Paint.NET: The Anti-GIMP?

Arno contributes a link to Paint.NET, a free-of-charge raster-graphics program for Windows XP machines. "Quote: 'Paint.NET is image and photo manipulation software designed to be used on computers that run Windows XP. Paint.NET is jointly developed at Washington State University with additional help from Microsoft, and is meant to be a free replacement for the MS Paint software that comes with all Windows operating systems. The programming language used to create Paint.NET is C#, with GDI+ extensions.' It really seems like a nice tool. I definitely prefer its UI to GIMP's."

Mono.

[pete-classic]

Does it run on Mono? I'm being serious.

-Peter

MONO?

[jj110888]

So, um, isn't this the kind of thing we can run under mono without having to deal with wine regressions? Didn't M$ just help linux and windows users alike here by using .net?

.Net

[earthstar]

why does the name have .NET?
What are the features of .Net in paint

Little logic gap here

[abb3w]

designed to be used on computers that run Windows XP.

Indeed. Listed System Requirements: 600MHz processor (800MHz recommended), 128MB RAM (256MB recommended), Windows XP SP1 or later (all editions), .NET Framework 1.1. However...

meant to be a free replacement for the MS Paint software that comes with all Windows operating systems.

If the requirements are XP, it can only be a replacement for the MS Paint Software that comes with XP, not for the MS Paint Software for any other MS OS. Yes, I think I know what they mean; no, that's not what they said.

(Sorry, my mother was a retired English teacher.)

Windows 2000 port?

[Billly Gates]

I have .net installed on my system.

I can not afford photoshop and I would love a free graphics program that is fast, loads up quick like Xnview, has paint and image texturing functions. I could make some quick backgrounds for websites and 3d graphics programs that I am working on.

Photoshop is too fancy and the gimp is too slow and unusable on Windows.

here here

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%. From what I've seen, VERY few people actually use the GIMP for anything other than the occasional experiment to see if it has stopped sucking yet. I only had a brief look at this .NET program, but it already looks SIGNIFICANTLY better than the GIMP in almost every aspect.

Re:Here it comes.

[stupidfoo]

Speaking of nice features: the lasso-select in this thing is pretty kick ass. Does any other software have similar real time highlighting of the selected area for the lasso?

I was able to try it.

[AstroDrabb]

No this doesn't even come close to Gimp or Photoshop. It lacks many features and the biggest draw back is you can only work with _one_ image at a time. If you click "File -> Open in new windows", it spawns a whole new process, not just a new window. Each one of these processes take up around 40MB or so. Not very efficient IMO. I opened two small PNG's that were only 640x480 and it resulted in two separate processes totaling 80MB.

I will stick with GIMP or Photoshop thanks. Maybe this program will mature in time and I wish the best to the development team. It may sound like I am being harsh and I apologize for that. But this whole topic came off very trollish to Me.

Re:sad to say, but GIMP does lack

[blair1q]

You know what, though?

I can't find it anywhere.

In the past couple of days, I've been in a Best Buy, and CompUSA, and a Fry's Electronics, and I can't find a single box that says "Photoshop" on it. Not even in the locked cases.

Probably just a retail anomaly, but you'd think that the most popular and feature-rich image editing software would be stocked in quantity in at least one of three competing stores within four miles of each other.

Unless for some reason, its reputation is overhyped...

Re:here here

[picklepuss]

same here

Except, I'm starting to use the GIMP even more than Photoshop lately. I guess I'm just getting more comfortable with it.

I still don't understand why everyone has so many problems with the interface. Makes me think people are just re-hashing old horror stories from before 2.0. To me it behaves just like any other application.

Anti-Gimp?

[p0rnking]

What actually makes this "Anti-Gimp"?
If it's to be Anti-Anything, it would probably be more along the lines of Anti-Paintshop Pro ...
Just because a project was done with the help of M$, it doesn't mean that there is some *nix app that they are targetting ... afterall, what is Gimp? It's more like an Anti-Photoshop.
Also, look at M$ Paint? It's a useless "paint" program that hasn't changed since it was first release ... this would make a great replacement

after a quick look...

[Atilla]

ok, so.....

layer support sucks. only very few basic layer modes.

to work on multiple images, you basically have to start another instance of the program. functional but not efficient.

it is incredibly slow. i'm running it on a 1.8 GHz P4, 1 gig of RAM. I apply an effect on a decent size image, and go get a cup of coffee.

oh, try the "re-color" tool, if you've got nothing to do for a while.

can't get anti-aliasing to work right.

interface flickers quite a bit as you navigate through the menus. not critical, but rather annoying.

color picker does not display the color in hex, which makes it harder to use for web graphics.

on a good note, the interface is vaguely familiar to the ubiquitous and expensive software that we all love so much.

how is this anti-GIMP, anyways? it's not cross-platform, it's quite a bit slower, and is targeted at a totally different audience. I agree that it's better than MS Paint, but shit, MS Paint should have been retired years ago.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Here it comes.

[Rei]

Gimp didn't take me hours to learn - once you figure out the whole right-click thing, what's so difficult? Honestly, while it seems that the slashdot moderators despise it (based on how every article about Gimp or another graphics tool is headlined), I love Gimp's interface, and will give people who use Photoshop a run for their money any day in photoediting contests (my main use of Gimp).

Now, learning scripting did take hours and I'm still not that great at it, but that's kind of expected.

Re:Here it comes.

[antiMStroll]

You're preference is an interface that looks like Windows 3.1 or Word 2? I don't understand this permanent woody for boxes in boxes, the non-Photoshop world abandonded that GUI a decade ago.

Re:Here it comes.

[budgenator]

Considering that the basic keybindings are the same for GIMP as for Photoshop, anyone who complains that it took hours to learn GIMP, have not only not learned GIMP, but haven't learned photoshop either.
I would find it quite amuseing to watch you be the tar out of them after switching programs.

Re:A replacement for MS Paint

[dhakbar]

The real problem with the gimp interface is that 90% of everyone who tries it out for the first time gives up on it the first time. It's a convoluted mess of menus and submenus, none of which are properly labeled or intelligently sorted. Yes, you can learn to use the gimp interface. No, it is not intuitive or elegant.

It might be true that there is no interface that fits everybody, but the gimp interface may as well not fit anybody.

IF we want a decent comparison....

[tdhillman]

...then actually getting our hands on the piece of software is an absolute essential.

The Gimp does have an abysmal user interface, BUT, that interface must be seen in connection with the OS you are using. On OpenBSD it makes perfect sense. As you go on using it, you learn to deal with its oddities.

More when I can actually get my hands on Paint.Net.

Most interesting though is that Microsoft actually has some hand in aiding the creation of this software. If so, does that give us any indication that Microsoft might actually try to go after sections of the user market that are already ceded to other vendors?

What happens if Microsoft suddenly embraces Open Source development for its products? Given the level of piracy that abounds, they might get a better handle on some profit by transferring from a product based to service based model. Hm.

Re:here here

[colmore]

GIMP's interface is the leading travesty in open source desktop software.

Re:A replacement for MS Paint

[EvanED]

I don't mind most of the interface, but the fact that you have like 3 or 4 windows open on average and they aren't connected is a HUGE frustration for me. Raising one window should raise them all; I don't want to go have to click on several windows in order to do work. Similarily minimize and restore should work on all the windows at once.

The multiple windows isn't what bothers me, but it's done shittily. Visual Basic pre-version 5 had a similar interface, but IIRC (it's been a while) it worked. Why? Because the main window, with the menus and toolbar, was the only one to show up in the task bar, controlled the other windows, etc.

Mainstream GIMP

[KillerLoop]

A GIMP frontend that mimicks Photoshop (or almost any other image editing software), and I'd wager that you see GIMP on a hella lot of desktops in a rather short time.

GIMP is an outstanding product completely and utterly crippled by its user interface. There may be a few fans and supporters out there, but the sheer fact that GIMP hasn't taken over yet (despite it's almost feature completeness) should end this argument.

Re:"GIMP is also not meant to be like Photoshop"

[oftheapes]

i would love to ask BigSven, what in particular they don't see worth lifting from photoshop. why is this taboo? are they admiting they'll never be able to do half of what adobe does?

I suppose a better question would be how complete is complete?
Aside from anything they couldn't possibly accomplish without licensing tech from a third party (PANTONE, a ton of filters) I see very little in Photoshop that shouldn't be a de facto standard option in any photo/image editing program, which is what GIMP paints itself as. maybe they're only shooting for mediocrity, but GIMP has a LONG way to go before i would say that it's really useful for much of anything more than removing red-eye.

Re:See the trap?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see several interesting things here. Note how they had to use a GDI+ 'extension'?

GDI+, the graphics subsystem in Windows XP that is also freely downloadable for previous Windows versions. What is your point, exactly?

And someone is reporting sluggishness anyway, even on hardware that is fairly new.

It's working fine for me. Just because "someone" says something on Slashdot doesn't make it universal. I have a feeling you're looking for things to support a prejudgment you've already made without even trying the software yourself.

Tells me .net suffers from Java's Disease along with any other emulated environment and that the move to add in native hooks is already well underway.

When Longhorn is released, there will be an entirely new .NET-based graphics subsystem that will also be downloadable for previous versions of Windows.

And of course it is in Microsoft's interest to make sure that .NET is 'multiplatform' in the hype but Windows only in practice.

If it bothers you that .NET isn't multiplatform, go sign up with the Mono project and get cracking. Microsoft has made all the specs publicly available.

Let this be an object lesson for all you Mono fetishists, .net and all it's works are nothing but a trap for the unwary. And will never live up to the hype anymore than Java did, although there is now hope for Java to become useful by jetisoning the emulation and making it just another object oriented language that GCC will grind down to ELF executables.

Seems to me .NET has already surpassed the hype given to it. Apparently you're not paying attention to the programming job market right now. The next version of Windows will even be entirely .NET based and replace Win32, so expect the movement to take full effect. Microsoft is just prepping people by spreading the word early and releasing PDC alphas. The reason .NET is succeeding where Java failed is that .NET is quite simply much more open than Java. Microsoft paid attention to Sun's mistakes and even went to the ECMA to publish everything. Mono exists because of .NET's openness. And you can use any language you want that compiles to .NET IL code, not just Java.

I don't get the fear of progress I see so much in the OSS world. What is amazing is that a simple paint program has, in two semesters, already surpassed the years of work of the Gimp in both interface and ease of use. Something tells me that when Mono fully matures, we'll see an explosion of high-quality apps with great interfaces and actual usability--something sorely missing from today's Linux desktop.

Re:Here it comes.

[kaffiene]

Yeah right, that's hilarious! You obviously know nothing about hollywood. The Mac is still the number one tool and Photoshop is still the number one professional image editor.

You obviously know nothing about Film Gimp (now Cinepaint):

http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/

I snipped some of the projects film Gimp has been used for:

Rhythm & Hues: Harry Potter, Cats & Dogs, Dr. Dolittle 2, Little Nicky, Grinch, Sixth Day, Stuart Little, and Planet of the Apes

Sony Pictures Imageworks: Stuart Little II

Hammerhead: Showtime, Blue Crush and 2 Fast, 2 Furious

Flash Film Works: Duplex, The Last Samurai

Computer Cafe: League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Amalgamated Pixels: Elf, Looney Tunes

And film gimp is software, not hardware - so your Macophile comments are pointless (Cinepaint/Gimp runs on OSX as well)

Please gain clues before posting next time.

Re:A replacement for MS Paint

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't get it. Why don't they make 2 interface? Or 3?

If Gimp is well designed, the GUI (view) should be well seperated from the graphical manipulations (model). Making a second view on the same model shouldn't be too much trouble.

I can't imagine making an interface is that much work, compared to coding graphical manipulations.

I bet I'd make a better interface in java in about a month. Only problem is I don't know enough about GUI's in C/C++ or I'd try it.

NT?

[Captain_Chaos]

Can someone explain to me why this won't run on Windows NT 4.0, despite the fact that I have the .NET framework 1.1 installed? This .NET business was supposed to be write once, run anywhere (as long as it's Microsoft), right? How can there be Windows XP dependencies in a .NET program, as long as you have the appropriate version of the runtime?