhttp.dll is especially out in left field since there are excellent HTTP services inside the runtime. Also, relying on User32, GDI and GDIPlus means that they are trying to circumvent System.Drawing and S.W.F. Kernel32.dll and msvcrt.dll are being used to circumvent various other runtime services.
I can see three reasons for circumventing the runtime:
1) the functionality is not available in the runtime
2) the functionality is buggy in the runtime
3) the functionality is too slow in the runtime
Calling this a C# project with C++ only used in setup and shell extension is at best stretching the truth. The interoping used here shows that they are quite willing to and have bypassed the runtime whenever it suited them to do so by using native code written in C++. - Qopax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with the more positive comments, a really nice alternative for Paint. Very quick, simple, and looks really nice. Much better solution to quick photo editing than photoshop, unless you have a monster machine.
I like the translucency too, but that's probably been done in many other programs I haven't noticed until now. It just looks much more elegant than default Photoshop. - tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not a bad program, it's free after all.
- skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Runs pretty good on one of my system's that is 900mhz, too
- scarz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oepapel I tend to agree with the comment made above. As a developer who has had to do it - moving from .Net 1.1 to 2.0 is not always easy. And if you read their roadmap it says all the UI will be changed in 2.6. So ya, you wasted mine, yours, and everyone else’s time with that comment.
- serra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This might actually replace my Photoshop, it looks really nice. Looks like it has the same features, pretty much, and would hog a lot less memory. I installed it, but haven't tried it yet, haven't been in a graphics making mood yet.
- tgraham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't bloody work with .Net 2.0!
- dylanA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well looks pretty nice, but im not giving up photoshop yet
- matx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like it.
It works nice and fast. - blowdart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Except of course if MS included useful apps then software houses would cry foul and start lining up to sue.
- dvydra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Link provided doesn't work for me,
http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/files/msi/PaintDotNet_2_5.exe
this one is ok. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love it. Very much like a chopped down version of Paint Shop Pro. Why is it exactly that MS paint is sooooooo crappy? WTF!? i just realized that! its fricken aweful. There'd better be a new one comin' or i'm complaining.
+digg... good program :) - thecoolestcow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sorry, it's acrylic, and it's out of codename (but still has the same name...?)
- F00b4r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To all the people saying that other people should sell virus scanners:
It's Microsoft's responsibility to secure their ***** OS. If that's through OneCare Free, so be it. This is the kind of "no way out" thinking that makes everyone hate Microsoft and then bash them for trying to fix problems.
BTW, this looks like a nice little app to port to Mono. Their Windows Forms implementation is, to say the least, spotty, though. - thecoolestcow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm... Microsoft code name acryllic, anyone?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks very nice. I may download it and try it out. Might use it for quick fixes if it loads faster than Photoshop CS2.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Even when you are shown to be wrong, you still need to run your mouth. Next time, when I say that it's not pure C#, you can save yourself the public humiliation and just take my word for it.
That way, you don't look like either an ass or a fanboy. - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0"Not a bad program, it's free after all."
not even IE is free,
rofl, and you think Paint will be "free" rofl. - NeilM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Awesome! I always liked Paint.net :) I recommend it to people all of the time. :)
- WalkerBurgin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Downloaded it, nice software... definately a good alternative to MS Paint. I personally still prefer The Gimp myself though.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Hah! oepapel it's so obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. They only use C++ for some setup and shell-integration related functionality, not rendering."
Actually, I saw the dotNET show episode where they interviewed the programmers and they categorically said that they did pigeonhole optimizations by writing critical loops in C++. You can watch the episode for yourself if you don't believe me. It is true that the compositing is done in DirectX and is hardware accelerated or software emulated (which by the way is written in C++) but any large filter would be unusable if it wasn't written in C++. Even unsafe C# that uses pointers is many times slower than C. I can give you a sample program that demonstrates this quite well, if you like.
"The 3rd-party components are only used for menu and toolbar rendering; they don't dictate the layout or design."
The fact that they had to resort to using third party components should be a wake up call to MS that they need to do some work. Many of the issues that they ran into I have also ran into and know first hand how annoying it is to use an inflexible UI framework.
"You obviously haven't tried the plugin system, and are just knocking it for fun."
I didn't knock it. I just said it's nothing special and nothing to write home about. Lots of paint programs use plugin systems. The annoying thing about C# is that due to a design flaw, assemblies that can be dynamically loaded into memory cannot be unloaded without dumping the entire AppDomain. This is not Paint.NET's problem but they have inherited it by using C#.
"If you knew the least bit about software development you would know about the breaking changes between .NET 1.1 and 2.0, what that means for stability and compatibility, and why it's not a "very minor effort.""
Actually, since I have kept a close eye on the progress of .NET 2.0 (as any good C# programmer should) I have been able to anticipate, test for and avoid many of the pitfalls that are inevitable when you make this type of change. There have been numerous betas and release candidates so there is really no excuse for being caught on release day with software that needs more than minor changes. It's not like there wasn't a heads up opportunity. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"oepapel I tend to agree with the comment made above. As a developer who has had to do it - moving from .Net 1.1 to 2.0 is not always easy. And if you read their roadmap it says all the UI will be changed in 2.6. So ya, you wasted mine, yours, and everyone else’s time with that comment."
Everything I stated was a valid criticism. If you don't like it then don't read it. A website with some promises about what the future product will look like is irrelevant to the fact that they released a product and that product has some no so very minor problems. They may very well fix each in every one in the future.
And if you had serious problems switching from 1.1 to 2.0, then you must have had your head in the sand and ignored all the betas and release candidates. They weren't hard to find.
And for the record, I found very little value in your comment. A "me too" post is the worst waste of time post there is. Add something original next time. - peerk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Bye bye Adobe.
- anagami, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0"This might actually replace my Photoshop, it looks really nice. Looks like it has the same features, pretty much, and would hog a lot less memory. I installed it, but haven't tried it yet, haven't been in a graphics making mood yet."
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
lol, you've to be kidding. - spelchek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0wow, that is nice!
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is