Toolbox always on top?

2000-06-05 Thread Martin Kerz
Is there a possibility to get the toolbox always on top of all opened windows? That would make working with the Gimp much easier. Also the Layer-Window should have the possibility to be "always on top" Martin -- Martin Kerz mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.martin-kerz.de <>

Re: Toolbox always on top?

2000-06-05 Thread Jon Winters
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Martin Kerz wrote: > Is there a possibility to get the toolbox always on top of all opened > windows? That would make working with the Gimp much easier. Also the > Layer-Window should have the possibility to be "always on top" You can do this with your windowmanager. I use

Performance of Gimp vs. photoshop for large images

2000-06-05 Thread gimp
Hello all, I've been a linux user for some 5-6 years or so, and do my best to use linux for everything. However my hobby is photography and digital imaging, which seems to be about to ring the death knell for my desktop linux box due to performance problems. The images I edit are usually around

Re: Performance of Gimp vs. photoshop for large images

2000-06-05 Thread Jon Winters
What have you set your tile cache size to in gimp perfs? Sounds like a simple misconfiguration. -- Jon Winters http://www.obscurasite.com/ "Everybody loves the GIMP!" http://www.gimp.org/

Re: Performance of Gimp vs. photoshop for large images

2000-06-05 Thread gimp
It's set to either 15 megs or 10 megs. However the disc is not being thrashed, throughout the redraw all the CPU time is being eaten by gimp, i.e. it's processor-bound, not I/O bound, if it was a cache issue then I'd expect large amounts of disc I/O but I'm not seeing that. Thanks for your help.

Re: Performance of Gimp vs. photoshop for large images

2000-06-05 Thread Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero
>It's set to either 15 megs or 10 megs. However the disc is not being Too low, enough to edit a logo, but not for big images. 3500 * 2800 * 3 bytes = 29.4E6 bytes, as you see it is a lot more than 15MB (near two times), so Gimp moves data to disk as soon as you load the image. I have used Gimp

Re: Performance of Gimp vs. photoshop for large images

2000-06-05 Thread pixel fairy
> The images I edit are usually around the 3500x2800 > or so mark at 30 bits > depth. I've recently tried Gimp on such images and > have found it to be > lacking to put it mildly. thats odd. that size should be fine. i work in film res all the time (4kx3k) at 32bpp (yes, i know film should be do

1.1.22 and sane rpm

2000-06-05 Thread Wandered Inn
Just installed the rpm versions of 1.1.22 and the latest sane I could find. When I try to access my scanner, I get a message telling me that the version of the plug-in is using an older protocol than GIMP. Does this mean I need to compile sane against some gimp libs? -- Until later: Geoffrey