bdwilcox

You can deride the person's comment to deflect the reality of what they're saying but it doesn't detract from the truth of their statement. While you're adding all these whiz-bang features that few people will use (like pressure sensitivity), you've long-neglected a basic need of even the most mundane graphic arts tool: robust text handling. At this point, your text handling still lags behind even the most baseline of all graphics programs, Microsoft Paint. That's not a criticism, it's pointing out reality, a reality you obviously don't want to hear. As for entitled, if you weren't asking for money, I could see that being the case. But now that you're charging for the program or asking for donations, people should be able to point out flaws and deficiencies without being harangued. Right now, I intensively use Microsoft Paint, Adobe Photoshop, GIMP, Paint.Net and Inkscape depending on the system I'm on and the complexity of the task at hand but I find myself using Paint.Net less and less due to the frustration of trying to kludge around its archaic text capabilities. Why you've neglected this most basic feature for so long is beyond me but it has tainted an otherwise great program. Take that criticism as you will but it is not meant to demean but to reinforce the need for better text handling if you wish your program to stay competitive with like offerings

The lack of editable text or even wrapping text has always been the Achilles's Heel of this program. You know something's a problem when Microsoft Paint has a better implementation of a feature. MS Paint's text handling is pretty basic but at least it's flexible enough to be workable...Paint.NET's implementation? Not even usable in its current form; actually it's worse than unusable, it's extremely frustrating to boot.* For such a great program. it's a glaring omission. Normally, I wouldn't complain if it was a purely free app but now the author is charging for it on the Microsoft Store. Maybe implement a basic MS Word-esque text handler for the free version and a much more robust one for the paid version? Just an idea. *And for those who are like, "Just bring it into MS Paint to do the text then!" Let me remind you that JPEG has a cumulative quality loss with each save, so that isn't a good solution.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think that's what is actually happening. The reason I suspect another mechanism is at work here is that I image machines with the same identical Ghost image and run the Paint.NET install on them immediately after imaging and a reboot. On some imaged machines, Paint.NET will install quickly while on others Paint.NET's install will drag out for 10 minutes. If it was a .NET compile issue, all machines should exhibit the same behavior since they're in an identical state after being imaged with the same Ghost image. Edit: One process that I initiate before installing Paint.NET is the uninstall of the Symantec/Altiris CLIMA agent. Whether this somehow affects the Paint.NET install I'm not sure.

Oh, and I use the /auto switch to install it.

I load Paint.net on corporate images that come from the home office and each time I install it, the "optimizing for your system" occupies the machine for a good 5-10 minutes. Is there any install switch that will prevent the installer from optimizing Paint.net (and setting a Windows restore point - since I'm here, I might as well ask). Thanks!