Graphics: Gimp 2.0...?

started by Necron on Apr 30, 2004 — RSS Feed

Necron Necron
Posts: 1

I happen to stumble buy this site though Slashdot when they posted an article about Gimp vs Adobe Photoshop related topic. After reading what I did my curiosity ran for loops as I visited your site to see the rest of the comments. I thought there where a couple things left out that should be mentioned.

1. the Gimp you saw is very different from the one I use so to speak, I have used it for web designing for about 1 month now - I from switched from Adobe. As for the images shown I dunno how they came out like that, If you would like to view a site that took a total of 30mins to make with Gimp 2.0 visit here:

http://weekendgaming.homeip.net

2. Never once did Gimp ever slow down for me, I made all the wallpapers in the wallpaper section in 1280x1024 a considerable size, as well as making them smaller on request.

Note, I do still use Adobe, but making the switch didnt seem that hard to me and I am no Guru (have had gentoo for about 1 month now), thats one thing for sure. I'm  just wondering if everything is majorly different in Mac from Linux from Windows...

- necron

F00fbug F00fbug
Posts: 2

I had to reply because having used photoshop since 1994 and the gimp since it appeared on the scene, I found the article here particularly interesting...

It is unfortunate and true that font support in X and especially in the Gimp is bad bad bad. To do anything serious with fonts, I have to go use Photoshop. To boot, the font situation on Apple platforms is so far superior to anything else that there are no other serious contenders. One is tempted to go Apple if not only for these reasons.

Unfortunately (for the writer) just about everything else he mentions is pretty unfounded. Slowness? Had none. Speed does not seem to be an issue  with the Gimp and heavy filtering, I have a feeling that problems he experienced may be cause by the way X runs on OSX, and god knows what. Frankly I have never noticed any speed issues when Gimp does a read on open. These may be related to the file system and state of fragmentation, if any, whatever. I've always marveled at how fast ext3 is on Linux compared to NTFS opening/writing large files.

Icons everywhere? Hm. dunno. I don't have them.

I find that the Gimp's architecture is actually very well done, and find the right click main menu to be a refreshing design item. It's a question of getting used to it and from an ergonomics point of view, once you get used to it, it's much faster than accessing menus bound to the top bar of your screen. The separate menu bar on the tools applet is different than what you're used to. Get over it.

I don't think the Gimp is ready yet for pre-press usage requiring calibration, or serious font work. But in the time it has been around, it has made very fast progress from its original form into something usable, whereas Photoshop suffers from feature creep and PRICE INCREASES as do many windows/apple based mature programs.

Never is a lack of professionalism more apparent than in these types of reviews, riddled with name calling, and obvious misunderstanding of basic computing issues, and especially unix-isms. But the author should just stop comparing Apple OSX to any Unix, for it's not. The author should learn a little more about how the open source processes can work.. therefore, his article could have been a little more valuable if a more serious research was done, so that comments could be constructive instead of just inflammatory -- he installed Gimp, it gave his left and right brain a workout he hasn't had for a while -- hell he should be thankful. I have a feeling some of the issues have to do with the packaging of Gimp by this VAR, archei, but this could improve if users helped with unemotional bug reports, as opposed to reviews based on little research.

There's another item that bears mentioning - you've just got to read the documentation in some cases. Depending on how your software is bundled you may not get an icon on your desktop for documentation - the Gimp is pretty well documented, with much information easily findable and available.

If you don't like this, start your own software company, and bundle documentation everywhere. Better yet, contribute some code to X, and the Gimp - improve things instead of bitching. Now that Apple is based partly on Unix, some packaging and philosophy from the other world is going to start creeping in. So either get used to it or switch to Windows.






Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528

f00fbug. You are so concerned with the details, that you completely miss the point. My review is of MacGimp 2.0 NOT The Gimp on Linux. It IS slow and clunky on a G5 Dual 2 Ghz. Have you tried that?

I don't need to research the Linux/UNIX platform to do a review of a program aimed at Mac users. It's totally irrelevant. All that matters is the standard of work it produces and the (Mac) users experience. As far as I can see, they are both much lower than I'm used to.

MacGimp 2.0 is not a tool for designers on the Mac platform who have a choice of many better ones - and don't have a problem with paying for them. In the end, they are tools-of-the-trade - resources, not expenses.

On Linux/UNIX, you don't have the choice of graphics programs. The concept of dragging and dropping a vector illustration from Illustrator into Photoshop and having it beautifully rendered is something you will probably never experience. If it costs $1000 to be able to do that, that's not a problem. The programs will pay for themselves within the first few days.

F00fbug F00fbug
Posts: 2

Hey Forum Admin,

I'll take your points under advisement.

We wish for the day on Linux when we can drag a vector drawing from one program into another like you say.

Fine, if you think I missed the point.

If your review was supposed to be such an honest evaluation of the user "experience" why all the unnecessary digs at OSS, Gimp, etc? I don't think you tried very hard, frankly, to write a thorough reveiw, you made no effort to familiarize yourself with the Gimp by checking out the documentation.

Unnecessary, unproductive, unprofessional, and ultimately disinterested in true progress. It's hard to take your review very seriously.

Yes, to write a review for Mac users, you should have a look at how the Gimp works on other platforms. There's a very good chance it's misconfigured on your OSX platform, installed incorrectly or in a suboptimal manner, or you just aren't proficient enough to identify, correct, and retest what you're talking about. I think you just wanted to write a scathing review - which I admit, is fun. But of no serious help to anyone.





Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528

Must I repeat again, I reviewed MacGimp 2.0. If you haven't tried it yourself then how can you possibly have a view???

How the Gimp works on other platforms is totally irrelevant to Mac users. I did not review The Gimp. I did not review Linux. Have a look at MacGimp 2.0 and make your own judgement - but I bet you won't!

Eugenia Eugenia
Posts: 2

Joe (the Forum Admin)  is 1000% right.
Gimp just doesn't/can't do what PS does. And if that convienience --indeed-- costs $1000, then it does worth its money, and it WILL pay back within a few days.

Here another example:
My husband is a software developer, and everyone in his company uses Rational's Purify. While Purify is hideously expensive per copy, if it is able to track for the developer ONE bug or ONE memory leak per day or per 2-3 days even, it has ALREADY paid back its money in the FIRST WEEK of using it! Why? Because tracking memory leaks "by hand" can take from a 1 hour to 100 hours, depending on the complexity. And my husband's rate is $70 per hour.  Now, you do the math, and figure out how A GOOD (or even simply a "just better" than another one) tool CAN save you money.

In this case, Photoshop not only saves you time, not only has a better quality, not only it's faster but it has features that Gimp doesn't. It doesn't matter if the Gimp for Linux is "a bit better than MacGimp, if you install this and that, and if you use XFT2 etc etc". The time required to setup all that crap up, it just doesn't worth its t ime for a professional. TIME is MONEY in business dear.

Hallski Hallski
Posts: 1

First of all, I'm a Linux user who develops and uses the GNOME desktop and has for several years. I've never tested Gimp on Mac OSX but I have on Linux/GNOME.

I think the review touched a lot of good points even though I personally would have left out the part about Open Source since it was not really relevant and had nothing to do with the subject. I personally found that part a bit irritating myself since there isn't a direct connection between being open source and "being served up a dead chicken".

As I said I haven't tested the Gimp on Mac OSX but I can agree with the frustration of using applications that doesn't fit into the platform. I personally don't think the Gimp fits very well into GNOME either, that is a problem with most applications targetting multiple platforms.

I agree that testing the Gimp on Linux would have made absolutely no sense since it was compared to Photoshop on Mac OSX.

Temsa Temsa
Posts: 3

Hi

I often use the Gimp, both under Windows or Linux, and  I haven't any problem with font in Gimp for at least 3 or 4 years.

Could you give me an example of a *good quality* line? I may do some patch to correct the *poor quality* of the gimp one ( I've already done some little patchs for Gimp ) .

(This is a big difference with Photoshop... if something is wrong, you can correct it )

And the quality of fonts under gimp isn't a problem (they are all antialiased both under Windows and Linux)

Anther question: why using MacGimp instead of Gimp ? Why paying "$29.95 download, $49.95 physical - Mac OSX" instead of just downloading Gimp2 on http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/ (URL provided by http://gimp.org/macintosh/ , the official website!)... and please stop call it Gimp if it's MacGimp(there may be some few differences, but The Gimp is totaly free) !

For the help problem, I've got it both under Windows and Linux, and even if you haven't  got it, just do a "gimp documentation" on google (difficult, isn't it?)and you'll get it!

I think you haven't really tried the software... you've just clicked on 2 tools and closed it ...

Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528



Could you give me an example of a *good quality* line? I may do some patch to correct the *poor quality* of the gimp one ( I've already done some little patchs for Gimp ) .


Have a look at Quartz. That's now the benchmark for Mac users. Why accept less?



And the quality of fonts under gimp isn't a problem (they are all antialiased both under Windows and Linux)


There are many qualities of anti-aliasing. Photoshop has four for type. Sharp, Crisp, Strong and Smooth - not to forget None which is essential for pixel fonts. Then there's the question of kerning and font metrics. I don't see any evidence of sub-pixel hinting even in the Linux setting, the letter spacing is far from what a graphic designer would accept.


Anther question: why using MacGimp instead of Gimp ? Why paying "$29.95 download, $49.95 physical - Mac OSX" instead of just downloading Gimp2 on http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/ (URL provided by http://gimp.org/macintosh/ , the official website!)...


I think the answer to that is 'utter confusion' - which seems to be par for the course as someone else pointed out earlier. I have no idea what this stuff means. After the first two lines I'm lost in terminology that is totally meaningless to me and, I suspect, any other graphic designer.


For the help problem, I've got it both under Windows and Linux, and even if you haven't  got it, just do a "gimp documentation" on google (difficult, isn't it?)and you'll get it!


Is it too much to ask when you pay $29 for an installer that you get a read me file telling you where to start? When the company provides an email address for 'support' and then doesn't answer, what do you think?


I think you haven't really tried the software... you've just clicked on 2 tools and closed it ...


You 'think' that do you? Before commenting on what I said, try MacGimp for yourself. Then if you say that you disagree, fine. Personally, I think I've done the Mac community a service by warning them off - in fact I've had several emails to that effect already.

Temsa Temsa
Posts: 3

Forum said:


Have a look at Quartz. That's now the benchmark for Mac users. Why accept less?



That was not the question... could you send me at least a screenshot of a *good line* ?

I can code something, but I haven't access to an apple plateform (at least for doing this!) so I need something to view the result you want to have (an image, a screenshot,...)!

I may not do it by my self, but I'll do at least a enhancement request on the bugzilla.


There are many qualities of anti-aliasing. Photoshop has four for type. Sharp, Crisp, Strong and Smooth - not to forget None which is essential for pixel fonts.

OK, same as above, provide me some example (in image please) and I'll purpose it on the bugzilla (at least). If you have any explanation of how each AA method works it would even be better .

Then there's the question of kerning and font metrics. I don't see any evidence of sub-pixel hinting even in the Linux setting, the letter spacing is far from what a graphic designer would accept.

hmmm a subpixel hinting is just for displaying, no(do you want subpixel hinting in your image??? it would be bizarre on some kind of screens...)?
If it's only for displaying it can certainly be enable as it uses freetype and this library purpose subpixel hinting (with a lot of different modes)!


I think the answer to that is 'utter confusion' - which seems to be par for the course as someone else pointed out earlier. I have no idea what this stuff means.
After the first two lines I'm lost in terminology that is totally meaningless to me and, I suspect, any other graphic designer.


I haven't understood where you are lost...


Is it too much to ask when you pay $29 for an installer that you get a read me file telling you where to start? When the company provides an email address for 'support' and then doesn't answer, what do you think?


Ok for macgimp, I totally agree with you. But I think MacGimp is just a commercial exploitation of The Gimp... In fact they don't provide anything but a selling version of the gimp... out of the box!


You 'think' that do you? Before commenting on what I said, try MacGimp for yourself. Then if you say that you disagree, fine. Personally, I think I've done the Mac community a service by warning them off - in fact I've had several emails to that effect already.


Yes, I think that, first when I looked at the notes that you gave to it, and then when I read your comments!
you've said things like that:


When I got used to the fact that the 'open' dialog wouldn't show me any of my 'ordinary' Mac folders or anything in my 'files' hard drive I started thinking 'UNIX' and moved some photos into folders where they could be accessed. UNIX has this wonderful habit of trying to protect users from their own stupidity without recognising its own.


I agree with you, the file dialog is not adapted to your OS (I've encountered that kind of thing with gimp/windows), but Mac OS X is an UNIX, so your "thinking UNIX" has no sense!

You've also said:

'Open source' means that the source code is available at no cost to anybody that wants to download it, use it, modify it, use it to fill empty hard drives – whatever. The point is that it is not a ready to roll program, it has to be 'compiled' before it can be used - think of it as 'ready to cook' rather than 'ready to eat'.


You're totally wrong about  what 'Open Source' mean!
At least correct this in your review! Most of the free software (do not confuse with freeware) and  Open Sources Software are downloadable in a binary form (check  http://mozilla.org for example: camino may interest you). and the source access allow the user to enhance hisself the software.

PS: I agree with you on one thing: it can be very slow to load images (I've made a JPEG2000 loader for myself, and it's really _slow_ to load a 1024*768 image --it must be because I'm not a gimp-architecture-guru-- compared to other software using the same librarie).

Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528

I haven't understood where you are lost...

I think that is the problem. Lack of understanding of people who have talents in areas other than computer programming. In your own little world you can not see the bigger picture so I'm going to shout this out.

[red]There are people who get no pleasure and have no intentions of messing around with command lines or computer code.[/red]

Right. Now that I've made that point. I'm quite happy to send you examples of line and type quality off-list.

I complained to Adobe about the drop of quality of anti-aliasing in Photoshop 5.0. I showed them examples of type setting done in version 4 and version 5. They listened. They even thanked me. In Photoshop 5.5, there were the four font smoothing options. They are necessary because of the many different styles of type. The same anti-aliasing will not work for a hairline typeface as a bold one. The anti-aliasing on a small type size should not be the same as for a large one. An italic font has a completely different requirement depending on stroke thickness. If FreeType does the job for you, it doesn't for me by a long way.

I have no idea what the programming techiques used to do this are. Why should I? You don't have to know how an engine works to drive a car. You don't need a degree in electronics to use a digital camera. Conversely, being a car mechanic doesn't make you a better driver and being an electronics engineer does nothing for your photographic skills.

Now, draw me a picture of how to install Gimp.app on MacOX - without resorting to command line and I'll try it.

Infowolfe Infowolfe
Posts: 1

I really don't want to upset any Mac users because Apple Computer has such a rabid following. I'd like to clear some things up in regards to gimp vs photoshop.

Photoshop for Mac:  $649.00 or $169.00
Gimp: Free (as in beer and as in speech)

Photoshop: Years on the market, closed-source, tons of experience in Windows AND Mac development.
Gimp: Open Source, by UNIX geeks, for UNIX geeks.

Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges (pardon the pun).

The gist of what I have to say is this: I started on Mac (on an Apple IIe) and was SO excited when I started running QuarkXpress on an SE/30. since 1995, I've gained more Windows knowledge and have been an avid supporter of the linux community and open source development. I've been using linux as a primary operating system since about 1997. I am a geek. The Gimp was made for ME.

Just because the reviewer found problems with a piece of software that wasn't developed with him in mind doesn't make it bad software. In fact, just because your operating system is based on a bastardized Mach kernel doesn't mean you're a UNIX sysadmin. I've used the Gimp on IRIX, Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD and ALWAYS it performed as expected. I've used photoshop on Windows and on Mac. Did it perform well? Sure... I find the Gimp is more intuitive and more powerful for the things I use it for.  I guess that's just because I'm not the kind of guy that uses a pocketknife blade as a screwdriver. Oh, and before I get any snotty flames, I'd like you all to know, I do like Mac, they've got some really nice 64-bit hardware... (I'm too cheap to get a power4 or power5 IBM). What I don't like about Mac is that the users tend to be elitist when they aren't the poo like they think they are. Without the Open Source community, MacOS X (the only one that could have really been a wonderful operating system), wouldn't have ever been worthwhile. (see http://developer.apple.com/darwin/)

Anyway, my rant is over. I think the only real problem with the Macintosh are it's users. Which... was demonstrated perfectly by this particular review.

Qwan Qwan
Posts: 2

Hi,

A few comments with regard to this post. ( I haven't followed what went before, so apologize if i'm repeating things)

Forum said:

I complained to Adobe about the drop of quality of anti-aliasing in Photoshop 5.0. I showed them examples of type setting done in version 4 and version 5. They listened. They even thanked me. In Photoshop 5.5, there were the four font smoothing options. They are necessary because of the many different styles of type. The same anti-aliasing will not work for a hairline typeface as a bold one. The anti-aliasing on a small type size should not be the same as for a large one. An italic font has a completely different requirement depending on stroke thickness. If FreeType does the job for you, it doesn't for me by a long way.

I consder you quite fortunate - my dealings with comercial software companies are bad at best - never once have a received a useful peice of information from a helpdesk. On the other hand every open-source software query i've ever made involved several useful responses within a week.

I'd be very surprised if you provided the same info in an article on the newsgroup f you didn't get a decent and informative response.

Forum said:

I have no idea what the programming techiques used to do this are. Why should I? You don't have to know how an engine works to drive a car. You don't need a degree in electronics to use a digital camera. Conversely, being a car mechanic doesn't make you a better driver and being an electronics engineer does nothing for your photographic skills.

A minor contention on this point - You do need to operate a car to drive it, you need to know how to operate the camera to take  a picture (as I found out borrowing one recently) And you need to know how to operate the gimp to make it work.

Knowing how to make the gimp(or photoshop) work is certainly a prerequisite to using them effectively

Forum said:


Now, draw me a picture of how to install Gimp.app on MacOX - without resorting to command line and I'll try it.


http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/

I found the dig in the article "UNIX has this wonderful habit of trying to protect users from their own stupidity without recognising its own." to be a bit silly.

This is the opposite of what is usually the case, Apple (much to my annoyance sometimes) is the one that hides far to many implementation details, whereas most Unix apps expect you to know far to much before they become useful - they rarely protect users from details at all.

You are also talking about an application that has been written for  a copletely different toolkit and widget set, so a foreign open dialog shouldn't be too surprising. Did you complain when apple changed the design of the open file dialog from OS 9 to OS X?

Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528

Just because the reviewer found problems with a piece of software that wasn't developed with him in mind doesn't make it bad software.


The word 'design' means making something, anything, best suited for is purpose. Mac users expect their software to work in a particular way. Since 1984, the Mac has had a consistent, point and click interface. Installing a piece of software is a matter of clicking a button that says 'Ok' (or Cancel). At that time, every piece of software on other platforms had a different interface. The beauty of the Mac interface was that it was based upon the metaphor of a desktop. It had folders, files, a waste basket and a load of 'desk accessories' like a calculator, scrapbook, clipboard. All things that people take for granted these days. Ten years afterwards, Microsoft adopted a similar point and click interface and haven't looked back since. In 2004, some people are stiil making mediaeval magik incantation with command-lines. Why type a string of cryptic goobledegook when all you need to do is click a button that says 'Ok' and the little man inside the computer types all the stuff for you.

What is complicated about simplicity? Why is that with this huge pool of OS programmers across the world, none of them can see this?

When Adobe or Macromedia bring out a piece of cross platform software, they make sure that the Windows version says 'Exit' and the Mac version says 'Quit' and that the appropriate Command-C gives 'Cut' on a Mac and Control-C gives 'Cut' for Windows users. etc. etc.

That is good design because it puts the users first. Attention to such detail makes all the difference between a 'good' (and successful) tool and one which isn't.

To take a program with a completely different set of rules and serve it up for Mac users - no matter how acceptable it is for Linux user - is not my idea of logic, it is laziness and misguided by any standard.

When I get into a car, I expect the stearing wheel to be on the right and almost without exception, cars in the UK have stearing wheels on the right. I also expect the accelerator to be at my right foot and the brake at the left. Luckily, car manufacturers the world over respect these conventions. Why should I expect less from the software I use to make my living?

So, if the advocates of Gimp want to impress me, they will have to cater for my standards in terms of 'user experience' and in terms of output quality. And really, this thing about 'free' is neither here nor there. I could live in a cardboard box for free by I prefer to live in comfortable home and pay the price.

Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528

I found the dig in the article "UNIX has this wonderful habit of trying to protect users from their own stupidity without recognising its own." to be a bit silly.


Okay, consider this. I have a lock on the street door of my house but there are no locks on any of the interior doors.

My computer is in a room in my house and inaccessible to anyone but me. Why do I need 'permissions' to do anything I want on my own computer. I can appreciate that there are many situations where is is necessary to protect files on a computer but *I* don't need it yet the UNIX underpinning on MacOSX forces me to have it whether I want it or not. That, to me is dumb because it disregards my needs.


Then, consider this...

sudo periodic daily
sudo periodic weekly
sudo periodic monthly

and...



Which is the more elegant solution? More importantly, why is it necessary at all because if UNIX didn't make the mess in the first place, it wouln't need to clean it up. I don't need this. Some people might but I can't switch it off.


You are also talking about an application that has been written for  a copletely different toolkit and widget set, so a foreign open dialog shouldn't be too surprising. Did you complain when apple changed the design of the open file dialog from OS 9 to OS X?

Yes, I did, I hated it and so did thousands of others and now it has been fixed. When I look back at Mac software in the last 20 years, there haven't been too many that didn't conform to the Mac *human* interface guidelines. Sure, they have been a few mavericks but they fell by the wayside. What I can say is that all the *successful* software on the Mac platform conforms to the Mac interface guidelines. Surely you can see the moral of the story?

Sysdaemon Sysdaemon
Posts: 3

Greetings

When Adobe or Macromedia bring out a piece of cross platform software, they make sure that the Windows version says 'Exit' and the Mac version says 'Quit' and that the appropriate Command-C gives 'Cut' on a Mac and Control-C gives 'Cut' for Windows users. etc. etc.


Adobe and Macromedia write their software again to port it into MacOSX, Gimp is coded using GTK and all you need to make it work is a GTK port in your system.
Now, it quite normal for me that all GTK applications  behave the same way under windows, linux, Mac OSX, BSD or whatever your're running in your machine...

Which is the more elegant solution? More importantly, why is it necessary at all because if UNIX didn't make the mess in the first place, it wouln't need to clean it up. I don't need this. Some people might but I can't switch it off.

Unix doesn't mess anything...get some Operating System courses.


My computer is in a room in my house and inaccessible to anyone but me. Why do I need 'permissions' to do anything I want on my own computer. I can appreciate that there are many situations where is is necessary to protect files on a computer but *I* don't need it yet the UNIX underpinning on MacOSX forces me to have it whether I want it or not. That, to me is dumb because it disregards my needs.

How long have you been A Macintoy luser??? Do you you remember the crashes because of their poor OS desing?? Do you remember people used to call it Macintrash, Macintoy and Bloated Machintosh ???? I do, so never forget this. Unix took you out of the dog pound and make you a pretty dalmatian.


Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528

Adobe and Macromedia write their software again to port it into MacOSX, Gimp is coded using GTK and all you need to make it work is a GTK port in your system.
Now, it quite normal for me that all GTK applications  behave the same way under windows, linux, Mac OSX, BSD or whatever your're running in your machine...


GTK, never heard of it. If it can't run Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign, FontLab/Bitfonter, Quickeys and OmniOutliner, it's of no interest to me whatsoever because that what I use.

Unix doesn't mess anything...get some Operating System courses.

Don't need them, I've got a life, thank you.

How long have you been A Macintoy luser Do you you remember the crashes because of their poor OS desing?? Do you remember people used to call it Macintrash, Macintoy and Bloated Machintosh ? I do, so never forget this. Unix took you out of the dog pound and make you a pretty dalmatian.


Mmm. Need I say more?

Sysdaemon Sysdaemon
Posts: 3


GTK, never heard of it. If it can't run Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign, FontLab/Bitfonter, Quickeys and OmniOutliner, it's of no interest to me whatsoever because that what I use.


GTK stands for Gimp Toolkit and is something like your Cocoa (i hope you know what Cocoa is) but it has been ported to many platforms. GTK is also the foundation for the GNOME Desktop (heard of this?). I don't know if there are versions of Adobe products for Linux (I'm sure there are Corel's) but if there are they will surely work. If you like Adobe products then be happy with them and stay out of Gimp (if we like Europe why go to find America in the west).


Don't need them, I've got a life, thank you


Yeah amoebas got a life too inside a little Petri box.

Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528


GTK stands for Gimp Toolkit and is something like your Cocoa (i hope you know what Cocoa is)


I've heard of Cocoa but I don't know what it is and I don't think that I really need to know.


but it has been ported to many platforms. GTK is also the foundation for the GNOME Desktop (heard of this?).


Err, no. Why should I? Is it relevant in to me any way?


I don't know if there are versions of Adobe products for Linux (I'm sure there are Corel's) but if there are they will surely work.


'Working' is not enough. They have to work together, seamlessly and with all the other programs and hardware in the workflow regardless of the manufacturer. They have to be able to communicate with each other at system level - AppleEvents does a pretty good job of that. How would you get 220 bitmaps from Photoshop into Fontlab, vector traced and output as a Truetype and Type 1 for for Mac and Windows in less than a minute with all the operating systems you have?


If you like Adobe products then be happy with them and stay out of Gimp


Actually, I had come to that conclusion myself but I'm sure your warning will be heeded elsewhere.


(if we like Europe why go to find America in the west).


I'm sorry, the meaning of this comment escapes me completely.

Sysdaemon Sysdaemon
Posts: 3


Err, no. Why should I? Is it relevant in to me any way?


You never know. First Apple bases his new system in a Open Source Unix, next more and more of its applications are based in open source (the web browser you're uses a open source engine) and someday Apple offers GNOME or KDE as an alternative to his desktop enviroment.

'Working' is not enough. They have to work together, seamlessly and with all the other programs and hardware in the workflow regardless of the manufacturer. They have to be able to communicate with each other at system level - AppleEvents does a pretty good job of that. How would you get 220 bitmaps from Photoshop into Fontlab, vector traced and output as a Truetype and Type 1 for for Mac and Windows in less than a minute with all the operating systems you have


You certainly didn't read my post

(if we like Europe why go to find America in the west).

Just a bit of sarcasm, just think of some Mac lusers talking to Christopher Colombus before he ships to the New World.

Qwan Qwan
Posts: 2

Again I apologize for not  reading the thread - random samples seem pretty heated so i've ignored them.

Forum said:


Okay, consider this. I have a lock on the street door of my house but there are no locks on any of the interior doors.

My computer is in a room in my house and inaccessible to anyone but me. Why do I need 'permissions' to do anything I want on my own computer. I can appreciate that there are many situations where is is necessary to protect files on a computer but *I* don't need it yet the UNIX underpinning on MacOSX forces me to have it whether I want it or not. That, to me is dumb because it disregards my needs.


I take your point, but I dont thik it disregards user needs. By preventing access to directories your computer has some protection from applications you install, and a layer of insulation against worms. I write software, so appreciate the protection from my own programs when they go rogue. You should(?) apprecate the protection from proprietary products that use you as a debugging tool.

Forum said:


Then, consider this...

sudo periodic daily
sudo periodic weekly
sudo periodic monthly

and...



Which is the more elegant solution? More importantly, why is it necessary at all because if UNIX didn't make the mess in the first place, it wouln't need to clean it up. I don't need this. Some people might but I can't switch it off.

If the fix button had a ? button or a help button next to it that described _exactly_ what it was doing underneath then the button is  more elegant.

For a power user who likes to develop their own apple scripts or shell scripts the command line version is a lot more functional.

Functionality versus elegance is usually a tradeoff(not always but usually) OSX is fantastic because for guys lie me who get down and dirty it gives me a lot of power and flexibility, while maintaining strict Human Interface Guidlines which most application providers adhere to.

The GIMP is an application using the gtk tookit for X Windows, and is moving towards the GNOME Human Inteface Guidlines, the guidlines are different and it is unlikely that the GIMP or a GIMP port will ever approach the Apple HIG.

I think you belted the MacGIMP mostly because it was unfamiliar and followed a set of rules you haven't learnt yet. The GIMP is a powerful image manipulation program with flaws - but the flaws are not as extreme as the article points out.
Forum said:

Yes, I did, I hated it and so did thousands of others and now it has been fixed. When I look back at Mac software in the last 20 years, there haven't been too many that didn't conform to the Mac *human* interface guidelines. Sure, they have been a few mavericks but they fell by the wayside. What I can say is that all the *successful* software on the Mac platform conforms to the Mac interface guidelines. Surely you can see the moral of the story?

Absolutely - a HIG for a desktop is a necessary goal - and free software desktops like GNOME have realized this and written their own.

The GIMP is close to conforming to this spec, and is never going to conform to the Apple HIG, but this is not a reason to pan this program outright.

Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528

If the fix button had a ? button or a help button next to it that described _exactly_ what it was doing underneath then the button is  more elegant.


I hear what you are saying but elegance is in the eye of the beholder. I, as 'joe user' don't really care any more about what going on underneath than I do about the pinouts of the G5 processor or it's core voltage.


For a power user who likes to develop their own apple scripts or shell scripts the command line version is a lot more functional.


Yes, I'll accept that excpet that but *most* computer users are not programmers and have different needs.


Functionality versus elegance is usually a tradeoff(not always but usually) OSX is fantastic because for guys lie me who get down and dirty it gives me a lot of power and flexibility, while maintaining strict Human Interface Guidlines which most application providers adhere to.


Yes, I'm more than happy to accept that and thankfully, the console is well hidden but it *could* do a lot of damage in the wrong hands and I'd like to see it even more hidden than it is.


I think you belted the MacGIMP mostly because it was unfamiliar and followed a set of rules you haven't learnt yet. The GIMP is a powerful image manipulation program with flaws - but the flaws are not as extreme as the article points out.


I realise that Gimp is all that some people could want, it has a 'target market', it's free. That's fine. From my perspective, as a Mac using graphic designer with deadlines and not insubstantial amounts of money at stake, it's not good enough.

On the rare occasions that I do lectures, I have this stunt where I hammer a screw into a piece of wood and ask the audience what I'm doing wrong. It's the wrong tool for the job! There is nothing wrong with the hammer, there is nothing wrong with the screw. They just don't go together.

Apart from the line and font rendering quality, which I demonstrated, my main gripe, and read it again, was the fact that someone was charging $29/$49 for something that is to all intents and purposes, free and then not providing any help.

Dravine Dravine
Posts: 1

Ok, you people need to take a chill pill.  Forum Admin, you're review is honestly not very well written.

Before you start up your flame thrower, sit back and listen for a minute.

I have, and do use gimp2 on mac osx.  While not fortunate enough to have a smoking dual G5, I don't notice any speed problems.  It's just as fast as it is on my linux laptop.

Browsing through this forum, and reading some of the ignorant zealotry you are spouting, it's very difficult to take you seriously.  Reading through here, it's pretty clear that your ego took a couple blows in the first few posts.

I understand the gimp2 is not currently up to the ease of use that most Mac users are used to, but it takes a lot of work to get things to that point.  Part of the problem is that there aren't enough developers working on porting these apps to mac osx.

The problems you experienced with speed in the Gimp don't make much sense.  As far as not being able to find any documentation for the Gimp, I place the blame for that on you.   www.gimp.org has lots of documentation, and a link to the gimp users group, gug.sunsite.dk, which has tons of tutorials, and SUPPORT forums.  A search for  [ Gimp documentation tutorials ] on google returns "about 11,200 results"  Come on, get with the program here.

You're starting to re-inforce my long held suspicion that mac users are intillectually inferior to the rest of the computer users in the world.

Zero0w Zero0w
Posts: 5

I knew a lot of people are playing with Gimp lately, and as I have tried both Gimp 1.2 and 2.0, the later has made some solid improvement in UI. The slow performance problem is a little dubious, you should try the free download OS X version as provided in Gimp.app Sourceforge site:

http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/

http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/

AFAIK, there are more improvements with the GIMP 2.0.x branch lately, but I cannot speak whether or when these improvements will go into OS X branch (unless you compile your own plugin):

1) Gimp 2.0.2 for Windows has now switched to GTK-2.4.1 and Pango for GUI and language support. The GUI does look native to both Windows and Linux (on Windows, with the GTK theme "WIMP". Not sure if there's a GTK theme with Coca's look-and-feel on OS X.

2) The font hinting support is improved now that the freetype plugin is integrated with the Gimp for Windows installer. Again the OS X version packager should pay attention to this, as it is pretty useful for artists dealing with text and font.

3) There is an experimental CMYK color separation plugin to Gimp on Windows / Linux, someone may want to notify the OS X developers to integrate or port it to the platform, shouldn't be too difficult.

http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml

You need to download Adobe ICC Profiles to make that work though.

Forum Admin, if you prefer Photoshop, it is completely fine. However, I believe a couple email exchange with the open source developers (just like asking technical support from commercial vendor) simply will make things work better, it is the way open source community work. I am sure you have your reason and habit to stick with your favorite app, but as a few posters above said, you could have tried the free version to see if it's the distributor's (MacGimp) fault that things don't work quite right while others found no problem with certain issue, such as the slow image loading problem you encountered.

Zero0w Zero0w
Posts: 5

A few useful tip on customizing GIMP for Windows / Photoshop users:

http://www.elysiun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24190
http://epierce.freeshell.org/gimp/gimp_ps.php

David David
Posts: 40

This (from Joe's article) makes me smile:

Before you can use MacGimp, you have to install X11, a UNIX windowing system – so that you don't have to do everything from the command line

As far as I can tell, the major change Apple made to BSD, when turning it into OS X, was to get rid of the X11 window system (which is pants!) and replace it with Aqua (which is lush!).  So to port gnome to Mac and then not take advantage of Aqua seems stupid.  The fact that it was running in this make-shift way is probably why it was so slow.

In fact, it seems from your article that MacGnome is less a Mac port and more a BSD port made to work in Mac with the aid a shoebox and some sticky-back plastic.

This suggests laziness on the part of MacGnome because there's no reason not to port it to Mac properly.  It probably has been by now anyway, and for free as well.  It's almost as if they were out to make a quick buck.

While I'm here I'll just pick you up on the point you made about Unix demanding your password every time you want to do something important:

Yes, this can be frustrating but if you ever move to MS Windows you'll soon come to appreciate its importance.    The last time I reinstalled Windows (which I've found to be the easiest way to get it back to a healthy state of operation) I went online to download the service pack, security patches et al and ironically downloaded a virus instead, which shut down my computer and continued to do so every time I started it up.  I couldn't immediately remove it with anti-virus software because I only had a 30 second window of opportunity to do so.  Plus I hadn't yet had a chance to update its database (which I could only do in 30 second bursts, you understand!).

All this because I was logged in as administrator, the only way to avoid password requests.  Had I been using OS X the virus could not have been installed.  Well i know which inconvenience I'd prefer!

Since then I've installed a separate OS for home use and keep Windows strictly professional, avoiding the web as much as possible.  For that and everything else I run Linux, which is actually easier to use than the community would have you believe.  But you have to become an expert before you can realise that!

Arb1099 Arb1099
Posts: 1

Actually, I have a 1.8GHz iMac G5 and Gimp works fine. I don't know what MacGimp is, I use Gimp.app from SourceForge. MacGimp is made my a company that SELLS open sourc e software why use it? gimp.app is faster and runs at native speed. Also, I hope you weren using the beta of Apple X11. Get panther. UNIX users (and fyi OS X is unix) can Drag n' drop depending on what they use. Don't go bashing. Unix. AND FYI setting UP Gimp. app is two steps NO COMMAND LINE AT ALL:
1. Install X11 from CD or download (Panther)
2. Download gimp.app and double click it. Thats it. It opens and you use it.

REPEAT: ABSOLUTLY NO COMPUTER CODE AND NO COMMAND LINE REQUIRED.

Maybe you use some kind of paid version because you didn't know, but open source software is generally free. MacGimp is just a scheme is is HARDER to use than SourceGForge's Gimp.app. Gimp.app is one step to open.

Forum said:
f00fbug. You are so concerned with the details, that you completely miss the point. My review is of MacGimp 2.0 NOT The Gimp on Linux. It IS slow and clunky on a G5 Dual 2 Ghz. Have you tried that?

I don't need to research the Linux/UNIX platform to do a review of a program aimed at Mac users. It's totally irrelevant. All that matters is the standard of work it produces and the (Mac) users experience. As far as I can see, they are both much lower than I'm used to.

MacGimp 2.0 is not a tool for designers on the Mac platform who have a choice of many better ones - and don't have a problem with paying for them. In the end, they are tools-of-the-trade - resources, not expenses.

On Linux/UNIX, you don't have the choice of graphics programs. The concept of dragging and dropping a vector illustration from Illustrator into Photoshop and having it beautifully rendered is something you will probably never experience. If it costs $1000 to be able to do that, that's not a problem. The programs will pay for themselves within the first few days.

David David
Posts: 40

So after finding out about inkscape I discovered that gimp has been through an upgrade. v2.2 now puts text in its own layer, solving the problem a user in the first page was having.

New features listed here.

Actually I've just started using The GIMP because someone requested that I put some photographs online. I've never used an image processing application before so much of the language is new to me. Terms like dodge and burn I understand from developing prints but I can tell there will be a steep learning curve for all the rest.

So far, though, I have nothing but praise for it. Of course, I'm not a graphic designer, nor have I any experience with Photoshop. I haven't done anything particularly challenging yet either: removed dust from the image that was picked up in the scanner, converted photos to b/w and added grain effect. I'll probably try out toning and soft focus effects before very long. From what I can tell it's an extremily capable app, at least for photo processing. I can't really think of anything I'd need that it can't do.

I think it's highly commendable that the developers of this application have managed to make it this good when they aren't getting paid to do so. It always amazes me that Linux is, for example, arguably the best (certainly most sophistocated) OS for music production before a single commercial product has even been made available for it. That takes some determination. The only reason why Windows is a capable OS (for music) is because the 3rd parties grafted functionality onto it (ASIO, VST etc.). This is true of earlier versions fo Mac, as well, though Mac now have a vested interest in music.

Btw, something said earlier has been bothering me:

Forum said:
Then, consider this...

sudo periodic daily
sudo periodic weekly
sudo periodic monthly

and...



Which is the more elegant solution?

You are suggesting that a graphical user interface always wins out over the command line. Or that you shouldn't need to be able to look under the bonet and easily tinker. I believe that this is fundamentally wrong. In both Gnome and KDE, the commandline is fully integrated into the interface and is a very useful comodity as a result. Yes, it has to be learned and no, it's not as intuitive (that's why we have both), but neither is it complicated. Typing "help" can get you on your way. But Windows's developers', at least, agree with you. They hide the prompt in a closet along with all the other skeletons, insisting that everything's working great.

Now, consider this:

1. sudo yum update
2. (enter password)

and...

1. click start on the task bar
2. click "Windows Update" (launches Windows IE)
3. click either "Express Install" or "Custom Install" (you have to choose which)
4. select optional software and/or hardware updates
5. click "Install" (launches the installer)
6. Go through installation wizard (once it has downloaded)

Which is the more elegant solution?

And that's just to get the Windows updates. If you want to update your 3rd party applications as well - which, for the sake of fairness, we ought to because that's what "yum update" did - you have to add another 10 or so steps, depending on how many 3rd party apps you need to manually search, download and install updates for.

Sabri Dino Sabri Dino
Posts: 45

yerinde köpek egitimi
ücretsiz arkadaşlık sitesi
Web tasarımı
istanbul eskort
kopekegitimi
bayaneskort
5651 sayılı yasa

You must login to reply