Neil Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 I would like to know what new features will be in the final/next beta release. I mean I love Paint.net right now. I know there will be some bug fixes but any new features? Thanks, +Neil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 In Beta 5, which will be the "feature complete" milestone for v2.5, you will see: * The Line tool is now the Line/Curve tool -- you can draw splines, or bezier curves * Curves adjustment (not related to Line/Curve tool -- this one adjusts colors, like the Levels adjustment) * Radial and Zoom blur * Tons of bug fixes Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted October 23, 2005 Author Share Posted October 23, 2005 Great! Reactions to features: *Finally, YES! *Useless to me, but nice to play around with *Cool *OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Beta 5 is scheduled for release on the 31st, by the way. Oh and one more "feature": * The very beginnings of our new help system. It's woefully incomplete at this stage, obviously. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted October 23, 2005 Author Share Posted October 23, 2005 Cool, I you should have an option to NOT download a version w/ a help file. I would rather save download size and have an online version. P.S. Who works on this entire project? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 We will only have the two downloadable packages: normal, and "full" (comes w/ .NET 1.1 and SP1, so it'll be big *ugh*). Adding extra packages that have or don't have the help file would add a lot of extra maintenance and isn't worth it. Extra maintenance is a synonym for "bug hazard" -- it adds something that can go wrong. As for who works on it... myself, Tom, and Dennis. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted October 23, 2005 Author Share Posted October 23, 2005 About the "Who Works On It"... That's it? Wow, you guys are good. Keep up the good work. I was thinking students worked on it also, due to the fact it is hosted on WSU web site. Did they just volunteer to host it cause this is a "Free" project? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filth-1 Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Rick: I think it would be quite unnecessary to include SP1 with the installer. Installing service packs and generally keeping Windows up to date is the responsibility of the user, so don't bother with this bandwidth killer. I'd say the same for the framework, it comes in with Windows Update. It does make a little more sense, though, since Paint.net doesn't use the lastest version of .net. But really, just put links to these things on the front page or the FAQ. You're making too much trouble for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 So there's a number of reasons we include .NET 1.1, and one very important reason why we also include the SP1 installer with the latest 'full' installers. The first reason is that if a user wants to install Paint.NET, and they find out that they don't have .NET, that's an extra step for them to go through in order to get Paint.NET installed. That means there's a higher likelihood of them giving up at this point and not installing Paint.NET. I like people to be successful at what they want to do Also, not everybody is really familiar with ".NET", nor does everyone keep a mental list of all the little frameworks and updates they have installed. I honestly don't think they should have to, especially since computers are designed to remember things. The second reason is basically the derivative of the first reason. What if I have a friend I want to share Paint.NET with? I copy the installer on to a CD or a USB memory stick, take it over to them ... and it doesn't work. So instead I copy the 'full' installer and it just does everything automatically. No frameworks to download, no slow Internet connections to contend with. It just works. The third reason goes further. Paint.NET is included on many magazine CD's all over the world. It's very convenient for them to just dump a big installer on there instead of having to say, "Oh and if you don't have .NET do this and this and run this EXE ... and then install Paint.NET." Most people will say "What's .NET? Ok, I no longer care. I'm going to the next page in the magazine to read about something cooler." The reason for including and installing SP1 even though it adds 15 MB to the download is security. You might recall a little JPEG flaw that was found a year or so ago that affected a ton of software out there. This software included GDI+, which .NET uses, and which Paint.NET is built upon. I agree that users should keep their computers up to date, but if there's one thing you learn after years in the computer industry (or years of having a mom, sister, and brother who do not work in the computer industry ) it's that people don't. They don't read dialog boxes, they don't pay attention to warnings and errors, and they sure don't remember to do regular maintenance like backup or updates installation. That's one of the reasons why XP SP2 really does its best to nag you into choosing the "auto download + auto install" option for updates. So the reason we include SP1 in the latest full installers is that I don't want someone who installs Paint.NET to be vulnerable to the JPEG exploit. In today's computer industry, security trumps everything. That includes performance, download size, and backwards compatibility. And lastly, it's really not that big of a deal for us to have a 'full' installer. It's all part of our build process and is created automatically. So not distributing a full installer would actually be more work at this point Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Oh and I can also add some to the discussion regarding the next version of Paint.NET, version 2.6. It will be built on .NET 2.0 and I want to keep the "one installer to rule them all" mantra. Unfortunately this will result in a larger download for the full installer. There are two separate versions of the .NET 2.0 installer: one for 32-bit, and one for 64-bit. We have to include both. That means our 'full' installer for PDN v2.6 will be about 75mb. The regular installer will probably be 5 or 6 mb, just like v2.5 will be. This sucks, but again ... the same installer will work regardless of your machine type (32-bit or 64-bit), framework installation status (no .NET vs only .NET 1.1 vs already have .NET 2.0), or language. One setup package covers all the bases. And if you know for a fact that you already have .NET 2.0 installed then you get the bonus of a smaller download Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0S Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Oh and I can also add some to the discussion regarding the next version of Paint.NET, version 2.6. It will be built on .NET 2.0 and I want to keep the "one installer to rule them all" mantra.Unfortunately this will result in a larger download for the full installer. There are two separate versions of the .NET 2.0 installer: one for 32-bit, and one for 64-bit. We have to include both. That means our 'full' installer for PDN v2.6 will be about 75mb. The regular installer will probably be 5 or 6 mb, just like v2.5 will be. This sucks, but again ... the same installer will work regardless of your machine type (32-bit or 64-bit), framework installation status (no .NET vs only .NET 1.1 vs already have .NET 2.0), or language. One setup package covers all the bases. And if you know for a fact that you already have .NET 2.0 installed then you get the bonus of a smaller download Very professionally written, Rick. I have a question concerning the .NET framework v2.0, and that is, what will its final filesize be? I remember the .NET framework v1.1 being 24 megs and the security update for it being around 10 megs. How big will .NET v2.0 be when it comes out in December? And obvious update aside, how will the .NET framework v2.0 affect the 32-bit crowd (myself) vs. the 64-bit crowd who use Paint.NET? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with the "professional" label, but I'll bite anyway First things first. The .NET Framework 2.0 is available for download right now. It has been since October 27th. x86 (32-bit) at 22,960 KB: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... layLang=en x64 (64-bit), at 46,290 KB: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... layLang=en Add those two together and you have 69,250 KB if you want to cover all your bases (excluding Itanium support ... raise your hand if you have an Itanium ... I didn't think so). The ways that .NET 2.0 will affect the 32-bit crowd (almost everybody), at least with respect to Paint.NET: it's faster, and has better GUI support (for instance, Office 2003-style menus and toolbars). Over time you'll see Paint.NET take advantage of more of .NET 2.0's features. For example, PDN 2.6 will make use of some of the performance enhancements, but not the added GUI features or support. A later version, however, will. The one benchmark I've run so far with a stop watch showed that, with .NET 1.1, a certain Gaussian Blur operation completed in 13 seconds. With only a recompile and reinstallation based on .NET 2.0, that number dropped to 11 seconds. So there's a lot of potential here. For the 64-bit crowd, it'll get another speed bump (I have benchmarks somewhere to prove it, provided by someone else) and the ability to work with much much larger images without getting any of those nasty Out of Memory errors. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0S Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with the "professional" label, but I'll bite anyway First things first. The .NET Framework 2.0 is available for download right now. It has been since October 27th. Nope, it was a compliment. 8) I was also referring to the above post you had made, it was written very straightforward and to the point. .NET v2.0 has already been released?!?! I thought it was still in beta testing? Thanks for the clear-up on that one. :shock: Now for one more quickie question, I have the stand alone installer for .NET v1.1, are you saying that I would have to have .NET v1.1 installed and then install .NET v2.0 as well to make the migration to v2.6? Will v2.6 run on .NET v2.0 by itself without v1.1? I usually do all my Windows updates, ranging from the critical to the optional updates in one session. This splits it down the middle for me, whereas some people may get .NET for Paint.NET, I get it so it's part of my Windows XP and it makes it easier to get Paint.NET and a few other apps. that are taking advantage of the .NET framework. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Thank you Anyway, it shouldn't be that complicated. Paint.NET v2.6 will only use .NET 2.0. It will not make use of .NET 1.1 at all, and thus you won't need to have it installed. In the meantime you'll need to have both installed if you have other apps that need .NET 2.0. Yes, .NET versioning is a little bizarre, or at least counter-intuitive, at this point. Sort of. As for auto-updating from Paint.NET v2.5 to v2.6, that situation is covered as well. The updater will actually download the 'full' installer if it is necessary. Honestly, if you don't have anything that requires .NET 2.0 then I wouldn't worry about downloading and installing it yet. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 Do you plan tu use things like ClickOnce? Quote No. Way. I've just seen Bob. And... *poof!*—just like that—he disappears into the mist again. ~Helio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 Bob, I don't think we'll be using that. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.