On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 04:57:56PM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:47:47PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Please ignore Carol's ramblings. She is talking mainly bullshit here.
> > Albeit the fact that she has a gimp.org email address she is not
> > talking on the behalf of the GIMP developers. At least when she's in
> > this particular mood.
> Thanks Sven, I was about to reply to Carol about her message but I won't
> bother now. I must admit that when I first read it I did a double take
> and thought "WTF, does Adobe pay this woman?" I'm sure she is trying to
> be helpful in her own way but given the poison pen she writes with this
> may not be a good thing.
i watched my friend wonder why photoshop was interfering with Outlook
Express. I did not want to learn about Windows but I was interested in
her projects. She looked it up in a book. I watched this. Her
explanation was the same as this document i showed later in this email.
i would like her not to have these problems either, she was doing work
for a really good organization, in my opinion.
how does one become qualified to know such things about computers?
> > Please don't get a wrong impression from Carol's reply. We are
> > definitely interested to hear about your in your problems. Even though
> > most GIMP developers are using some flavour of UNIX, we are still
> > willing to make GIMP work well on the Win32 platform.
> I am not at all unhappy with GIMP's performance (using default settings)
> on Windows XP other than the fact that I have noticed a lag before the
> file chooser opens when using File|Save As. I am a developer myself and
> work on Windows, so I have GIMP on it for the odd occasions when I need
> to do something graphical at work. Because I don't use it much I
> haven't bothered trying to optimise it but I will try doing so to see
> what difference it makes.
i was actually able to race gimp-1.2 with photoshop 5 on two computers,
although most of the racing was done with gimp-1.0. gimp-1.0 ran slower
than photoshop5. the gimp-1.0 was being run on a 486 that had a 42M
harddrive and two ram chips that would fit into the hewitt packard
computer that was purchased in 1992. i do not have access to the
machine right now. photoshop le was being run on the computer that i
my friends husband had to upgrade twice, they kept the first computer
that replaced this one for the kids, and bought who knows what to make
windows and photoshop work together. this is a 455 something and has
made my cool cpu-monitors useless.
she uses default settings and had several problems with new software. i
believe you are all making your livings not telling girls how to do
simple little things like memory management. it is your fault i had to
figure out my computer and watch her figure out hers.
photoshop and gimp are disturbingly the same, in my opinion. just that
gimp can do more with less. the reason for the similarity is that they
both use computers to work on pixels. i think photoshop sets its
defaults for apple hardware. so photoshop has many of the same issues
as gimp does when people want to use one piece of software on another
computer operating system.
> My comment that I didn't think available memory would impact the time to
> open the file chooser for Save As, revolves around the way I do this in
> my own programs. I do no processing before displaying the file chooser
> and if the GIMP behaves the same there is no reason for there to be a
> lag. If however, some processing is done before displaying the dialog
> then some delay might be expected.
how any application functions has everything to do with the memory
management. there are things on your computer that the gimp cannot fix.
it can provide for you information on how to fix it however.
with the information i gave you, you can fix it yourself or hire someone
to fix it or do what i do and wait patiently for things to fix
Gimp-user mailing list