«

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 07:06:07 -0500
"M.L." <> wrote:

> That's not much of an endorsement of GIMP since Photoshop has had
> plenty of ease-of-use complaints. In addition, GIMP does not follow
> common Windows interface features.
>

It wouldn't as Gimp is /was not a windows programme. It started out
under linux and I still keep forgetting the toolbar at the top of the
photo - it is so much easier to right click on the image for the drop
down lists.
--
Neil
Reverse ie and delete l for email.

>>>>> In typical CR style - too little, too late. GIMP is the premiere
>>>>> OpenSource photo editor, so they didn't even bother.
>>>>
>>>> Consumer Reports places heavy emphasis on ease-of-use issues, so
>>>> they wouldn't have liked GIMP anyway.
>>>
>>> Why is that? I find it much more intuitive than, for example,
>>> photoshop.
>>
>> That's not much of an endorsement of GIMP since Photoshop has had
>> plenty of ease-of-use complaints. In addition, GIMP does not follow
>> common Windows interface features.
>
> Since it is Open Source software and primarily designed for *nix, why
> would it?

Because the Windows version of GIMP must compete with similar Windows
apps regarding ease-of-use.

> And who says that MS wrote the book on user interface
> design? Just because they have a virtual monopoly does not mean the
> did things right.

MS wrote the book on the Windows user interface design. The Windows
version of GIMP made no attempt to follow that design, which makes it
less user-friendly for those who primarily use the Windows OS.

>> That's not much of an endorsement of GIMP since Photoshop has had
>> plenty of ease-of-use complaints. In addition, GIMP does not follow
>> common Windows interface features.

> It wouldn't as Gimp is /was not a windows programme. It started out
> under linux and I still keep forgetting the toolbar at the top of the
> photo - it is so much easier to right click on the image for the drop
> down lists.

The Windows version of GIMP *is* a Windows program.

"M.L." <> wrote:
>>
>> Since it is Open Source software and primarily designed for *nix, why
>> would it?
>
> Because the Windows version of GIMP must compete with similar Windows
> apps regarding ease-of-use.
>
>> And who says that MS wrote the book on user interface
>> design? Just because they have a virtual monopoly does not mean the
>> did things right.
>
> MS wrote the book on the Windows user interface design. The Windows
> version of GIMP made no attempt to follow that design, which makes it
> less user-friendly for those who primarily use the Windows OS.

You obviously haven't upgraded to Office 2007 yet. It's further from the
Windows GUI guidelines than any program I've ever used. (I can't speak for
GIMP, though.) It makes Lightroom look compliant by comparison.

Anyway, the guidelines are history, and it's simply not valid to criticize
the GIMP for not following them.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Jul 1, 6:14 pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:34:48 +0000, catherine yronwode wrote:
> > I just noticed Consumer Reports evaluated & rated, for the first time I've
> > ever seen, freeware digital photo-editing sofware such as
> > - Picasa 2.2.0http://picasa.google.com
> > - IrfanView 3.99http://www.infranview.com
> > - Corel Snapfire 1.10http://www.corel.com
>
> > You can find the results at
> >http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/e...s/photo-softwa...
>
> > Picasa got a 46 rating, Irfanview a 45, and Snapfire a 42 out of 100.
> > In comparison, "not freeware" Adobe Photoshot Elements 5.0 rated a 74 while
> > Corel Snaprie 1.00 Plus rated a 51 with ACD Systems ACDSee Photo Manager,
> > Microsoft Digital Image Suite, and Roxio Easy Media Creator in between.
>
> > They also rated digital camera editing software, but I can't imagine anyone
> > using those ad laden bloated excuses for registration so I won't delve
> > further.
>
> > catherine
>
> In typical CR style - too little, too late. GIMP is the premiere
> OpenSource photo editor, so they didn't even bother.

Their soccer mom level readers wouldn't know Linux from Iams dog
food.

In <news:>,
hummingbird <> wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:33:24 -0500 '»Q«'
>posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>In <newsp.tut0rbzhjo4m88@c57jw11>,
>>"Bear Bottoms" <> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf...y.php#Freeware
>>>> "Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no
>>>> cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."
>>>
>>>ACF doesn't have a definition of freeware.
>>
>>Yes it does, and there it is, along with the rest of a.c.f's glossary.
>
>There are various definitions of freeware and some folks on acf have
>one too. But it cannot be said that acf has a definition because acf
>is a newsgroup, not a person, and not everybody posting to acf
>subscribes to exactly the same definition. So the most you can say is
>that a *subset* of folks who post to acf have a definition.

No one's said there's universal agreement within the group about a.c.f's
definitions. It doesn't follow that the group has no definitions.

--
»Q«

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:13:38 -0500, »Q« <> wrote:

> In <news:>,
> hummingbird <> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:33:24 -0500 '»Q«'
>> posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>> In <newsp.tut0rbzhjo4m88@c57jw11>,
>>> "Bear Bottoms" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf...y.php#Freeware
>>>>> "Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no
>>>>> cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."
>>>>
>>>> ACF doesn't have a definition of freeware.
>>>
>>> Yes it does, and there it is, along with the rest of a.c.f's glossary.
>>
>> There are various definitions of freeware and some folks on acf have
>> one too. But it cannot be said that acf has a definition because acf
>> is a newsgroup, not a person, and not everybody posting to acf
>> subscribes to exactly the same definition. So the most you can say is
>> that a *subset* of folks who post to acf have a definition.
>
> No one's said there's universal agreement within the group about a.c.f's
> definitions. It doesn't follow that the group has no definitions.
>
It is defined by the people who use the group. Not to say the group
defines it. That is an entirely differnt matter which is as hummer says.
The simple definition is good enough as I will determine of that what is
good or not for me. You can tell me what your definition is, but you are
wasting time if you want me to conform to your ideas unless I want to.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website: http://bearbottoms1.com

Somebody wrote this, but M.L. trimmed out the attribution:
>> Check out www.fsf.org.

M.L. wrote:
> That site claims to follow the GNU definition of free,

That's not surprising considering that www.fsf.org is the Free
Software Foundation's web site, the people who are responsible
for the GNU Public License.

- Logan

In <newsp.tuw5onw8jo4m88@c57jw11>,
"Bear Bottoms" <> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:13:38 -0500, »Q« <> wrote:
>
>> In <news:>,
>> hummingbird <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:33:24 -0500 '»Q«'
>>> posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>>>
>>>> In <newsp.tut0rbzhjo4m88@c57jw11>,
>>>> "Bear Bottoms" <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf...y.php#Freeware
>>>>>> "Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no
>>>>>> cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."
>>>>>
>>>>> ACF doesn't have a definition of freeware.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does, and there it is, along with the rest of a.c.f's
>>>> glossary.
>>>
>>> There are various definitions of freeware and some folks on acf have
>>> one too. But it cannot be said that acf has a definition because acf
>>> is a newsgroup, not a person, and not everybody posting to acf
>>> subscribes to exactly the same definition. So the most you can say
>>> is that a *subset* of folks who post to acf have a definition.
>>
>> No one's said there's universal agreement within the group about
>> a.c.f's definitions. It doesn't follow that the group has no
>> definitions.
>
>It is defined by the people who use the group. Not to say the group
>defines it.

Of course the group is made up of people.

>The simple definition is good enough as I will determine of that
>what is good or not for me.

What?

>You can tell me what your definition is,

I'm in agreement with the group's definition of freeware. That's not
the case with all the definitions in the group's glossary.

>but you are wasting time if you want me to conform to your ideas
>unless I want to.

No one wants you to "conform" against your will.

--
»Q«

Listen all you ijjits, this has now become a thread debating the
definition of freeware. Gee, we haven't heard this one before, have we?

C'mon, you *all* know better than that. Give it a rest.