Help for Paint.NET etc, please

[icosahedron]

What a day! The computer doesn't know just how close it came to being 'recycled'.
My time-budget for mapping has gone so far in the red I'll probably not be able to justify drawing anything for a month.

I spent half the morning trawling round the net to find an old version of Paint.NET that would run on my machine. I found two and downloaded them both, just in case.
Cynic, me? - let's just say it's a matter of experience!

Then I tried to install the newest one and found that it wanted something called a NET framework v2.0. The Paint software is 5MB, the framework to run it is 20MB. That was annoying to begin with.

The framework had to be downloaded from Microsoft, so I closed down the installation, fired up explorer and off I went to do that. Then I closed explorer, went back to the installation, tried to install the framework and a few seconds later it said it needed MS Installer 3.0...... from Microsoft.

So I closed down the installation again, fired up explorer, visited Mr Gates again and tried to download Installer 3.0.
But then Mr Gates insisted that before he would let me have it, he wanted to poke his nose into my computer to an even greater extent than he is able to do without my permission. I mentally told him to f - off and decided to install the older version of Paint.NET, cos it might be easier.

Out of explorer, into the installation, try to install - oh dear, it says I need to install Net Framework 1.1.
By now, I'm picturing that 'Fork Handles' sketch from the Two Ronnies...
Off I go to Mr Gates again, download NET 1.1, back to the installation, Yay! this one loads with the native installer.

Except it doesn't.

Halfway through the installation it runs into an 'exception', whatever one of those is, and refuses to install. Several more tries confirm it.

So, Paint.NET is dead in the water - at least until Mr Gates declassifies Installer 3.0 (whatever that is) from 'Above Top Secret' and lets me have it without an interrogation. Then I can see if the later version of Paint.NET runs into an exception too.

Back to square one. Looking for something to draw with that doesn't need XP and doesn't have a manual/tutorial the size of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

If you've derived some amusement from this, at least the day hasn't been completely wasted!

Oh, and for the record, I have nothing to hide from Mr Gates, everything's kosher, it's just a matter of principle - I don't want to go cap in hand to Mr Gates and have him noseying into my affairs every time I want to download something - and that's more important to me than Paint.NET.

It's also the main reason I haven't got XP.

When I retire, I'll have time to learn how to operate Linux...

[Redrobes]

I abjectly refuse to put any version of .NET framework on my machine. So paint dot net was out of the question for me before I even looked at what it could do. The framework installs loads of stuff which can be requested from the app to do things like load up bitmaps and networking etc. The problem is tho that your target audience needs to have the right version of the framework to run. Like the controversy over DLLs and their version, MS has blown it again and done exactly the same thing with .net. If you have a program that needs 1.1 then it might or might not run on 2.0 Thats a killer. It means that when your new app only runs on 2.0, all your 1.1 only ones go in the bin. Consideration ends right there. 2.0 was supposed to have all the functionality of 1.1 plus more which is what the old COM stuff was all about but then COM was designed by DEC not MS which says it all. So when your app writers get Vista and Win7 and 2.0 becomes 3 and 4 etc then more and more of your stuff goes in the bin. I am not playing that game.

In this respect Linux does better and worse. Its better because you can get a version of your app that is compatible. But its worse because the expectation for it is that you need to build it against the version of the OS that you are running. Now if your ok with compiling up your software before running it then its cool. Geeks are quids in. But if thats not something you enjoy doing then its a rats nest of interoperability there. To some extent ubuntu have gone a long way to solving this by having set versions which are guaranteed compatible with a number of apps which get installed as part of the distro. They have a dedicated and paid team to check the interoperability unlike most of the linux world. Still, I have set up a number of ubuntu machines and not one so far has worked 'out of the box' without me getting real dirty on the command line shell. Its good, its getting better, but its just not quite there yet. I am hoping that it gets good enough before I am forced to move off of Windows. My XPx64 will be the last version of windows I run.

My opinion, keep your machine off the net, don't upgrade it other than to install the big service packs and run a small number of trusted apps. If your on Win2K then install the huge Service pack 4 but don't do the security updates etc. They were all bundled into the service pack and they're not doing any more anyways. You don't need packs 1-3 if you get 4.

If you do put it on the net, accept its going to be insecure (its win2K) and at the very min go via a cheap router. If you don't do a router, expect your machine to be 'owned' in about 5 mins.

I have been looking for a PSP replacement but I am not seeing exactly what I need either. I think it might be Gimp in the end too but for now ill stay with PSP.

Service pack 4 DL:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

If you really don't trust MS or have problems then its here too. But now you have to trust this download instead
http://www.download.com/Windows-2000...0210714-6.html

Heh - just come across this site which is well cool.
http://www.filewatcher.com/m/W2KSP4_...77136.0.0.html

[waldronate]

Wait until you need to run a Java app...

[Redrobes]

Heh - I don't do Java either.

In fact I seem to be going backwards and going more luddite as time goes on and I seem to stare at the command prompt more and more these days. Compiler, make, perl etc. Most of my tools now are command line. I just cant stand the faffing about with frameworks and other 3rd party stuff. I don't know if that says something about me or the state of software in general. Maybe both.

[RobA]

I would try running ubuntu on your old machine Icosahedron. if you have a spare hd, drop it in, and install it, then plug your old drive back in (it will find it automatically). You will still be able to access all your win9x files on the other hard drive, that way. For older (video challenge) hardware I'd suggest using the XCFE version of Ubuntu called Xubuntu http://www.xubuntu.org/

The only problems I have had (on old notebooks, mind you) is support for "winmodems".

It uses the same application installer, so getting things like gimp are a simple click-click in a GUI.

-Rob A>

[icosahedron]

LOL, sounds like you're a man after my own heart, Redrobes. I'm getting more Luddite as computers 'progress', too. Unfortunately, I don't know the first thing about programming, so I don't have the option to go it alone or tweak things until they work. Most of the discussion in the last couple of posts is over my head.

I keep the important stuff well away from the web. I do my surfing from an even older and simpler machine. A six foot gap makes an effective additional firewall.

Like you, I'm hoping that by the time MS forces me out of its market, Linux will have developed enough that you don't need a postgrad in computer science to get it working. And if it does develop for the masses, any time I spend now learning to program the source code will have been time wasted.

I'm assuming that Ubuntu is a form of Linux? Thanks for the tip Rob, but unfortunately if Redrobes' analysis of it is correct, anything that doesn't work 'out of the box' is a non-starter for me. I don't have the skills to poke about with it and I don't have the time to learn. What little learning time I have needs to be spent learning to map, not learning how to program the software that supports the software that enables me to draw the maps I need to play a game...

Sheesh, all I want to do is draw a few cartoon floortiles, a couple of top-down cars and the odd desk and chair.

[wormspeaker]

Jumping in at the tail end of this, but I get by with MS Paint. MS Paint used to do transparency back with Win98. The option to select a transparent color diapered after that. So I use TransWeb to make my GIFs transparent. (You need to upload the GIF to a web server, so that makes it a lot harder than it needs to be, but since I can't be installing other graphics programs on my work PC, it gets the job done.)
http://stuff.mit.edu/tweb/map.html

[Redrobes]

Sheesh, all I want to do is draw a few cartoon floortiles, a couple of top-down cars and the odd desk and chair.

Your probably best off using Gimp and just glazing over all the buttons and widgets that you don't need. The only downside is that every time you ask for a bit of help around here using it your gonna get bamboozled with features you cant pronounce let alone use. Still, thats a small price to pay huh ?

Oh and my advice for drawing top down cars is to find a tall building with a balcony and take your camera with you

[Ascension]

I learned how to draw by drawing cars in 4th grade so I had 3 favorite magazines...CarToons, HotRod, and Road & Track. So I'd start there. Plus you can almost always find the technical drawings and concept drawings with a Google search or car magazines.

[icosahedron]

Back again, guys.
I've found several free possibilities for my limited needs:

Ultimate Paint:
http://www.ultimatepaint.com/

Vicman's Photo Editor:
http://www.vicman.net/vcwphoto/

Paintbox:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multime...PaintBox.shtml

Image Forge:
http://www.cursorarts.com/ca_imffw.html

Has anyone had any experience with these? I could download them all and try them out, but if anyone has a 'don't let that thing anywhere near your computer' warning, I'd rather find out beforehand.

Meanwhile, I'm taking a look at a few online photo editors. My needs are so simple that almost anything will do - apart from MSPaint.


Wormspeaker, I've got Paint on Win98 doing jpegs, but not transparency. However, on my new Win2k it doesn't seem to handle anything but bmps - there's progress for you!


As a sci-fi gamer, the cars I want top-downs of haven't been built yet. I might be able to adapt a few photos, or take pics of Matchbox cars, but the problem with photorealism is it raises the game. Once you have one photorealistic object, they all have to be like that, otherwise they just don't look right. And adapting a photo with MSPaint's 'splodge fills' is beyond my skill. This is why I want to stick to a cartoon style, so that I can fill in a bit more plain red to extend a roof, or add a bit more plain grey to extend a windscreen. No way can I do that with photo textures, it's just too complex.

Up until now, I've been working with 20x20 pixel tiles because I have some small chance of adapting them with my meagre skills.

Maybe one of the other applications will allow a breakthrough.