Wow... couldn't even get my last thoughts in...

[cjordan]

... before my topic got locked... for what it's worth here's what I was going to say in my last post in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21630, (this was to be my response to david.atwell)...

I just finished reading the rules while waiting for a reply (to the topic which is now locked). So this post is probably a no-no (guess I was right, it's since it is now locked). Seems pretty elitist if you ask me, but what do I know? It seems to me they could easily make a section of the forum dedicated to us poor sods who are being left in the dust due to circumstances out of our control.

Also, if I could get my boss to upgrade to a more recent version of windows, then I could probably also get him to buy me Photo Shop. That's not intended as a slam on Paint.Net that's just the way it is. I really like PDN. I wonder, what the reasoning is behind not supporting windows 2000. I'm sure it's a good one, I'd just feel better if I knew what it was, rather than the rules just telling me not to ask because it's not going to happen. I *would* understand a nice technical explanation, but whoever wrote the rules just assumes I'm too stupid to understand.

Anyway, I'm feeling quite left out now. I'd like to be enjoying all the fun, but I can't and I get smacked down by the lead developer guy just for mentioning it in another post (been smacked down twice now). I'm *not* looking for making any kind of supported archive, I'm just looking for anyone who may have an eight-track tape lying around that I can use with my tired old eight-track player.

Well, that was my response. I came to this forum hopeful, that someone could help me, but all I found was middle finger waiting for me (not you david.atwell), and now I've got a sour taste in my mouth for this forum (and perhaps for the project... we'll see how I feel later). I'm sure this topic will be locked as well or perhaps deleted, by some moderator. At this rate that wouldn't surprise me.

Thanks for at least trying to help me david.atwell. I hope you don't get in trouble for talking to a second-class PDN user. :wink:

Cheers,

Chris

[cjordan]

Interesting, there's a little black spot next to all of the topics I've posted in. I don't see a definition of that icon at the bottom of the page. I'm guessing this is like being blackballed? I feel like a subversive. Geesh. :shock:

[pyrochild]

Interesting, there's a little black spot next to all of the topics I've posted in. I don't see a definition of that icon at the bottom of the page. I'm guessing this is like being blackballed? I feel like a subversive. Geesh. :shock:

Stop acting like the whole world's out to get you! The little black spot next to any topic you've posted in, it's to show you which topics you've posted in!

Completely counter-intuitive, I know.

[Rick Brewster]

The rule is there in order to avoid having to spend time supporting all sorts of old versions and configurations. This isn't a commercially supported project that has a call center or support line really. If we didn't have the requirement that all forum goers be using the latest version, we would waste a lot of energy just making sure everyone is on the latest version. (Like it says in the rules, "Hey just click on X." ... "Where is X?" ... "Umm it's over there." ... "Where? :(" ... "Install the latest version! " ... "Ohhhhhhh.") Please understand this, it isn't an effort to browbeat you.

[Crazy Man Dan]

You'd probably be better off contacting MadJik directly via PM, as he is the developer of that plugin and may have legacy versions stored in a back-up on his computer. He may not have them, and he may not be willing to redistribute older versions, but if anyone has them, he's probably your best bet.

You seem to feel like the PDN crew is out to get you. We're not, but you touched on why it seems that way:

...I just finished reading the rules while waiting for a reply...

That's why we encourage people to read The Rules first. Legacy versions of PDN and resources thereof are not officially supported for a reason: If we leave links to old stuff lying about, someone who may not realize it's an older version may happen upon the link, download the old plugin, then become confused while trying to follow a tutorial because the UI doesn't have the checkbox the tutorial says to check. This could cause endless, needless troubleshooting headaches. That's why I encourage you speak to MadJik via PM, so that the link, if offered, is private and not left floating about to snag on things.

[david.atwell]

I try to help out where I can. :-) Sorry you feel like a second-class user. I really do feel your pain.

As far as upgrading goes...if your computers are running Win2K, it probably doesn't have the system specs to run PdN3.0 very well anyway. Maybe the GIMP can tide you over until your boss springs for a new computer...?

So sorry. But I understand and agree with Rick; I try to help everyone here I can, and if I were required to remember everything about every version of PdN, I would never try to help anyone again. It would just be too much work.

Anyway, I hope MadJik can help you. :-)

[Crazy Man Dan]

Maybe the GIMP can tide you over until your boss springs for a new computer...?

If you do decide to try out The GIMP:

Note that the new version of The GIMP (2.4.x) is also WinXP+ only. The GIMP guys do keep a repository of old versions on their GIMP-Win download site here: http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/old.html

2.2.17 is the most recent version Windows 2000 will run. You'll also need the download package for the GTK+ library version 2.10.13 from the same page. The GTK+ package needs to be installed before the GIMP install proper.

[cjordan]

You'd probably be better off contacting MadJik directly via PM, as he is the developer of that plugin and may have legacy versions stored in a back-up on his computer. He may not have them, and he may not be willing to redistribute older versions, but if anyone has them, he's probably your best bet.

That's all I was hoping for. But I didn't know who to contact. Now I do. But if not for my persistence, I'd not have gotten that piece of information.

You seem to feel like the PDN crew is out to get you. We're not, ...

I think perhaps my perception is a result of the condescending tone of the rules and the speed with which all of my topics got shut down. And the attitude that I'm not allowed to ask a question unless I'm on the latest version.

I understand that this is community supported software, so let the community decide which questions they'll try to answer and which ones they won't. So if a user is on 3.01 and the most recent version is 3.10 then, of course, they should upgrade, because they're able to do so. But if someone is still running 2.72 it's probably because they can't upgrade. So, those folks are just out of luck. They're not even allowed to see if anyone remembers how to do something in that version, or -- as in my case -- just find out if anyone has an older copy of a dll out there that they can shoot over to them. I can understand if no body responds to such a post, but to not even allow the question to be asked is just sort of nuts sounding to me.

...but you touched on why it seems that way:

...I just finished reading the rules while waiting for a reply...

That's why we encourage people to read The Rules first.

Even if I had read the rules first, I'd still have asked my question. After all, where else can I go to find a large group of Paint.Net users to ask my question? What harm is there in asking a simple question?

Legacy versions of PDN and resources thereof are not officially supported for a reason: If we leave links to old stuff lying about, someone who may not realize it's an older version may happen upon the link, download the old plugin, then become confused while trying to follow a tutorial because the UI doesn't have the checkbox the tutorial says to check. This could cause endless, needless troubleshooting headaches. That's why I encourage you speak to MadJik via PM, so that the link, if offered, is private and not left floating about to snag on things.

First of all, it's community supported software so what's official about it? It's up to the individual reading a post to decide if they're going to take time out of their day to answer a poster's question. If they remember something from a previous version, then great! If not, they probably wouldn't answer anyway, and the thread would just die. That's kind of how the community support model works (at least in my experience of supporting other open source projects).

Second, are you're telling me that you remove all old threads that pertain to a particular version once it's no longer supported? If that's the case -- and that seems like a lot of work -- then lock them all and move them into an archive forum. Then when people ask for tutorials on how to do xyz with some older version point them to that forum.

Also, -- and I think I said this before -- i'm not suggesting that you need to support all versions of the application, just two really: The latest one, and the last one to which folks running windows 2000 can possibly upgrade. And even then I'm not suggesting that you have to support anything -- and by 'you' here I mean the community, not you personally. Nobody has to support anything. It's the community answering questions out of the kindness of their hearts and in hopes that as they help educate folks those same people will turn around and help to educate more newcomers.

@Rick

(Like it says in the rules, "Hey just click on X." ... "Where is X?" ... "Umm it's over there." ... "Where? :(" ... "Install the latest version! " ... "Ohhhhhhh.")

Yeah, I read that. That scenario is easily avoided by the person answering the question asking what version the user is using prior to trying to offer any further help. If they're on 3.01 and the latest is 3.10 then the first suggestion is to upgrade. When the user replies, "I'm on 2.72 because I can't upgrade any farther..." then the user who's trying to help, can say, "Sorry, I can't help you. I don't remember enough about that version." or "Oh, yeah I remember when I was on that version, I think you do something like..."

Anyway, -- and this is not to browbeat you -- I think the argument stated in the rules is a bit of a cop-out.

Please understand this, it isn't an effort to browbeat you.

I appreciate that. I really do. Thanks for saying it though.

Okay, well... respond to my comments if you like. I'm not expecting to change any minds here (though that would be cool if I did :wink: ) I will definitely ask Madjik if he's got an old copy of his dll that would work with 2.72 laying about somewhere and if he'd mind sharing it with me. That may be the best I can hope for, and if so... well, that's open source for you, and I'm completely okay with that.

@david:

Thanks again for the kind words and feelin' my pain. I hope that Madjik can help me too. I don't really even need support for the thing, I know how to use it... I used to have it, I just lost it.

Thanks guys, I'm sorry if I've been a bit of a pain in the butt, and I appreciate you not shutting this thread down quite so quickly. :wink:

[cjordan]

Maybe the GIMP can tide you over until your boss springs for a new computer...?

If you do decide to try out The GIMP:

Note that the new version of The GIMP (2.4.x) is also WinXP+ only. The GIMP guys do keep a repository of old versions on their GIMP-Win download site here: http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/old.html

2.2.17 is the most recent version Windows 2000 will run. You'll also need the download package for the GTK+ library version 2.10.13 from the same page. The GTK+ package needs to be installed before the GIMP install proper.

Thanks heaps Crazy Man Dan! I appreciate the help here too. I think I'll try PM'ing Madjik first. Maybe if he's got an old copy -- and he doesn't think I'm a complete jerk from reading my posts -- he can help me out.

Also, I really *would* love to know the technical reason that the latest versions of PDN won't run on win2k... but that's not really important I guess.

Thanks again,

Chris

[Crazy Man Dan]

But I didn't know who to contact. Now I do. But if not for my persistence, I'd not have gotten that piece of information.

:wink:

Usually, the forum is self-preening - when plugin authors release new versions, they update the file at their respective download site and edit their thread accordingly. We don't have to muck around with this too often, as the plugin authors are quite good in keeping their own things up-to-date. Even if a plugin author drops off the board, Paint.NET still uses basically the same plugin structure now as it did back then, with a few shoehorned-in exceptions with some renamed classes for this latest release. The main problem you're running into here is MadJik's recently released version of the plugin uses the IndirectUI system introduced in the upcoming Paint.NET 3.2 upgrade, so it will not run on anything older.

As for the technical reasons why Windows 2000 is no longer supported, this old blog entry of Rick's may answer a few of your questions: http://blogs.msdn.com/rickbrew/archive/ ... 51890.aspx

And you're quite welcome with The GIMP hints. I'm somewhat of the resident GIMP guy (and all the bullying on the playground isn't going to change that ). GIMP 2.2.x was unnecessarily difficult to install, as the user had to download multiple packages and install them in the correct order for it to work properly. Thankfully, the recent version has simplified that considerably, including the runtime environment and the program in the same package, but what with you needing an older version, I figured I'd give you the heads-up.

Cheers!

[Rick Brewster]

That blog entry is entirely obsolete and not relevant anymore.

[cjordan]

Well, that sorta explains stuff for me. I appreciate the effort. I've got a PM waiting. Fingers crossed that it's MadJik with some good news. :wink:

[cjordan]

That blog entry is entirely obsolete and not relevant anymore.

That's kinda what I thought, but I still appreciate Crazy Man Dan's effort.

[Crazy Man Dan]

That blog entry is entirely obsolete and not relevant anymore.

Well, that's somewhat of an answer from the man. At least I now know what it's not...

I'm not one of Paint.NETs developers (heck, I'm not even a programmer), so I can't answer definitively. You could try searching the forum for Windows 2000, as I believe Rick has elaborated on the fact before, but I'm not entirely sure where. I seem to recall the reasons citing the dwindling number of Paint.NET server hits from Windows 2000 platforms, weighed against the time it would take to further test Paint.NET on a third operating system, one Rick no longer had.

Yeah, I know I already stuck my foot in my mouth up there, but I'd like to see what my ankle tastes like... :wink:

[cjordan]

Yeah, I know I already stuck my foot in my mouth up there, but I'd like to see what my ankle tastes like... :wink:

lol!

[david.atwell]

You should also show this thread to your boss...I wasn't aware that the GIMP was now XP-only as well. Maybe you could show him this as proof that his sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebels' hidden fort--

*choke...choke...*

If you only knew the power of the XP...

...Ahem. What? No, sorry...But yeah. See if this helps. :-)

[cjordan]

ROFL! I'll do that... good suggestion.

BTW, MadJik *was* gracious enough to shoot me a copy of the water dll that he thinks will work with v.2.72. Many thanks to the admins and other folks in the forum for letting me bend the rules to find what I needed.

[Andrew D]

I would say one thing, why is your boss not upgrading to Windows 2000? It's extremely old now and has basically lost support of nearly all programs.

What kind of company do you work for, anyways? XP is cheap nowadays seeing how Vista is out, although you could wait until Vista SP1 or 2 comes out meaning it's stable.

[Rick Brewster]

I would say one thing, why is your boss not upgrading to Windows 2000?

It's always a matter of cost: the IT staff has to install it site-wide, and people need to retrain certain things, and there's invetiably more time sucked up by answering questions. Cost, cost, cost. Maybe they need new computers, which is even more costly. Maybe they were skipping XP to wait for Vista? Could be many many things.