On Thursday 09 January 2003 03:36, Fred Bazolo wrote:
> from sam ende, Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:42:19 +0000:
> When my file gets to be about 100 megs in size, it is hard to get any work
> done. 

yes, so i end up copying visable and paste as new to work on that, that also 
helps with the undo, cos its impractical to set that much higher than 10x 
when you're doing large images as well.
but it means i end up having several version of the same image in diffenrt 
stages stored, which uses tons of disk space, of which i have enough but 

Files up to 25 megs or even 30 megs do fine, without a lot of waiting
> around for things to stabilize. Depends on your system I suppose.

smaller images are no problem. in fact when i started using gimp i had a much 
smaller machine, only 64 memory, barely up to gimps minimal requirements and 
it did fine

> What I have is an Athlon 1200 Mhz Tbird, 768 megs of ram, about 15 gigs of
> HD space to play with. Not real slow but hardly extraordinary.
> I've never used a complete version of Photoshop. 

me neither, nor a trial version.

I stopped using
> proprietary software two or three years ago. Used to use Corel Draw, and
> can remember years ago when a five meg graphic would take an hour to
> display, and I was ecstatic! Ha! Things keep getting better.

:), still takes awhile to render some fractals though.

> I have read that with the larger files Photoshop does seem to have an
> advantage. That, along with the CYMK thing, are what seem to keep it alive.

iit does have some neat functions, i like the idea of a history brush. maybe 
one could get rid of some functions in the gimp that are the same or nearly 
the same or aren't much use to make room for other differnt ones. for 
instance in the light effects we have flare fx and gflare, and i think gflare 
has the same flare in it as flare fx, that's only a little thing i know, but 
there are other examples of duplication ( i just can't think of any off the 
top of my head)

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to