The GIMP Now Has a Working Single-Window Mode 403
An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix is reporting that The GIMP now has a working single-window mode, a long desired feature by the open-source graphics community to be more competitive with Adobe Photoshop. There's also a number of other user highlights in the new GIMP 2.7.3 release. The GPLv3 graphics software can be downloaded at GIMP.org."
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, cool, so they don't want to use it? Good deal! I guess we can stop porting their shitty 1980's UI and window management models to it now, then, can't we? Can we just rip this fucking single-window crap right back out and put the GIMP back the way GIMP users use it, and not the way a handful of Photoshop dilettantes keep saying the GIMP *should* be so they can switch?
Re:That's development release (Score:1, Insightful)
Does it now include effect layers and better text support?
I remember playing with Gimp in 1998, and in many ways it just hasn't moved forward UI-wise. It will be interesting to see how, err, gimped this single-window UI is.
Working on the right features, I see (Score:4, Insightful)
Wake me up when I can finally use 16, 32 or 64 bits per channel, and the channels aren't restricted to RGBA or integers ...
Re:to be competitive (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I consider it very intuitive. Maybe it's because I've not been trained by Photoshop, and thus don't confuse "it works like Photoshop" with "it is intuitive".
But if they now have a Photoshop-like MDI interface, maybe they can undo some negative changes in the multi-window interface (like, add back the main menu to the tools window and don't force an otherwise useless image window without an image to be open just to have the main menu available). The Photoshop-UI-lovers can just use the MDI interface.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Screenshot? (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think a story about a major UI change would come with a screenshot or something...
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am saying that the Photoshop users clamoring for GIMP to be like this and GIMP to be like that are the dabblers, and don't represent the vast majority of Photoshop users, who as far as I can tell are happy with what they have and just have some work to get done.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the main reasons are: it's a recognizable brand, employers provide Photoshop for their employees, colleges have it in their labs, it supports most digital cameras' RAW formats, and everyone freakin' pirates it when they're studying photography or design or print media or whatever other visual art. Seriously, it's rampant. I know MANY people who pirated Adobe products and continued to use them in their careers. Basically, nobody ever paid for it except the odd one or two. I feel like the oddball, having actually purchased Photoshop CS rather than pirating it back when I was in college - my peers even made fun of me for it. "You mean you actually paid for that? Why didn't you just download it? I would have given you a copy." (Of course, mine actually worked properly, and theirs didn't always.) You'd think that would be something you could buy with your student loans, even though the 'student price' is still rather expensive for an average photo student.
GIMP is poised to be at least average in digital photo manipulation. It doesn't stand out as a shining example of technological achievement, but it's at least average.
Most digital photography goes straight to the Web, and you don't need CMYK for that. You need sRGB. If you're the one sending images to a printer, yes you want to handle CMYK. Once you profile your average photo printer, as long as you're outputting in the right color space - you should get really good results. CMYK is mostly of interest to electronic prepress: think books and newspapers. But your average photographer doesn't need that. They have a prepress department to handle the conversion and bit depth reduction. In fact, many printers and RIPs accept profiled RGB images these days, so converting to CMYK may or may not gain you anything in the end. Your mileage will most definitely vary.
Your point about HDR is valid. HDR has been the new hotness for years.
One thing Adobe products do well is decoding Camera RAW formats. That's a big deal, since you can slightly adjust your exposure post-shoot. Otherwise you have to either use 8-bit-per-channel JPEG, or pay the manufacturer for the full software. The 'lite' version usually comes with the camera but you can't do everything Adobe does. GIMP could really break into the market if they packaged UFRaw with the software.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the photoshop people still don't switch, because it doesn't have their favourite plugin.
Why does it have to be about switching?
As an experienced Photoshop user let me give you a little tip: Instead of trying get Photoshop users to switch, why not tantalize them with how it can be an additional tool in their toolbox?
Let's say, for example, that GIMP has an extra awesome macro-recording/playback capability that makes Photoshop look like a toy in comparison. (I don't know if this is the case or not so please forgive my ignorance.) If you were to say to me: "You can record a macro in GIMP, then apply this sophisticated set of rules to it that PS doesn't have, and easily set it up to run on all the files in a folder", then I'd go and try it out!
Take out the switching talk and you'll gain a lot more interest. Otherwise you're fighting this huge uphill battle where you have to take into account way too many things that are of importance. Then you'll sit there thinking Photoshop users are mindless fans that lack your vision when in reality you just haven't addressed their needs.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:to be competitive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's development release (Score:2, Insightful)
On Linux, the multiple-window thing is manageable - you just throw the Gimp windows on a separate desktop (maybe set the desktop background to something dull and grey, if you like). If you have it on the same desktop as other applications, you're going to have problems, because it's very easy to have some of the Gimp's windows at the front, while others are hidden behind other windows. You could work around that by making some of the windows always-on-top. It still sucks, but at least you can actually use the thing.
You have the same issues on Windows (focus problems, having loads of extra entries in the taskbar), but you can't really work around them as easily without additional software (that, generally, only Linux users would have).
It's also manageable on a Mac. You have Spaces, which are equivalent to virtual desktops, but you don't need them. Window management works a bit differently on a Mac - when you switch to an application (or an application's window), all of the windows associated with that application are bought to the front. You can't accidentally click on an icon in a background window either - clicking on a background window brings that application to the front, and nothing more. You've also got the application-level menu bar, and applications keep running even if they have no windows open.
The Mac version of Photoshop used to be multiple-window until CS3 or CS4. It worked just fine. Admittedly, their implementation was better than Gimp's, and the multiple-window thing works better on a Mac than it does on Windows (or Linux). I think they only changed it to be consistent with the Windows version. Pixelmator still has a multiple-window interface. So does Xcode, come to think of it.
I think the Gimp's problem wasn't really the multiple window thing. The problem was that their implementation sucked. There are plenty of things they could have done to make it more usable. They didn't do any of them.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, people wanting a single-window interface are just a tiny niche of users. No, wait, they're practically every graphic artist ever.
But sure, go ahead and keep things "the way GIMP users use it." All three of them.
Re:That's development release (Score:4, Insightful)
Otherwise how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?
The only reason to require single window mode is if your window manager is broken. If you're on UNIX, you can just get a wm that works. If you're on windows, you're screwed.
I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click.
So dedicate a virtual desktop to the multiple window version of the GIMP and maximize the image. You don't have to see anything you don't want to see.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:2, Insightful)