[Upd] Paint.NET v2.6 Final

[Sietse Fliege]

Paint.NET v2.6 Final released

Windows 2000, XP, Vista, or Server 2003
Requires .NET Framework 2.0

http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/

"Paint.NET is image and photo manipulation software designed to be used
on computers that run Windows 2000, XP, Vista, or Server 2003. It
supports layers, unlimited undo, special effects, and a wide variety of
useful and powerful tools

What's new in Paint.NET v2.6?

Upgraded to use .NET Framework 2.0
Full 64-bit support, for both x64 and Itanium systems
New "Curves" adjustment for editing an images color curves
Aesthetic improvements to the entire user interface
Better performance, especially for 64-bit systems
Help file is now available in German
Zooming, esp. with the mouse wheel, has been enhanced
Deployment via AD/GPO is now much easier (use /createMsi with
setup package)
Layers window list is no longer "upside down"
Rewritten layer composition engine is now mathematically correct,
and faster
Seven new layer blend modes: Color Burn, Color Dodge, Reflect,
Glow, Overlay, Negation, and Xor
Many other improvements and fixes"

 

[Bexko Nandu]

Paint.NET v2.6 Final released

Windows 2000, XP, Vista, or Server 2003
Requires .NET Framework 2.0

Don't use M$'s .NET!
We should boycott that crap!

Bexko Nandu

 

[Sietse Fliege]

Don't use M$'s .NET!
We should boycott that crap!

Au contraire, my little friend!
Do not use any of that crap that doesn't use the .NET Framework!
Goodbye!

 

[John Corliss]

Au contraire, my little friend!
Do not use any of that crap that doesn't use the .NET Framework!
Goodbye!

Sietse,
At this point (since I switched to XP Home SP2), I'm almost inclined
to install .net since XP is bloated with so much other unnecessary crap.
(I'm also planning to buy another hard drive and set up a good old
Millennium Edition on it.) However, I've heard the following:

1. There are two versions of .net, 1.1 and 2.0.

2. Version 2.0 is not entirely (if at all) backwards-compatible
with 1.1. That is to say, programs written to use 1.1 often or
never can run if only 2.0 is installed and vice-versa.

3. The two versions can coexist on one machine without, in and
of themselves, causing any problems.

4. Some programs that require .net have problems if the two versions
are both installed.

So, do you know if it's a good idea to install both versions and if not,
which should a person go with?

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc, for instance. No
adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware,
PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware,
viruses or warez for me, please.

 

[Sietse Fliege]

Sietse,
At this point (since I switched to XP Home SP2), I'm almost
inclined to install .net since XP is bloated with so much other
unnecessary crap. (I'm also planning to buy another hard drive and
set up a good old Millennium Edition on it.) However, I've heard the
following:

1. There are two versions of .net, 1.1 and 2.0.

2. Version 2.0 is not entirely (if at all) backwards-compatible
with 1.1. That is to say, programs written to use 1.1 often or
never can run if only 2.0 is installed and vice-versa.

3. The two versions can coexist on one machine without, in and
of themselves, causing any problems.

4. Some programs that require .net have problems if the two versions
are both installed.

So, do you know if it's a good idea to install both versions and if
not, which should a person go with?

John, unfortunately I know little about .NET, don't have it installed.

From what I understand, it is slow, being runtimes and because while
later Vista will support the .NET API "natively", now, on e.g. WinXP
..NET API calls need translation into the Win32 format.
Depending on what a program does, slowness is an issue for some
programs.

..NET is or can be called bloated, depending on how it will be used.
Like Windows XP can be called bloated by someone who only uses it for
email. While others do use all of its capabilities and need all the
services and can't believe that it takes Microsoft so long to come with
a newer version to add yet much more functionality and ease of use.
Like there is an unbelievably wide range in how an OS like Windows is
being used, there is also a very big difference between what the the
average user did with a computer say 5 years ago and what he is doing
now. I believe that .NET and how it is perceived reflects these things.

As for the versions issue. What I think I know about it:
There may be backwards problems, depending on the API calls.
Programmers often will be able to work around that provided they have
the knowhow and the time and the setup to work it out, which for
freeware may be somewhat more questionable The Paint.NET people
e.g. just were not sure about how their earlier version 2.5 would run
with .NET 2.0 and to be safe required that .NET 1.1 was installed even
if .NET 2.0 was already there.
These are also toothing problems and may become sorted out over time.
Like IMO the dll hell became much less of a problem over time.
Your #4 above surprises me, but what do I know?
I would prefer to have that info from multiple reliable sources.

With other redistributable packages, such as DirectX 9.0, you are
actually installing all the previous versions as well.
Installing .NET 2.0 does not install .NET 1.1, so indeed you have a
choice: one or the other or both (maybe even 1.0 as well?).

I really cannot advise, especially ofcourse lacking experience myself.

 

[John Corliss]

John, unfortunately I know little about .NET, don't have it installed.

From what I understand, it is slow, being runtimes and because while
later Vista will support the .NET API "natively", now, on e.g. WinXP
.NET API calls need translation into the Win32 format.
Depending on what a program does, slowness is an issue for some
programs.

.NET is or can be called bloated, depending on how it will be used.
Like Windows XP can be called bloated by someone who only uses it for
email. While others do use all of its capabilities and need all the
services and can't believe that it takes Microsoft so long to come with
a newer version to add yet much more functionality and ease of use.
Like there is an unbelievably wide range in how an OS like Windows is
being used, there is also a very big difference between what the the
average user did with a computer say 5 years ago and what he is doing
now. I believe that .NET and how it is perceived reflects these things.

As for the versions issue. What I think I know about it:
There may be backwards problems, depending on the API calls.
Programmers often will be able to work around that provided they have
the knowhow and the time and the setup to work it out, which for
freeware may be somewhat more questionable The Paint.NET people
e.g. just were not sure about how their earlier version 2.5 would run
with .NET 2.0 and to be safe required that .NET 1.1 was installed even
if .NET 2.0 was already there.
These are also toothing problems and may become sorted out over time.
Like IMO the dll hell became much less of a problem over time.
Your #4 above surprises me, but what do I know?
I would prefer to have that info from multiple reliable sources.

With other redistributable packages, such as DirectX 9.0, you are
actually installing all the previous versions as well.
Installing .NET 2.0 does not install .NET 1.1, so indeed you have a
choice: one or the other or both (maybe even 1.0 as well?).

I really cannot advise, especially ofcourse lacking experience myself.

Well, thanks for repying. As for number four, that was something I heard
in this group. Can't remember when or who said it though.

I am, though, dead serious about going back to ME. Compared to XP, it
was like being in heaven (at least the way I had it hammered into shape
was that way). And I've been using XP since December, so I've been using
it long enough to say that I've given it a reasonable chance.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc, for instance. No
adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware,
PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware,
viruses or warez for me, please.

 

[Sietse Fliege]

I am, though, dead serious about going back to ME. Compared to XP, it
was like being in heaven (at least the way I had it hammered into
shape was that way). And I've been using XP since December, so I've
been using it long enough to say that I've given it a reasonable
chance.

John, I guess there may be a long line of people who would want to tell
you that you need to go see a doctor.
You of course know that I wouldn't be anywhere in that line and would
strongly recommend to use whatever suits you most, whether ME or Linux
or whatever.

 

[ulf_honkanen]

I am, though, dead serious about going back to ME. Compared to XP, it was like being in heaven

Wow, you must be one of those users that gets a new brand Ferrari and
manages to find 5400 problems within seconds.

 

[John Corliss]

Wow, you must be one of those users that gets a new brand Ferrari and
manages to find 5400 problems within seconds.

I could itemize the reasons I will be doing this, but it would take too
much effort to compile.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc, for instance. No
adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware,
PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware,
viruses or warez for me, please.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

I could itemize the reasons I will be doing this, but it would

Be totally off-topic. Thought that doesn't usually stop you.

Hypocrite.