What is Digg?58 Comments
- mocggidwww, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I recently have been using Gimp (with the GimpShop for Windows interface) and Paint.NET a lot since I no longer own a legal copy of Photoshop. I had been exclusively using Photoshop CS for simple graphic design and photo touch ups, so by no means an expert but also not a complete noob. Comparing Paint.NET to either Gimp or Photoshop is almost an apples to oranges comparison. Both Gimp and Photoshop have FAR more features than Paint.NET. Paint.NET will never in its lifetime dream of catching up to Photoshop unless M$ decides to pick it up themselves.
Paint.NET is much, much more intuitive than Gimp (and GimpShop). But once you really start using Paint.NET though, you'll realize it lacks several key things, like:
- No Gradients (though that's on their short-list of TODOs)
- Paint.NET is currently a SDI (Single Document Interface) meaning that you can only have one image open per instance of PN. The developers are supposedly looking into making PN an MDI (Multiple) with tabs (http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=127), but that might take some time.
- No color palette (on their todo)
- You cannot edit text once you've typed it in (nor does it auto create a new layer for you)
- Cannot open Photoshop .psd files and probably won't any time soon (http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=241&highlight=photoshop) (Gimp can open and read psd files)
- No other program can currently open Paint.NET's native .pdn file.
- Exporting files is limited to the basics: jpeg, gif, png, tga, tiff, bmp, and it does a sub-par job of jpeg/gif compression.
- No polygon selection tool
- No layer masks
- No batch processing (if you need batch resizing/renaming of photos, I highly recommend the free program IrfanView)
- Lead developer seems a bit cranky/tired when answering feature/bug requests (I would be too considering the number of n00b/redundant questions)
As far as Gimp goes, while it has a ton of features, its clunky interface creates a very steep learning curve. However, if you're a Photoshop user and haven't tried GimpShop, you should give it a whirl as it does a great job of emulating Photoshop. However, the learning curve for Gimp is quite steep, as you quickly discover that the there is no simple shape drawing tool (which even regular Paint has!). You CAN draw/fill shapes by filling and stroking selections or paths, but it's not at all intuitive and takes a bit of getting used to.
I've read that the developers are content with drawing shapes the weird way, and though it's been a "bug" of Gimp for some years now, no one is willing to work on it :(. And that seems to be the current consensus among the developers: name that they're really building Gimp more for themselves (aka, power Gimp users) than the average joe.
In the end though, due to Paint.NET's lack of optimized gif/jpeg export options, I am only really able to use Paint.NET to comp out ideas, but always output/fix the final image using Gimp. - oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If it has a usable UI, it's better than the GIMP.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if you are looking for mspaint alternative that doesnt use .NET I suggest PhotoFiltre
http://www.photofiltre.com/
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/PhotoFiltre/1088106931/1
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-Editors/PhotoFiltre.shtml - officialchicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Can anyone give any positive aspect of .NET? Any reason to use it over any other language or library?"
Huge framwork (with kitchen sink), compatible with dozens of languages, runs on multiple operating systems (mono and portable.net), scales from embedded systems to server-farms, and MS is betting the house on it. As for money reasons, there is a massive demand for programmers in all urban areas of the U.S. who know it.
But, like anything else, it has its flaws. Its good for application development only. Forget drivers, firmware, operating systems, etc. - saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Can anyone give any positive aspect of .NET? Any reason to use it over any other language or library?"
It's easier to get started with (and use, IMO) than C++, is a better RAD tool than VB, and has lots of stuff that Java hasn't. That being said, the main reasons to use it are 1) because you like using it and are comfortable with your skills in it and 2) it's the right tool for the job you're doing.
For example, I'm currently writing some inventory control software for a client. What would be the advantage of C++ or Java or Python when I'm already familiar with C#? If you say performance, I'm going to smack you upside the head. - JTMON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Too bad it uses .NET. Otherwise it could actually be usable without taking an insane amount of resources."
As opposed to photoshop taking little resources? Dink - b1ffa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a decent enough MSPaint replacement but not even close to gimpshop or photoshop.
- officialchicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"it can run on macos also, if someone ports it to mono"
Wishful thinking. Maybe in a year or two when the winforms (the UI library System.Windows.Forms) are working. Right now, and for the past 4 releases of mono on os x, winforms have been broken. And none of the previous releases that worked on os x also support .net 2.0, which paint.net is using.
Looking at the source code, there are some pretty heavy hooks into the windows OS itself (Windows Image Aquisition and Stylus Input libs on top of the installer and shell integration cruft). Even though its using GDI+, I don't think this one can be easily ported. - usacomputertec, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You want to hear the real story about how Paint.Net comes pre installed on Windows Vista Ultimate now! I think Microsoft is pushing it and you should not donate to it! It's a .net program so it won't run on Linux or Mac! It has Microsoft's name all over it just like Internet Explorer. It's a free program too but only runs on Windows!
http://www.mindblowingidea.com/thehighlyunreliabletimes.html - VargVikernes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also I forgot to mention the inuitive interface. While, after 11 years, everyone still bitches about GIMP's interface and developers obviously have no intent on chaning it, Paint .NET had this great interface from the beggining.
- ullerrm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is awesome. I wish they had this instead of mspaint in vista!
- compuguy1088, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I aggree also, it is more use able than GIMP, and it seems at an inital glance easier than photoshop, maybe...
- VargVikernes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Probably not as feature complete as the GIMP, but Paint .NET was started in Spring 2004 and Gimp was started in 1995. That should give GIMP an advantage of roughly 9 years plus as it is licensed under the GPL it can be extended by anyone and Paint .NET is developed by students at Washington State University. Can anyone see the irony here? :)
This project is moving with an insane speed and might even some day catch Photoshop, although probably not that fast as we want to :) - compuguy1088, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks nice...it really does look closer to Photoshop, than gimp does....ironically I do have photoshop :)
- mooseman089, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Go Gimp!
- promisecry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great! Someone should port it to Linux, using Mono!
Thank you guys..
Plus, it is licensed under MIT.. That's really great! - xafan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Too bad it uses .NET. Otherwise it could actually be usable without taking an insane amount of resources.
Oh and to keep the .NET programmers from calling me an anti-Microsoft zealot. Java is just as bad if not worse. - pohl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Um...why would someone have to port it to mono? If the CLR and the libraries truly are cross-platform, why shouldn't it be like Java where you just run it somewhere else?
Unless mono is lagging behind, of course. - Warptera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, I noticed it said there was an update available when I was starting Paint.Net up.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How does this compare to Gimp or Gimpshop?
- donatj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0.Net actually just looks like it uses a lot of resources, a lot of it is reserved, and can be unreserved programaticly, though if the system gets low on resources it'll unreserve it automaticly
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0its a great app...
thanks for the heads-up :) - promisecry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it can run on macos also, if someone ports it to mono
- swizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0again....how does this compare to the gimp?
- promisecry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why mikeyaj86??
can't you install it by your own.. Why do you want it to come preinstalled?? - compuguy1088, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gimp is similar in features and in the purpose of it; also .net is alitte bloated (I.E Catalyst CCC) as well as java is.....which is why I dont use azureus, it eats CPU/mem is crazy
- sragzorz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Go Cougs!
- wquintero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey guys, this Application is not developed by Microsoft. Though originally mentored by MS this project is part of the Washington State University School of Engineering and Computer Science department and is maintained by some of its Alumni. As of today it has nothing to do with the Windows Vista development.
http://school.eecs.wsu.edu/ - corduroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's too bad that it appears that this won't replace the default paint application in Windows.
Why? Other companies would be sure to scream about it being anti-competitive. I dunno, it appears that there would be more roadblocks in replacing old paint with paint.net. - mikeyaj86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very interesting, as close to Photoshop I've seen without lots of $. Would be great if it came standard with VIsta !
- swizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0is this better than the gimp?
- qwerty967, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think of Paint.NET as a stepping stone between MS paint and Photoshop. While Paint is too stripped down and Photoshop is too complicated, Paint.NET is just right in the number of features and ease of use. When I get comfortable enough using Paint.NET, I'm going to move on to Photoshop.
- astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0bahhh..
"Bring out the GIMP...."
Better, faster, and open source! (and yes cross platforms too). - velkymx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is one of the best Photoshop replacements out. Transition from PS to this is easy... unlike the Gimp. All I need is something comperable to Dreamweaver and I can be free of Adobe!!!
- mikeyG9x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a great program for those of us who can't justify buying photoshop and don't want to climb the steep learning curve for the Gimp.
It's Portable!
I have been using this in a portable arrangement for a while and all of the important stuff works without .Net installed (the one thing I have noticed is that you can't print images without .Net, just save the image and print with a different program). Install the program on a computer and copy the paint.net folder over to a usb drive, tada. portable.
The biggest problem I have seen with this is that the installer is seriously broken, if the original install is not completely intact, the new install will back out with failures, and the original install won't uninstall either (going form version 2.0 to 2.1, 2.1 to 2.5, and from 2.5 to 2.6) The only way to fix this is by using MS's msi removal tool. see the following:
http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=243&highlight=spooky
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;290301 - skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0astrotrain, Paint.NET is open source too...
- daluu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In reply to some postings here:
>> It's Portable!
I'll have to test that out myself. I found a site with a download for it but haven't tested it. How can you possibly run without .NET installed when it's based on .NET? I can see that you might be able to run without install but it should still need .NET installed.
>> Why use this when I can just steal Photoshop.
Dude, that's unethical (why not just steal everything!). Now on the plus side, you can use Paint .NET at school & at work "legally/legitimately" for free, so your employer won't have to pay for it, nor will they get sued as in the case if someone finds a "cracked" copy you have at work (in which case you'd be in trouble too).
>> Too bad it uses the version 2 of .NET :(
Version 2.5 & previous run on .NET 1.1. Only version 2.6+ run on .NET 2.0. - 3recurring, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Pretty decent for the basics. Simple to use. Worth having. Simple as that :)
- Calimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Too bad it uses the version 2 of .NET :(
- fatso83, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It already runs on mono.
"Paint.NET has been a fantastic test case, it is made up of about 70,000 lines of C# code. Update: The port runs in Mono, without any external dependencies (no Wine for instance)." Miguel de Icaza stated this on the 26th of May. So there you go :)
Lookie, lookie: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19.html - Bigopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Snowknight26: I saw that too!!
"All I need is something comperable to Dreamweaver and I can be free of Adobe!!!"
Adobe bought Macromedia. Dreamweaver is now a product of "AdobeLabs". - seeSharp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I'm not saying Photoshop is not bloated. I'm saying C# is. As for it reserving resources, good for it. I'm a C++ programming not a .NET programmer and thus I can't comment directly on it but I've ran some pretty simple C# appications and they seem to just have trouble rendering the widget."
As a professional C# developer (having been one since the .NET framework was in beta) and having written well over a hundred commercial applications with C#.Net, I have not seen .NET have a problem rendering any "widget." Perhaps you failed to tell us you had coded a ton of GDI+ stuff into this "widget?" If that is the case, yes, it will render more slowly but at an acceptable rate nonetheless. Perhaps we are seeing the old "C++ is better than C#" snobbery just as we catch ourselves looking down our noses at VB6 developers..LOL. Microsoft has done a tremendous job with .NET 2.0, it's nice to have partial classes now. Using .NET 2.0 allows me crank out applications for my customers faster than ever and this IS important as my customers are asking for more and more.
Anyway, Paint.NET 2.6 is awesome...and like skizatch said, it's nice on my 64-bit Windows machine. Perhaps Microsoft will do something like it in Windows eventually, maybe even integrate Cropper as well. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would refer those who think the .NET platform lacks in memory management and performance to an article from a couple days ago about the performance of different languages. If you check it out, you'll see C# is always in the top 10 languages in terms of memory, and in the top 5 in terms of speed.
- cresquin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Go Cougs!
- skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yay full 64-bit support :)
- serion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0been using this for some time now. works great for simple image correction.
- Snowknight26, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone notice one of the layer's names?
"o rly?"
Heh. - cantaclaro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Why use this when I can just steal Photoshop.
- burningheretic6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a fantastic program. It has a much better interface then gimp.
- dracula7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wasnt this runningggggg on origami in that vid?... maybe
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is