Rick Brewster

Why're you bumping after an hour? Contrary to what you may think, we are not sitting in front of our computers clicking 'Refresh' every 30 seconds waiting for your post ... Also, moving to the Troubleshooting section.

You have to upgrade to Windows 7 RTM. Otherwise Paint.NET will not be able to use DirectWrite, which will give you much better text. DirectWrite is not enabled for Windows 7 RC, for stability reasons.

This will be fixed in the next update.

No. Do NOT do that.

If you have a slow CPU then it's possible this particular function will be slower. The reason is that Paint.NET is applying GZIP compression to the history files, instead of relying on the file system's (NTFS) built-in compression (which is fast, but doesn't work well vs. GZIP). This results in much lower disk space use and less disk I/O, but at a cost of more CPU time. For most systems it will be a net positive gain, with respect to performance (either for fast CPUs, or slow disks -- and most disks are slow). Using less disk space also improves reliability, because Paint.NET does not handle running out of disk space (it'll crash).

We're working on a fix. It's a rather elusive little bug.

That's not necessarily true with v3.5.

Actually I think your questions may stem from an incorrectly assumed premise. Let me explain ... It sounds like you believe I am actively preventing a Linux port, and/or that I am opposed to such a thing. Both are untrue. I was perfectly happy to let Miguel and crew port Paint.NET to Linux. The only requirement I put on them was that they couldn't use the same name, for trademark reasons. So they called it paint-mono and they made a lot of progress with it, but overall the project has languished, and it doesn't really work. Everyone wants to use it, but nobody wants to contribute. I am not involved in any Linux porting work, nor will I be. I don't use Linux. I don't want to use Linux. You chose Ubuntu, and I chose Windows. I'm not going to use my spare time for something I won't enjoy. Umm, not quite. Paint.NET isn't some big corporation with managers and employees and Christmas bonuses. It's just me. I don't want to go hunting for and interviewing a group of people to manage some Linux port. I don't have the time for that, and I'm not going to make the time. I do Paint.NET in my spare time, and have a full time job that keeps me plenty occupied. And, objectively, it'd just be bad business. It would cost a bunch of money (either real cash or in opportunity cost) and grow the user base by only a very small amount. The paint-mono project was "the community's" chance to have Paint.NET on Linux, and they dropped the ball. Go ask them about a Linux port. Closing the source for Paint.NET (or rather, discontinuing the release of source code) wasn't about Linux at all.

Yes. There was an issue with loading JPEG EXIF metadata that was resolved.

Huh? "America" ... and, btw, I assume you mean the United States of America, and not the entirety of the North and South American continents and other surrounding regions ... wasn't founded on freebies and socialism. I believe you have your history and metaphors mixed up.Past that ... jeez. Your post is just too much -- you do not understand the issues at all. And it's clear you haven't done a lick of research on either my blog or here on the forum in an honest attempt to figure it out before dumping diatribes and insulting questions on me. I had some stuff written up but to be honest it's unsalvageable without coming across the wrong way.

Yes, it's so incredibly annoying. Jeez.

Please read the rules and change the title of your thread.

Unprofessional? No, what's unprofessional is jumping on to a forum and complaining about things with a self-entitled attitude. Bye.

I really don't know. There seems to be so many problems that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

No. Paint.NET is not a component that you may use in your program. The source code is not available, and this is not a forum where you can learn C# or .NET.

Like it says, I won't be porting to Linux. The availability of Visual Studio components doesn't change that. Thread Closed

Thanks. I've filed a bug.

Post in the Troubleshooting section of the forum.

Calm down. We're working on it.

I checked, and this is behaving the exact same way as 3.36 did. However, there is a rendering glitch here. I'll file a bug.

Sorry, but this is not a programming forum. There is no SDK for Paint.NET. Thread Closed

You say that hard drive activity is still continuing while it's at that point ... how long have you left it alone, to see if it eventually figures itself out? It might just be some component taking awhile (the C++ runtimes, like you mentioned, possibly).

For deploying Paint.NET itself via MSI, look no further than http://www.getpaint.net/doc/latest/en/U ... ation.html

Why would you render a simple yellow dot? :?: What CPU are you using? Big images simply take a lot of time to process, especially with a large value for 'radius'. If it's slower than 3.36, then that's what I'm most interested in hearing about. Gaussian Blur's code didn't even change between 3.36 and 3.5.

Thread Closed