Paint.NET

  • Thread starter Thread starter VH
  • Start date Start date
Roger said:
System Requirements
600MHz processor (800MHz recommended)
128MB RAM (256MB recommended)
Windows XP SP1 or newer (all editions)
.NET Framework 1.1
Click to expand...

Gave it a test run. It's still a bit basic, but looks as though it has
potential. The only thing it has that other freeware doesn't, GIMP
excepted, is layers, but you can't move them. Aside from that, not much
more than Paint with a hand full more file type support. I'd say give it a
pass for now. Again, it *does* look as though it has potential. Absolutely
worth keeping an eye peeled for future versions.
 
Tim said:
pass for now. Again, it *does* look as though it has potential. Absolutely
worth keeping an eye peeled for future versions.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will probably be mature about when .NET reaches 1.8 or 1.9.

Sorry, I just have a problem with this whole .NET dependency thing. It
gives me the creeps and reeks of "constant upgrades" to me.
 
Atomhrt said:
Yes, it will probably be mature about when .NET reaches 1.8 or 1.9.

Sorry, I just have a problem with this whole .NET dependency thing. It
gives me the creeps and reeks of "constant upgrades" to me.
Click to expand...

The functionality has nothing to do with .NET, it's just not a mature
product, yet.
 
Tim Weaver said:
Gave it a test run. It's still a bit basic, but looks as though it has
potential. The only thing it has that other freeware doesn't, GIMP
excepted, is layers,
Click to expand...

Pixia has layers, and works (very well) in all windows versions.
but you can't move them. Aside from that, not
much more than Paint with a hand full more file type support. I'd say
give it a pass for now.
Click to expand...

I use win 98 so I couldn't try it anyhow.
It would be nice if people who announce new programs which need very
special System Requirements would tell us about it, so that people who do
not have that special version of windows, plus the dot net framework,
would know about it.
 
It would be nice if people who announce new programs which need very
special System Requirements would tell us about it, so that people who do
not have that special version of windows, plus the dot net framework,
would know about it.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I saw the requirement for XPSP1 but was not sure how hard a
requirement that is but don't have a non-XP machine to test. Usually
the programs fall into 9x vs 2K/XP, so I was going to test on a W2K
machine at work.
 
VH said:
Sorry. I saw the requirement for XPSP1 but was not sure how hard a
requirement that is but don't have a non-XP machine to test. Usually
the programs fall into 9x vs 2K/XP, so I was going to test on a W2K
machine at work.
Click to expand...

This annoys me. People complain about not posting specs when all they have
to do is read the site. If somebody isn't willing to put in the effort to
even pull up the site, screw them. It's good to post specs, but if they're
not in the post, don't complain.
 
Tim said:
The functionality has nothing to do with .NET, it's just not a mature
product, yet.
Click to expand...

I did not see your name on the developers list. How do you know if there
is not some functionality that is not dependent on .NET properties or
methods that might change over time?
 
Atomhrt said:
I did not see your name on the developers list. How do you know if
there is not some functionality that is not dependent on .NET
properties or methods that might change over time?
Click to expand...

Actually most of the functionality depends on .NET, however, it is not
absolutely tied to it. Looks to me like they've pretty much exhausted
the function list in the GDI+ library. I think what Tim was referring to
is that the application is not limited to .NET functionality, if they
wanted to add other things they could, regardless if it was a .NET
specific thing or not. It seems you don't exactly know what .NET is or
why it's here. Look into this and it will become clearer.
 
H-Man said:
Actually most of the functionality depends on .NET, however, it is not
absolutely tied to it. Looks to me like they've pretty much exhausted
the function list in the GDI+ library. I think what Tim was referring to
is that the application is not limited to .NET functionality, if they
wanted to add other things they could, regardless if it was a .NET
specific thing or not. It seems you don't exactly know what .NET is or
why it's here. Look into this and it will become clearer.
Click to expand...

Pleass don't try to lay that "you don't know" crap on me. I write .NET
apps. MS is always trying to tell us that we "don't know" and that they
know what's good for us. This difference in direction has been debated
over and over again.
 
Atomhrt said:
Pleass don't try to lay that "you don't know" crap on me. I write .NET
apps. MS is always trying to tell us that we "don't know" and that
they know what's good for us. This difference in direction has been
debated over and over again.
Click to expand...

I wasn't giving crap, just seemed based on your comment that you might
not have known, that's all. No offence intended. If you write .NET apps,
as do I, then you know that program functionality is not restricted by
the .NET version installed. Apps certainly can be added to and enhanced
as more gets added to the .NET environment, but features and function is
not strictly dictated by the .NET environment. That's my only point, and
I think that's all Tim was getting at. How mature a product feels has
painful little to do with the version of runtime installed. Sorry to
ruffle your feathers.
 
H-Man said:
I wasn't giving crap, just seemed based on your comment that you might
not have known, that's all. No offence intended. If you write .NET apps,
as do I, then you know that program functionality is not restricted by
the .NET version installed. Apps certainly can be added to and enhanced
as more gets added to the .NET environment, but features and function is
not strictly dictated by the .NET environment. That's my only point, and
I think that's all Tim was getting at. How mature a product feels has
painful little to do with the version of runtime installed. Sorry to
ruffle your feathers.
Click to expand...

No biggy and no problem. I appreciate the info.

Thanks
 
VH wrote:
Click to expand...

This annoys me. People complain about not posting specs when all they have
to do is read the site.
Click to expand...

< snip >

If people know the specs then they don't need to waste their time,
however short that is, to visit the site. If I had of known it was not
a '98 program I wouldn't have bothered going to the site myself. Added
to that people need to be online to check out the site. Many people
read news posts offline.

A bit of consideration for readers is often appreciated by readers.

Regards, John.
 
John said:
< snip >

If people know the specs then they don't need to waste their time,
however short that is, to visit the site. If I had of known it was not
a '98 program I wouldn't have bothered going to the site myself. Added
to that people need to be online to check out the site. Many people
read news posts offline.

A bit of consideration for readers is often appreciated by readers.
Click to expand...

Give me a list of software you want, I'll download everything, come to your
house and install it. Does that work for you? Would you like me to even
*use* the software for you, while I'm there, so you won't have to be
bothered by that, either? What else can I do to help you avoid a few pesky,
nay, *evil* mouse clicks?
 
Give me a list of software you want, I'll download everything, come to your
house and install it. Does that work for you? Would you like me to even
*use* the software for you, while I'm there, so you won't have to be
bothered by that, either? What else can I do to help you avoid a few pesky,
nay, *evil* mouse clicks?
Click to expand...
sometimes its easier to simply ignore the trolls, tim. :)

--
To err is human. To bleat is ovine. To bark is canine.

To forgive is divine. To oink is porcine. To purr is feline.

To moo is bovine. To howl is lupine. This list is assinine.
 
Back
Top